Definition of horizontal and vertical playing.

[GuyB]

What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?

GuyB

[charlieguitar]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:06:49 PM UTC-4, GuyB wrote:
> What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?
>
>
>
> GuyB

Vertical playing tends to run lines up and down the arpeggios of the chords while horizontal runs lines that fit over many of the changes as they come. The two classic examples that are usually given for reference are Coleman Hawkins (vertical) and Lester Young (horizontal).
Charlie

[TD]

Baloney. Horizontal playing is playing while you lay down in the bed. Vertical is standing. This may include standing on your head using an inversion table (but only using 1st inversion chords). I thought I'd meet you on your propensity to never agree with me on anything.

-TD

[charlieguitar]

I disagree. There have been many many things which we have agreed upon in the past it is only that you choose to focus on those minor disagreements that we have once in a while. The silence of the brook runs deep but it is pebbles on the bottom that speak with the most eloquence. If you think about this simple truth while using your own vertical method your future path will open clearly before you. Your alternate theory,while unorthodox, is perfectly acceptable.
Charlie

[TD]

OOoooh! I *like* that....!

[Tim]

On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, GuyB <RecordingMu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?
>
> GuyB

I'd say it depends on if I'm playing my '59 Kay URB, or my 73
Precision fretless.

?;^)

[Tim]

On Aug 20, 3:40 pm, charlieguitar <robinsonch...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:51:33 PM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, charlieguitar wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:06:49 PM UTC-4, GuyB wrote:
>
> > > > What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?
>
> > > > GuyB
>
> > > Vertical playing tends to run lines up and down the arpeggios of the chords while horizontal runs lines that fit over many of the changes as they come. The two classic examples that are usually given for reference are Coleman Hawkins (vertical) and Lester Young (horizontal).
>
> > > Charlie
>
> > Baloney. Horizontal playing is playing while you lay down in the bed. Vertical is standing. This may include standing on your head using an inversion table (but only using 1st inversion chords). I thought I'd meet you on your propensity to never agree with me on anything.
>
> > -TD
>
> I disagree. There have been many many things which we have agreed upon in the past it is only that you choose to focus on those minor disagreements that we have once in a while. The silence of the brook runs deep but it is pebbles on the bottom that speak with the most eloquence.

Though occasionally down amongst the rocks, you find broken beer
bottles, or an engine block... But that's another scenario.

[charlieguitar]

The pomegranate when it falls from the tree rots slowly upon the ground.It is only when we rise above these distractions that we may reach up and experience the true nectar of the gods.

>
> >
>
> > > > > GuyB
>
> >
>
> > > > Vertical playing tends to run lines up and down the arpeggios of the chords while horizontal runs lines that fit over many of the changes as they come. The two classic examples that are usually given for reference are Coleman Hawkins (vertical) and Lester Young (horizontal).
>
> >
>
> > > > Charlie
>
> >
>
> > > Baloney. Horizontal playing is playing while you lay down in the bed. Vertical is standing. This may include standing on your head using an inversion table (but only using 1st inversion chords). I thought I'd meet you on your propensity to never agree with me on anything.
>
> >
>
> > > -TD
>
> >
>
> > I disagree. There have been many many things which we have agreed upon in the past it is only that you choose to focus on those minor disagreements that we have once in a while. The silence of the brook runs deep but it is pebbles on the bottom that speak with the most eloquence.
>
>
>
> Though occasionally down amongst the rocks, you find broken beer
>
> bottles, or an engine block... But that's another scenario.

[Tim]

On Aug 20, 7:40 pm, charlieguitar <robinsonch...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The pomegranate when it falls from the tree rots slowly upon the ground.It is only when we rise above these distractions that we may reach up and experience the true nectar of the gods.

But what happens if a deer eats it first?

[rpjazzguitar]

Just today I was reading the new GP and found in the "jazzguy" column a comment about playing vertically, which referred, apparently, to playing the upper extensions/harmonics an octave higher than the chord tones. Or so it seemed.

I wanted to ask a few questions about this article, since there were some things that I didn't understand.

He gave Fmaj7 as a starting point, then kept stacking thirds. Eventually he gets a B natural.

I thought it was taking every other note. So, in the key of Fmajor, you get F A C E G Bb D. Which is an Fmaj13. So, that's not what he's doing. Is he in Cmajor with F as the IV chord?

In example 9 he also gets an F#.

And, for that matter, in Ex 7 het gets a Gb triad stacked on a C7. What is he stacking?

Thanks in advance for the help. Don't worry about talking down.

Rick

[TD]

You must study the Overtone Series of which the upper partials correspond. If the generating tone (corresponding to the root of your given chord)is F, then no, Bb is not an upper partial; B is. B is an overtone of F. Bb is not. Bb, in some "circles" is referred to as an "undertone." F comes from Bb (it's P5) and not vice versa. Play the full chord with Bb on top as an "assumed" Fmaj7 (11) chord. Sounds like crap? Of course it does. It also happens to clash with the third of the chord, and royally so. This explains why the tritone interval is the most consonant of dissonances. Same deal with upper partials of Cmaj7 producing F#. F# *is* C. It is it's "alter ego." F is not. F is C's "monkey wrench."

As for F# triad on top of C7, same deal. However, the dominant upper partials respond accordingly and thus when fully stacked contain both raised 9 and b9 as upper partials. Your man just decided to go with the b9 as part of his upper partial triad of F# (He can call it Gb triad if he wishes). So, for C7, he is taking advatage of F# triad which occurs "naturally" according to the law of upper partials. F# is the aug. 11th already mentioned that is generated from C. Bb is generated from C and C# (Db) is the P5 of the raised 4th (#11) and generated from F#. This is how we cop the "altered" in altered chords.

The fully stacked C7 produces from root to 13: C, E, G, Bb, Db, D#, F#, A

Intervals for the dominant (distance between root and each subsequent note in stack: Major 3rd, Perfect 5th, minor 7th, minor 9th, Aug. 9th, Aug. 11th, Maj. 13.

1: Study Overtone Series

2: Play the damn chord yield so you can hear it all. It's an aural study in the end.

-TD

[Tim]

That's a pretty comprehensive explanation TD.

Thanks!

[charlieguitar]

Remember though that it's not necessary to extend the chord as far as in the given example in order to be playing vertically. It is only necessary to be playing off of any arpeggiated form of the chord (unextended or extended).
Charlie

[rpjazzguitar]

Thanks for the explanation. I just reviewed wiki on the overtone series.


when the jazzguy writes "take an Fmajor triad and then go up in thirds three more notes" to arrive at F A C E G B", is that technically correct?

I understand that he's taking all the harmonics up to the 11th (and discarding the octaves). But, how is that going "up in thirds"?

I understand that it ends up being a mix of major and minor thirds, but is he really generating that series of notes by thinking about thirds? It seems that he's not. He's thinking about the overtone series. How would he generate that sequence of notes by simply thinking about stacked thirds?

And then, as a practical matter, he's suggesting that you can use the extensions more effectively by playing them an octave above the chords (which is not news), but is he saying to construct lines that way, or is he saying to make sure that your extensions are an octave above the pianists right hand?

[GuyB]

Ok, I think I've got it, Lester played lying down horizontally and Hawk played standing up Vertically.

And the Overtone series are things Tony doesn't know about.

Many thanks
GuyB

[GuyB]

The UnderTone series anyone?

GuyB

[TD]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:32:14 AM UTC-4, GuyB wrote:
> The UnderTone series anyone?
>
>
>
> GuyB

Read Vincent Persichetti and also Harry Partch ("U-Tonal"). Also read W.A. Mathieu ("Reciprocal Tones").

[TD]

He refers ( However,I have not seen his writing.) to the notes on the staff and, for example C up to A,"stacked in thirds" on the staff (all lines, no spaces). Try to look at this fully stacked maj7 type chord as the "forest" and each individual note as of the "trees." In this case we must consider chord structure as corresponding to overtones (the partials involved) and resonance, along with the tempered scale. In tertian harmony (harmony of the thirds as opposed to Quartal harmony; chords of fourths), the combination of notes that comprise the fully loaded maj7 rely on the placement of the Perfect fifth for stability ( the "pillars"). Therefore, when thinking in thirds, you must "figure in" the fifths. The fifths are stronger in resonance than the thirds. So, in a sense, they need each other for the big resonant picture. You will limit your world (of which you speak of here) by ignoring the fifths involved and only fixing your mind on "thirds."

Without intending to appear condescending in any way, try this as a homework assignment:
1: Write out your Cmajor chord stack from root in bass up through the 13th (A). It yields from bass to soprano: C E G B D F# A. We have already learned that F does not exist in the overtone series where C is the generating tone, so in *reality* the story of F being the P4 above C is horseshit. We simply agree that it is the P4. It just ain't a "perfect" system.

2: Now look at each set of three notes (triads, "groups of trees" within the forest). Skip over each other note and measure the interval relation between each first and third note of the groupings.

In other words ("notes"): C to G = P5 (We skipped over E), E to B = P5, G to D = P5 and are you ready for the devil's food delicious cake???...B to F# is a P5 and next is D to A = P5.

Can this bring about more daylight? Still the aural reality shines through. Have some one strum a plain semi-vanilla Cmaj7 chord while you lean on F# on the 1st string, 2nd fret. Next, lean on F natch against the same chord. Tell me which of the two is the sweeter ( and *usable*) dissonance?

-TD

[GuyB]

> Read Vincent Persichetti and also Harry Partch ("U-Tonal"). Also read W.A. Mathieu ("Reciprocal Tones").

The U-Tonal and O-Tonal both look interest:

"The 5-limit Otonality is simply a just major chord, and the 5-limit Utonality is a just minor chord. Thus Otonality and Utonality can be viewed as extensions of major and minor tonality respectively. However, whereas standard music theory views a minor chord as being built up from the root with a minor third and a perfect fifth, an Utonality is viewed as descending from what's normally considered the "fifth" of the chord, so the correspondence is not perfect."

Thanks
GuyB

[charlieguitar]

In music, the undertone series is a sequence of notes that results from inverting the intervals of the overtone series. While overtones naturally occur with the physical production of music on instruments, undertones must be produced in unusual ways. The overtone series being based on harmonic division, the undertone series is based on arithmetic division.

Charlie

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/20/12 1:06 PM, GuyB wrote:
> What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?
>
> GuyB
>

Depends on the sphere of the conversation in which the terms are being used.

When talking about the guitar fretboard fingerings, a horizontal
fingering approach makes liberal usage of position shifts along single
strings while a vertical approach tends to stay within a single position
as much as possible.

When talking about melody lines, in general, a horizontal line tends to
move by steps and by half-step more-so than by leap.

When talking about voice-leading of chords, the horizontal aspect
involves the control of leaping within each individual voice.

When talking about approaches to jazz improvisation, George Russell used
the term horizontal to describe a player whose approach is based
primarily on the notes of the scale of the key the music is in at any
particular time and the term vertical to describe a player whose
approach is based primarily on the notes of the individual chords of the
progression - along with embellishments of those notes.
In this application of the terms, a horizontal player might make lots of
melodic leaps and a vertical player might use mostly step-wise motion.
Most of the time, when *I'm* using these terms I'm using them in
Russell's sense.

IMO
In good jazz, there are no players who just use a horizontal approach
all the time or a vertical approach all the time.
It's about a balancing act between the two, i.e. considerations of the
key and consideration of the chords.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/20/12 10:15 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> Just today I was reading the new GP and found in the "jazzguy" column a comment about playing vertically, which referred, apparently, to playing the upper extensions/harmonics an octave higher than the chord tones. Or so it seemed.

Sounds like yet another way way to use the terms, not a common way btw.
Haven't seen the article though.

> I wanted to ask a few questions about this article, since there were some things that I didn't understand.
>
> He gave Fmaj7 as a starting point, then kept stacking thirds. Eventually he gets a B natural.
>
> I thought it was taking every other note. So, in the key of Fmajor, you get F A C E G Bb D. Which is an Fmaj13. So, that's not what he's doing. Is he in Cmajor with F as the IV chord?

Sounds like he's not stacking 3rds of the major scale based on the root
of the chord.
Sounds like he's stacking 3rds in order to get a "stable" chord sound.
A Bb tacked on to an Fmaj chord is not usually considered to be a
"stable" chord sound.
B nat fits much better.

> In example 9 he also gets an F#.

On an Fmaj chord?

> And, for that matter, in Ex 7 het gets a Gb triad stacked on a C7. What is he stacking?

In order to arrive at that chord by stacking 3rds he'd have to spell it
this way:
C E G Bb Db F# A#
Note the augmented 3rd interval between Db and F#.
But again, I haven't seen the article.

In the classical theories used to describe the music of the Common
Practice Period, anything called a "chord" had to be built in 3rds or it
was considered a "discord" in need of resolution.
That type of thinking about and of hearing harmony is still prevalent
somewhat among today's musicians.
But generally speaking, our ears today are much more willing to accept
non-tertian stacks of notes as being in harmony with each other.
Still, when we try to name these non-tertian stacks and use them within
key-based music, we tend to use chord names that are tertian.
E.g. C E Bb Eb Ab, which is a quartal arrangement of 5 notes of the C
super-locrian scale, is usually named C7#5(#9).
Etc.

Still, stacks of 3rds are the norm in most tonally-centred music.
sometimes aug 3rds and/or dim 3rds pop up within the stack too.

> Thanks in advance for the help. Don't worry about talking down.
>
> Rick
>

[GuyB]

Many thanks that's a clear answer, the terms horizontal and vertical can be confusing.

Thanks again.
GuyB

[rpjazzguitar]

Thanks to all who replied.

I hadn't thought about the issue with 5ths. It makes sense, and it accurately predicts the notes he used.

Now I'm just trying to determine whether or not his explanation made sense. It sounds like he stacked thirds, but he glossed over whether the thirds are major or minor. In the article, he writes as if the phrase "stacking thirds" is unambiguous and sufficient to predict which notes he ends up with. But, for those of us who can't tell when to use a major vs minor third, it is ambiguous in a way that the thing about 5ths is not.

In a part of the article that I didn't mention before, he rearranges the overtone series and points out that it "resembles" the chromatic scale. This is a careful choice of words, I guess, because his OT series does not include the 6th or b9th. And yes, he does use the b9 against a major chord, but it isn't clear where that note comes from in his statement of the theory.

>
> 1: Write out your Cmajor chord stack from root in bass up through the 13th (A). It yields from bass to soprano: C E G B D F# A. We have already learned that F does not exist in the overtone series where C is the generating tone, so in *reality* the story of F being the P4 above C is horseshit. We simply agree that it is the P4. It just ain't a "perfect" system.>

I guess that part of my question is how to generate that chord stack in the first place. It isn't stacked thirds in the key of Cmaj, or that would be an Fnat. (Aside: is this what George Russell was talking about?). It does go with the overtone series -- I get that -- but then why talk about stacked thirds?

[TD]

Again, it is the *language.* Is referring to the staff. Is not an exactitude (it is an adjustment and involves two pathways generated via the Overtone series/partials and tempered scale; way of III and way of V), as I have already taken the time to explain. Are you more interested in terminology than the music part of the chord deal? Just curious. Terminology is often a drag.

[Greger Hoel]

Great set of posts, boss! I'm gonna have to reflect a lot on it before it
all sinks in, but that's ok---they're going in the vault.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[rpjazzguitar]

Tony,

I'm interested in both. I understand the overtone sequence including the physics of the vibrating string and I understand some of how he is saying to apply it. I haven't given much thought to playing certain notes in certain registers, although I was well aware, for example, that 3x3436 sounds like a chord and 3x3337 sounds like noise.

But, there are parts of the article that don't make sense to me and I want to be sure that's because they actually don't make sense, rather than simply that I'm missing the point.

When he says "take an F major triad and then go up in thirds three more notes", he is, apparently, being imprecise. He's actually talking about a major third, a minor third and a major third. Sure, they're all on spaces on the staff, but a Bb would be on a space too.

When he says that the overtone series "resembles" a rearranged chromatic scale, he's glossing over the fact that there's no 4th, no 6th and no b9 in the notes he presents.

Then, when he gives his example of playing "an out vertical line over Fmaj7. We are playing a b9 on a maj7 chord! By continuing to stack thirds notes that would never appear in the chord scale appear in the upper structure". All of that is verbatim from the article. He then says "Those notes work because they are already there in the overtones", although he didn't show the b9 in the overtone series he included (apparently, it's the 17th overtone and he didn't go that far in the Ex.).

In fact, what he's doing is playing Fmaj7 in one octave, Em7 in the next octave higher, Dmaj triad in the 2nd octaive hight and then Em triad even higher.

So, yes, I'm trying to understand what he means when he talks about "stacking thirds". And yes, I'm trying to understand the language. I may already grasp the underlying music.

[TD]

Best to stay away from Guitar Player Magazine.

[charlieguitar]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:33:08 PM UTC-4, rpjazzguitar wrote:

The inclusion of the F# in the C scale (or arpeggio)is the foundation of his whole Lydian Chromatic Concept. Russell felt that the most basic C scale was not what we call C Ionian but rather what we call C Lydian. He used this as a justification for the use of the flatted fifth in bop. This is probably why he makes such a big deal about stacking thirds in that manner.Seen from that perspective it tends to support his theory.
Charlie
charlie

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/21/12 2:01 AM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I just reviewed wiki on the overtone series.
>
>
> when the jazzguy writes "take an Fmajor triad and then go up in thirds three more notes" to arrive at F A C E G B", is that technically correct?
>
> I understand that he's taking all the harmonics up to the 11th (and discarding the octaves). But, how is that going "up in thirds"?
>
> I understand that it ends up being a mix of major and minor thirds, but is he really generating that series of notes by thinking about thirds? It seems that he's not.

Why do you say that?
Look at the series of notes you wrote out and you'll see that each note
is a maj or min 3rd away from each adjacent note.
Looks like a stack of thirds to me.

> He's thinking about the overtone series.
> How would he generate that sequence of notes by simply thinking about stacked thirds?

Much easier than generating it with the OTS.

The OTS of a fundamental F procedes as follows:
F F C F A C Eb F G A B C D(or Db)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Eb E F Gb
14 15 16 17 etc.

Notice that a note resembling the E nat of an Fmaj7 chord doesn't occur
until the 15th partial.

>
> And then, as a practical matter, he's suggesting that you can use the extensions more effectively by playing them an octave above the chords (which is not news), but is he saying to construct lines that way, or is he saying to make sure that your extensions are an octave above the pianists right hand?
>

In chord construction techniques the extensions are usually visualized
and enumerated as compound intervals above the root rather than simple
intervals.
I.e. 9 instead of 2, 11 instead of 4. Etc.
In chord voicing techniques the extensions may occur in any octave that
sounds appropriate for the musical task at hand.
Melodies can be made up of chord tones or extensions or a mixture of both.

Guess I'll have to read the article to really understand what you're
asking about.

[rpjazzguitar]

That makes sense and he may have been referring to it, without actually mentioning it explicitly. At least when he wrote out the Fmaj7(9#11).

The tritone is the 11th harmonic. The fourth is the 21st. Seems like the tritone is the more consonant sound if it's earlier in the series. Or does it not work like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)

Later, though, when he plays, against Calt, C E G Bb Db Gb Bb Db, it isn't clear what justification he's offering for those notes. For that matter, why call it a Calt? Actually, the only alterations are #11 and b9.

I wrote to him to ask. I'll post his reply if I receive one.

[rpjazzguitar]

Right. They are stacked thirds. What I don't understand is how he decides, using his theory, when to use a minor third and when, instead, to use a major third.

In F, my prior notion of stacked thirds was every other note in the Fmaj scale. F A C E G Bb. But, the jazzguy gets a Bnat in his chord. So, it's clear that he isn't doing what I had previously thought of as "stacking thirds". I'm pretty sure there's something here that I don't know and need to learn, because I can't figure out how he's using the term "stacked thirds".

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/21/12 2:45 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> Thanks to all who replied.
>
> I hadn't thought about the issue with 5ths. It makes sense, and it accurately predicts the notes he used.
>
> Now I'm just trying to determine whether or not his explanation made sense. It sounds like he stacked thirds, but he glossed over whether the thirds are major or minor.

There is a structure in music, sometimes called the super-arpeggio, that
consists of a series of alternating maj and min 3rds.
Staring on F, and proceeding until all 12 tones of the 12 tone equal
tempered scale are included we'd get this:

F A C E, G B D F#, A C# E G#, B D# F# A#
Notice that each comma I've written above demarcates a maj7 arpeggio
each one's root a maj 2nd above the preceding one.
Fmaj7, Gmaj7, Amaj7, Bmaj7

Some jazz players use this series as a way to stretch the tonality of a
chord so as to include vertical sororities not normally associated with
the chord.
In my mind it hinges on the symmetry of the sequence of the super-arppeggio.
I.e. That series of notes, when played on top of an Fmaj7 chord, has a
logic of its own that makes it sound "right".

> In the article, he writes as if the phrase "stacking thirds" is unambiguous and sufficient to predict which notes he ends up with. But, for those of us who can't tell when to use a major vs minor third, it is ambiguous in a way that the thing about 5ths is not.
>
> In a part of the article that I didn't mention before, he rearranges the overtone series and points out that it "resembles" the chromatic scale.

The entire chromatic scale above a fundamental tone does not reveal
itself in the OTS until the 24th partial is reached where something akin
to a P4th above the fundamental is found.
Sounds like this "jazzguy" might not know what he's talking about to me.
But again, I'd have to see his article myself.
I'm basing my comment on your parsing of his comments.
Kind of a broken telephone game.

> This is a careful choice of words, I guess, because his OT series does not include the 6th or b9th.

The b9 occurs at the 17th partial.
The 13th partial is usually taken as being akin to the maj 13th above
the fundamental, but it's actually tuned a bit closer to 1 12TET min 13th.
Somewhere above the 24th partial there's probably something a bit closer
to the maj 13th sound.

> And yes, he does use the b9 against a major chord, but it isn't clear where that note comes from in his statement of the theory.

The b9 is the first new note to emerge from the super-arpeggio.
F A C E G B D F#

>
>
>>
>> 1: Write out your Cmajor chord stack from root in bass up through the 13th (A). It yields from bass to soprano: C E G B D F# A. We have already learned that F does not exist in the overtone series where C is the generating tone, so in *reality* the story of F being the P4 above C is horseshit.

F occurs as the 24th partial of C.

> We simply agree that it is the P4. It just ain't a "perfect" system.>
>
> I guess that part of my question is how to generate that chord stack in the first place. It isn't stacked thirds in the key of Cmaj, or that would be an Fnat. (Aside: is this what George Russell was talking about?). It does go with the overtone series -- I get that -- but then why talk about stacked thirds?
>

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/21/12 8:39 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> And yes, he does use the b9 against a major chord, but it isn't clear
>> where that note comes from in his statement of the theory.
>
> The b9 is the first new note to emerge from the super-arpeggio.
> F A C E G B D F#

The b9, as I think TD has already pointed out, is the 1st "out" note to
occur over a maj chord when you stack P5ths on top of one another.

F C G D A E B F#

The Pythagorean diatonic and chromatic scales are based on a stack of
5ths and our modern diatonic and 12TET scales are tempered versions of
the Pythagorean scales.

The P5th is the most harmonious of all intervals, next to the unison and
the octave and the process of discovering more complex harmonies has
always been involved with the stacking of P5ths.

[rpjazzguitar]

Thanks. It instantly makes sense this way. I just didn't get the explanation, or lack thereof, in the article.

[rpjazzguitar]

> There is a structure in music, sometimes called the super-arpeggio, that
>
> consists of a series of alternating maj and min 3rds.
>
> Staring on F, and proceeding until all 12 tones of the 12 tone equal
>
> tempered scale are included we'd get this:
>
>
>
> F A C E, G B D F#, A C# E G#, B D# F# A#
>

Aha! That seems to be it. He's alternating major and minor thirds when he talks about the Fmaj9#11.

When he talks about Calt, he writes "playing on the altered chord in Ex 7 leads to a Gb triad over the C7". He has C E G Bb Db Gb. He doesn't specifically explain how he derives these notes. It isn't simply alternating major and minor thirds, although I guess you'd get there eventually.

I understand that it's hard to respond without seeing the article.

[TD]

That may be valid to you, but ABSOLUTELY not to me. It simply isn't audible or better yet tunable beyond the 16th partial (C).. I maintain that there is no P5 in the usuable Overtone series. Saying so would negate everything I have ever studied concerning theory. I would be interested to see your literature that says the P4 is located in the usable and audible Overtone series. In C, it is a raised 4th and it appears at the 11th partial. Sure, eventually every tone is available out in the overtonal galaxy, but they are not tunable in the tempered system or in most cases audible beyond the 16th partial where C returns. Most of all not usable. Mentioning the "24th" partial which only dogs *might* be able to hear, I think would be misleading to a student, but if you think it doesn't, I don't object to your teaching. It is not mine. I would never teach anyone that F exists in the overtone series where C is the generating tone. I made no mention of the b9 in the Major chord. I did so in the dominant chord upper partials.

"If the generating tone is C, then the F above it, "the perfect fourth" never appears, not even if you ascend to the millionth overtone. It's not there."

W.A. Mathieu, The Harmonic Experience.

[Joey Goldstein]

Technically speaking, the chords played when a player sees the "C7alt"
chord symbol should not contain a G nat.
Unfortunately, most players don't treat it that way.

The only commonly used scale on dom7 chords that contains the notes in
your chord above is the C half-whole diminished scale.
But if you spell the Gb enharmonically as F#, there's your stack of 3rds.
They're not scale-wise 3rds of any scale (unless we're talking about the
C half-whole scale with the Eb omitted... "C mixolydian b2 #4" lol),
But that particular series of notes *can* be seen as a stack of 3rds.

[TD]

The fully stacked C7 produces from root to 13: C, E, G, Bb, Db, D#, F#, A (if you go to the 13th).



Both b9 and #9 are actually present. I suppose he intentionally deleted the #9 for some reason? Oh, perhaps I have to re-read your posts. I guess he wanted C7 b5/b9 "type of chord"?? I thought he was teaching the full stack.

You say: "He doesn't specifically explain how he derives these notes."

He derives the notes from the "C 8 note scale."

Which is: C Db Eb E F# G A Bb.

Whether thirds are major or minor, they are still thirds and part of a "stack of thirds." Again "language".

***By the way, I am not here for debate. I only offer what I know and what I've experienced. I do not debate what I know, because I am too old (or bored) for such things. However, when I do share my hard earned knowledge,outside of my humor, I try to be as non-esoteric as possible. I may not always succeed, but I rarely write guess-work in print.

-TD

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/21/12 9:57 PM, TD wrote:
>
> "F occurs as the 24th partial of C."
>
> That may be valid to you, but ABSOLUTELY not to me. It simply isn't audible or better yet tunable beyond the 16th partial (C).. I maintain that there is no P5 in the usuable Overtone series. Saying so would negate everything I have ever studied concerning theory. I would be interested to see your literature that says the P4 is located in the usable and audible Overtone series. In C, it is a raised 4th and it appears at the 11th partial. Sure, eventually every tone is available out in the overtonal galaxy, but they are not tunable in the tempered system or in most cases audible beyond the 16th partial where C returns. Most of all not usable. Mentioning the "24th" partial which only dogs *might* be able to hear, I think would be misleading to a student, but if you think it doesn't, I don't object to your teaching. It is not mine. I would never teach anyone that F exists in the overtone series where C is the generating tone. I made no mention of the b9 in the Major chord. I did so in
the dominant chord upper partials.
>
> "If the generating tone is C, then the F above it, "the perfect fourth" never appears, not even if you ascend to the millionth overtone. It's not there."
>
> W.A. Mathieu, The Harmonic Experience.
>

Sorry.
I should have said 21st partial.
The 24th partial, of course, is an octave double of the P5th.

As to whether or not partials as high as the 21st partial are audible to
the human ear I believe that all depends on the frequency of the
fundamental tone, the timbre of the instrument producing the tone and
the volume of the produced tone.

The lowest note on a grand piano is A = 27.5hz.
27.5 X 21 = 577.5hz which is well within the audible range.
27.5 X 24 = 660hz, also well within the audible range, for both humans
and dogs. lol

As to whether or not a note tuned to 577.5 hz will be experienced as a D
nat or not, my suspicion is that it's quite likely.
After all, a 12TET C# is tuned to 554.365 and a 12TET D# is tuned to
622.254.
So 577.5 is just about in the middle of the 12TET versions of C# and D#.

I read Mathieu too.
But I read him critically.
Your comments here often make it seem to me like you never questioned
any of his assumptions or any of his ideas.
IMO His concept of tonality is quite flawed.
It's been a while since I read it though but that was my take on it.

As to whether or not an octave double of a pure P4th above a fundamental
tone exists within the OTS, you and he are most correct.
It doesn't.
21:16 is hardly equivalent to 3:4.
But the pitch of the 21st partial above A and the octave doubles of the
21st partial would be recognized as a reasonable facsimile to the sound
of a P4th above A, I think, to most listeners.
Most listeners accept 12TET 5ths and 3rds etc. as being more or less
equivalent, or "usable" to their OTS-based cousins too.
So I guess I disagree with your notion of the 21st partial not being
"usable".

[TD]

Pitches generated from your partials cannot ever coincid in pitch in tempered system.

As for Mathieu being quite flawed? You might want to check with Mick Goodrick about Mathieu or Trane if he was alive. Sorry, for me your statement is an absolute false statement as his ideas coincide with that of Schoenberg and Persichetti. We have also dicussed ideas together over the phone. I am made of tougher stuff that never to question one man's teachings. I cross reference into the Ozone. I verify and I either continue on or walk. I am not sure that you actuually studied the book. I have and read it over many times.
Whatever you decide can be heard beyond the 16th partial is fine, but it will not coincide in pitch with the tempered system. Not usable. Please cite me the P4 existing in Overtone Series. I am open to that.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/21/12 10:43 PM, TD wrote:
>
> "As to whether or not partials as high as the 21st partial are audible to
> the human ear I believe that all depends on the frequency of the
> fundamental tone, the timbre of the instrument producing the tone and
> the volume of the produced tone."
>
> Pitches generated from your partials cannot ever coincid in pitch in tempered system.
>
> As for Mathieu being quite flawed? You might want to check with Mick Goodrick about Mathieu or Trane if he was alive. Sorry, for me your statement is an absolute false statement as his ideas coincide with that of Schoenberg and Persichetti. We have also dicussed ideas together over the phone. I am made of tougher stuff that never to question one man's teachings. I cross reference into the Ozone. I verify and I either continue on or walk. I am not sure that you actuually studied the book. I have and read it over many times.
> Whatever you decide can be heard beyond the 16th partial is fine, but it will not coincide in pitch with the tempered system. Not usable. Please cite me the P4 existing in Overtone Series. I am open to that.
>

Oiy.
Tony, *nothing* in the OTS "coincides" with the pitches in 12TET, and
visa versa, except the octave.
There isn't a single interval in 12TEt that is tuned to a simple
frequency ratio.
But we *experience* the intervals in 12TEt as being reasonable
facsimiles of the OTS intervals.

I'll bet that even you, if you heard a note tuned to 577.5 hz either
preceded by or followed by a note tuned to 440 hz, would call the
interval you heard "a perfect 4th".

[Joey Goldstein]

BTW
The 12TET version of D nat is 587.330hz.

[rpjazzguitar]

The answer to my original question, if I have appreciated it correctly, is that the examples the jazzguy gave are stacked thirds, but he didn't bother to explain how he arrived at how many half steps were in between them.

In yet another part of the article he starts with Fmaj9#11 and talks about moving it up the "diatonic scale". He gets a Gm11 followed by an Am9. That means he has a diatonic scale that looks like an Fmaj scale, but also has a B natural. Does that make sense?

To be fair to him, he was trying to cover a deep topic in a one page article.

[TD]

Yes, if you want to discuss in that manner, the partials in the usable range are MUCH closer to pitch than out there in Pluto where you want to hang. FAce it, the 11th partial produces F#, nuff said. F is a P5 BELOW C; not above it. We are simply discussing two different topics. If you can't present F before the 16th partial, it ain't there. It is a raised 4th. F is an undertone, albeit not audible. By the way, Pluto ain't really a planet either.

[Joey Goldstein]

Typically speaking, in my experience, "moving it up the diatonic scale",
would mean starting with a particular chord voicing from a particular
diatonic scale, say F A C E G B from the F lydian or C major scales, and
then creating a new chord whose chord tones sit a scale-wise 2nd above
(or below) the previous chord, e.g. G B D F A C, and then proceeding in
a similar fashion through the rest of the scale, e.g. A C E G B D, B D F
A C E, etc.

What "jazzguy" appears to actually be doing is to create the most stable
11th chord types above the diatonic triads of the F major scale.
I.e.
F becomes Fmaj9(#11)
Gm becomes Gm9(11)
Am becomes Am9(11)
Bb becomes Bbmaj9(#11)
C becomes C9(#11)
Dm becomes Dm9(11)
Edim becomes Em9b5(11)

If jazzguy got different chords from his process then I don't understand
his process.

[Joey Goldstein]

I'm not even sure how it is that the 4th and the OTS came up in this thread.
I think I was just responding to something that rp said about the 11th
not appearing at all in the OTS.
IMO, it, or something quite like it, does indeed appear in the OTS, at
the 21st partial.
As to how that fact is interpreted or "used" is up to the interpreter or
the user.

[rpjazzguitar]

That's right. The article doesn't show the 4th in the OTS and then, later, uses it a lick, suggesting that's in the OTS. I understand that it's there (at a higher partial than he included in his list). OTOH, the issue of audibility does seem to have some importance. And OTTH (third hand), it's easy enough to try it in different octaves and decide if you like the sound.

Another thing that I don't get from this article is that he seems to apply the OTS different to major and dominant chords, but never explains what's going on.

[TD]

The 21st partial itself produces a near incomprehensible pitch. How do you listen to it yourself or is it purely of a theoretical position that you speak from? It is a grossly out of tune F#. If you and whomever you care to cite ( I await that) wants to interpret that pitch as a grossly out of tune F natural ( or even a "neutral pitch"), then I can agree with you on interpretation of usage ( for whomever thinks your way is correct). Yet, the 11th partial is the 11th partial and it's influence, at least in jazz, cannot be denied. 11 appears long before the wayward pitch of the 21st shows it's face. There is a reason why just about every diagram in existence stops at the 16th partial. For the layman, again a good litmus test would be to strum Cmaj7 and play F# in the high register against it. The Overtone influence is all too apparent in regards to resonance. Play on the same procedure for F natural on top and hear noise. It is a matter of microcosm meets macrocosm; lower partials to partials extending into another galaxy. There is a reason why the 4th in many instances is taught as a "void" note. A good jazz musician or even a good blues player can force the 4th against the I (in chords or within the single line, aside from chromatic treatments), but this affinity arises from F being the real mother of C . Again, it is painful for me to read your opinion on Mathieu ( as I am interested to know of what standard you are using to base your accusation concerning his "flaws"), who is absolutely brilliant. It is also disappointing to read that you would assume that I bet all my money on the one horse. I cite him often 1: because I respect his knowledge and 2: because he is readily available as reference material. Anyone can see by my writings that I am much more au courant than that. I brought up the P4 story to try to explain the presence of the augmented 4th in the "stack of thirds" for the OP.

Again, all this amounts to little more than a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things outside of the theoretical world. What is really humorous is the fact that no one hear, including myself, has ever read the GP article being disected. Perhaps, in that manner I can relate the unread article to the 21st partial.


-TD

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 9:15 AM, TD wrote:
> O

> The 21st partial itself produces a near incomprehensible pitch. How do you listen to it yourself or is it purely of a theoretical position that you speak from? It is a grossly out of tune F#. If you and whomever you care to cite ( I await that) wants to interpret that pitch as a grossly out of tune F natural ( or even a "neutral pitch"), then I can agree with you on interpretation of usage ( for whomever thinks your way is correct). Yet, the 11th partial is the 11th partial and it's influence, at least in jazz, cannot be denied. 11 appears long before the wayward pitch of the 21st shows it's face. There is a reason why just about every diagram in existence stops at the 16th partial. For the layman, again a good litmus test would be to strum Cmaj7 and play F# in the high register against it. The Overtone influence is all too apparent in regards to resonance. Play on the same procedure for F natural on top and hear noise. It is a matter of microcosm meets macrocosm; lower partials to
partials extending into another galaxy. There is a reason why the 4th in many instances is taught as a "void" note. A good jazz musician or even a good blues player can force the 4th against the I (in chords or within the single line, aside from chromatic treatments), but this affinity arises from F being the real mother of C . Again, it is painful for me to read your opinion on Mathieu ( as I am interested to know of what standard you are using to base your accusation concerning his "flaws"), who is absolutely brilliant. It is also disappointing to read that you would assume that I bet all my money on the one horse. I cite him often 1: because I respect his knowledge and 2: because he is readily available as reference material. Anyone can see by my writings that I am much more au courant than that. I brought up the P4 story to try to explain the presence of the augmented 4th in the "stack of thirds" for the OP.
>
> Again, all this amounts to little more than a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things outside of the theoretical world. What is really humorous is the fact that no one hear, including myself, has ever read the GP article being disected. Perhaps, in that manner I can relate the unread article to the 21st partial.
>
>
> -TD
>

Tony
It's not exactly the 21st partial but I just did an experiment with two
sine wave generators, one tuned to 440hz and the other tuned to 557.5hz.
It sounds like a just *slightly* out of tune P4th interval, but it
sounds like a P4th interval.
I'm not sure that there is acoustic instrument instrument that could
produce audible 16th and 21st partials at the same time and have them be
pure overtones with no detuning.
The overtones of a piano string for example are not pure all the way up
the series which is one of the reasons why piano tuners use stretch
tuning to make pianos sound more in tune.

So I don't have to cite anybody for this.
The math points the way to the existence of a sound similar to that of a
P4th interval within the OTS, and anybody with a tone generator can
prove it to themselves.

One of the reasons why I didn't buy wholly into Mathieu is because he
made so many sweeping statements that are demonstratively false like the
one you cited about the non-existence of the P4th within the OTS.
There's a lot of good stuff in that book too.
Many many eye openers and aha moments.
But his map and logic for the architecture of a key/tonal centre just
didn't add up for me - although the details of why that is I couldn't
tell you right now because it's been a while since I read it.

Sorry for the friction.
But I am what I am and that's all what I am.

[TD]

No surprise there. Here is the Overtone Scale: C D E F# G A Bb C

[Joey Goldstein]

BTW
The frequency ratio of a 12TET P4th, although I don't know the actual
integers off hand, is something monstrously large like 1234:327 or
something like that.
(All freq ratios of 12TET intervals, except octaves, are monstrously
large like that btw.)
If our ears are willing to accept that type of seriously complex ratio
as being "usable" as a facsimile for a 3:4 pure OTS-based P4th, then I
see no reason why something as simple as 16:21 shouldn't perform as a
reasonable facsimile as well.

And even Mathieu would say that there's a "resonance" at 16:21.
A weak resonance, but a resonance nonetheless.
It is after all an overtonal interval.

[TD]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:48:26 AM UTC-4, rpjazzguitar wrote:

Another litmus test for you concerning the non-existence of the P4 (within the confounds of the Overtone Series) and only a crude representation of the repeated raised 4th that brings on the existence of the tritone where C pitch eventually dies down to (proven), is this: Play C on the 5th string, 3rd fret while creating a double stop of a tenth with your pinky on F#, 7th fret of the 2nd string. *In regards to C tonality ONLY*, what is heard? C Lydian produced by the true overtone of C. "The true emperor." Next flat the F# to F natural (6th fret). What do you *really* hear? I hear F MAJOR in 2nd position and quite crystalline. Is it not? Still not sure? Play a nice hefty F cowboy bar chord immediately afterward. Even more clear? The reason being is that F has a very strong gravitational pull on C, even when laced high above C. Because, F is the P5 below C. **There is the relation.** And why should the layman presume that after the 16th partial the entire 'schmear' should not repeat? Mathieu is right on the money. The proof is in the hearing and in the real world.

[GuyB]

Was George Russell right with "Tonal Gravity"? I might start saving to buy the LCC book, could take 30 years to save the money.

GuyB

[TD]

Indeed he was, and the concept did not begin with Russ baby. It began with Sir Isaac Newton along with the sound of the apple hitting the ground. You can discover all there is to discover simply by playing. {There are many books by many authors.}

[charlieguitar]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:06:49 PM UTC-4, GuyB wrote:
> What is your definition of horizontal and vertical playing in a Jazz music context?
>
>
>
> GuyB

All of this stuff is quite interesting but has anybody besides myself looked at the question originally presented and then wondered what the hell we are doing up there around the 21st. partial or even dealing with the overtone and undertone series.When I see things like this I'm reminded of the attitudes presented by guys like Herb Ellis and Jimmy Bruno who each felt that you don't need to go this deep into theory order to be able to improvise.Which to me is the point in examining horizontal and vertical playing when improvising in the first place.Now if we were discussing classical composition,arranging etc.then it would all be quite appropriate.But before we all join hands and jump off the cliff into the chaos of contemporary harmonic thought it would probably be better just to listen to guys who were known to play predominatly one way or the other.Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that music and jazz improvisation are first of all aural experiences. Charlie

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 11:07 AM, TD wrote:
>
> Another litmus test for you concerning the non-existence of the P4 (within the confounds of the Overtone Series) and only a crude representation of the repeated raised 4th that brings on the existence of the tritone where C pitch eventually dies down to (proven), is this: Play C on the 5th string, 3rd fret while creating a double stop of a tenth with your pinky on F#, 7th fret of the 2nd string. *In regards to C tonality ONLY*, what is heard? C Lydian produced by the true overtone of C. "The true emperor." Next flat the F# to F natural (6th fret). What do you *really* hear? I hear F MAJOR in 2nd position and quite crystalline. Is it not? Still not sure? Play a nice hefty F cowboy bar chord immediately afterward. Even more clear? The reason being is that F has a very strong gravitational pull on C, even when laced high above C. Because, F is the P5 below C. **There is the relation.** And why should the layman presume that after the 16th partial the entire 'schmear' should not repeat?
Mathieu is right on the money. The proof is in the hearing and in the real world.
>

Sorry Tony, but those "tests" are irrelevant to the discussion of the
21st partial and whether or not it sounds like an octave double of P4th
above the fundamental.

Yes, of course, C is an overtone of F and creates a frequency ratio of
3:4 (if we're using overtonal intervals rather than the intervals
available within 12TET).
And yes, something akin to what we call "F#" (in both just intonations
and 12TET) is an overtone of C.

In terms of my own favourite pet arcane theory, that of acoustical roots
we'd say:
� The acoustical root of then interval C-F is F, not C.
and
� The acoustical root of the interval C-F# *is* C.

But the notes we call "F" in 12 tone equal temperament are *not* in a
frequency ratio of 3:4 with the notes we call "C" in equal temperament.
The actual frequency ratio of "perfect" 4ths in 12TET is many orders of
magnitude more complex than 3:4.
And the notes we call "F#" in 12TET are tuned quite differently from the
tuning of the 11th partial of the 12TET "C".
But in both these cases, most musicians (not all of course), are content
to make music with these 12TET approximations of the pure overtonal
intervals.
I.e. We experience a 12TET aug 4th interval as being more or less
equivalent to overtonal interval formed between the 8th and 11th
partials, and we experience a 12TET P4th as being more of less
equivalent to the overtonal interval formed between the 3rd and 4th
poartials, *even though they're NOT equivalent to those intervals*.

In the case of the 21st partial, all I'm saying is that it sounds close
enough to what we call a P4th above the fundamental to be called a P4th
above the fundamental.
I'm not trying to read anything more into that *fact*, but you seem to
be trying to do just that.

[BTW
The acoustical root of the 21st partial of C is also C and just happens
to sound very much like the pitch we call "F".]

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 4:17 PM, GuyB wrote:
>
> Was George Russell right with "Tonal Gravity"? I might start saving to buy the LCC book, could take 30 years to save the money.
>
> GuyB
>

There most definitely are tie-ins between some of the ideas about the
OTS being discussed here with many of George Russell's ideas, including
those of Tonal Gravity.

Again I find myself disagreeing with a giant of the music, and I am well
aware of how arrogant and possibly ignorant I must seem to be to most
people seeing me say this type of stuff because I have *no* academic
credentials, but I don't think that the basic theoretical underpinnings
of the LCC really hold up under scrutiny.

I've read and spent many hours pondering both the 1954 edition and the
new edition and IMO his so-called "proofs" don't really make sense
(unless you redefine some of the musical terms he uses to suit his
needs, e.g. "interval roots", which is exactly what he does). IMO

But like my take on Mathieu's book, this doesn't mean that it's all
wrong or all bad.
There's some absolutely great stuff in the LCC just as there is in The
Harmonic Experience.
Both are well worth the effort to study.
Just try to not accept everything they say blindly.

As far as the LCC's recommendations for various chord-scale
relationships is concerned, he's got some really really cool ideas, if
you're trying to stretch the boundaries of what it means to play over
changes rather than just playing the same old same old.
I don't mind overlooking the fact that I don't buy into his theory's
underpinnings because the techniques implied by the theory itself very
often get results that sound interesting to me.

And of course there's the not too unlikely possibility that with both
Russell and Mathieu that *I'm* just too dense and that I am missing
something essential myself.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 8:04 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> [BTW
> The acoustical root of the 21st partial of C is also C and just happens
> to sound very much like the pitch we call "F".]
>

Sorry, that makes no sense.

Shoulda written:

[BTW
The acoustical root of the interval formed between C and its 21st
partial is also C and the 21st partial of C happens to sound very much

[TD]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:04:12 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 8/22/12 11:07 AM, TD wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Another litmus test for you concerning the non-existence of the P4 (within the confounds of the Overtone Series) and only a crude representation of the repeated raised 4th that brings on the existence of the tritone where C pitch eventually dies down to (proven), is this: Play C on the 5th string, 3rd fret while creating a double stop of a tenth with your pinky on F#, 7th fret of the 2nd string. *In regards to C tonality ONLY*, what is heard? C Lydian produced by the true overtone of C. "The true emperor." Next flat the F# to F natural (6th fret). What do you *really* hear? I hear F MAJOR in 2nd position and quite crystalline. Is it not? Still not sure? Play a nice hefty F cowboy bar chord immediately afterward. Even more clear? The reason being is that F has a very strong gravitational pull on C, even when laced high above C. Because, F is the P5 below C. **There is the relation.** And why should the layman presume that after the 16th partial the entire 'schmear' should not repeat?
>
> Mathieu is right on the money. The proof is in the hearing and in the real world.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sorry Tony, but those "tests" are irrelevant to the discussion of the
>
> 21st partial and whether or not it sounds like an octave double of P4th
>
> above the fundamental.
>
>
>
> Yes, of course, C is an overtone of F and creates a frequency ratio of
>
> 3:4 (if we're using overtonal intervals rather than the intervals
>
> available within 12TET).
>
> And yes, something akin to what we call "F#" (in both just intonations
>
> and 12TET) is an overtone of C.
>
>
>
> In terms of my own favourite pet arcane theory, that of acoustical roots
>
> we'd say:
>

> • The acoustical root of then interval C-F is F, not C.
>
> and
>
> • The acoustical root of the interval C-F# *is* C.

"Sorry Tony, but those "tests" are irrelevant to the discussion of the
21st partial and whether or not it sounds like an octave double of P4th
above the fundamental."

To you, yes. But to me, it shows what F over C will do, no matter where you imagine it to be. It shows where the tonal gravity "gravitates to." So, no need to be sorry. Stick with your theory and your take. It's OK.
It proves to me that F will always be an "Undertone" of C. It proves to me that F cannot be generated above C.

"In the case of the 21st partial, all I'm saying is that it sounds close
>
> enough to what we call a P4th above the fundamental to be called a P4th
>
> above the fundamental"

Untrue. Just not true. true for you; cool; yayyyyy!

"I'm not trying to read anything more into that *fact*, but you seem to
>
> be trying to do just that."

For the simple reason that it is not fact. It is *fiction*.

Now I have produced and excerpt from theoretical literature that backs my point up. George Russell's concept also backs up my statements and so does that of Harry Partch, "F is an Undertone of C generated Overtones." I have also lectured (and performed) concerning this subject in England and Spain and in both situations the classical composers agreed with me about the no P4 generated by C overtone series. But, forget them, what do they know anyhow. They can't improvise.

But you say that my sources are also "flawed" and that you have no need to back up your convictions, because you are you, Joey, and you heard the F. Is that really Kosher? I mean, really? I do not think you heard F at no 21st partial, but if you say you did, I won't call you a liar, because it is also untrue that I want to make anything more of this. For me, I just pick up my axe and play. And I am going to go back to doing just that and leave you here with your F and 21st partial. Enjoy your evening.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 8:36 PM, TD wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:04:12 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> On 8/22/12 11:07 AM, TD wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Another litmus test for you concerning the non-existence of the P4 (within the confounds of the Overtone Series) and only a crude representation of the repeated raised 4th that brings on the existence of the tritone where C pitch eventually dies down to (proven), is this: Play C on the 5th string, 3rd fret while creating a double stop of a tenth with your pinky on F#, 7th fret of the 2nd string. *In regards to C tonality ONLY*, what is heard? C Lydian produced by the true overtone of C. "The true emperor." Next flat the F# to F natural (6th fret). What do you *really* hear? I hear F MAJOR in 2nd position and quite crystalline. Is it not? Still not sure? Play a nice hefty F cowboy bar chord immediately afterward. Even more clear? The reason being is that F has a very strong gravitational pull on C, even when laced high above C. Because, F is the P5 below C. **There is the relation.** And why should the layman presume that after the 16th partial the entire 'schmear' should not repea
t?
>>
>> Mathieu is right on the money. The proof is in the hearing and in the real world.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry Tony, but those "tests" are irrelevant to the discussion of the
>>
>> 21st partial and whether or not it sounds like an octave double of P4th
>>
>> above the fundamental.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course, C is an overtone of F and creates a frequency ratio of
>>
>> 3:4 (if we're using overtonal intervals rather than the intervals
>>
>> available within 12TET).
>>
>> And yes, something akin to what we call "F#" (in both just intonations
>>
>> and 12TET) is an overtone of C.
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of my own favourite pet arcane theory, that of acoustical roots
>>
>> we'd say:
>>

>> � The acoustical root of then interval C-F is F, not C.
>>
>> and
>>
>> � The acoustical root of the interval C-F# *is* C.

Geez Tony, if anything is a fiction its undertones.
They don't exist in the real world of sound.
It's my understanding that even difference tones, the closest thing in
the real world to undertones, have been proven to be an artifact of the
way the human ear works and do not exist in the actual air as real
vibrations.
The undertone series is an artificial contrivance derived by inverting
the overtone series.
But the overtone series exists concretely within the nature of pitched
sound.
I.e. Overtones are produced naturally by any object vibrating with a
regular frequency (except maybe a sine wave generator).
Undertones have to be created by man accord to the inverse of the pitch
relationships within the overtone series.
The undertone series is man-made. The overtone series is not.
It doesn't exist in nature. Never has. Never will.
The series of notes derived form the inversion of the overtone series
can point the way towards some interesting intervallic relationships,
relationships that have resonance and harmonicity, but "the undertone
series" itself does not occur naturally the way that the overtone series
does.

The test I cited, using 2 tone generators to sound out a frequency ratio
of 16:21, actually *proves* my point.
Anybody can try it and hear for themselves what the 21st partial sounds
like.
Did *you* try it?
Did you understand it?

And what's with the way your newsreader handles quotes and line formatting?
Makes your stuff is kinda hard to read.

[TD]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:58:27 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 8/22/12 8:36 PM, TD wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:04:12 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> >> On 8/22/12 11:07 AM, TD wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Another litmus test for you concerning the non-existence of the P4 (within the confounds of the Overtone Series) and only a crude representation of the repeated raised 4th that brings on the existence of the tritone where C pitch eventually dies down to (proven), is this: Play C on the 5th string, 3rd fret while creating a double stop of a tenth with your pinky on F#, 7th fret of the 2nd string. *In regards to C tonality ONLY*, what is heard? C Lydian produced by the true overtone of C. "The true emperor." Next flat the F# to F natural (6th fret). What do you *really* hear? I hear F MAJOR in 2nd position and quite crystalline. Is it not? Still not sure? Play a nice hefty F cowboy bar chord immediately afterward. Even more clear? The reason being is that F has a very strong gravitational pull on C, even when laced high above C. Because, F is the P5 below C. **There is the relation.** And why should the layman presume that after the 16th partial the entire 'schmear' should not repea
>
> t?
>
> >>
>
> >> Mathieu is right on the money. The proof is in the hearing and in the real world.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sorry Tony, but those "tests" are irrelevant to the discussion of the
>
> >>
>
> >> 21st partial and whether or not it sounds like an octave double of P4th
>
> >>
>
> >> above the fundamental.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes, of course, C is an overtone of F and creates a frequency ratio of
>
> >>
>
> >> 3:4 (if we're using overtonal intervals rather than the intervals
>
> >>
>
> >> available within 12TET).
>
> >>
>
> >> And yes, something akin to what we call "F#" (in both just intonations
>
> >>
>
> >> and 12TET) is an overtone of C.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In terms of my own favourite pet arcane theory, that of acoustical roots
>
> >>
>
> >> we'd say:
>
> >>
>

> >> • The acoustical root of then interval C-F is F, not C.
>
> >>
>
> >> and
>
> >>
>
> >> • The acoustical root of the interval C-F# *is* C.

So what? I never said Undertones were anything but theoretical. So what? I quoted Harry. Because it is his way to explain where C is generated from; F. But I do prefer Mathieu's reworking of the term: "reciprocal tones." That's why I tell guys to play the notes on their axes. Then they hear the mf. Show literature Joey. Forget the Orgasmatron. It's way out of tune and no one can get off on it. And hey man, I said good night already. I am not alone in my thinking concerning no P4 there and I do not wish to have to prove I am smart or react because I cannot be wrong even when wrong. I prefer to be dumb and just play my axe. I do not know about the reader, maybe it's a P4 trying to falsely resonate. Good night again.

[Mr Maj6th]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:33:30 -0400, Joey Goldstein
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 8/22/12 8:04 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> [BTW
>> The acoustical root of the 21st partial of C is also C and just happens
>> to sound very much like the pitch we call "F".]
>>
>
>Sorry, that makes no sense.
>
>Shoulda written:
>
>[BTW
>The acoustical root of the interval formed between C and its 21st
>partial is also C and the 21st partial of C happens to sound very much
>like the pitch we call "F".]

One Man's opinion:

It probably is just me but I find this stuff as boring and esoteric as
"how many angles can dance on the head of a pin." I just can't
imagine, and I sure could be wrong, Barney, Wes, or Pass sitting
around and discussing this, or, as a matter of fact, any other of the
great players; they just grab their ax and blow.

Maj6th

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 9:12 PM, TD wrote:
>
> So what? I never said Undertones were anything but theoretical. So what? I quoted Harry. Because it is his way to explain where C is generated from; F. But I do prefer Mathieu's reworking of the term: "reciprocal tones." That's why I tell guys to play the notes on their axes. Then they hear the mf. Show literature Joey. Forget the Orgasmatron. It's way out of tune and no one can get off on it. And hey man, I said good night already. I am not alone in my thinking concerning no P4 there and I do not wish to have to prove I am smart or react because I cannot be wrong even when wrong. I prefer to be dumb and just play my axe. I do not know about the reader, maybe it's a P4 trying to falsely resonate. Good night again.
>

Use your *own* brain.
Make up your *own* mind based on the ideas and the arithmetic.
Sheesh.
Try my experiment.
If you didn't understand it let me know and I'll spell it out again for you.

If you don't do the experiment then you have no way of knowing what the
21st partial actually sounds like and you'll just have to trust me.
It sounds like a 4th.

And please fix your goddamned newsreader.

[unknownguitarplayer]

"It's not exactly the 21st partial but I just did an experiment with two
sine wave generators, one tuned to 440hz and the other tuned to 557.5hz.
It sounds like a just *slightly* out of tune P4th interval, but it
sounds like a P4th interval."

That's a clever idea, Joey. Any chance you could post a short wav of that so we could hear for ourselves how imperfect that P4 is or isn't?

[TD]

I think you meant angels. Angles just stand up.

[Joey Goldstein]

And I find you boring. lol
You don't have to read it, or comment on it.
Different strokes.
And I don't really care what those guys discussed all that much.
I just like their records.

[Joey Goldstein]

Here's how you can hear it for yourself right now.

Go to this link:
<http://onlinetonegenerator.com/>

Enter in 577.5 hz which is the frequency of the 21st partial of A27.5
(27.5 X 21 = 577.5)
While listening to 577.5 hz play an A on your guitar at the 5th fret of
the high E string.

Ta da.

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 01:26:17 +0000, Mr Maj6th said:

> One Man's opinion:
>
> It probably is just me but I find this stuff as boring and esoteric as
> "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin." I just can't
> imagine, and I sure could be wrong, Barney, Wes, or Pass sitting
> around and discussing this, or, as a matter of fact, any other of the
> great players; they just grab their ax and blow.

I'm sure they didn't. But what does that matter--you're not Barney,
Wes or Pass and never will be. This stuff didn't make them great, but
understanding how your bike works isn't gonna make you ride *worse* is
it?

Elsewhere there's tut-tutting about how this olde newsgroup has fallen
on hard times and we're talking about politics--what could be worse
than that? Instead we could be talking about pick gauges, distortion
pedals, and--for example--the differences between horizontal and
vertical playing. And of course how amateurs suck and professionals
rool.

This is EXACTLY why this newsgroup is here and EXACTLY what constitutes
valid and appropriate discussion here. I find it interesting enough,
but I too find reading it, here in rmmgj, boring and esoteric. Maybe
if I had bought a book and toted it off to the den and read little,
napped a little, had some coffee and then read some more, I might love
it.

But please--more vertical, horizontal and overtone analysis. I don't
care today but in six months I might want to print out the whole
discourse and read it repeatedly.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden

[Joey Goldstein]

Of course this tangent of this thread is boring.
The thread topic itself is a little bit less boring.
But I think the thread topic has been dealt with.

This discussion of the 21st partial just came about because certain
people here and elsewhere were making claims that there was nothing akin
to the P4th within the OTS and I happen to have done some studying
myself that sees it differently.
TD is giving you all the accepted story.
I see it differently and I think I've proved my point.

We don't really have to talk about this anymore.
I'd be real happy not to.
But if y'all want to keep posting about it I'll be happy to try to
explain myself further.

[Mr Maj6th]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:29:38 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Lol, yes I did!

Maj6th

[unknownguitarplayer]

I don't have a dog in this particular race but I was curious to know what any of this sounded like. The upshot is I wasted valuable practice time and did the experiment Joey suggested with some additional tones. If any of you want to hear it, the results are here, along with an explanation of what you're hearing. I used both A440 and 27.5.

http://soundcloud.com/unknownguitarplayer/21st-partial-experiment

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 11:13 PM, unknownguitarplayer wrote:
> I don't have a dog in this particular race but I was curious to know what any of this sounded like. The upshot is I wasted valuable practice time and did the experiment Joey suggested with some additional tones. If any of you want to hear it, the results are here, along with an explanation of what you're hearing. I used both A440 and 27.5.
>
> http://soundcloud.com/unknownguitarplayer/21st-partial-experiment
>

The 21st partial of A27.5 is 577.5hz not 557.5hz.

If I suggested the latter number in any of my posts I apologize.
It was a mistake.

[stevesh...@gmail.com]

In that case, disregard the Soundcloud experiment. If anyone would like to do it correctly, it's free and relatively easy to do, but I don't want to put any more time into this.

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 03:05:28 +0000, Mr Maj6th said:

>> I think you meant angels. Angles just stand up.
>
> Lol, yes I did!

Works both ways.

[Joey Goldstein]

It takes next to no time at all to go to the link I provided for the
online tone generator, enter in 577.5hz and listen to it while playing
an A on your guitar.

This isn't rocket science guys.
Geez.

Again, here's the arithmetic involved.
The lowest A on a grand piano is tuned to A27.5.
Therefore the 21st partial of A27.5 will be what I'm calling a version
of "D" at 577.5hz.
27.5 X 21 = 577.5
The 16th partial of A27.5 is A440.
27.5 X 16 = 440
A440 is found on the guitar at the 1st string 5th fret, assuming the
guitar is in tune and intonated properly.

Set the online tone generator to 577.5hz, listen to it while playing
A440 on your guitar.
That is the sound of a P4th tuned to a frequency ratio of 21:16.
It doesn't sound like an "in-tune" P4th interval but it still sounds
more like a P4th interval than it sounds like any other interval.

Here's the link again for the online tone generator for anyone who is
too lazy to look for themselves it up-thread:

<http://onlinetonegenerator.com/>

Is there *anybody* out there who thinks this note at 577.5hz doesn't
sound like a D?

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/22/12 8:58 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> And what's with the way your newsreader handles quotes and line formatting?
> Makes your stuff is kinda hard to read.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the word wrap pref got turned off somehow
at my end.
Sorry to imply that your newsreader was wonky.

[van]

I was surprised recently to find out that all the great music that I love of Geo. Russell's was not based on the LCC, according to his biography.
And the stuff that I disliked WAS based on the LCC.
I was prepared to give the LCC another go, but think I'd be better off elsewhere.

[TD]

You certainly don't have to write tunes based on LCC, but for me that wouldn't be a strong enough reason to not purchase the method. The relation of the raised fourth and it's many uses ( his take and that of others) can be a huge eye opener, at least concerning how you approach improvisation.

-TD

[TD]

Yes, Let me be the first to admit that I heard an out of tune D at the 21st partial using the mechanism you suggested. This should make you sleep better now. As far as using my "own brain", it is apparent I have been trying to show all these "bored people" ( so politics is less boring and holding grudges along with entertaining trolls is less boring?) via my 'inconsequential tests' that the badly out of tune 4th that indeed can be heard has zero affect on the initial generating tone. The raised 4th absolutely does. So to satisy your very strong urge to prove that there is a 4th to be hear out there, I hereby acknowlede that it can be some what heard. I apologize for not writing in this manner when you had in itially negated me, but saying that Mathieu is heavily flawed rubbed me the wrong way right off the bat.

And a PS to those who suggest that all the greats didn't need any of this stuff. In a sense you are all right, but Coltrane was heavily into all this stuff and more and most of the players mentioned as your criteria didn't care for Trane all that much either. And no one can really know what goes on behind closed doors.

Certainly, hearing is believing and this is why I acknowledge that I have heard the wavering 4th at the 21st precinct.

By the way, it is more personal to me, because Allaudin mathieu and I are friends. I have sent him an e-mail this morning after I had given the sin wave gizmo a dozen listens. If he writes back, and permits me to print his reply to my inquiry, I will post it here.

Shalom.

-TD

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/23/12 8:45 AM, TD wrote:
>
>
> Yes, Let me be the first to admit that I heard an out of tune D at the 21st partial using the mechanism you suggested.

Ta Da!!

>This should make you sleep better now. As far as using my "own brain",
it is apparent I have been trying to show all these "bored people" ( so
politics is less boring and holding grudges along with entertaining
trolls is less boring?) via my 'inconsequential tests'

I never said they were "inconsequential".
I said they were irrelevant to what was being discussed at that point in
then thread.

>that the badly out of tune 4th that indeed can be heard has zero affect
on the initial generating tone.

Whoever said that it was supposed to have some sort of 'effect' on the
generating tone?
The opposite of that is of course what's true.
The generating tone tone has the effect of generating the 21st partial.

>The raised 4th absolutely does.

A raised 4th has an affect on the lower tone of the interval?
Is that what you're saying?
Maybe you, like Russell, believe that the "interval root" of a tritone
is the lower note of the interval, and maybe that deeming of root-hood
on the lower note is what you are referring to as the way the upper note
affects the lower. ??
But in *my* world the concept of interval roots, or acoustical roots as
I am used to calling them, is based upon the *lowest* position within
the OTS where an interval first occurs in the series - and the tritone
first appears in the OTS between the 5th and 7th partials.
So the root of the interval C-F#(aka Gb in 12TET) is *not* C, it's Ab.
Yes, of course, C-F# also occurs within the OTS of C between the 8th and
11th partials, but 11:8 is a much more complex frequency ratio than 7:5
and in my experience the root feeling of an interval is conveyed by the
lowest partial numbers that can be felt to be active in the interval.
That's also why the root of C-F is not C, it's F, because 4:3 is a much
simpler freq ratio than 21:11.
And the root of F#-C is not F#, it's D.

This was, for me, one of the fatal flaws in Russell's theoretical
underpinnings.
He just used the term "interval root" to support his theory by making up
his own definitions for several of the roots of the various intervals.

>So to satisy your very strong urge to prove that there is a 4th to be
hear out there, I hereby acknowlede that it can be some what heard. I
apologize for not writing in this manner when you had in itially negated
me, but saying that Mathieu is heavily flawed rubbed me the wrong way
right off the bat.

I understand.
You always speak very highly of him and of his book.
Like, I said earlier, that book provided me with many an "ah ha" moment.
I just don't buy into his definition of what a tonal centre is, his map
of that tonal centre and in some of the ways in which he generates the map.
There's a bit too much spiritual mumbo-jumbo in there for me too for a
theory book.
Still a great book though.

>
> And a PS to those who suggest that all the greats didn't need any of this stuff. In a sense you are all right, but Coltrane was heavily into all this stuff and more and most of the players mentioned as your criteria didn't care for Trane all that much either. And no one can really know what goes on behind closed doors.
>
> Certainly, hearing is believing and this is why I acknowledge that I have heard the wavering 4th at the 21st precinct.
>
> By the way, it is more personal to me, because Allaudin mathieu and I are friends. I have sent him an e-mail this morning after I had given the sin wave gizmo a dozen listens. If he writes back, and permits me to print his reply to my inquiry, I will post it here.

Cool.
But I hope he doesn't post here to rebut me because I obviously don't
have the intellectual or scholastic chops.

> Shalom.

Hey, my last name's still Goldstein but the I'm not much into the Jewish
thing either.
Guess I'd be arguing with Moses too if he wrote a music theory book.
But I like the jokes, some of the food, and some of the Yiddish terms
for exasperation.
Oiy.

> -TD

[TD]

No good deed goes unpunished. "ta da" is your thank you? OK, ta da. Let me guess, now YOU are giving ME lessons. Perhaps, I should fly up there and take a lesson from you, would that satisy your ego?

I never purported that the root of C is F#. The overtone is the affinity and a very strong one. In a sense C and F# are the same note, but you go your way and I'll stay on mine. Yes the "harmonic root" of C is Ab. As is the harmonic root of E, C. I think you are trying to teach the wrong guy here.

Dennis Sandole taught that the the F# is the "synthetic root" in relation to C. Of course, Dennis was jive too, correct? As was Persichetti, of whom you may wish to study concerning the tritone.

As for Russell, I do not agree with a good portion of his method either. I aggree with the powers of the tritone. As far as hertz et al, to me that's just a rental car. I prefer Avis.

Now I came back to you like a man and said I heard a weak 4th. I guess that was not enough. I wrote that there is a tone some where between raised 4th and a 4th in one of my earlier posts anyhow. But you seem to have a propensity to have to challenge everyone and everything; including the writings and publishings of some of the best musical minds in history ("mumbo jumbo" included) and yet you cite nothing of your own outside of a feeble pitch.

I maintain that my tests were absolutely relevent to the thread's cause. Stay with your opinions and I'll stay with mine. Otherwise, this will get ugly where it usually goes, right Joey? Let it rest, OK. Everything will be alright. You still maintain your fan base.

I will go back to what I do best and I also look forward to getting together and playing a few tunes when I come up to Toronto.

Peace.

TD

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/23/12 11:12 AM, TD wrote:
>
>
> No good deed goes unpunished. "ta da" is your thank you? OK, ta da. Let me guess, now YOU are giving ME lessons. Perhaps, I should fly up there and take a lesson from you, would that satisy your ego?

Yeah man. It's all about my ego and has nothing to do with any of the
ideas I'm talking about.

> I never purported that the root of C is F#. The overtone is the affinity and a very strong one.

>In a sense C and F# are the same note,

Really?
How so?

>but you go your way and I'll stay on mine. Yes the "harmonic root" of C
is Ab.

That's news to me.
I didn't know that individual notes had "harmonic roots".
What is that designation of the harmonic root of C based on?

>As is the harmonic root of E, C.

The harmonic root of E is C?
How so?

>I think you are trying to teach the wrong guy here.
>
> Dennis Sandole taught that the the F# is the "synthetic root" in relation to C.

Please try to explain to me what you think he meant by that.
How is F# the synthetic root of C?
Are you talking about a lone F# sounding by itself or an F# sounding
within the interval C-F# or the interval F#-C?

>Of course, Dennis was jive too, correct? As was Persichetti, of whom you
may wish to study concerning the tritone.

Well I'm sure you'll get a kick out of this, but I did buy Persichetti's
Twentieth C Harmony book too, based on your recommendations of it here
actually, but didn't get very far with it, although I forget why.
I think I was looking for something in it that wasn't there but I forget
what that was.
Maybe I'll give it another shot sometime when I have a chance.

>
> As for Russell, I do not agree with a good portion of his method either. I aggree with the powers of the tritone.


>As far as hertz et al, to me that's just a rental car. I prefer Avis.

Oiy.

> Now I came back to you like a man and said I heard a weak 4th. I guess that was not enough. I wrote that there is a tone some where between raised 4th and a 4th in one of my earlier posts anyhow. But you seem to have a propensity to have to challenge everyone and everything; including the writings and publishings of some of the best musical minds in history ("mumbo jumbo" included) and yet you cite nothing of your own outside of a feeble pitch.
>
> I maintain that my tests were absolutely relevent to the thread's cause. Stay with your opinions and I'll stay with mine. Otherwise, this will get ugly where it usually goes, right Joey? Let it rest, OK. Everything will be alright. You still maintain your fan base.
>
> I will go back to what I do best and I also look forward to getting together and playing a few tunes when I come up to Toronto.
>
> Peace.
>
> TD
>

I'm supposed to thank you?
For what?
Sorry you seem to feel like I'm challenging you to some sort of a duel.
I'm not.
I'm just discussing some musical ideas with you.
But I get the distinct impression, based on your comments here, that you
don't actually understand my ideas or perhaps it's just that you're not
willing to entertain them because my ideas don't fully coincide with
those of your "authorities".
I don't know or care really.

But I do think I understand your ideas on these subjects precisely
because I've already studied them out of the same books you like to cite
as some sort of the gospel truth.
If you're ever willing to actually consider my ideas then maybe we'll
have another crack at it someday.

And I'd probably enjoy playing some tunes with you some day, but not if
it's gonna be some sort of test or a cutting contest.

Sheesh.

[charlieguitar]

It's not that it is boring,most things concerning music are of some interest to all of us.It is just,as I mentioned in my previous post,that it is only tangently relevent to the question that was originally presented.Perhaps you guys should start another theory thread to deal with these issues and let this poor guy get some down to earth information before he runs out there and starts blowing off the 21st. partial or fishing around for undertones before he hears the basic differences between guys like The Hawk and Pres.
Charlie

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 15:42:27 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> Oiy.

All roads lead to Rome. Welcome to Rome.

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 16:38:53 +0000, charlieguitar said:

> It's not that it is boring,most things concerning music are of some
> interest to all of us.It is just,as I mentioned in my previous
> post,that it is only tangently relevent to the question that was
> originally presented.Perhaps you guys should start another theory
> thread to deal with these issues and let this poor guy get some down to
> earth information before he runs out there and starts blowing off the
> 21st. partial or fishing around for undertones before he hears the
> basic differences between guys like The Hawk and Pres.

It's about music; be grateful.

[charlieguitar]

Yeah,you really have to search hard for the silver lining around here these days.
Charlie

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/23/12 12:38 PM, charlieguitar wrote:
>
> It's not that it is boring,most things concerning music are of some interest to all of us.It is just,as I mentioned in my previous post,that it is only tangently relevent to the question that was originally presented.

Right you are.
And I apologize for effectively hi-jacking the thread.

Like I thought I'd made clear up-thread, but maybe not...
I was not following the dialog or the context between TD and rp in which
the comments about the absence of the P4th from the OTS was first
brought up.
All I was doing was commenting on a comment of rp's that I noticed
saying that it was wholly absent from the OTS.
He seemed to be convinced of that.

Obviously, my opinion is that it is not absent and that the 21st partial
sounds very much like a P4th.
I gave my reasoning and a simple test to prove my point.
I had no intention of getting into the far-reaching implications for
harmony and/or for tonality that the sound of the 21st partial has
because it has no implications for that stuff at all.
It's simply a little factoid and that's all it is.
Shoulda been case closed IMO.

Perhaps TD is still referring to elements of his previous discussions
with rp about the P4th, its position(s) within the OTS and the
implications of all that for harmony and for tonality, and that's fine
with me.
But he might want to direct that discussion back to rp, not to me.
I've already made the little point that I wanted to make.
'Nuff said.

>Perhaps you guys should start another theory thread to deal with these
issues and let this poor guy get some down to earth information before
he runs out there and starts blowing off the 21st. partial or fishing
around for undertones before he hears the basic differences between guys
like The Hawk and Pres.
> Charlie
>

[GuyB]

I still think that the thread has been very informative about vertical and horizontal. I've enjoyed the Joey and Tony debate about natural occurring musical frequencies and the elusive P4, these are old debates and started with Pythagoras's finding the ratios with different strings.

GuyB

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 17:59:00 +0000, charlieguitar said:

>> It's about music; be grateful.

>
> Yeah,you really have to search hard for the silver lining around here
> these days.

Oh yeah: rmmgj was really good back in the old days when nobody
quibbled about anything. So very very sad...

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 18:02:31 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> On 8/23/12 12:38 PM, charlieguitar wrote:
>>
>> It's not that it is boring,most things concerning music are of some
>> interest to all of us.It is just,as I mentioned in my previous
>> post,that it is only tangently relevent to the question that was
>> originally presented.
>
> Right you are.
> And I apologize for effectively hi-jacking the thread.

Threads morph usually into personal attack, politics or puns. I see no
need to apologize--at least it remained on the topic of music and
generally lucid I would consider it as much a success as we ever had,
not counting the good old days of rmmgj when everything was sweetness
and light.

[Joey Goldstein]

Hmm. I don't remember those days.
Musta' been before my time.
lol

[rpjazzguitar]

What I was convinced of is that the jazzguy's article didn't list an F in the OTS. Wikipedia, on the other hand, knew about the F.

Apparently, this discussion of upper partials is relevant to understanding the article. Possibly, the jazzguy stopped his list of partials where he did (I don't have it in front of me, but I think it was around 16) because there is a viewpoint around that they are inaudible after that. If I understand Joey's post, they are, in fact, audible.

I'm still not entirely clear how to apply the information. The jazzguy's examples were mostly, but not entirely, ascending lines where the chord tones where in one octave and the extensions were in the next higher octave.

My example of 3x3436 vs 3x3337 (which simply exchanges the Bb and B octave-wise) proves that it makes a difference. But, when I'm playing, am I going to be thinking about where the pianist's right hand is and make sure my extensions are an octave above that? Does anybody think this way? In transcribing, should I pay careful attention to the octave in which the chordal instrument is playing so that I can understand the soloists note choice?

[Gerry]

On 2012-08-23 18:43:57 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> On 8/23/12 2:37 PM, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2012-08-23 18:02:31 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
>>
>>> On 8/23/12 12:38 PM, charlieguitar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not that it is boring,most things concerning music are of some
>>>> interest to all of us.It is just,as I mentioned in my previous
>>>> post,that it is only tangently relevent to the question that was
>>>> originally presented.
>>>
>>> Right you are.
>>> And I apologize for effectively hi-jacking the thread.
>>

>> Threads morph, usually into personal attack, politics or puns. I see no

>> need to apologize--at least it remained on the topic of music and

>> generally lucid. I would consider it as much a success as we ever had,

>> not counting the good old days of rmmgj when everything was sweetness
>> and light.
>
> Hmm. I don't remember those days.
> Musta' been before my time.
> lol

Me neither, but I didn't want to tread on anyone's mythology.
Sometimes with music, it's all we have.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 8/23/12 2:47 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> What I was convinced of is that the jazzguy's article didn't list an F in the OTS. Wikipedia, on the other hand, knew about the F.
>
> Apparently, this discussion of upper partials is relevant to understanding the article. Possibly, the jazzguy stopped his list of partials where he did (I don't have it in front of me, but I think it was around 16) because there is a viewpoint around that they are inaudible after that. If I understand Joey's post, they are, in fact, audible.

Well, I can't think of an actual musical instrument on which the 21st
partial of any of the tones it was capable of producing would be audible.
But theoretically a synth of some sort should be possible to program
such that the 21st partial of some of its lowest notes might be audible.
But it would have to be played real loud and might destroy the ears of
the person doing the listening.
So, for all intents and purposes TD was right when he said that partials
that high up would be inaudible.

> I'm still not entirely clear how to apply the information. The jazzguy's examples were mostly, but not entirely, ascending lines where the chord tones where in one octave and the extensions were in the next higher octave.
>
> My example of 3x3436 vs 3x3337 (which simply exchanges the Bb and B octave-wise) proves that it makes a difference.

Not following you.

>But, when I'm playing, am I going to be thinking about where the
pianist's right hand is and make sure my extensions are an octave above
that?

That's one way to try to play (good luck pulling it off consistently
though) but if you experiment you're probably learn to hear all sorts of
other ranges in which you can melodically use the extensions of a chord.
And what about when you're playing w/o a piano player?

>Does anybody think this way?

Probably not.
Sound more like a prescription for beginners to learn how to voice
chords than a prescription for how to make melodies on top of chords.

>In transcribing, should I pay careful attention to the octave in which
the chordal instrument is playing so that I can understand the soloists
note choice?

I think you should just throw this article out myself.
Sounds like even if there are valid ideas in there that they were very
poorly presented.
You sound pretty confused by the whole thing to me.

[rpjazzguitar]

> > My example of 3x3436 vs 3x3337 (which simply exchanges the Bb and B octave-wise) proves that it makes a difference.

These two voicings contain the same notes (ignoring which octave, for the moment).

The first voicing sounds musical, the second does not, to my ear. It's just a simple proof, IMO, that octave really matters.

[rpjazzguitar]

I suspect there's something useful being alluded to in that article.

Alluded-to, but not clearly explained.

[Joey Goldstein]

It doesn't prove what you think it proves.
What it proves is that b9 intervals, between certain voices within a
chord voicing, have a very harsh sound and are usually not conducive to
a musical-sounding voicing.
The main exception to this "avoid b9 intervals within chord voicings"
rule is the b9 interval between the root and the b9 in dom7b9 chords,
but there are other exceptions too.
And once you start working with b9's more freely within your chord
voicings you can even develop a taste for chords like your 3 X 3 3 3 7
chord too.
Depends on the style.

Your two chords have the added aural problem that both the maj 3rd and
the min 3rd above the root are included in the chord.
If we hear a min triad in the lower regions of a voicing our ears
usually interpret the entire chord as being a minor chord of some sort.
If we hear a maj 3rd down there we usually hear it as some sort of a
major chord.
When we hear them both together the ear can get confused by the ambiguity.

Since major chords have a much stronger proportional similarity to the
proportions of the intervals within the overtone series of the root of
the chord, major chords are many more times stable than minor chords and
can support all sorts of other extensions above them without losing very
much of their feeling of harmonic stability.
In the theory of acoustical roots that I learned from Gordon Delamont's
book it's said that #9's above major chords are experienced as distorted
versions of the 9th partial.
I.e. The ear hears a harmonically strong and harmonically unambiguous
major chord on the bottom that closely mirrors the OTS, so the only way
it can make sense of the #9 on top is to hear it as a distorted version
of the 9th partial.
Minor triads, on the other hand, don't have the same type of harmonic
stability as major triads because each interval within the minor triad
has a different acoustical root.
E.g. In a Gm triad, the root of G-Bb is actually Eb.
The root of Bb-D is Bb.
However, the root of G-D is G and when all 3 notes are played
simultaneously it is the harmonic strength of the G-D interval that
governs our experience telling us that G is the overall root of the
entire chord.
Delamont says, and I agree with him obviously, that the min 3rds within
minor triads are experienced as distorted versions of the 5th partial of
the root.
So, if we have a minor triad on the bottom of a chord voicing and we
then tack a major 3rd above that, the ear gets very confused about the
overall harmonicity of the entire chord because there is an altered 5th
partial in the lower regions of the voicing and an octave double of an
unaltered 5th partial on the top of the voicing.
I.e. Adding A B natural above a Gm7 chord makes us hear it as a really
bad voicing of G7.

If your original chord-with-the-extension-on-top had been a G9 chord
(voiced G F B D A), and you switched the positions of the B and the A
(to G F A D B), there'd be no problem.
Of course that particular voicing of G9 isn't really physically possible
on guitar in standard tuning.
Try it on piano though and hear that it sounds fine and still sounds
like G9.
But 9ths are voiced below 3rds all the time in all sorts of chords.
And 11ths can be voiced below 5ths.
And 13ths can be voiced below 7th.
Success depends on the specifics of the musical context and the
specifics of the actual voicing and on taste of course.

[rpjazzguitar]

Very interesting.

Why does 3x34xx sound fine, but 3x3xx7 sound harsh?