The m6b5 chord (Ancient "diminished 7th")
Albert Silverman
by Albert Silverman
October 30, 2000
(the witching hour is upon us; beware the devil chord!)
-------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
The much-misunderstood Ancient "diminished 7th" chord (and/or its
enharmonic variations in the tempered scale) seems to be the subject of
unending discussion in the newsgroup rec.music.theory. However, due to the
way in which this chord is traditionally taught (i.e., in Ancient Theory),
its _dynamic function_ in context is not addressed. Yet this is the vital
function which cannot be ignored if this chord is to be understood. This is
an extremely troublesome chord, and cannot be understood within the Ancient
framework in which it is commonly taught. Its "troubles" stem from three
causes: (1) its symmetrical pitch interval pattern, (2) the lack of
tendency in any of its tones in its normal functioning, and (3) the common
occurrence of "prepared" tendency (arising from semi-tone melodic
progression in context) in one or more of its component tones, producing a
strong tendency which is not directed toward a "tonic" resolution.
CONSTRUCTION
In its construction, this chord is a minor triad with a lowered 5th degree
(i.e., a diminished minor triad) with an added 6th degree, in the scale of
construction based upon the root-tone. In a rational system of
nomenclature, it is noted as "m6b5" (or more compactly as "m6-"). For
reasons which will not be discussed here, and which defy rationality, this
chord is referred to as a "diminished 7th" in Ancient Theory (a reference
to "traditional" theory, offered universally by the Academic Musical
Establishment to explain the development of musical composition in the so-
called "common practice" period of musical composition, roughly from the
years 1650-1900).
For example, when constructed from the diatonic major scale based upon the
root-tone C, a Cm6b5 chord will contain tones CEbGbA. Note that _there is
no diminished 7th interval in this chord_, and it makes no sense
whatsoever to refer to this chord as a "diminished 7th" chord, even though
it possesses the same _pitch interval pattern_ as the chord constructed in
tertiary traditional fashion from a harmonic minor diatonic scale. As
another example, note that an Ebm6b5 chord (i.e., constructed upon the
root-tone Eb) will contain tones EbGbBbbC, the enharmonic equivalent of
which is EbGbAC. As a third example, note that a Gbm6b5 chord (i.e.,
constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb. And finally, note that an Am6b5
chord (i.e., constructed upon the root-tone A) will contain tones ACEbF#,
the enharmonic equivalent of which is ACEbGb.
So you see, no matter which of the four component tones is used as the
basis for chord construction, _the resulting pitch interval pattern (in the
tempered scale) is identical_. That is, it is impossible to deduce which
tone is the root-tone, simply by inverting the chord in an attempt to
reveal a _unique_ pitch interval pattern that will point to the
constructional root-tone. This ambiguity in root-tone identification is due
to the symmetrical pitch interval pattern. This is the pattern in which the
pitch separation between each adjacent pair of component tones is three
semi-tones.
It cannot be over-emphasized that the pitch interval pattern of this
chord can be spelled in a number of ways. Its identifying
characteristic, however, is a pitch interval pattern in which each
pair of adjacent tones is separated by three semi-tones: one-quarter
of an octave, in the tempered scale.
Since _inversion of this chord leads to another chord with the same
pitch interval pattern_, it is not possible to identify a
constructional root-tone for an m6b5 chord that is constructed in
isolation from a musical context. There are four different
possibilities, disregarding enharmonic equivalences.
Occasionally, however, the constructional identity of this chord can be
determined from the way that the chord is used in a musical context. For
example, if a chord containing the tones GbACEb appears in a context in
which it is preceded by and followed by a C-major triad, almost surely C
will be the constructional root-tone of this m6b5 chord. This does not
necessarily mean, however, that the Cm6b5 chord is _functioning_ at the
structural location inferred from C as its root-tone identity, since
this "identity" may be arbitrarily assigned.
As a general rule, unless the context points to a specific constructional
root-tone, I normally choose to designate the constructional root-tone of
an m6b5 chord as the tone which appears in the bass. While convenient,
this identification does not eliminate the inherent constructional
multiple ambiguity (four-plex) in this particular chord.
DYNAMIC FUNCTION
Dynamically (i.e., the directed progression of this chord in context), _no
component tone of the m6b5 chord possesses a diatonic tendency_. This
result is due to the fact that it is derived from the minor triad, a chord
in which no component tone possesses a tendency in context. Another way of
saying this is that progression from an m6b5 chord is not "dynamically
directed" toward a chord in a perfect fifth ("tonic") root-tone
relationship. That is, this chord is traditionally said to lack a
"dominant" function.
For example, a Gm6b5 chord, which contains tones GBbDbE (or its enharmonic
equivalent), is never dynamically directed (barring the existence of
"prepared" tendency, which will be discussed shortly) toward a "tonic" C-
chord (note that tones G and C are in a perfect fifth relationship). Nor is
this true of a diminished G-minor triad (without the "added" tone E) or a
G-minor triad. By contrast, progression from a _G-major_ triad is
dynamically directed toward a resolution in a tonic C-chord, due
to the tendency of the third degree (tone B) in the C-major triad
toward the tonic root-tone C.
One of the very important properties of the m6b5 chord is the semi-tone
progression from one or more of its component tones, _even though this
progression is not dictated by tendency_; that is, even though there is no
urge for a tone to progress to a tone in a chord that is in a perfect fifth
root-tone relationship. For example, the chord Cm6b5 (containing tones
CEbGbA) may progress to a chord containing tone F, _even though tone Gb
has no tendency toward tone F_.
Ancient Theory attempts to prescribe a non-existent "tendency" to a tone of
an m6b5 chord, simply by virtue of a spelling that does not conform with
some presumed (and irrelevant) diatonic scale. For example, in the chord
CD#GbA, unless tone D# possesses a prepared tendency (due to the melodic
progression D-->D#), it will _not_ possess a tendency, despite its
spelling. Rather, this tone may be spelled in this manner to denote that it
progresses upward by one semi-tone to tone E in context. In other words, it
is _wrong_ to ascribe a "tendency" to a tone, simply by virtue of its
spelling. Rather, assuming that there is no prepared tendency in context,
there is no tendency in a minor-mode chord (which lacks a lowered
7th degree, as in the minor-mode 7th chord). Thus, no tone in either a
minor triad or a diminished minor triad possesses a tendency. If you don't
learn anything else from this article, at least learn _this_!
The general spelling rule which applies with a "tensionless" m6b5 chord
(i.e., in the absence of "prepared" melodic tendency) is to indicate any
semi-tone melodic progression from this chord by spelling the tone from
which progression takes place in accordance with the direction of the
melodic motion. For example, if a tone (without tendency) which may be
spelled as either G# or Ab progresses melodically to tone G, it will be
spelled as Ab, etc. This is a generally-accepted procedure. The important
point being made here is that the spelling of a component tone of this
chord conforms with its melodic progression, and does _not_ (repeat: _not_)
denote the existence of a "tendency," which means the existence of a
dynamic tension urging progression to a tone in a semi-tone pitch
relationship.
And finally, the m6b5 chord functioning either normally (i.e., in a mode
without dynamic tension), or with a strong dynamic tension due to a
"prepared" tendency, discussed in the next paragraph) is sometimes referred
to as a "linear" chord. This terminology is used in an attempt to identify
its so-called "non-dominant" function. Unfortunately, the term "linear"
does not distinguish between a chord which lacks dynamic tension and a
chord with a strong non-dominant dynamic tension which arises from prepared
tendency. Hence it is less than satisfactory.
Prepared tendency: functioning outside the diatonic harmonic structure
Although the m6b5 chord in its normal function does _not_ possess any
dynamic tension, under special phrasing circumstances (which are
particularly in evidence in 20th century "popular" triadic-based song) one
or more tones may be endowed with a strong semi-tone melodic tendency,
which I refer to as a "prepared" tendency. Prepared tendency changes the
functional dynamic nature of the m6b5 chord, even though the _sound quality
of the chord does not change_.
Most importantly, a chord containing a tone that possesses a tendency
which does not exist in a normally-functioning chord (i.e., a chord
without prepared tendency) is necessarily _functioning outside the
(diatonic) harmonic structure_. In other words, such a chord may be
said to be a "renegade" chord, since it does not fit into the normal
diatonic structure.
Such a renegade chord generally possesses a strong dynamic tension that is
unmistakable in its aural effect. Since it does not fit within the
structure, I also refer to a chord of this type as a chord which is
functioning dynamically in a "rootless mode." Another descriptive term for
it is a "rootless dynamic connecting chord," serving to connect two chords
which function normally within the diatonic structure.
AN EXAMPLE IN CONTEXT
The example which follows (the well-known 20th century American Masterpiece
"Down by the Old Mill Stream) demonstrates the m6b5 chord in both types of
dynamic function; i.e., with and without prepared tendency.
----------
Notes:
Line #1 numbers the phrases (double bars separate the phrases)
Line #2 numbers the measures
Line #3 is the melody (= denotes a tie between measures)
Line #4 shows the time durations of the melody tones in line #3
Line #5 is a skeletal "bass line"
Line #6 is the analysis, showing both the chords (by "popular-style"
chord notations) and their structural locations
----------
"Down by the Old Mill Stream" (a 20th century American Masterpiece!!)
Line #1: ||1 ||2 ||
Line #2: ||1 |2 |3 |4 ||5 |6 |7 |8 ||
Line #3: CFA||C |Cb |Bb=|=BbC#D||A |G |F=|=FAC||
Line #4: ||24 |24 |24 | 4 4 4||24|24|24| 444||
Line #5: ||A |Ab |G |Bb ||C |E |F |C ||
Line #6: ||{1}F|{?}Abm6b5|{3}Gm7 ||{2}C7|{1}F ||
Line #1: ||3 ||4 ||
Line #2: ||9 |10 |11|12 ||13|14|15|16 ||
Line #3: ||F |E |D=|=DC#D||E |D |C |CFA||
Line #4: ||24|24 |24| 44 4||24|24|24|444||
Line #5: ||F |A |Bb|D ||C |E |F |F ||
Line #6: || |{5}A7|{12}Bb ||{2}C7|{1}F ||
Line #1: ||5 ||6 ||
Line #2: ||17|18 |19 |20 ||21 |22 |23|24 ||
Line #3: ||C |Cb |Bb=|=BbC#D||A |G |F=|=F FEF||
Line #4: ||24|24 |24 | 4 4 4||24 |24 |24| 48888||
Line #5: ||A |Ab |G |Bb ||C |C# |D |D ||
Line #6: || |{?}Abm6b5|{3}Gm7 ||{2}C7|{?}C#m6b5|{4}Dm ||
Line #1: ||7 ||8 ||
Line #2: ||25 |26 |27 |28 ||29 |30 |31 |32 ||
Line #3: ||G#=|=G# FEF |A |ABbA ||D |E |F =|=Fr||
Line #4: ||42 | 4 8888 |42 |44 4 ||42 |42 |42 | 42||
Line #5: ||B |B |C |D ||G |C |F |F ||
Line #6: ||{1}Fm6b5 |{1}F|{4}D7||{3}G7|{2}C7|{1}F ||
The chords are as follows:
F : FAC
Abm6b5: AbCbDF
C#m6b5: C#EGBb (enharmonic equivalent of C#EGA#)
Fm6b5 : FAbBD (enharmonic equivalent of FAbCbD)
Gm7 : GBbDF
C7 : CEGBb
A7 : AC#EG
Bb : BbDF
Dm : DFA
Bmb5 : BDF
D7 : DF#AC
G7 : GBDF
This piece is in 3/4 time and is divided into eight phrases of four
measures each.
Taken together, the first two phrases in measures 1-8 contain a departure-
from and a return-to the F-major triad, thus marking tone F as the "tonal
center." Measure 2 contains a chord that is noted as Abm6b5. In most cases
such as this, _in the presence of prepared melodic tendency_, it is
convenient to name the chord (i.e., identify a constructional root-tone)
after the tone in the bass. Since Ab is the bass tone in measure 2, this
chord is noted as Abm6b5.
The chord progression F-->Abm6b5 -->Gm7 in measures 1-3 is
F Abm6b5 Gm7
--------------
F-->F --> F
D --> D
C-->Cb--> Bb
A-->Ab--> G
Note the melodic progression A-->Ab in the bass. Under these phrasing
circumstances, this is a semi-tone melodic preparation, which _endows tone
Ab with a strong downward tendency toward tone G_, just one semi-tone
distant in pitch level. This illustrates the general theoretical principle
of melodic preparation, which is that, under favorable phrasing
circumstances, a tone that is reached by semi-tone melodic progression
possesses an urge to continue progression by one semi-tone in the direction
of the preparation.
Note also the semi-tone melodic motion C-->Cb, which similarly endows tone
Cb with a strong downward tendency toward tone Bb. The combined prepared
tendencies Ab-->G and Cb-->Bb produce an exceptionally strong dynamic
tension in the Abm6b5 chord, seeking a resolution in a chord containing
tones G and Bb. Tone F (which is dynamically neutral) is retained
throughout the progression and tone D is added (without dynamic direction)
to produce the 4-tone chord AbCbDF. The resolution is then to Gm7,
containing tones GBbDF and satisfying the tendencies Cb-->Bb and A-->Ab.
When the tonal center is F (as determined by departure-and-return, and
_not_ because it is the first tone of the scale of the "key" signature),
the chords Gm7 and C7 are assigned at {3} and {2}, respectively (two steps
and one step distant from the tonal center, along the Circle of Fifths).
However, due to the prepared tendencies in tones Ab and Cb, the Abm6b5
chord _functions dynamically outside the diatonic harmonic structure_;
i.e., it cannot be assigned any structural "location." Hence it is marked
with a question mark, rather than with an Arabic numeral, which always
denotes a root in the diatonic structure, in relation to the tonal center
at {1}.
A second cycle of departure-from and return-to the F-major triad occurs in
measures 8-16, as {1}-->{5}-->{12}-->{2}-->{1}, serving to reinforce tone F
as the tonal center.
In measure 18, there is a repeat occurrence of the Abm6b5 chord, with
melodic prepared tendency.
In measures 21-23, we have:
C7 C#m6b5 Dm
-------------
Bb-->Bb--> A
G -->G --> F
E -->E --> F
C -->C#--> D
The semi-tone melodic progression C-->C# in the bass endows tone C# with a
strong upward tendency toward tone D. Tone Bb, which has a downward
diatonic tendency (that in a dominant C7th) toward tone A, is masked by the
strong tendency in tone C#. Similarly, tone E, which has has an upward
diatonic tendency (again that of the dominant C7th) toward tone F, is also
masked by the prepared tendency. Tone G, the 5th degree of C7, is
dynamically neutral (i.e., without tendency), as is always the case with an
unaltered 5th degree.
Once again, the chord C#EGBb (note the enharmonic spelling as Bb, rather
than A#, which is the 6th degree in the diatonic C#-major scale used to
construct C#m6b5) functions dynamically outside the diatonic harmonic
structure, due to the prepared tendency in tone C#. Hence it is also noted
with a question mark, instead of being given an identifying structural
location.
The m6b5 chord in measures 25-26 is of particular interest, since it
functions differently from the other m6b5 chords. The progression in
measures 26-27 is as follows:
Fm6b5 F
--------
G#--> A
F --> F
D
B --> C
Unlike the other m6b5 chords in this example, _no component tone of the
Fm6b5 chord has a prepared melodic tendency_; hence this chord is without
dynamic tension. However, note that there are two semi-tone melodic
progressions from this chord: B-->C in the bass and G#-->A in the melody.
The crucial point here is that, although these melodic progressions seem to
imply the existence of "tendencies" in tones G# and B by virtue of their
spelling, no such tendency is _aurally_ perceptible. A listening test will
fail to reveal any such tendency.
Since the chord in measure 25 lacks prepared melodic tendency, it
necessarily possesses a location within the diatonic harmonic structure;
this is true of any m6b5 chord that lacks dynamic tension. In this case,
however, one of the component tones is tone F, which is also the tonal
center. Therefore, this chord is identified at {1}, even though it is
"inverted," with tone B in the bass. Tone B is played in the bass in order
to create a bass line with a semi-tone melodic step, B-->C, which is heard
prominently in counterpoint(!) to the melody.
SUMMARY
A deceptively simple (but not all _that_ simple; remember, this is a
Masterpiece!) song of 32 measures has been analyzed primarily for the
purpose of illustrating the functioning of the Ancient "diminished 7th"
chord (noted as "m6b5") in a well-known 20th century folk-song setting.
There are four such chords here. In three instances, the chords possess
prepared melodic tendency. These three chords thus function in a "rootless"
dynamic mode; i.e., outside the normal diatonic harmonic structure.
In the fourth instance, the chord lacks dynamic tension and hence functions
normally (i.e., diatonically) in the structure. It therefore possesses a
functional root.
The tonal center is F, which is confirmed by repeated short cycles of
departure-from and return-to a major triad constructed upon this tone. In
Ancient Theory, this piece is said to be in the "key" of F-major. However,
the analysis that is conducted here does _not_ employ the diatonic F-major
scale as a basis for the construction of chords, except for those chords
whose root-tone is F (the F-major triad and Fm6b5).
In other words, chords are not identified with reference to the diatonic
scale that defines the "key." Hence there are no Roman Numerals,
which commonly provide such an irrelevant Ancient association. Instead,
each chord is identified by its "distance" from the tonal center F,
measured in terms of the number of steps of the root-tone clockwise along
the Circle of Fifths.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Tony T. Warnock
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> THE ANCIENT "DIMINISHED 7TH" CHORD
> by Albert Silverman
> October 30, 2000
> (the witching hour is upon us; beware the devil chord!)
Aw, gosh Al. You're going to an awful lot of trouble. The full
diminished chord is just a dom 7 with a sharp 1. :)
Hey, if you can do it, maybe I can invent my own music theory and insist
it's the One True Way! <g>
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+ The Best Things in Life are still Free... +
+ http://www.netidea.com/~fredn +
+ ... but now you can also buy my CD :) +
* http://ecom.mp3.com/cgi-bin/order.cgi?cd_id=50719 +
*UK/Europe: http://www.peoplesound.com/artist/frednachbaur +
+----------------------------------------------------------+
David Sherman
one, tried to understand the language and the terminology, and even played
through the musical example.
Okay.
Now let me see if I understand this:
1. Calling a chord a diminished 7th is no longer valid because it is
"ancient" and doesn't necessarily behave as a diminished 7 chord in examples
of popular American sheet music from the early part of this century.
2. Calling a chord a diminished 7 is not valid because you can
enharmonically respell any chord, and therefore confusing the most
fundamental (I assume that would be called "ancient" too!) use of the chord.
Do I more or less have it?
Now I might argue that the very example provided here proves the point that
Mr. Silverman is trying to defeat:
> "Down by the Old Mill Stream" (a 20th century American Masterpiece!!)
>
> Line #1: ||1 ||2 ||
> Line #2: ||1 |2 |3 |4 ||5 |6 |7 |8 ||
> Line #3: CFA||C |Cb |Bb=|=BbC#D||A |G |F=|=FAC||
> Line #4: ||24 |24 |24 | 4 4 4||24|24|24| 444||
> Line #5: ||A |Ab |G |Bb ||C |E |F |C ||
> Line #6: ||{1}F|{?}Abm6b5|{3}Gm7 ||{2}C7|{1}F ||
Now, in measure 3 and 4, Mr. Silverman has chosen, and I stress chosen, to
insert a Gm7 chord before the C7 chord in measures 5 and 6. I could just as
easily argue that the proper chord in measure 3 is a C7/G, therefore proving
that the preceding chord is not an Abm6b5 but a Bdim7 in third inversion.
The trouble is that Mr. Silverman's theory here seems to be predicated on a
manufactured example. Unless he can produce the original manuscript of the
composer showing the original choice of a Gm7 chord in bar 3, I have to
assume that the Gm7 chord has been placed there by Mr. Silverman, and in
fact, would probably be put there by any jazz pianist worth his or her salt.
But the actual harmony as Mr. Silverman puts it down here is not a given.
How do we know, for example, that the second melody note here is not
actually a B natural instead of a Cb? How do we know that the composer's
original intentions weren't for the second chord of the song to be a G7 with
a B in the melody? We don't. And that's a big hole in Mr. Silverman's
thesis.
It's one thing to create theory to explain notes that already exist, but it
seems that Mr. Silverman is creating music to suit his theory.
However, the label of Abm6b5 might be appropriate in this instance. I havve
shown how tenuous Mr. Silverman's example is.
Certainly a m6b5 chord has it's place. However, I have found that in a
great deal of sheet music published before, say, 1960, what is labeled as a
m6 often turns out to be what we would now call a m7b5. In fact, despite
the label m6, they often behave as m7 chords resolving to dominant
tonalities. Today we would simply label it as iim7(b5)-V7, a very standard
popular and jazz progression.
To continue, if we were to take Mr. Silverman's example as gospel, and using
his technique of enharmonically respelling chords, it is entirely possible
to spell the chord in measure 2 as Ab,Cb,D,F - a fully diminished D chord -
which would make it some sort of vi chord in this song. Our "ancient"
theory books are rife with examples of vi chords resolving to ii chords.
I would probably never label this chord a Ddim7, but my point is that using
Mr. Silveramn's system you can fudge almost any theoretical eventuality.
A good theoretical benchmark in the labeling of chords is this: if it walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If it sounds like a fully diminished 7, and resolves like a fully diminished
7, then that's what it is. No matter when it was written.
What Mr. Silverman refers to as "ancient" theory was a way of categorizing
sounds. The theory was made to fit the perceptions of the sound. Mr.
Silverman is trying to accomplish the opposite - trying to skew the sounds
to fit the theory - and it just doesn't work. You can't change the way
things sound because they're labeled differently.
Also troubling is his repeated use of the word "masterpiece" to describe
this example:
> "Down by the Old Mill Stream" (a 20th century American Masterpiece!!)
> A deceptively simple (but not all _that_ simple; remember, this is a
> Masterpiece!)
Here again, Mr. Silverman seems to be trying to set up his own straw man.
The assumption that this song is a masterpiece is attempting to legitimize
it as a definitive example just as one would do with the Bach Chorale
harmonizations of Wachet Auf.
"Down by the Old Mill Stream" is far from an American masterpiece. It is a
wood chopper that is seldom heard anymore. However, there are American
masterpieces which do exemplify something averse to what Mr. Silverman is
trying to, I guess, prove.
In Scott Joplin's "Maple Leaf Rag" (if we are pulling masterpieces out of
the hat) a diminished 7 chord built on the minor third degree of the scale
resolves to the tonic chord. In the key of C, Mr. Silverman might want to
label it as a Ebm6b5, and claim that since you can spell it Eb,Gb,Bbb,C it
has no relationship with the tonic in "Ancient" theory.
In fact it is a classic example of exactly what we are taught in "ancient"
theory: this is a fully diminished 7 built on the raised 2nd degree of the
scale resolving to the tonic in second inversion. In other words
#iidim7-I64. A textbook example of "ancient" theory.
Now, this might not be the most perfect example, but it is irrefutable
simply because it is in the notes. Using one's own chord changes of a
popular song to prove a point, in my opinion, is not.
Moving away from textbook theory, if I was condensing "Maple Leaf Rag" into
a lead sheet I would most likely write the chord in question Ebdim7. I,
however, would never write Gbm6b5 (or Am6b5 or Cm6b5 or Ebm6b5 for that
matter!) for one simple reason: it is totally confusing. Maybe Ebdim7
isn't the most theoretically perfect label for this chord, but it is a label
that will get the proper notes played.
It's just another troubling aspect of Mr. Silverman's theory: he is dealing
with chord labels for popular music. The lead sheet system that has evolved
over the past century is meant to aid performance, not to promote theory or
theoretical suppositions as to the behavior of sound.
What was commonly labeled m6b5 in decades past is now preferably labeled as
diminished 7 chords. That is the way contemporary musicians prefer to read
it. The same notes notes will be there, and the good news is Mr. Silverman
can continue to imagine that they are playing m6b5.
paramucho
<d.sherm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>It's just another troubling aspect of Mr. Silverman's theory: he is dealing
>with chord labels for popular music. The lead sheet system that has evolved
>over the past century is meant to aid performance, not to promote theory or
>theoretical suppositions as to the behavior of sound.
Exactly. Notation is an aid to the performer, not to the analyst.
>What was commonly labeled m6b5 in decades past is now preferably labeled as
>diminished 7 chords. That is the way contemporary musicians prefer to read
>it. The same notes notes will be there, and the good news is Mr. Silverman
>can continue to imagine that they are playing m6b5.
Most musicians I know have idiosyncratic ways of looking at music. I
would hope that's the norm. I think all those with a theoretical
interest can aspire to is to understand parts of the domain. A single,
unified theory is not obtainable, and serves little purpose IMO. It's
a moving target.
I don't know why Silverman goes on about the "ancients". From what
I've read most of the language used to describe music has been
thoroughly revised in the last fifty years. The Ivory Towers that once
provided hallowed ground for the old masters and their putative
inheritors were torn down by the cultural revolutions in the sixties
and beyond. The discussion here is reasonably free of strict
convention. The community is broadly representative of many different
musical camps.
Silverman spends far too much time just talking about "words" and
their dictionary meaning. Musicians have never been much chop when it
comes to articulating their knowledge, but they know what they mean. I
couldn't give a flying fuck whether a group of three notes is called a
triad, a tetrachord or whatever: it's the function in a specified
environment that's of interest and usually under informal discussion
here.
Apart from that he's a rude bastard who gets far more space than he
deserves here. I notice that he's only ever interested in discussing
his own pet theories. I've yet to see him contribute in any other way
other than to pronounce, indirectly, "me me me".
Ian
Ian
M. Schulter
thread: the excellent reasons, historical and modern, for indeed
recognizing that an interval of the diminished seventh, e.g. C#-Bb or
C-Bbb, is not necessarily equivalent to a major sixth such as C#-A# or C-A
either intonationally or musically.
At the time which the major/minor key system was emerging, say the later
17th century, meantone temperaments were standard for keyboards, although
musicians such as Andreas Werckmeister (1681 and later) were formulating
new unequal "well-temperaments" to permit a circular system with only 12
notes per octave.
In 1/4-comma meantone, where fifths are narrowed by 1/4 syntonic comma
(about 5.38 cents, or 5.38/1200 octave, or a bit more than 1/20 of a
100-cent semitone in 12-tone equal temperament), making major thirds a
pure 5:4, C#-Bb and C#-A# are definitely two different intervals.
A normal major sixth like C#-A# or C-A has a size of around 890 cents,
very close to a pure 5:3 (~884 cents), the Renaissance and Baroque ideal
in tertian just intonation (where thirds and sixths have pure 5-based
ratios).
A diminished seventh like C#-Bb is equal to a meantone minor seventh (e.g.
C#-B or C-Bb), or ~1007 cents, diminished by a chromatic semitone (Bb-B or
C-C#), around 76 cents -- a bit larger than the 25:24 (~71 cents) of
tertian just intonation.
This gives us an interval of around 931 cents, close to the 7-based ratio
of 12:7, and about 41 cents (128:125) larger than the regular major
seventh. This is a difference of about a fifth of a tone.
Whatever may be true of later music -- and the tonal music of the late
17th and 18th centuries developed in an environment of various meantone
and unequal circular tunings -- Renaissance and Manneristic tunings, with
augmented and diminished intervals sometimes used for deliberate "special
effects," make constructs such as "a diminished seventh" quite audible
acoustically as well as musically.
Lest anyone concludes from this that such constructs are _only_ relevant
to music before 1850, I would emphasize that even in the era of 12-tone
equal temperament (12-tET) for keyboards, singers and players of non-fixed
pitch instruments are not bounded to this or any set intonational scheme,
and might well make an audible distinction between C-Bbb and C-A, etc.
Further, many developments in 20th-century music have pointed the way to
the preservations and innovative use of tunings and temperaments where
intervals such as diminished sevenths are distinguishable in most tangible
terms from major sixths.
For example, the 31-tET system discussed here by Ken Moore, and championed
in the Netherlands by the physicist Adrian Fokker and various gifted
artists, is almost identical to the Renaissance system of 1/4-comma
meantone, where these intervals differ by something not too far from a
quartertone.
This is not to say that every musical distinction must have an acoustical
basis: even in the system of 12-tET, an interval such as a diminished
fourth or augmented second may be musically distinguished in context from
a major third or minor third, although the sizes are identical (400 cents
or 300 cents respectively).
However, systems where these intervals _do_ have very appreciably
different sizes seems to me to enrich the musical language, without in any
way excluding 12-tET where it is the ideal system (e.g. many pantonal
compositions of the 20th century).
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
David Webber
Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote in message
news:39FF05F2...@netidea.com...
> Aw, gosh Al. You're going to an awful lot of trouble. The full
> diminished chord is just a dom 7 with a sharp 1. :)
Of course it is <g>, as is made thoroughly obvious by sequences such as
C7 C#dim G7
(with each voice moving up a semitone or staying put at each change) which
is *obviously* just a chromatic decoration of
C7 / G7
> Hey, if you can do it, maybe I can invent my own music theory and insist
> it's the One True Way! <g>
Why not?
But seriously, Albert's post is just the usual combination of obvious things
(which is why it is dangerous) and his usual egocentric rant. Everyone
knows you can use diminished 7th chords (as in the above example) with
semitone progressions. Everyone knows you can modulate with them as pivots
(eg with the above example from Fmajor to Cmajor) although the word
"modulate" does not appear to be in Albert's vocabulary. Everyone knows
that they originate in pre 12tet music where things were done differently,
and everyone knows that they are still called diminished 7th chords and not
m6b5.
And everyone knows about inversions of chords so that Albert's statement:
"Cm6b5 chord will contain tones CEbGbA. Note that _there is no diminished
7th interval in this chord_"
is patently false if the inversion puts the Gb above the A, because A-Gb is
exactly a diminished 7th.
[I'm sure this revelation will not drive Albert back to the drawing board
though, because he knows everything and everyone else knows nothing. But
just in case: Albert, can you write the note names of an "m6b5" chord in
such a way that no inversion contains a diminished 7th interval?]
Dave
--
Dave Webber
Author of MOZART the Music Processor for Windows - http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the North Cheshire Concert Band http://www.northcheshire.org.uk
Albert Silverman
David Sherman <d.sherm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Never having read one of these Silverman treatises, I combed through this
>one, tried to understand the language and the terminology, and even played
>through the musical example.
>
>Okay.
>
>Now let me see if I understand this:
>
>1. Calling a chord a diminished 7th is no longer valid because it is
>"ancient" and doesn't necessarily behave as a diminished 7 chord in examples
>of popular American sheet music from the early part of this century.
Calling a chord a "diminished 7th" has NEVER made any sense, since
"naming" a chord after an interval contained within the chord is a
nonsensical way to go about things.
>
>2. Calling a chord a diminished 7 is not valid because you can
>enharmonically respell any chord, and therefore confusing the most
>fundamental (I assume that would be called "ancient" too!) use of the chord.
See my comment above. If this chord were PROPERLY identified, then its
particular spelling would not be relevant to its identification.
This fact aside, you have missed the whole point of my post, which deals
with the relationship of this chord to other chords in context. Such
relationship involves something called "tendency," which you steer clear
of like a red hot poker. Yet tendency is the heart of the harmonic
process.
> >Do I more or less have it? >
No you do no not. You are not even close.
>Now I might argue that the very example provided here proves the point that
>Mr. Silverman is trying to defeat:
What point would that be?
>
>> "Down by the Old Mill Stream" (a 20th century American Masterpiece!!)
>>
>> Line #1: ||1 ||2 ||
>> Line #2: ||1 |2 |3 |4 ||5 |6 |7 |8 ||
>> Line #3: CFA||C |Cb |Bb=|=BbC#D||A |G |F=|=FAC||
>> Line #4: ||24 |24 |24 | 4 4 4||24|24|24| 444||
>> Line #5: ||A |Ab |G |Bb ||C |E |F |C ||
>> Line #6: ||{1}F|{?}Abm6b5|{3}Gm7 ||{2}C7|{1}F ||
>
>Now, in measure 3 and 4, Mr. Silverman has chosen, and I stress chosen, to
>insert a Gm7 chord before the C7 chord in measures 5 and 6. I could just as
>easily argue that the proper chord in measure 3 is a C7/G, therefore proving
>that the preceding chord is not an Abm6b5 but a Bdim7 in third inversion.
No you could not. A Gm7 chord is the standout choice here, since tone F in
the Abm6b5 chord is retained. A C7 chord here does not retain this
tone. Not only that, a Gm7 chord adds greater variety, and introduces a
very desirable progression Gm7-->C7, a typical root progression by a
perfect-fifth root-tone relationship. In EVERY respect, a Gm7 chord in
measures 3-4 is superior to a C7 chord. A simple listening test will bear
this out.
Your claim that the Abm6b5 chord would then be a Bdim7 makes no sense at
all. In particular, calling this chord a Bdim7 identifies it as a chord
with "root" B. This point escapes you. This chord in this context _has
no functional root_, since it contains a dynamic tension (due to the
prepared tendency in tone Ab) which urges progression to a chord that is
NOT in a 5th-degree root-tone relationship with the chord whose pitch
interval pattern is identified as Abm6b5. This is the KEY point here,
and you have completely missed it, since Ancient Theory is not based
upon tendency and chord relationships.
>
>The trouble is that Mr. Silverman's theory here seems to be predicated on a
>manufactured example.
This is meaningless. My example clearly indicates what I mean by "prepared
tendency" and how it is used in a chord having this particular pitch
interval pattern.
>Unless he can produce the original manuscript of the
>composer showing the original choice of a Gm7 chord in bar 3, I have to
>assume that the Gm7 chord has been placed there by Mr. Silverman, and in
>fact, would probably be put there by any jazz pianist worth his or her salt.
>But the actual harmony as Mr. Silverman puts it down here is not a given.
What you call the "original manuscript" is immaterial and irrelevant. What
IS relevant is the way in which the Abm6b5 chord functions in this
particular example.
>
>How do we know, for example, that the second melody note here is not
>actually a B natural instead of a Cb?
Surely you must be kidding! This tone is properly noted as Cb, due to the
descending semi-tone melodic progression from tone C. This is elementary.
>How do we know that the composer's
>original intentions weren't for the second chord of the song to be a G7 with
>a B in the melody? We don't.
This is immaterial. Pay attention to the example which I have posted, not
to what you think I OUGHT to be talking about! Silly.
>And that's a big hole in Mr. Silverman's
>thesis.
Nonsense.
>
>It's one thing to create theory to explain notes that already exist, but it
>seems that Mr. Silverman is creating music to suit his theory.
Mr. Silverman is explaining an example that he has presented.
>
>However, the label of Abm6b5 might be appropriate in this instance. I havve
>shown how tenuous Mr. Silverman's example is.
Nonsense.
>
>Certainly a m6b5 chord has it's place. However, I have found that in a
>great deal of sheet music published before, say, 1960, what is labeled as a
>m6 often turns out to be what we would now call a m7b5.
So what? This is a well-known constructional ambiguity, which can usually
be cleared up by reference to the context. But this ambiguity has nothing
at all to do with the chord being illustrated here, since lowering the
fifth degree creates an entirely DIFFERENT chord, with an entirely
DIFFERENT kind of ambiguity. So why are you even bringing this up, when it
is not relevant to the situation at hand?
>In fact, despite
>the label m6, they often behave as m7 chords resolving to dominant
>tonalities.
No. An m6 chord does NOT behave as a m7 chord. NEVER. An m7 chord has a
lowered seventh degree, which usually progresses downward by one
semi-tone, in a musical context, _because it has a downward tendency_.
On the other hand, the added sixth degree in an m6 chord is _dynamically
neutral_. That is, it has neither tendency nor persistence, and its
progression in context is not controlled by any dynamic consideration. It
is added either for tonal coloration or for melodic purposes, and _serves
no HARMONIC function_. You clearly do not understand this point, since you
do not understand harmonic function or the harmonic process.
>Today we would simply label it as iim7(b5)-V7, a very standard
>popular and jazz progression.
Gibberish!
>
>To continue, if we were to take Mr. Silverman's example as gospel, and using
>his technique of enharmonically respelling chords, it is entirely possible
>to spell the chord in measure 2 as Ab,Cb,D,F - a fully diminished D chord -
>which would make it some sort of vi chord in this song.
Let me repeat. This chord _has no functional root_ in this particular
context. You cannot understand this point.
>Our "ancient"
>theory books are rife with examples of vi chords resolving to ii chords.
You are attempting to identify this progression as a progression between
two chords in a 5th-degree root-tone relationship?
Incredible!!
>
>I would probably never label this chord a Ddim7, but my point is that using
>Mr. Silveramn's system you can fudge almost any theoretical eventuality.
ROTFL!!
>
>A good theoretical benchmark in the labeling of chords is this: if it walks
>like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
>
>If it sounds like a fully diminished 7, and resolves like a fully diminished
>7, then that's what it is. No matter when it was written.
My example is for the purpose of illustrating dynamic function, not how
the chord "sounds". It of course sounds like a chord which contains four
tones, separated by pitch intervals of three semi-tones.
THIS is what the chord "sounds" like.
>
>What Mr. Silverman refers to as "ancient" theory was a way of categorizing
>sounds. The theory was made to fit the perceptions of the sound. Mr.
>Silverman is trying to accomplish the opposite - trying to skew the sounds
>to fit the theory - and it just doesn't work. You can't change the way
>things sound because they're labeled differently.
The chord will "sound" the same, no matter how it happens to be
spelled. So what is your point?
>
>Also troubling is his repeated use of the word "masterpiece" to describe
>this example:
Of course. A great Masterpiece like this deserves much more respect than
trivial piece by Mozart or Beethoven or Brahms. Everyone knows this.
>
>> "Down by the Old Mill Stream" (a 20th century American Masterpiece!!)
>
>> A deceptively simple (but not all _that_ simple; remember, this is a
>> Masterpiece!)
>
>Here again, Mr. Silverman seems to be trying to set up his own straw man.
>The assumption that this song is a masterpiece is attempting to legitimize
>it as a definitive example just as one would do with the Bach Chorale
>harmonizations of Wachet Auf.
Sorry. I forgot to mention Bach above, in my reference. My error.
>
>"Down by the Old Mill Stream" is far from an American masterpiece. It is a
>wood chopper that is seldom heard anymore.
What a shame that such a Masterpiece seems to have slipped into
oblivion. I hape that I have managed to resurrect it here. Thank heaven
for that!
>However, there are American
>masterpieces which do exemplify something averse to what Mr. Silverman is
>trying to, I guess, prove.
>
>In Scott Joplin's "Maple Leaf Rag" (if we are pulling masterpieces out of
>the hat) a diminished 7 chord built on the minor third degree of the scale
>resolves to the tonic chord. In the key of C, Mr. Silverman might want to
>label it as a Ebm6b5, and claim that since you can spell it Eb,Gb,Bbb,C it
>has no relationship with the tonic in "Ancient" theory.
>
>In fact it is a classic example of exactly what we are taught in "ancient"
>theory: this is a fully diminished 7 built on the raised 2nd degree of the
>scale resolving to the tonic in second inversion. In other words
>#iidim7-I64. A textbook example of "ancient" theory.
A textbook example of Ancient Gibberish.
>
>Now, this might not be the most perfect example, but it is irrefutable
>simply because it is in the notes. Using one's own chord changes of a
>popular song to prove a point, in my opinion, is not.
In the notes?
>
>Moving away from textbook theory, if I was condensing "Maple Leaf Rag" into
>a lead sheet I would most likely write the chord in question Ebdim7. I,
>however, would never write Gbm6b5 (or Am6b5 or Cm6b5 or Ebm6b5 for that
>matter!) for one simple reason: it is totally confusing. Maybe Ebdim7
>isn't the most theoretically perfect label for this chord, but it is a label
>that will get the proper notes played.
And so will Ebm6b5. It is no more difficult to construct the chord m6b5
than it is to construct the chord m6.
>
>It's just another troubling aspect of Mr. Silverman's theory: he is dealing
>with chord labels for popular music. The lead sheet system that has evolved
>over the past century is meant to aid performance, not to promote theory or
>theoretical suppositions as to the behavior of sound.
Really? What is your point?
>
>What was commonly labeled m6b5 in decades past is now preferably labeled as
>diminished 7 chords. That is the way contemporary musicians prefer to read
>it. The same notes notes will be there, and the good news is Mr. Silverman
>can continue to imagine that they are playing m6b5.
>
Thank goodness! For a moment there, you really had me worried.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
the word has now been given new meaning
Inotmark
>Hello, there, and I would like to comment on a single point in this
>thread: the excellent reasons, historical and modern, for indeed
>recognizing that an interval of the diminished seventh, e.g. C#-Bb or
>C-Bbb, is not necessarily equivalent to a major sixth such as C#-A# or C-A
>either intonationally or musically.
snip
though some excellent theorizing and speculation follow this introduction, it
has to be acknowledged that Bach used the diminished seventh chord in solo
piano pieces to modulate enharmonically at the distance of a tritone (for
example in the G minor organ fantasia)
In this example the 'diminished seventh' in the chord is shifted from one pair
of notes (f#-eb) to another pair of notes (c-Bbb), while the tuning is perforce
held static. from this it has must be acknowledged that the actual size of the
interval and its 'diminished-seventhness' are unrelated. the diminished
seventh exists as a logical consequence of scale relations. the concept of
diminished seventh is in no way dependent on acoustical issues.
Dr.Matt
Interesting proposal.
You're arguing a contrapositive, though. Margo is showing that there
are dialects in which a diminished 7th actually IS a different size
interval than a major sixth, while you're citing evidence that it doesn't
matter as their functions are syntactically distinct and can both
be served by any good approximate tuning, in the right musical context.
For your statements to contradict each other, either Margo'd have to say
that dim7 and maj6 are ALWAYS distinct tuning ratios (which she didn't say),
or you'd have to be arguing that their tuning ratios are NEVER distinct
(which you didn't say).
As far as I know, if you want to cite JS Bach and a
pianoforte in the same breath, the literature is limited to improvisations
preliminary to the Musical Offering, and as far as I know he never wrote
any of those down.
--
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers: http://www.goldinc.com/cgi-bin/harvest_this.cgi
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
David Webber
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8tpnud$220$1...@news.panix.com...
> Calling a chord a "diminished 7th" has NEVER made any sense, since
> "naming" a chord after an interval contained within the chord is a
> nonsensical way to go about things.
Well I suppose that goes triply from m6b5 where you have named it afre the
minor third (m) the diminished fifth (b5) and what you insist on calling a
sixth (6).
However diminished 7th chords are not simply named after the diminished 7th
interval in particular. They are diminished chords as they have a minor
third and a diminished 5th, and in addition they contain a 7th - albeit a
diminished one.
Just as an ordinary 7th chord contains a major third, a perfect fifth, and
a minor 7th.
The names reflect a lot more than just one interval. One needs a more
holistic view of these things.
Inotmark
>For your statements to contradict each other, either Margo'd have to say
>that dim7 and maj6 are ALWAYS distinct tuning ratios (which she didn't say),
>or you'd have to be arguing that their tuning ratios are NEVER distinct
>(which you didn't say).
all i have demonstrated is that diminished seventh is independent of the size
of the interval.
>As far as I know, if you want to cite JS Bach and a
>pianoforte in the same breath, the literature is limited to improvisations
>preliminary to the Musical Offering, and as far as I know he never wrote
>any of those down.
i cited an organ piece. the english suite in g minor also uses the same
modulation.
substitute "keyboard" for "piano" if you like.
Fred Nachbaur
David Webber wrote:
>
> Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:8tpnud$220$1...@news.panix.com...
>
> > Calling a chord a "diminished 7th" has NEVER made any sense, since
> > "naming" a chord after an interval contained within the chord is a
> > nonsensical way to go about things.
>
> Well I suppose that goes triply from m6b5 where you have named it afre the
> minor third (m) the diminished fifth (b5) and what you insist on calling a
> sixth (6).
>
> However diminished 7th chords are not simply named after the diminished 7th
> interval in particular. They are diminished chords as they have a minor
> third and a diminished 5th, and in addition they contain a 7th - albeit a
> diminished one.
Precisely. Just as a dom 7 is more completely described as a major-minor
7 (major triad with a minor 7), a full diminished could be called
diminished-diminished 7 (diminished triad with a diminished 7).
Similarly, the chord usually referred to as half-diminished (aka m7b5)
is a diminished-minor 7th. The abbreviated forms are simply part of the
patois musicians have developed to communicate ideas faster.
> Just as an ordinary 7th chord contains a major third, a perfect fifth, and
> a minor 7th.
>
> The names reflect a lot more than just one interval. One needs a more
> holistic view of these things.
Good way of putting it. ('Tho I can almost hear Albert's screams of
frustration at this comment) ;-)
David Webber
> Good way of putting it. ('Tho I can almost hear Albert's screams of
> frustration at this comment) ;-)
Thank you. Don't worry about Albert - if it's too hard for him, he'll
ignore it. I'm still waiting for him to back up his silly statement
"Cm6b5 chord will contain tones CEbGbA. Note that _there is no diminished
7th interval in this chord_"
and find a way of writing an "m6b5" chord so that no inversion contains a
diminished 7th interval. He seems to have gone strangely quiet on the
matter <g>.
Ho hum.
griekers
David Webber wrote:
>
> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote in message
> news:3A018473...@netidea.com...
>
> > Good way of putting it. ('Tho I can almost hear Albert's screams of
> > frustration at this comment) ;-)
>
> Thank you. Don't worry about Albert - if it's too hard for him, he'll
> ignore it. I'm still waiting for him to back up his silly statement
>
> "Cm6b5 chord will contain tones CEbGbA. Note that _there is no diminished
> 7th interval in this chord_"
>
> and find a way of writing an "m6b5" chord so that no inversion contains a
> diminished 7th interval. He seems to have gone strangely quiet on the
> matter <g>.
The Silverman Big-Note Songbook Simplified Theory of
Music for Simpletons (in which Mary Had A Little Lamb
and Down By The Old Mill Stream are the most complicated
peices whcih can be analysed) has a big gaping hole
where understanding of inversions should be.
Remember, it was our own village idiot Albert who insisted
that Neapolitan chords are most often used in the second
inversion.
Albert Silverman
Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I enjoyed reading this, as I think Al may actually be making some sense
>here. I do agree with some of his ideas regarding this chord. For example he
>states:
>
><As a third example, note that a Gbm6b5 chord (i.e.,
><constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
><enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb.
>
>a dim7 chord unless it had a seventh, right Al?
In case you missed it, I am talking about a chord containing four tones,
each of which is separated from its neighboring tones by an interval of
three semi-tones in the equally-tempered scale.
This *pitch interval pattern* can always be noted as "m6b5", with respect
to any one of four root-tones, regardless of how these individual tones
may be spelled in a particular context.
Therefore, a "name" such as "diminished 7th", based upon some presumed
spelling of the component tones, is irrelevant. Putting it another
way, there is *no need at all* to use such a name for identifying this
pitch interval pattern.
This being the case, what is the point that you are trying to
make? (Incidentally, since Fb is the enharmonic equivalent of E, then Fbb
is the enharmonic equivalent of Eb; why does this cause you a problem?)
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>Were ya sleepin' when you
>shoulda' been typin'? And don't give that " I don't believe in double flats,
>ancient theory" crap right now. You could have made more sense saying:
>"Here's how the ancients spell their ancient chord: Gbdim7.... GbBbbDbbFbb.
>Fbb? You gotta be kiddin' me? What note is that, exactly?"
>Al, I think you're loosing your grip and I may stop reading your columns if
>I can't grasp what is fact and what is not.
> --
>Eric Bolvin
>Trumpet, keyboards, composer, SF Bay Area
>http://www.mp3.com/EricBolvin
>http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/8357
>(408)236-2009
>
>
David Sherman
> From: griekers <grie...@aol.yahoo.com>
> Remember, it was our own village idiot Albert who insisted
> that Neapolitan chords are most often used in the second
> inversion.
Hold on there.
I don't know about "most often" uses of anything, but in this case I assume
you are talking about what I have referred to as the "Neopolitan 6th" chord.
It is, in fact, a pre-dominant tonality which is commonly used in the first
inversion giving a hint of mint to what would otherwise be a IV or a ii6
chord.
Dr.Matt
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <8ttvdd$cuk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I enjoyed reading this, as I think Al may actually be making some sense
>>here. I do agree with some of his ideas regarding this chord. For example he
>>states:
>>
>><constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
>><enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb.
>>
>>a dim7 chord unless it had a seventh, right Al?
>
>In case you missed it, I am talking about a chord containing four tones,
>each of which is separated from its neighboring tones by an interval of
>three semi-tones in the equally-tempered scale.
>
>This *pitch interval pattern* can always be noted as "m6b5", with respect
>to any one of four root-tones, regardless of how these individual tones
>may be spelled in a particular context.
>
>Therefore, a "name" such as "diminished 7th", based upon some presumed
>spelling of the component tones, is irrelevant. Putting it another
>way, there is *no need at all* to use such a name for identifying this
>pitch interval pattern.
Therefore, by exactly the same logic, the chord is ALWAYS a diminished
triad with a diminished 7th on top and there is *no need at all* to
call it anything other than dim7.
I do assume you can follow your own logic, right?
David Webber
> Therefore, a "name" such as "diminished 7th", based upon some presumed
> spelling of the component tones, is irrelevant. Putting it another
> way, there is *no need at all* to use such a name for identifying this
> pitch interval pattern.
There's no need to call a "car" a "car" - you could call it a "shrub".
Nevertheless everyone calls it a "car" and this forms an excelent basis of
communication, because equally there is no reason you *shouldn't* call it a
car.
Eric Bolvin
here. I do agree with some of his ideas regarding this chord. For example he
states:
<As a third example, note that a Gbm6b5 chord (i.e.,
<constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
<enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb.
Actually ancient theory would impose a spelling of GbBbbDbbFbb. Couldn't be
a dim7 chord unless it had a seventh, right Al? Were ya sleepin' when you
Eric Bolvin
me? I don't get it man. I'm just trying to contribute to the good of the
public here. All you gotta do is ask yourself this simple question; What is
a Gdim7 chord?
Of course a dim7 chord is ancient theory. There is no doubt in my mind that
any chord that specifies an interval that is diminished is most likely
derivative of some sort of predetermined key structure which is based on
theory that is no longer practical.
Understand that in ancient theory, thirds are kings and assumed. A Gdim7
would be G Bb Db Fb. This is what ancient theory tells us to do and I quite
frankly think it's stupid. As you've said yourself Al, a m6b5 (aka dim7)
chord by itself in space means nothing. It has no tendency or setup. You
could have a Geric7 chord and it would have to have a G, B, D, and F of some
variation in it. This is what's called tertial harmony and I agree with you
that it may not be the right way. It is an antiquated approach to harmony.
You have some good ideas, Al, but I question your application of them.. For
example look at your spelling of the so called Gbdim7: Gb Bbb Dbb Eb. Wrong.
Should be Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb.
Now one may call this chord Gb-6b5 as you suggest. The b5 says that the
fifth above Gb (Db) be lowered to Dbb or C. This means two things. 1. A
minor sixth interval above the root. This works out nicely as Eb. 2. A minor
third interval above the root. This does not work out so well for us. A Gb
root tone must, according to ancient theory, have a B of some type as the
third.
--
Eric Bolvin
Trumpet, keyboards, composer, SF Bay Area
http://www.mp3.com/EricBolvin
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/8357
(408)236-2009
"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8tv2ca$lce$1...@news.panix.com...
> In article <8ttvdd$cuk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I enjoyed reading this, as I think Al may actually be making some sense
> >here. I do agree with some of his ideas regarding this chord. For example
he
> >states:
> >
> ><As a third example, note that a Gbm6b5 chord (i.e.,
> ><constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
> ><enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb.
> >
> >Actually ancient theory would impose a spelling of GbBbbDbbFbb. Couldn't
be
> >a dim7 chord unless it had a seventh, right Al?
>
> In case you missed it, I am talking about a chord containing four tones,
> each of which is separated from its neighboring tones by an interval of
> three semi-tones in the equally-tempered scale.
>
> This *pitch interval pattern* can always be noted as "m6b5", with respect
> to any one of four root-tones, regardless of how these individual tones
> may be spelled in a particular context.
>
> Therefore, a "name" such as "diminished 7th", based upon some presumed
> spelling of the component tones, is irrelevant. Putting it another
> way, there is *no need at all* to use such a name for identifying this
> pitch interval pattern.
>
> This being the case, what is the point that you are trying to
> make? (Incidentally, since Fb is the enharmonic equivalent of E, then Fbb
> is the enharmonic equivalent of Eb; why does this cause you a problem?)
>
>
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
>
Eric Bolvin
them to be deep-rooted in rhetoric.
Hell, now I've got an even bigger bone to pick and that is the
"half-diminished seventh" chord. It's a minor7b5 chord.
Or as Al might call it -5-7.
Hell even bigger is the minor 6 chord. According to ancient theory this
would be called m6. That's like...whoa.
Remember that Al doesn't give us the basic ground work for his theory. Many
think that Al is crazy and that may be true.
But he obviously has a passion for what he does and really does have a
finely tuned understanding of harmonic development.
Of course I'm a jazz musician and I don't give a crap about what Albert
Silverman thinks of my music. I'm not sure that Albert Silverman actually
judges music on it's merits, he's simply a reporter. He's never spoken out
or against any artist or composer to my knowledge. He has on occasion,
angered members of this group with his opinionated stances on harmony, which
some believe are detrimental to the group. Although I don't approve of his
negative attitude towards others, I have found value and substance in his
postings that do actually deal with musical theoretical functions.
David Webber
Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8u0gqf$le0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Of course a dim7 chord is ancient theory. There is no doubt in my mind
that
> any chord that specifies an interval that is diminished is most likely
> derivative of some sort of predetermined key structure which is based on
> theory that is no longer practical.
"Theory" in music is a method of analysis of compositions. Musical styles
evolve and so does the theory. The theory does not become "impractical",
it evolves. Diminished 7th chords may well be used in new ways - but they
are not a new invenntion and may still be used in the old ways. Indeed if
you want to highlight the differences in styles of music it helps to have a
language which comprehends both. There is nothing impractical about
diminished 7th chords.
> Understand that in ancient theory, thirds are kings and assumed. A Gdim7
> would be G Bb Db Fb. This is what ancient theory tells us to do and I
quite
> frankly think it's stupid.
Why? *One* of the lovely properties of diminished 7th chords in 12tet is
that you can give each one four equally valid names. This emphasises their
use as pivots in modulating from one key to another. The reason you can
give these chords 4 names is just *because* of the enharmonic flexibility -
eg (G Bb Db Fb)->inversion of(E G Bb Db).
And as I'm trying to get Albert to admit, there is always a diminished 7th
interval (modulo inversions) in the chord HOWEVER you write it (unless you
go as far as eg C# E G Cbb with a triply diminished octave <vbg>).
> This is what's called tertial harmony and I agree with you
> that it may not be the right way. It is an antiquated approach to harmony.
???? Everything Albert does is built on tertiary harmony!
> You have some good ideas, Al, but I question your application of them..
For
> example look at your spelling of the so called Gbdim7: Gb Bbb Dbb Eb.
Wrong.
> Should be Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb.
Albert spelled an inversion of Ebdim7 - so what?
> Now one may call this chord Gb-6b5 as you suggest.
He suggests Gbm6b5
> The b5 says that the
> fifth above Gb (Db) be lowered to Dbb or C. This means two things. 1. A
> minor sixth interval above the root. This works out nicely as Eb.
Eb is a MAJOR sixth above Gb.
Fbb is a dimoinished 7th.
> 2. A minor
> third interval above the root. This does not work out so well for us.
???
> A Gb
> root tone must, according to ancient theory, have a B of some type as the
> third.
You have lost me completely. When one writes a chord name like Gbm....
the "m" means that the chord is a minor one - ie with a minor third. The
"m" works backwards on the chord name which precedes it and does *not*
apply to what comes after.
Gbm7 has a minor 7th NOT because of te "m" but because 7 means a minor 7th
all by itself unless qualified in some way.
Other qualifiers work in different ways. In Gbmaj7 the maj applies to the
7. The third is major because there's no "m", the 7th is major because
there's a "maj".
In Gbdim7 the dim means that the third is minor and the fifth and 7th are
diminished - the "dim" qualifier works on the whle chord.
Sometimes if you can't build a simple chord name in this way you have to
write b5 or #5 at the end to indicate that the fifth is to be diminished or
augmented. But you avoid this if simpler names like Gbaug or Gbdim7 will
do.
It's all very irregular but so what? - Albert is the only person who seems
to have any difficulty with it.
Dr.Matt
Wait... I thought an eric chord contained E, Re, tI, and C.
Dr.Matt
20th-century composer (never mind that he didn't live in the 20th century),
and that (according to him) Wagner's music mostly has no tonal center.
Joey Goldstein
Eric Bolvin wrote:
>
> Al. Slow down a bit. You actually get me on your side and then try to diss
> me? I don't get it man.
You will.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Joey Goldstein
Eric Bolvin wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Al on this one. After reading all the posts, I've found
> them to be deep-rooted in rhetoric.
> Hell, now I've got an even bigger bone to pick and that is the
> "half-diminished seventh" chord. It's a minor7b5 chord.
> Or as Al might call it -5-7.
> Hell even bigger is the minor 6 chord. According to ancient theory this
> would be called m6. That's like...whoa.
> Remember that Al doesn't give us the basic ground work for his theory. Many
> think that Al is crazy and that may be true.
> But he obviously has a passion for what he does and really does have a
> finely tuned understanding of harmonic development.
> Of course I'm a jazz musician and I don't give a crap about what Albert
> Silverman thinks of my music. I'm not sure that Albert Silverman actually
> judges music on it's merits, he's simply a reporter. He's never spoken out
> or against any artist or composer to my knowledge. He has on occasion,
> angered members of this group with his opinionated stances on harmony, which
> some believe are detrimental to the group. Although I don't approve of his
> negative attitude towards others, I have found value and substance in his
> postings that do actually deal with musical theoretical functions.
Ah ... this is like stepping into the past and looking at one of my own
posts from 3 or 4 years ago.
Allow me to look into my crystal ball. ...
You will find that:
1. Albert does not actually understand the "ancient" theories that his
own theory is intended to correct and replace. There is no correction necessary.
2. The definitions he uses for terms like "cadence", "tonality" and
"chord" are indeed ancient and date from the 19th century or before.
These definitions are not in use anymore today. Albert needs a copy of
The New Grove Dictionary Of Music really badly.
3. He uses familiar terms but without telling you that he has his own
definitions for them so any conversation you have with him will be mired
in confusion.
4. There is some sense in some thing that Albert says and then you will
find him contradict it elsewhere.
5. He is 100% snarky all the time no matter who he is communicating with.
6. You are wasting your time by entertaining his ideas.
Good luck.
Albert Silverman
Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Al. Slow down a bit. You actually get me on your side and then try to diss
>public here. All you gotta do is ask yourself this simple question; What is
>a Gdim7 chord?
Before you can answer this question, you MUST understand that an
"interval" can be specified in two different ways. One way, which is the
type of interval specification used in Ancient Theory, relies upon the
SPELLING of the component tones. Since a given tone may be spelled in
more than one way (i.e., enharmonically), it is possible that a given
*pitch separation* between two tones have different interval "names."
For example, the *pitch interval* between tones C and A is nine
semi-tones, in the equally tempered scale. This pitch interval can
be constructed from the root-tone C and the sixth degree A in the diatonic
C-major scale. If we want to avoid a "name" for this interval *based upon
the spelling of the two tones which create it*, we can simply refer to it
as a nine semi-tone pitch interval.
Alternatively, we can refer to this same pitch interval, *based upon the
spelling of its component tones*, as a "major sixth." However, we can also
spell tone A enharmonically as tone Bbb. This same nine semi-tone pitch
interval, when "named" in accordance with this particular spelling, is a
"diminished seventh" interval, not a "major sixth" interval. But remember,
these two DIFFERENT names are referring to the SAME pitch interval.
In general, it makes sense to think about a chord in terms of the *pitch
interval pattern* formed by its various component tones, and to SPELL the
component tones in terms of the progression dictated by
"tendency." Certain chord tones (such as the lowered 7th degree in the
so-called "dominant 7th" and "minor seventh" chords) have a downward
semi-tone tendency. Hence, for example, in the chord CEGBb, tone Bb is
spelled as Bb and not A#, because this tone has a downward tendency toward
tone A.
In many cases, however, a tone has no tendency. This is true of all four
tones of the so-called "diminished 7th" chord. Since there is no tendency
to guide the spelling, such a tone may often be spelled as it is derived
from the scale of construction. For example, a tone which forms a pitch
interval of nine semi-tones with the constructional root-tone C is spelled
as tone A, since the scale of construction is the diatonic C-major
scale. That is, this tone is NOT spelled as tone Bbb. Period.
In some cases, however, spelling a non-tendency tone as it is derived from
the scale of construction runs contrary to the *melodic progression* from
this tone in the musical context. In such a case, it is common practice to
spell such a tone in accordance with its melodic semi-tone progression,
*even though it has no tendency*. In other words, if, in the chord CEbGbA,
tone "Gb" (without tendency) progresses to tone G in context, then it is
apparent that this tone should be spelled as F#, NOT as Gb. Etc., etc.
These are the basic considerations which are not taught in Ancient Theory,
and are universally misunderstood by those who have been indoctrinated in
this theory.
Think about it!
>Of course a dim7 chord is ancient theory. There is no doubt in my mind that
>any chord that specifies an interval that is diminished is most likely
>derivative of some sort of predetermined key structure which is based on
>theory that is no longer practical.
True.
>Understand that in ancient theory, thirds are kings and assumed. A Gdim7
>would be G Bb Db Fb. This is what ancient theory tells us to do and I quite
>frankly think it's stupid.
Of course, as I have explained above. Remember, a "third" is *NOT* a PITCH
interval. It is a "spelling-based" interval, as defined above.
>As you've said yourself Al, a m6b5 (aka dim7)
>chord by itself in space means nothing. It has no tendency or setup. You
>could have a Geric7 chord and it would have to have a G, B, D, and F of some
>variation in it. This is what's called tertial harmony and I agree with you
>that it may not be the right way. It is an antiquated approach to harmony.
>You have some good ideas, Al, but I question your application of them.. For
>example look at your spelling of the so called Gbdim7: Gb Bbb Dbb Eb. Wrong.
>Should be Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb.
Let me repeat.
I am concerned with teh *pitch interval pattern* of this chord, NOT the
"spelling" interval pattern. I couldn't care less about a chord named as a
"diminished 7th" *because it happens to be spelled in some particular
manner.* I AM concerned about the chord's pitch interval pattern and the
way that this chord functions (dynamically) in a musical context.
Period.
>Now one may call this chord Gb-6b5 as you suggest. The b5 says that the
>fifth above Gb (Db) be lowered to Dbb or C. This means two things. 1. A
>minor sixth interval above the root. This works out nicely as Eb. 2. A minor
>third interval above the root. This does not work out so well for us. A Gb
>root tone must, according to ancient theory, have a B of some type as the
>third.
As I said above........
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>--
>Eric Bolvin
>Trumpet, keyboards, composer, SF Bay Area
>http://www.mp3.com/EricBolvin
>http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/8357
>(408)236-2009
>"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:8tv2ca$lce$1...@news.panix.com...
>> In article <8ttvdd$cuk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> Eric Bolvin <ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >I enjoyed reading this, as I think Al may actually be making some sense
>> >here. I do agree with some of his ideas regarding this chord. For example
>he
>> >states:
>> >
>> ><As a third example, note that a Gbm6b5 chord (i.e.,
>> ><constructed upon the root-tone Gb) will contain tones GbBbbDbbEb, the
>> ><enharmonic equivalent of which is GbACEb.
>> >
>> >Actually ancient theory would impose a spelling of GbBbbDbbFbb. Couldn't
>be
>> >a dim7 chord unless it had a seventh, right Al?
>>
>> In case you missed it, I am talking about a chord containing four tones,
>> each of which is separated from its neighboring tones by an interval of
>> three semi-tones in the equally-tempered scale.
>>
>> This *pitch interval pattern* can always be noted as "m6b5", with respect
>> to any one of four root-tones, regardless of how these individual tones
>> may be spelled in a particular context.
>>
>> Therefore, a "name" such as "diminished 7th", based upon some presumed
>> spelling of the component tones, is irrelevant. Putting it another
>> way, there is *no need at all* to use such a name for identifying this
>> pitch interval pattern.
>>
>> This being the case, what is the point that you are trying to
>> make? (Incidentally, since Fb is the enharmonic equivalent of E, then Fbb
>> is the enharmonic equivalent of Eb; why does this cause you a problem?)
>>
>>
>> Albert Silverman
>> (Al is in Wonderland!)
>>
David Webber
> Hell, now I've got an even bigger bone to pick and that is the
> "half-diminished seventh" chord. It's a minor7b5 chord.
The only difficulty with the half diminished 7 chord is that its usual
notations are not easily handled in the fitrst half of the ASCII character
set.
> Hell even bigger is the minor 6 chord. According to ancient theory this
> would be called m6. That's like...whoa.
Cm6 is a C-minor chord with a major 6th added (cf Am7b5). Do you really
want to add a minor 6th to a major chord????
James King
Ok, here I go, not being able to keep myself from posting ...
It appears that Al is *only* interested in the pitch-distance from
notes, and *not* interested at all in the note-spellings of these notes
-- this I inferred from this particular response.
It seems to me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation that
has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
write a particular sound, rather than many. This is the only way to
avoid additional confusion with Al's method: create a notation system
where there is only one way to write a particular note, and eliminate
enharmonics altogether. Otherwise, you will have confusion because of
the different ways you can write tones, which will interfere with
understanding his basic premise: that it's the actual sounds themselves
that are important, and not the way they're spelled.
As I brainstorm possible alternate notation systems that would allow
Al's theory to flourish without confusion, I envision a system using
only numbers to explain the pitch-distances in half-steps from a
particular note. Or perhaps (using the example of the piano) just using
the numbers 1-88 to indicate each particular tone. In this way, there
would be no confusion over octaves or note-spellings, as each
particular tone would be named. There would be no need for key
signatures or accidentals, because every note would be determined
either by a number indicating which note to play, or a number
indicating the number of half-steps above or below the note,
eliminating all enharmonics (no C#/Db ... it's all the same number,
because it's the same pitch in 12-tone equal temperament).
So perhaps an "ancient" major triad in root position would be called a
4-3 chord, because there are 4 half-steps from the bottom note to the
next tone, and 3 half-steps from that tone to the next.
An "ancient" minor triad in root position would be called a 3-4 chord
An "ancient" diminished triad in root position would be called a 3-3
chord
And what we call a diminished 7th or m6b5 chord or whatever you choose
to call it would be called a 3-3-3 chord. No need to complicate with
intervals .. simply name the chord by the number of half-steps that it
takes to get to the notes of each chord. No need to worry about
"ancient" functions, because you're simply referring to the particular
sounds being made.
This doesn't take inversions into account, but then again, perhaps
you'd just have to know that a 5-4 chord and a 3-4 chord have similar
sounds and might function therefore in similar ways.
Of course, I still prefer the older "ancient" system, because I
understand that "code," and don't wish to learn a new system of playing
the same notes.
But I do wish Al all the best in getting billions of musicians to adopt
his new "system" as superior, especially given that he's decided to use
Usenet newsgroups as his primary (and perhaps sole?) method to promote
his ideas.
James King
In article <8u219p$85$1...@news.panix.com>, Albert Silverman
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
--
Enjoy a classic 30-minute drama absolutely free! http://www.shadowradio.org
Joey Goldstein
James King wrote:
>
>
> It seems to me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation that
> has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
> over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
> write a particular sound, rather than many.
We already have that. It's called MIDI.
Albert Silverman
James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, here I go, not being able to keep myself from posting ...
>
>It appears that Al is *only* interested in the pitch-distance from
>notes, and *not* interested at all in the note-spellings of these notes
>-- this I inferred from this particular response.
It appears WRONG. I have never claimed that spelling is "unimportant." To
the contrary, I have often emphasized the necessity for
"proper" spelling. What you are missing is that there are many situations
in which spelling must be determined by chord "function" or by melodic
progression of the component chord tones. This is particularly evident
with the so-called "diminished 7th" chord, in which the Ancient attempt to
spell this chord *in association with the scale identified by the
"key") is an exercise in futility.
>
>It seems to me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation
that
>has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
>over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
>write a particular sound, rather than many.
One way, consistent with the chords *function* in a musical context. In
some cases, such as with the "diminished 7th," this function may not be
clear. That is, the "functional root" of the chord may be ambiguous.
In most cases, however, what I am proposing is consistent with
"standard" chord spelling. And what I am proposing is that chords be
CONSTRUCTED from the diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, with
appropriate "chromatic alteration."
Such construction will provide the "standard" spelling for most chords,
independent of any context. Then, in certain specialized contexts, this
spelling is modified ENHARMONICALLY to account for the chord's function.
>This is the only way to
>avoid additional confusion with Al's
>method: create a notation system
>where there is only one way to write a particular note, and eliminate
>enharmonics altogether.
WRONG!
Where on earth did you get this idea?
Go back and read my article on the m6b5 chord.
>Otherwise, you will have confusion because of
>the different ways you can write tones, which will interfere with
>understanding his basic premise: that it's the actual sounds themselves
>that are important, and not the way they're spelled.
No. What you are missing is that chord spelling should be determined from
a chord's function, NOT from its association with a while group of chords
based upon a single diatonic scale--the Ancient notion of "key".
>
>As I brainstorm possible alternate notation systems that would allow
>Al's theory to flourish without confusion, I envision a system using
>only numbers to explain the pitch-distances in half-steps from a
>particular note.
No. Using my simple method of chord construction, the spelling comes out
exactly as one would expect from Ancient Theory *in most cases*. It is the
exceptional cases which require careful attention, and a knowledge of
functional theory.
>Or perhaps (using the example of the piano) just using
>the numbers 1-88 to indicate each particular tone. In this way, there
>would be no confusion over octaves or note-spellings, as each
>particular tone would be named. There would be no need for key
>signatures or accidentals, because every note would be determined
>either by a number indicating which note to play, or a number
>indicating the number of half-steps above or below the note,
>eliminating all enharmonics (no C#/Db ... it's all the same number,
>because it's the same pitch in 12-tone equal temperament).
No. This is not what my premise is about. Nothing like it.
>
>So perhaps an "ancient" major triad in root position would be called a
>4-3 chord, because there are 4 half-steps from the bottom note to the
>next tone, and 3 half-steps from that tone to the next.
>
>An "ancient" minor triad in root position would be called a 3-4 chord
>
>An "ancient" diminished triad in root position would be called a 3-3
>chord
I refer to the chord that everyone calls a "major triad" as (guess
what?) a "major triad"!
But I do NOT include the particular inversion of this chord in my
notation, in common with the so-called "popular" system of notation. For
example, the notation "C" refers to a C-major triad, without indicating
the particular inversion. And the notation "Cm" refers to a C-minor triad,
without indicating the particular inversion.
Etc., etc.
>
>And what we call a diminished 7th or m6b5 chord or whatever you choose
>to call it would be called a 3-3-3 chord. No need to complicate with
>intervals .. simply name the chord by the number of half-steps that it
>takes to get to the notes of each chord. No need to worry about
>"ancient" functions, because you're simply referring to the particular
>sounds being made.
No.
It sounds like you do not understand the "popular" system of chord
notation, in which each symbol within the notation (apart from the
root-tone designation) denotes a specific *pitch interval* made by a tone,
in conjunction with the root-tone.
For example, what do you think the "m" means in the popular-style notation
Cm7? And what do you think the symbol "6" means in the popular-style
notation Cm6? And what do you think the symbol "7" means in the
popular-style notation Dm7b5?
Think about it. And don't be too quick with your answer!
Incidentally, what do you mean by "ancient function" in connection with a
so-called "diminished 7th" chord?
>
>This doesn't take inversions into account, but then again, perhaps
>you'd just have to know that a 5-4 chord and a 3-4 chord have similar
>sounds and might function therefore in similar ways.
I'm afraid that your system of notation is ridiculous.
>
>Of course, I still prefer the older "ancient" system, because I
>understand that "code," and don't wish to learn a new system of playing
>the same notes.
And WHO has asked you to do so?
>
>But I do wish Al all the best in getting billions of musicians to adopt
>his new "system" as superior, especially given that he's decided to use
>Usenet newsgroups as his primary (and perhaps sole?) method to promote
>his ideas.
You mean YOUR "system," don't you?
It wouldn't hurt for you to learn what chord "function" is all about. You
would then be one-up on billions of musicians, wouldn't you?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where residents are functionally illiterate
David Webber
> In many cases, however, a tone has no tendency. This is true of all four
> tones of the so-called "diminished 7th" chord. Since there is no tendency
> to guide the spelling, such a tone may often be spelled as it is derived
> from the scale of construction. For example, a tone which forms a pitch
> interval of nine semi-tones with the constructional root-tone C is spelled
> as tone A, since the scale of construction is the diatonic C-major
> scale. That is, this tone is NOT spelled as tone Bbb. Period.
What utter piffle.
This "scale of construction" stuff is total rubbish. How do you deal with
the Eb and the Gb - they're not on the scale of C. And C7 can be
constructed from a scale of F but not of C - and yet there is no F in the
chord.
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Wait... I thought an eric chord contained E, Re, tI, and C.
>
Wait--come to think of it, that's better as a melody, not a chord.
Isn't it just a transposition of the motivic cell of Prokoffief's 5th?
James King
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <051120000936377835%jlk...@ix.netcom.com>,
> James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ok, here I go, not being able to keep myself from posting ...
> >
> >It appears that Al is *only* interested in the pitch-distance from
> >notes, and *not* interested at all in the note-spellings of these notes
> >-- this I inferred from this particular response.
>
> It appears WRONG. I have never claimed that spelling is "unimportant." To
> the contrary, I have often emphasized the necessity for
> "proper" spelling. What you are missing is that there are many situations
> in which spelling must be determined by chord "function" or by melodic
> progression of the component chord tones. This is particularly evident
> with the so-called "diminished 7th" chord, in which the Ancient attempt to
> spell this chord *in association with the scale identified by the
> "key") is an exercise in futility.
Um, but you said below that you were only concerned with the
pitch-interval relationships and not the spelling interval pattern. Any
reference to "ancient" interval patterns would out of necessity imply a
concern for those spelling interval patterns. Please make up your mind
whether you are indeed interested in forcing musicians to use what
*you* consider to be the correct spelling interval patterns, or if you
are only concerned with pitch-interval relationships and not spelling
interval patterns, which would necessitate a change in our system of
notation to avoid any spelling of chords, which would then indeed
remove any problems, inconsistencies or futility associated with the
spelling.
> >It seems to me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation
> that
> >has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
> >over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
> >write a particular sound, rather than many.
>
> One way, consistent with the chords *function* in a musical context. In
> some cases, such as with the "diminished 7th," this function may not be
> clear. That is, the "functional root" of the chord may be ambiguous.
In which case there can be no "one" way to write that chord. If the
function is ambigious, then the chord spelling must also be ambiguous.
You obviously believe that isn't the case, but if the functional root
of the chord is ambiguous, then there isn't one way to write the chord.
I could choose one root and you could choose another.
> In most cases, however, what I am proposing is consistent with
> "standard" chord spelling. And what I am proposing is that chords be
> CONSTRUCTED from the diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, with
> appropriate "chromatic alteration."
>
> Such construction will provide the "standard" spelling for most chords,
> independent of any context. Then, in certain specialized contexts, this
> spelling is modified ENHARMONICALLY to account for the chord's function.
>
> >This is the only way to
> >avoid additional confusion with Al's
> >method: create a notation system
> >where there is only one way to write a particular note, and eliminate
> >enharmonics altogether.
>
> WRONG!
>
> Where on earth did you get this idea?
>
> Go back and read my article on the m6b5 chord.
>
I did. It seems needlessly complex.
> >Otherwise, you will have confusion because of
> >the different ways you can write tones, which will interfere with
> >understanding his basic premise: that it's the actual sounds themselves
> >that are important, and not the way they're spelled.
>
> No. What you are missing is that chord spelling should be determined from
> a chord's function, NOT from its association with a while group of chords
> based upon a single diatonic scale--the Ancient notion of "key".
But if the function is ambiguous, then the spelling must also be
ambiguous. Especially if the root note is ambiguous. If you are
claiming to have a system that removes all ambiguity from this chord by
forcing a particular function for it, when in fact it might have two
functions (the resolution of the chord pattern just before it, and the
start of the chord pattern just after it), then you are not going to
succeed. Any spelling of an ambiguous chord, ancient or otherwise,
*will* showcase the ambiguity of the chord function.
And since your system seems to be completely married to chord function
defining part of the notation process, your system will be as ambiguous
as any other system, save for writing all the notes out on a grand
staff the precise way you wish them to be played.
Maybe you're trying to combine Roman Numeral analysis with "popular"
chord notation. Best of luck to you.
> >As I brainstorm possible alternate notation systems that would allow
> >Al's theory to flourish without confusion, I envision a system using
> >only numbers to explain the pitch-distances in half-steps from a
> >particular note.
>
> No. Using my simple method of chord construction, the spelling comes out
> exactly as one would expect from Ancient Theory *in most cases*. It is the
> exceptional cases which require careful attention, and a knowledge of
> functional theory.
Which functional theory? Palestrina? Bach? Beethoven? Wagner? Bartok?
Webern? Adams?
> >Or perhaps (using the example of the piano) just using
> >the numbers 1-88 to indicate each particular tone. In this way, there
> >would be no confusion over octaves or note-spellings, as each
> >particular tone would be named. There would be no need for key
> >signatures or accidentals, because every note would be determined
> >either by a number indicating which note to play, or a number
> >indicating the number of half-steps above or below the note,
> >eliminating all enharmonics (no C#/Db ... it's all the same number,
> >because it's the same pitch in 12-tone equal temperament).
>
> No. This is not what my premise is about. Nothing like it.
Pity. Your system of relying totally on non-ambiguous pitch-intervals
and chord function rather than spellings would be aided by a different
notation system.
> >So perhaps an "ancient" major triad in root position would be called a
> >4-3 chord, because there are 4 half-steps from the bottom note to the
> >next tone, and 3 half-steps from that tone to the next.
> >
> >An "ancient" minor triad in root position would be called a 3-4 chord
> >
> >An "ancient" diminished triad in root position would be called a 3-3
> >chord
>
> I refer to the chord that everyone calls a "major triad" as (guess
> what?) a "major triad"!
>
> But I do NOT include the particular inversion of this chord in my
> notation, in common with the so-called "popular" system of notation. For
> example, the notation "C" refers to a C-major triad, without indicating
> the particular inversion. And the notation "Cm" refers to a C-minor triad,
> without indicating the particular inversion.
>
> Etc., etc.
Actually, I've seen C/E and C/G to indicate inversions before in lots
of sheet music.
> >And what we call a diminished 7th or m6b5 chord or whatever you choose
> >to call it would be called a 3-3-3 chord. No need to complicate with
> >intervals .. simply name the chord by the number of half-steps that it
> >takes to get to the notes of each chord. No need to worry about
> >"ancient" functions, because you're simply referring to the particular
> >sounds being made.
>
> No.
>
> It sounds like you do not understand the "popular" system of chord
> notation, in which each symbol within the notation (apart from the
> root-tone designation) denotes a specific *pitch interval* made by a tone,
> in conjunction with the root-tone.
>
> For example, what do you think the "m" means in the popular-style notation
> Cm7? And what do you think the symbol "6" means in the popular-style
> notation Cm6? And what do you think the symbol "7" means in the
> popular-style notation Dm7b5?
>
> Think about it. And don't be too quick with your answer!
Hmmmm ... ok. I thought about it. Didn't take long, either. I'm fully
aware of "popular" notation ... in most if not all of its forms.
> Incidentally, what do you mean by "ancient function" in connection with a
> so-called "diminished 7th" chord?
Oh, I thought you knew, seeing as you always refer to "ancient" chords
and music. I simply meant what you mean by the term "ancient function."
> >This doesn't take inversions into account, but then again, perhaps
> >you'd just have to know that a 5-4 chord and a 3-4 chord have similar
> >sounds and might function therefore in similar ways.
>
> I'm afraid that your system of notation is ridiculous.
I was just brainstorming a possibility that would allow for less
ambiguity in chord naming. The function would be determined solely by
what we hear, which is what you seem to base your opinions of function
on.
Which isn't such a bad thing. But you can't eliminate ambiguity by the
current notation system. *That* is the true exercise in futility. Even
if you do succeed in getting some musicians to adopt your system of
chord spellings, what does that gain? Yet ANOTHER system that musicians
have to memorize and know about in order to play chord charts.
I personally prefer Brandt-Roemer's system for chord spellings, even
though sometimes even it gets complex. However, when I use that system,
I have yet to encounter a musician that couldn't play it correctly.
And after all ... the sounds are what are most important, correct? If I
want a musician to play specific notes, I'll write the notes out. If I
don't care how the chords are voiced, or if I trust the musicians I
work with the play them a certain way that I desire, I'll just write
the chord charts.
> >
> >Of course, I still prefer the older "ancient" system, because I
> >understand that "code," and don't wish to learn a new system of playing
> >the same notes.
>
> And WHO has asked you to do so?
No one, really. I was just continuing my brainstorm to its logical
conclusion.
>
> >
> >But I do wish Al all the best in getting billions of musicians to adopt
> >his new "system" as superior, especially given that he's decided to use
> >Usenet newsgroups as his primary (and perhaps sole?) method to promote
> >his ideas.
>
> You mean YOUR "system," don't you?
>
> It wouldn't hurt for you to learn what chord "function" is all about. You
> would then be one-up on billions of musicians, wouldn't you?
>
Darn, couldn't get that embedded command past you. You're just too
smart for me, Al. =) I do wish you, however, the best in your attempts
to define what an ambiguous chord MUST be called (especially since your
system seems to be dependent upon knowing the root note of the scale of
a particular chord).
And of course, if it doesn't matter what that ambiguous chord is
called, then what makes your system better than the current "popular"
or "ancient" system?
James King
Stephen Navoyosky
Date: Sat, Nov 4, 2000 12:28 PM
Message-id: <973361260.19932.1...@news.demon.co.uk>
>>
<< Cm6 is a C-minor chord with a major 6th added (cf Am7b5). Do you really
want to add a minor 6th to a major chord???? >>
Such a scale does exist.
Steve Navoyosky
Dr.Matt
Actually, the mixture of b2 and b6 with major 3 is common in Spanish
folkloric music (the so-called "Major-phrygian" mode).
Albert Silverman
James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <8u4ahf$1h5$1...@news.panix.com>, Albert Silverman
><slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <051120000936377835%jlk...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Ok, here I go, not being able to keep myself from posting ...
>> >
>> >It appears that Al is *only* interested in the pitch-distance from
>> >notes, and *not* interested at all in the note-spellings of these notes
>> >-- this I inferred from this particular response.
>>
>> It appears WRONG. I have never claimed that spelling is "unimportant." To
>> the contrary, I have often emphasized the necessity for
>> "proper" spelling. What you are missing is that there are many situations
>> in which spelling must be determined by chord "function" or by melodic
>> progression of the component chord tones. This is particularly evident
>> with the so-called "diminished 7th" chord, in which the Ancient attempt to
>> spell this chord *in association with the scale identified by the
>> "key") is an exercise in futility.
>
>Um, but you said below that you were only concerned with the
>pitch-interval relationships and not the spelling interval pattern.
You are misinterpreting what I said. It is of course necessary to *spell*
an interval pattern in order to present it in written form. It is the
Ancient criterion that is used for arriving at this spelling (which
is necessarily ambiguous, due to enharmonic equivalence) which I find
objectionable in certain important cases.
In particular, a spelling which is derived from constructing chords in the
Ancient tertiary fashion upon the degrees of a *single* diatonic scale
(the scale of the "key" signature) is badly flawed and will not give a
meaningful (translation: "relevant") result, consistent with the
functioning of the chord in context.
>reference to "ancient" interval patterns would out of necessity imply a
>concern for those spelling interval patterns. Please make up your mind
>whether you are indeed interested in forcing musicians to use what
>*you* consider to be the correct spelling interval patterns, or if you
>are only concerned with pitch-interval relationships and not spelling
>interval patterns, which would necessitate a change in our system of
>notation to avoid any spelling of chords, which would then indeed
>remove any problems, inconsistencies or futility associated with the
>spelling.
One who attempts to make any sense of Ancient spelling in certain
important cases will come up with inconsistent and confusing results. *My*
approach to spelling a chord in conformance with its DYNAMIC FUNCTION in
context is far superior and produces consistent results.
Period.
> >> >It seems to
me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation >> that
>> >has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
>> >over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
>> >write a particular sound, rather than many.
>>
>> One way, consistent with the chords *function* in a musical context. In
>> some cases, such as with the "diminished 7th," this function may not be
>> clear. That is, the "functional root" of the chord may be ambiguous.
>
>In which case there can be no "one" way to write that chord. If the
>function is ambigious, then the chord spelling must also be ambiguous.
I do not argue with this. This is indeed what I emphasized in my article
on the m6b5 chord. In most cases, however, ambiguities can be
"resolved" in favor of choosing the root-tone of the m6b5 pitch interval
pattern as the bass tone in context.
>You obviously believe that isn't the case, but if the functional root
>of the chord is ambiguous, then there isn't one way to write the chord.
>I could choose one root and you could choose another.
This is true. So what?
>
>> In most cases, however, what I am proposing is consistent with
>> "standard" chord spelling. And what I am proposing is that chords be
>> CONSTRUCTED from the diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, with
>> appropriate "chromatic alteration."
>>
>> Such construction will provide the "standard" spelling for most chords,
>> independent of any context. Then, in certain specialized contexts, this
>> spelling is modified ENHARMONICALLY to account for the chord's function.
>>
>> >This is the only way to
>> >avoid additional confusion with Al's
>> >method: create a notation system
>> >where there is only one way to write a particular note, and eliminate
>> >enharmonics altogether.
>>
>> WRONG!
>>
>> Where on earth did you get this idea?
>>
>> Go back and read my article on the m6b5 chord.
>>
>
>I did. It seems needlessly complex.
Yes, it is complex. But not needlessly. Certain theoretical matters are
NECESSARILY complex, and it takes considerable thought and study to
understand them.
One thing is for sure. Solving the dilemma of a chord with the interval
pattern of the m6b5 chord cannot proceed by constructing this chord with
reference to the tones of a diatonic scale based upon the key signature.
>
>> >Otherwise, you will have confusion because of
>> >the different ways you can write tones, which will interfere with
>> >understanding his basic premise: that it's the actual sounds themselves
>> >that are important, and not the way they're spelled.
>>
>> No. What you are missing is that chord spelling should be determined from
>> a chord's function, NOT from its association with a while group of chords
>> based upon a single diatonic scale--the Ancient notion of "key".
>
>But if the function is ambiguous, then the spelling must also be
>ambiguous. Especially if the root note is ambiguous. If you are
>claiming to have a system that removes all ambiguity from this chord by
>forcing a particular function for it, when in fact it might have two
>functions (the resolution of the chord pattern just before it, and the
>start of the chord pattern just after it), then you are not going to
>succeed.
I have never said otherwise.
>Any spelling of an ambiguous chord, ancient or otherwise,
>*will* showcase the ambiguity of the chord function.
I don't know what this means.
>
>And since your system seems to be completely married to chord function
>defining part of the notation process, your system will be as ambiguous
>as any other system, save for writing all the notes out on a grand
>staff the precise way you wish them to be played.
But *my* notation and/or spelling will NOT reflect the irrelevant Ancient
identification with the degrees of a fixed diatonic scale degree of
the key signature.
>Maybe you're trying to combine Roman Numeral analysis with "popular"
>chord notation. Best of luck to you.
Popular chord notation *reflects only a chord's pitch interval
pattern*. It is NOT concerned with "function," which is what is attempted
(and ill-served) by Roman Numeral analysis. This is a very important
point. It looks like you have missed it.
> >> >As I brainstorm possible alternate notation systems that would allow
>> >Al's theory to flourish without confusion, I envision a system using
>> >only numbers to explain the pitch-distances in half-steps from a
>> >particular note.
>>
>> No. Using my simple method of chord construction, the spelling comes out
>> exactly as one would expect from Ancient Theory *in most cases*. It is the
>> exceptional cases which require careful attention, and a knowledge of
>> functional theory.
>
>Which functional theory? Palestrina? Bach? Beethoven? Wagner? Bartok?
>Webern? Adams?
I have always been restricting my discussion to the TRIADIC THEORY which
characterizes the composition of the so-called "common-practice" period,
typified by the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Chopin,
to name a few.
In short, I am not talking about a "theory of all music." I am talking
about a specific type of music. I have made this clear in innumerable
postings in this newsgroup over a period of years. When did you come on
board?
> >> >Or perhaps (using the example of the piano) just
using
>> >the numbers 1-88 to indicate each particular tone. In this way, there
>> >would be no confusion over octaves or note-spellings, as each
>> >particular tone would be named. There would be no need for key
>> >signatures or accidentals, because every note would be determined
>> >either by a number indicating which note to play, or a number
>> >indicating the number of half-steps above or below the note,
>> >eliminating all enharmonics (no C#/Db ... it's all the same number,
>> >because it's the same pitch in 12-tone equal temperament).
>>
>> No. This is not what my premise is about. Nothing like it.
>
>Pity. Your system of relying totally on non-ambiguous pitch-intervals
>and chord function rather than spellings would be aided by a different
>notation system.
However, I exist in the REAL world, and popular-style chord notation is an
accepted reality for the representation of triadic pitch interval
patterns. >
>> >So perhaps an "ancient" major triad in root position would be called a
>> >4-3 chord, because there are 4 half-steps from the bottom note to the
>> >next tone, and 3 half-steps from that tone to the next.
>> >
>> >An "ancient" minor triad in root position would be called a 3-4 chord
>> >
>> >An "ancient" diminished triad in root position would be called a 3-3
>> >chord
>>
>> I refer to the chord that everyone calls a "major triad" as (guess
>> what?) a "major triad"!
>>
>> But I do NOT include the particular inversion of this chord in my
>> notation, in common with the so-called "popular" system of notation. For
>> example, the notation "C" refers to a C-major triad, without indicating
>> the particular inversion. And the notation "Cm" refers to a C-minor triad,
>> without indicating the particular inversion.
>>
>> Etc., etc.
>
>Actually, I've seen C/E and C/G to indicate inversions before in lots
>of sheet music.
Yes. But this representation is "special," and is generally used only when
it is felt that a specific tone should be used in the bass. For the most
part, the "slash" notation is not routinely employed with ALL chords.
What you are calling "ambiguity" I am calling absurdity. When *I* speak of
ambiguity, I am talking about THEORETICAL ambiguity, NOT about a
nonsensical, illogical, incoherent approach to chord notation, based upon
a hodge-podge of ideas, arising from a mixture of ancient confusion,
popular necessity, etc., etc.
Even >if you do succeed in getting some musicians to adopt your system of
>chord spellings, what does that gain? Yet ANOTHER system that musicians
>have to memorize and know about in order to play chord charts.
What IS my "system" of chord spellings, in your opinion? I do not believe
that you have the foggiest notion!
>
>I personally prefer Brandt-Roemer's system for chord spellings, even
>though sometimes even it gets complex. However, when I use that system,
>I have yet to encounter a musician that couldn't play it correctly.
>
>And after all ... the sounds are what are most important, correct? If I
>want a musician to play specific notes, I'll write the notes out. If I
>don't care how the chords are voiced, or if I trust the musicians I
>work with the play them a certain way that I desire, I'll just write
>the chord charts.
But writing the chord chart SHOULD include an element of rationality and
consistency.
>
>> >
>> >Of course, I still prefer the older "ancient" system, because I
>> >understand that "code," and don't wish to learn a new system of playing
>> >the same notes.
>>
>> And WHO has asked you to do so?
>
>No one, really. I was just continuing my brainstorm to its logical
>conclusion.
>
>>
>> >
>> >But I do wish Al all the best in getting billions of musicians to adopt
>> >his new "system" as superior, especially given that he's decided to use
>> >Usenet newsgroups as his primary (and perhaps sole?) method to promote
>> >his ideas.
>>
>> You mean YOUR "system," don't you?
>>
>> It wouldn't hurt for you to learn what chord "function" is all about. You
>> would then be one-up on billions of musicians, wouldn't you?
>>
>
>Darn, couldn't get that embedded command past you. You're just too
>smart for me, Al. =) I do wish you, however, the best in your attempts
>to define what an ambiguous chord MUST be called (especially since your
>system seems to be dependent upon knowing the root note of the scale of
>a particular chord).
>
>And of course, if it doesn't matter what that ambiguous chord is
>called, then what makes your system better than the current "popular"
>or "ancient" system?
Rationality, Consistentency, Coherence, Simplicity.
Isn't this enough?
Dr.Matt
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>I have always been restricting my discussion to the TRIADIC THEORY which
>characterizes the composition of the so-called "common-practice" period,
>typified by the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Chopin,
>to name a few.
Interestingly enough, music by exactly these composers has been
notably lacking in your discussion for the last 8 years, while music
by Stephen Foster (chords by Albert Silverman) has been ever
present. Perhaps you could bolster your presentation by seriously
studying music of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Chopin.
I'm sure the Los Angeles Public Library and UCLA contain both scores and
recordings of most if not all the known works of all five composers.
Stephen Navoyosky
Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2000 7:19 PM
Message-id: <b0HN5.8855$O5.2...@news.itd.umich.edu>
In article <20001106175932...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
Stephen Navoyosky <sna...@aol.com> wrote:
><< From: "David Webber" da...@musical.demon.co.uk
>Date: Sat, Nov 4, 2000 12:28 PM
>Message-id: <973361260.19932.1...@news.demon.co.uk>
> >>
>
>
><< Cm6 is a C-minor chord with a major 6th added (cf Am7b5). Do you really
>want to add a minor 6th to a major chord???? >>
>
>Such a scale does exist.
>
>Steve Navoyosky
>
Actually, the mixture of b2 and b6 with major 3 is common in Spanish
folkloric music (the so-called "Major-phrygian" mode). >>
Actually, a scale with a -6 only, does exist.
The -2 and -6 with the major 3 (only) is known as the Byzantine scale, the
Gypsy scale (Not Hungarian Gypsy BTW), and the Double Harmonic scale.
The Spanish scale and the Major Phrygian as you noted additionally incorporates
the -7.
Check it out.
Steve Navoyosky
Albert Silverman
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
>> In many cases, however, a tone has no tendency. This is true of all four
>> tones of the so-called "diminished 7th" chord. Since there is no tendency
>> to guide the spelling, such a tone may often be spelled as it is derived
>> from the scale of construction. For example, a tone which forms a pitch
>> interval of nine semi-tones with the constructional root-tone C is spelled
>> as tone A, since the scale of construction is the diatonic C-major
>> scale. That is, this tone is NOT spelled as tone Bbb. Period.
>
>
>This "scale of construction" stuff is total rubbish. How do you deal with
>the Eb and the Gb - they're not on the scale of C. And C7 can be
>constructed from a scale of F but not of C - and yet there is no F in the
>chord.
For the ten-thousandth time, the "scale of construction" to which I refer
is the DIATONIC MAJOR SCALE BASED UPON THE ROOT-TONE. Even after all of
this shouting, I have no doubt that you still will not get it.
Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
associated with the "key signature".
The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
scale based upon the key signature.
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT........Etc., ad infinitum.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where residents cannot understand "modern" chord construction. NEVER.
David Webber
> For the ten-thousandth time, the "scale of construction" to which I refer
> is the DIATONIC MAJOR SCALE BASED UPON THE ROOT-TONE. Even after all of
> this shouting, I have no doubt that you still will not get it.
But that's irrelevant - especially for things like a diminished 7th.
> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
> associated with the "key signature".
Why?
> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
> scale based upon the key signature.
I'm not an ancient indoctrinee. I started learning theory when I started
leaning to play - not as an exercise in itself. And I started learning to
play with modern popular and jazz tunes to which you claim your ideas apply.
So I *started* from chords like C, G7, F7,... and I know exactly how to
construct them. I don't have to start with G to "construct" a G7 chord - I
can start with C and build it on the dominant. I certainly dont have to
start with C# to build a C#dim7 - I can start with C7 in the key of F and
raise the C by a semitone - there are an infinite number of ways to
"construct" the same chord, all with the same end point. And those ways
reflect the complex structure of music. So why should anyone be blinkered
into doing it only in the way you suggest?
The case of Cdim7 is particularly pointless in your method - as you've
argued yourself in (12tet) the "root note" can be C,Eb,Gb,Bbb or any of
their enharmonic partners, and this effectively highlights one of the uses
of the chord. Ambiguity is beautiful - you shouldn't be frightened of it.
Even if you DO insist on only doing it your way you could take the chord of
C7 (one of your fundamental 4 entities I believe) and flatten the 3rd, 5th,
and 7th to get CEbGbBbb instead of taking C adding a 6th and flattening the
3rd and 5th. Everything you want to restrict us to is so arbitrary. It is
designed to restrict and diminish our view of music rendering the beautiful
mundane.
No the non-problem I have, is that I see absolutely no reason to limit
myself to your arbitrary and simplistic chord construction method - which
merely highlights one tiny facet of "popular chord notation". I am also
more than happy to go on to learn about other ways of looking at things
(like I ii iii IV V7...) and the pre 12tet development of these things and
its relation to modern practice. And this group is a great place to do it!
You might be reiterating the same note for the "ten-thousandth time", but
some of us have learned of the existence of others and are finding music
more and more interesting with every new facet which is revealed.
You should get with it - it's fun.
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
> associated with the "key signature".
>
> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
> scale based upon the key signature.
... But they already are! A D chord contains an D major, F# and A; even
if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
major chord still contains the F# because it was constructed from the
diatonic major scale of D.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+ The Best Things in Life are still Free... +
+ http://www.netidea.com/~fredn +
+ ... but now you can also buy my CD :) +
* http://ecom.mp3.com/cgi-bin/order.cgi?cd_id=50719 +
*UK/Europe: http://www.peoplesound.com/artist/frednachbaur +
+----------------------------------------------------------+
James King
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
And since it is ambiguous, unless you eliminate the ambiguity, you will
not have consistency.
If you force consistency on this by forcing a particular harmonic
function on an ambiguous chord, then you are no longer being rational
about the chord's functions.
> In particular, a spelling which is derived from constructing chords in the
> Ancient tertiary fashion upon the degrees of a *single* diatonic scale
> (the scale of the "key" signature) is badly flawed and will not give a
> meaningful (translation: "relevant") result, consistent with the
> functioning of the chord in context.
>
> >reference to "ancient" interval patterns would out of necessity imply a
> >concern for those spelling interval patterns. Please make up your mind
> >whether you are indeed interested in forcing musicians to use what
> >*you* consider to be the correct spelling interval patterns, or if you
> >are only concerned with pitch-interval relationships and not spelling
> >interval patterns, which would necessitate a change in our system of
> >notation to avoid any spelling of chords, which would then indeed
> >remove any problems, inconsistencies or futility associated with the
> >spelling.
>
> One who attempts to make any sense of Ancient spelling in certain
> important cases will come up with inconsistent and confusing results. *My*
> approach to spelling a chord in conformance with its DYNAMIC FUNCTION in
> context is far superior and produces consistent results.
>
> Period.
You continue referring to "certain important cases." Which cases are
those? Which cases confused you so much that you decided to try to
create a new system of chord spelling?
>
> > >> >It seems to me that Al wishes to re-write the "code" of notation that
> >> >has evolved over time to eliminate note-spellings so that confusion
> >> >over certain chords and intervals will be eliminated: having one way to
> >> >write a particular sound, rather than many.
> >>
> >> One way, consistent with the chords *function* in a musical context. In
> >> some cases, such as with the "diminished 7th," this function may not be
> >> clear. That is, the "functional root" of the chord may be ambiguous.
> >
> >In which case there can be no "one" way to write that chord. If the
> >function is ambigious, then the chord spelling must also be ambiguous.
>
> I do not argue with this. This is indeed what I emphasized in my article
> on the m6b5 chord. In most cases, however, ambiguities can be
> "resolved" in favor of choosing the root-tone of the m6b5 pitch interval
> pattern as the bass tone in context.
>
You say "in most cases," which means that there are other "important
cases" where the ambiguity cannot be resolved, and therefore
consistency cannot be reasonably achieved.
Yet your system prides itself on its absolute consistency.
>
> >You obviously believe that isn't the case, but if the functional root
> >of the chord is ambiguous, then there isn't one way to write the chord.
> >I could choose one root and you could choose another.
>
> This is true. So what?
So you agree with me that your system isn't consistent because the same
chord could be spelled two different ways even in your system.
I've been reading posts for about 2 weeks here.
I thought you were referring to jazz and popular music. I was mistaken.
I now understand that you are referring to orchestral, choral, chamber
music, and select minstrel songs written between 1750-1900, roughly.
Which leads me to wonder: I've never seen a lead sheet written by
Chopin or Mozart that uses popular chord notation. You seem intent on
respelling certain chords. Mozart and Chopin and Beethoven all wrote
specific notes to play, and I believe they did a fine job of doing so.
Why are you wishing to re-write their music by respelling their
ambiguous chords? They've never written chord charts out, as far as I
know, you can correct me if I'm wrong by pointing me to a Mozart,
Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, or Tschaikovsy manuscript that shows
"popular" chord notation over a melody.
>
> > >> >Or perhaps (using the example of the piano) just
> using
> >> >the numbers 1-88 to indicate each particular tone. In this way, there
> >> >would be no confusion over octaves or note-spellings, as each
> >> >particular tone would be named. There would be no need for key
> >> >signatures or accidentals, because every note would be determined
> >> >either by a number indicating which note to play, or a number
> >> >indicating the number of half-steps above or below the note,
> >> >eliminating all enharmonics (no C#/Db ... it's all the same number,
> >> >because it's the same pitch in 12-tone equal temperament).
> >>
> >> No. This is not what my premise is about. Nothing like it.
> >
> >Pity. Your system of relying totally on non-ambiguous pitch-intervals
> >and chord function rather than spellings would be aided by a different
> >notation system.
>
> However, I exist in the REAL world, and popular-style chord notation is an
> accepted reality for the representation of triadic pitch interval
> patterns. >
I thought Mozart and Beethoven, etc., used roman numeral notation and
figured bass patterns. Please show me where they used popular-style
chord notation, and then you may explain to me why you are expending so
much energy to convince others to re-spell their chords and re-write
their music.
From what I have read, your intention is to write chord charts not
based on the performers ability to read them quickly, but according to
your harmonic analysis of the work.
> >I personally prefer Brandt-Roemer's system for chord spellings, even
> >though sometimes even it gets complex. However, when I use that system,
> >I have yet to encounter a musician that couldn't play it correctly.
> >
> >And after all ... the sounds are what are most important, correct? If I
> >want a musician to play specific notes, I'll write the notes out. If I
> >don't care how the chords are voiced, or if I trust the musicians I
> >work with the play them a certain way that I desire, I'll just write
> >the chord charts.
>
> But writing the chord chart SHOULD include an element of rationality and
> consistency.
If it is rational, it won't be consistent.
If it is consistent, it won't be rational.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Of course, I still prefer the older "ancient" system, because I
> >> >understand that "code," and don't wish to learn a new system of playing
> >> >the same notes.
> >>
> >> And WHO has asked you to do so?
> >
> >No one, really. I was just continuing my brainstorm to its logical
> >conclusion.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >But I do wish Al all the best in getting billions of musicians to adopt
> >> >his new "system" as superior, especially given that he's decided to use
> >> >Usenet newsgroups as his primary (and perhaps sole?) method to promote
> >> >his ideas.
> >>
> >> You mean YOUR "system," don't you?
> >>
> >> It wouldn't hurt for you to learn what chord "function" is all about. You
> >> would then be one-up on billions of musicians, wouldn't you?
> >>
> >
> >Darn, couldn't get that embedded command past you. You're just too
> >smart for me, Al. =) I do wish you, however, the best in your attempts
> >to define what an ambiguous chord MUST be called (especially since your
> >system seems to be dependent upon knowing the root note of the scale of
> >a particular chord).
> >
> >And of course, if it doesn't matter what that ambiguous chord is
> >called, then what makes your system better than the current "popular"
> >or "ancient" system?
>
> Rationality, Consistentency, Coherence, Simplicity.
>
> Isn't this enough?
>
It would be if that were the case. You've admitted that your system is
not totally consistent, and you've also admitted that your system is
not simple.
And it's not that rational or coherent, either, from what I can gather.
I'm glad your system works for you. If your system doesn't require me
to have special training to read the specific chords, then I'm not too
worried if I happen to see a chart written with the "Silverman Chord
Notation."
And I doubt other musicians will worry, either.
And as other musicians play those charts, perhaps your system would
then catch on and become popular.
The way you are promoting the system, flaws and all, isn't going to
gain you any supporters.
Albert Silverman
>
>> In many cases, however, a tone has no tendency. This is true of all four
>> tones of the so-called "diminished 7th" chord. Since there is no tendency
>> to guide the spelling, such a tone may often be spelled as it is derived
>> from the scale of construction. For example, a tone which forms a pitch
>> interval of nine semi-tones with the constructional root-tone C is spelled
>> as tone A, since the scale of construction is the diatonic C-major
>> scale. That is, this tone is NOT spelled as tone Bbb. Period.
>
>
>This "scale of construction" stuff is total rubbish. How do you deal with
>the Eb and the Gb - they're not on the scale of C. And C7 can be
>constructed from a scale of F but not of C - and yet there is no F in the
>chord.
As I have said over and over and over again, tones which are not in this
scale are denoted by chromatic alterations of scale degrees. For example,
the tone Gb in a C-chord is denoted as a LOWERED FIFTH DEGREE, by the
notation b5.
As another example, the third degree in a minor-mode chord (such as a
minor triad), for purposes of chord construction, is obtained by lowering
the third degree of the MAJOR diatonic scale by one semi-tone.
Etc., etc.
This type of notation is used, day in and day out, in popular-style chord
notation. Where have you been all of this time?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland)
Albert Silverman
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
>> For the ten-thousandth time, the "scale of construction" to which I refer
>> is the DIATONIC MAJOR SCALE BASED UPON THE ROOT-TONE. Even after all of
>> this shouting, I have no doubt that you still will not get it.
>
>But that's irrelevant - especially for things like a diminished 7th.
>
>> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
>> associated with the "key signature".
>
Because a chord should be CONSTRUCTED without reference to its location in
the harmonic structure. In other words, the harmonic FUNCTION of a chord
(i.e., its relationship to other chords) is NOT related to construction of
the chord upon any particular scale degree.
This is the fatal flaw in Ancient Theory, which mixes up chord
construction with a chord's relationship to other chords. This will not
work, and renders Ancient Theory USELESS, insofar as functional
relationships are concerned.
>
>> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
>> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
>> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
>> scale based upon the key signature.
>
>I'm not an ancient indoctrinee. I started learning theory when I started
>leaning to play - not as an exercise in itself. And I started learning to
>play with modern popular and jazz tunes to which you claim your ideas apply.
>So I *started* from chords like C, G7, F7,... and I know exactly how to
>construct them. I don't have to start with G to "construct" a G7 chord - I
>can start with C and build it on the dominant.
This is what confuses you so badly. Trying to construct a chord with
reference to its function ("dominant").
>I certainly dont have to
>start with C# to build a C#dim7 - I can start with C7 in the key of F and
>raise the C by a semitone - there are an infinite number of ways to
>"construct" the same chord, all with the same end point. And those ways
>reflect the complex structure of music.
Baloney and meaningless.
>So why should anyone be blinkered
>into doing it only in the way you suggest?
Because it is the only way that is RELEVANT.
>
>The case of Cdim7 is particularly pointless in your method - as you've
>argued yourself in (12tet) the "root note" can be C,Eb,Gb,Bbb or any of
>their enharmonic partners, and this effectively highlights one of the uses
>of the chord.
So what? This does not mean that one cannot construct the chord by a
logical, simple, and coherent means, independent of the chord's function
in context.
>Ambiguity is beautiful - you shouldn't be frightened of it.
Meaningless.
>
>Even if you DO insist on only doing it your way you could take the chord of
>C7 (one of your fundamental 4 entities I believe) and flatten the 3rd, 5th,
>and 7th to get CEbGbBbb instead of taking C adding a 6th and flattening the
>3rd and 5th. Everything you want to restrict us to is so arbitrary. It is
>designed to restrict and diminish our view of music rendering the beautiful
>mundane.
But this is nonsensical. ALL chords can be constructed from the diatonic
major scale based upon the root-tone. Period.
>
>No the non-problem I have, is that I see absolutely no reason to limit
>myself to your arbitrary and simplistic chord construction method - which
>merely highlights one tiny facet of "popular chord notation". I am also
>more than happy to go on to learn about other ways of looking at things
>(like I ii iii IV V7...) and the pre 12tet development of these things and
>its relation to modern practice. And this group is a great place to do it!
Let me repeat. Chord function is UNRELATED to chord construction upon
various diatonic scale degrees. If you can't understand this, you cannot
understand harmonic theory.
>
>You might be reiterating the same note for the "ten-thousandth time", but
>some of us have learned of the existence of others and are finding music
>more and more interesting with every new facet which is revealed.
>
>You should get with it - it's fun.
Insanity is fun?
I guess so, if you live in Wonderland.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
a funny place
Albert Silverman
Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>
>
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
>> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
>> associated with the "key signature".
>>
>> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
>> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
>> scale based upon the key signature.
>
>if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
>diatonic major scale of D.
You do not understand. In Ancient Theory, a D-major triad is **NOT**
constructed from the diatonic D-major scale, when the so-called
"tonic" is tone C. In fact, a D-MAJOR triad *does not exist in the
"key" of C*.
Joey Goldstein
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>
> Because a chord should be CONSTRUCTED without reference to its location in
> the harmonic structure. In other words, the harmonic FUNCTION of a chord
> (i.e., its relationship to other chords) is NOT related to construction of
> the chord upon any particular scale degree.
>
> This is the fatal flaw in Ancient Theory, which mixes up chord
> construction with a chord's relationship to other chords. This will not
> work, and renders Ancient Theory USELESS, insofar as functional
> relationships are concerned.
This is your fatal flaw Al, not that of "Ancient Theory". You have never
understood how chords actually function in what you call "Ancient
Theory" and why a chord might need to be spelled differently according
to its function. Because you can not understand this simple concept,
which most musicians have no trouble with, you have had to invent your
own convoluted and irrelevant theory.
Go back to school and try to learn it right this time. I really can't
imagine how bad your harmony teacher must have been to fill you up with
so many crazy and wrong notions about what "Ancient Theory" is really
about. What you think is incomprehensible is actually quite simple.
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <3A082570...@netidea.com>,
> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Albert Silverman wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
> >> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
> >> associated with the "key signature".
> >>
> >> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
> >> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
> >> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
> >> scale based upon the key signature.
> >
> >... But they already are! A D chord contains an D major, F# and A; even
> >if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
> >major chord still contains the F# because it was constructed from the
> >diatonic major scale of D.
>
> You do not understand. In Ancient Theory, a D-major triad is **NOT**
> constructed from the diatonic D-major scale, when the so-called
> "tonic" is tone C.
Nonsense. Of course a D-major triad is constructed from the diatonic D
major scale. It couldn't be constructed from the C-major scale, now
could it?
> In fact, a D-MAJOR triad *does not exist in the
> "key" of C*.
My point precisely. Are you saying that in your "Ancient Theory" there's
no such thing as a D major chord? If not, that's unfortunate. It will be
sorely missed.
James King
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <3A082570...@netidea.com>,
> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Albert Silverman wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
> >> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
> >> associated with the "key signature".
> >>
> >> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
> >> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
> >> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
> >> scale based upon the key signature.
> >
> >... But they already are! A D chord contains an D major, F# and A; even
> >if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
> >major chord still contains the F# because it was constructed from the
> >diatonic major scale of D.
>
> You do not understand. In Ancient Theory, a D-major triad is **NOT**
> constructed from the diatonic D-major scale, when the so-called
> "tonic" is tone C. In fact, a D-MAJOR triad *does not exist in the
> "key" of C*.
Ok, so this means that in a country music song in the key of C which
uses a D-major chord to lead to G, that ancient theory would construct
the chord as a d-minor chord with a raised third?
This is what it appears you are telling us, since we obviously are not
constructing it from a D major scale, but from a C major scale.
Whereas, in fact, the popular music would simply mark it as a D.
In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
progression.
And again, when there is ambiguity in the root tone, there will be
ambiguity (which means less consistency) in the chord naming. Which
puts a serious flaw in your argument that your system is consistent,
especially with regard to these "certain important cases" that your
system was intended to address.
James King
Joey Goldstein
WHO THE HELL EVER SAID THEY WERE!
The major, minor and diminished triads we use now were _ originally
discovered and conceived of_ as subsets of the major scale and of the
overtone series but their actual construction is defined by an
intervallic pattern.
Major triads are not constructed from major scales. A major triad is a
particular set of intervals sounded in particular ways. The names of the
intervals are _related to_ the names for the intervals in a major scale
but in no way that matters is a major triad _constructed from_ the tones
in a major scale.
A major triad can exist without reference to any major scale although
its overtones may happen to suggest one.
Progressions of chords, however are _constructed_ routinely from the
chords that can be derived from the major scales and the minor scales.
"Derived from" and "constructed from" do not mean the same thing.
Some theory teacher of Al's must have kept using the words "constructed
from" when he meant "derived from" and now we all have to live daily
with this bullshit theory of Al's where he tries to correct all the
flaws that he perceives to be ruining traditional theory.
Al, go back to school. YOU REALY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRADITIONAL
THEORIES THAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING! YOU REALLY DON'T. And you're
confusing all the other newbies here who don't yet understand it either.
Maybe study with Matt or someone smarter than you. It won't be too hard
to find someone smarter than you.
Georg
Easy, there. Chill. Lose the caps-lock key, one sign
of a ranting lunatic. Don't let the village idiot
get so deep under your skin that you stoop to his level.
Nobody takes anything Alice says seriously for very
long. He's a very lonely person, and he suffers from
Borderline Personality Disorder. He's a troll, and
you are becoming his prey. You've got a big fish hook
sticking out of your gill. If you must make the charade
that you are engaging him in debate, do like Matt, and
do it with a sense of humour.
Tongue in cheek, not hook in gill. We all know that Alice
does not understand anything of music theory, and that
he washed out of some theory course somewhere, sometime.
Don't give yourself a heart attack over it.
Ken Durling
<ebj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Of course I'm a jazz musician and I don't give a crap about what Albert
>Silverman thinks of my music.
Albert says there's no such thing as a jazz musician.
Ken
Albert Silverman
Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>
>
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A082570...@netidea.com>,
>> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Albert Silverman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
>> >> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
>> >> associated with the "key signature".
>> >>
>> >> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
>> >> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
>> >> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
>> >> scale based upon the key signature.
>> >
>> >... But they already are! A D chord contains an D major, F# and A; even
>> >if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
>> >major chord still contains the F# because it was constructed from the
>> >diatonic major scale of D.
>>
>> You do not understand. In Ancient Theory, a D-major triad is **NOT**
>> constructed from the diatonic D-major scale, when the so-called
>> "tonic" is tone C.
>
>major scale. It couldn't be constructed from the C-major scale, now
>could it?
>
>> "key" of C*.
>
>no such thing as a D major chord? If not, that's unfortunate. It will be
>sorely missed.
You did not listen to what I said. I did NOT say that a D-major chord is
not used in triadic composition.
What I DID say is that there is not D-major chord in the "key" of
C. Hence, using basic logic, one would readily deduce that something is
terribly wrong with a "theory" which is based upon a "key" in which there
is no D-major chord, but in which such a chord appears regularly in the
type of composition which the "theory" is supposed to be explaining.
In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot be
rationally explained *in the key of C*.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
> >--
Albert Silverman
James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <8u9o6v$fs6$2...@news.panix.com>, Albert Silverman
>
>> In article <3A082570...@netidea.com>,
>> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Albert Silverman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
>> >> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic scale
>> >> associated with the "key signature".
>> >>
>> >> The problem with you Ancient Indoctrinees is that you cannot conceive of
>> >> this construction method, UPON WHICH SO-CALLED "POPULAR" CHORD NOTATION IS
>> >> BASED. Popular chord notation does NOT construct chords from the diatonic
>> >> scale based upon the key signature.
>> >
>> >... But they already are! A D chord contains an D major, F# and A; even
>> >if we're playing in the key of C, which does not contain an F#, a D
>> >major chord still contains the F# because it was constructed from the
>> >diatonic major scale of D.
>>
>> You do not understand. In Ancient Theory, a D-major triad is **NOT**
>> constructed from the diatonic D-major scale, when the so-called
>> "key" of C*.
>
>Ok, so this means that in a country music song in the key of C which
>uses a D-major chord to lead to G, that ancient theory would construct
>the chord as a d-minor chord with a raised third?
>
>This is what it appears you are telling us, since we obviously are not
>constructing it from a D major scale, but from a C major scale.
Ancient Theory either "borrows" this chord(!) or attributes it to some
imaginary "secondary dominant", which is a nonsensical invention that
attempts to explain the existence of such "foreign" tones.
>
>Whereas, in fact, the popular music would simply mark it as a D.
>
>In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
>progression.
We are not talking about the *root* progression. We are talking about the
tones which make up the chord. Do not confuse the two things. They are
entirely different.
>
>And again, when there is ambiguity in the root tone, there will be
>ambiguity (which means less consistency) in the chord naming. Which
>puts a serious flaw in your argument that your system is consistent,
>especially with regard to these "certain important cases" that your
>system was intended to address.
I don't know what you are talking about. There is no ambiguity in the
root-tone progression D-->G in the key of C. You have a very fuzzy notion
of what this harmonic business is about.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>James King
Albert Silverman
Certainly no such thing as a "jazz" musician (whatever that is) who
understands music theory. This has been proved in this group, time and
again.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>
>Ken
James King
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting concept. So you then believe that modulations are
also nonsensical inventions, since they don't belong to the original
key of the piece? Or do you dismiss the idea of secondary dominants and
simply say that the example mentioned has modulated for a couple of
beats or bars to the key of G?
How about development sections that switch modes, from major to minor?
Mozart uses this frequently, although I still am wondering why you
continue to address this chord spelling system when you have claimed
before that you are using this system to deal with Mozart and Beethoven
and Chopin, none of whom used popular chord charts to describe or spell
their music. I'm still wondering why you're trying to re-write what
they've written (and written quite well, in my opinion).
I've never thought of F# as a foreign tone in the key of C. In the key
of C, F# is likely used to lead to G melodically. It appears that you
have some issue with that because F# is not part of the C major scale.
For me, all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are useful in every key. In
some keys, we might notice certain patterns that certain tones use to
move to other tones. That is the essence of music theory. It is to our
advantage to write these movements using two different note names (i.e.
B flat to A, not A sharp to A natural) because the notation then
emphasizes the movement.
i
For me, using an F# intensifies the D-G root progression in the key of
C. That is what I hear in the sound. If you stay with the D chord long
enough, I might even start to hear that section in the key of G instead
of C.
You will obviously dispute what I hear as being incorrect or simply
flawed ancient theory.
I am curious though ... if your system denies that there are any
borrowed chords or secondary dominants, then how do you define the
function of a D major chord moving to G major in the key of C?
You've developed a system that works for you. I think that's wonderful.
As long as any musician can quickly read the chord charts you write,
then I don't see a problem with your system. If your system requires
intensive study in order to play the correct notes, then I would see a
problem with it. But the eventual proof of your system would be for you
to write charts and use your chord system and analysis with them, and
then as your charts become popular, your system will become more
popular.
Or you can do what I'm doing ... write a book. Get it published. Teach
a course at a community college. Get people interested in your system
OUTSIDE of Usenet. Then you might have a chance at having your name
live on after you've passed away, which is why I assume you're spending
so much energy on convincing us that your system should be the sole way
that all chord writing and harmonic analysis should be done.
BTW, my book is aimed at children ... trying to find a way to introduce
them to music theory that isn't dry or boring. It should be published
within a year ... I'm at the 7th re-write and my publisher may even
require one more revision just to make sure that everything is perfect.
I might not have written this if I'd known how involved it would be.
> >Whereas, in fact, the popular music would simply mark it as a D.
> >
> >In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
> >progression.
>
> We are not talking about the *root* progression. We are talking about the
> tones which make up the chord. Do not confuse the two things. They are
> entirely different.
> >
But you've said that the tone that make up the chord MUST be spelled
based on the keys of the roots that make up the chord, so I was using
your criteria to name the chords and the tones that make up the chord.
In that regard, root progression *is* important. I'm not confusing the
two things. You're continually trying to confuse us into agreeing that
everything you claim is true. I continue to see inconsistencies and I
try to address them, since one of your claims is that your system is
completely consistent.
> >And again, when there is ambiguity in the root tone, there will be
> >ambiguity (which means less consistency) in the chord naming. Which
> >puts a serious flaw in your argument that your system is consistent,
> >especially with regard to these "certain important cases" that your
> >system was intended to address.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. There is no ambiguity in the
> root-tone progression D-->G in the key of C. You have a very fuzzy notion
> of what this harmonic business is about.
The way you describe it, yes, I am fuzzy about it. But I don't think
D->G is one of the "certain important cases" you were talking about
earlier. You still haven't given me an example of that certain
important case. In this example, I was merely stating that since you're
in the key of C and D major includes a chord that's not part of that
key, it sounded to me like you were saying that calling the chord "D"
was wrong, and I was trying to come up with a solution that would fit
your ideas and notation.
James King
Joey Goldstein
Georg wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> Easy, there. Chill.
> Lose the caps-lock key, one sign
> of a ranting lunatic. Don't let the village idiot
> get so deep under your skin that you stoop to his level.
Please don't tell me what to do. I've probably been a contributor to
this group longer than you have and I know exactly what is going on. But
thanks for the thought.
Joey Goldstein
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>
> In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot be
> rationally explained *in the key of C*.
Utter nonsense.
Joey Goldstein
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>
> Ancient Theory either "borrows" this chord(!) or attributes it to some
> imaginary "secondary dominant", which is a nonsensical invention
It is only nonsense to you because you are incapable of understanding it evidently.
Georg
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Georg wrote:
> >
> > Joey,
> >
> > Easy, there. Chill.
> > Lose the caps-lock key, one sign
> > of a ranting lunatic. Don't let the village idiot
> > get so deep under your skin that you stoop to his level.
>
> Please don't tell me what to do. I've probably been a contributor to
> this group longer than you have and I know exactly what is going on. But
> thanks for the thought.
Fine, continue to SHOUT and throw tantrums. Al wins. You lose.
David Webber
> In article <973605013.15020.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:8u8ekf$5na$1...@news.panix.com...
> >
> >> For the ten-thousandth time, the "scale of construction" to which I
refer
> >> is the DIATONIC MAJOR SCALE BASED UPON THE ROOT-TONE. Even after all of
> >> this shouting, I have no doubt that you still will not get it.
> >
> >But that's irrelevant - especially for things like a diminished 7th.
> >
> >> Once more, for good measure. All chords should be CONSTRUCTED from the
> >> diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, NOT from the diatonic
scale
> >> associated with the "key signature".
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because a chord should be CONSTRUCTED without reference to its location in
> the harmonic structure. In other words, the harmonic FUNCTION of a chord
> (i.e., its relationship to other chords) is NOT related to construction of
> the chord upon any particular scale degree.
Why?
> This is the fatal flaw in Ancient Theory, which mixes up chord
> construction with a chord's relationship to other chords. This will not
> work, and renders Ancient Theory USELESS, insofar as functional
> relationships are concerned.
But it seems to work just fine - and reveals much more than just putting a
set of notes together in vaccuo. There are lots of ways of constructing
chords and ALL - even yours - are related in some way to other elements of
music. The more ways you find of doing it, the more you learn.
> This is what confuses you so badly. Trying to construct a chord with
> reference to its function ("dominant").
Who's confused? I still observe that the only major scale containing the
four notes of G7 is Cmajor. Now I think you start with a major scale to
construct your chords - does this observation not convince you that G7 has a
unique relationship with the scale of Cmajor?
> >I certainly dont have to
> >start with C# to build a C#dim7 - I can start with C7 in the key of F
and
> >raise the C by a semitone - there are an infinite number of ways to
> >"construct" the same chord, all with the same end point. And those ways
> >reflect the complex structure of music.
>
> Baloney and meaningless.
No. I'll explain. Take the notes C E G Bb.
They form a chord of C7. With me so far?
Now raise the C by one semitone.
You have C#EGBb or...
...C#dim7 - et voila!
> >So why should anyone be blinkered
> >into doing it only in the way you suggest?
>
> Because it is the only way that is RELEVANT.
ROFL :-)
[To the blind man colour is irrelevant!]
> >
> >The case of Cdim7 is particularly pointless in your method - as you've
> >argued yourself in (12tet) the "root note" can be C,Eb,Gb,Bbb or any of
> >their enharmonic partners, and this effectively highlights one of the
uses
> >of the chord.
>
> So what? This does not mean that one cannot construct the chord by a
> logical, simple, and coherent means, independent of the chord's function
> in context.
I never for one moment suggested that one cannot construct a chord the way
you suggest. It is trivially obvious that one can.
The point is that one can do it in a whole host of other ways and be being
able to get to the answer in more than one way, you get a much broader
understanding of what it is about. Because you cannot see it, you accuse
people who can see infinitely more of being blind - it's a joke.
> >Ambiguity is beautiful - you shouldn't be frightened of it.
>
> Meaningless.
Not at all - ambiguity is at the absolute heart of the beauty of music.
> >Even if you DO insist on only doing it your way you could take the chord
of
> >C7 (one of your fundamental 4 entities I believe) and flatten the 3rd,
5th,
> >and 7th to get CEbGbBbb instead of taking C adding a 6th and flattening
the
> >3rd and 5th. Everything you want to restrict us to is so arbitrary. It
is
> >designed to restrict and diminish our view of music rendering the
beautiful
> >mundane.
>
> But this is nonsensical. ALL chords can be constructed from the diatonic
> major scale based upon the root-tone. Period.
Only if you make chromatic adjustments. For some reason you've invented a
rule which says you can have an Eb and a Gb in a chord "rooted in C" but not
a Bbb. Get with it - allow a Bbb and you'll be able to communicate with the
rest of the world about diminished 7th chords. Of course you'll still be
limited to your one way of constructing them, whereas the rest of the world
will have a much broader view - but it will be progress.
> >No the non-problem I have, is that I see absolutely no reason to limit
> >myself to your arbitrary and simplistic chord construction method - which
> >merely highlights one tiny facet of "popular chord notation". I am
also
> >more than happy to go on to learn about other ways of looking at things
> >(like I ii iii IV V7...) and the pre 12tet development of these things
and
> >its relation to modern practice. And this group is a great place to do
it!
>
> Let me repeat. Chord function is UNRELATED to chord construction upon
> various diatonic scale degrees. If you can't understand this, you cannot
> understand harmonic theory.
Chord function is only UNRELATED to YOUR method of chord construction -
which is why your method of chord construction has so little insight to
offer.
> >You might be reiterating the same note for the "ten-thousandth time", but
> >some of us have learned of the existence of others and are finding music
> >more and more interesting with every new facet which is revealed.
> >
> >You should get with it - it's fun.
>
> Insanity is fun?
> I guess so, if you live in Wonderland.
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
You're telling me.
This is murder!
[...no prize for the missing line here...] anyone?
David Webber
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3A086704...@nowhere.net...
> Go back to school and try to learn it right this time.
Some of us would to have the time to go back to school to learn more. But
in case Al hasn't - let me just say that if you read the posts in this group
you can appreciate different views of the same thing, and even though two
views may be different , they may both be RIGHT!
I think this is the difficulty at the heart of Al's diatribes, not that you
can't build chords the way he says, just that there's more to be learned by
doing it in other ways too. Two different approaches can both be right.
> so many crazy and wrong notions about what "Ancient Theory" is really
> about. What you think is incomprehensible is actually quite simple.
"Ancient theory" is Al's straw man.
David Webber
> In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot be
> rationally explained *in the key of C*.
Yes it can. It's that funny little extra note between the 4th and the 5th.
There now! Happy?
David Webber
> >In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
> >progression.
>
> We are not talking about the *root* progression. We are talking about the
> tones which make up the chord. Do not confuse the two things. They are
> entirely different.
Albert: "II" means the major triad on the second degree of the scale as
"ii" means the minor triad, D and Dm respectively in the key of C.
Just trying to help out.
David Webber
> As I have said over and over and over again, tones which are not in this
> scale are denoted by chromatic alterations of scale degrees. For example,
> the tone Gb in a C-chord is denoted as a LOWERED FIFTH DEGREE, by the
> notation b5.
Jolly good - so you can make Cdim7 with a doubly flattened 7th degree.
> This type of notation is used, day in and day out, in popular-style chord
> notation.
And of course this includes Cdim7, but notably Cm6b5 is not use day-in
day-out.
So are we going to call it Cdim7 as everyone else does, or does the "day-in,
day-out" argument only work when it doesn't contradict you? :-)
David Webber
> Certainly no such thing as a "jazz" musician (whatever that is) who
> understands music theory. This has been proved in this group, time and
> again.
Minor quibble: you can't prove something is true by listing examples
(although it can be proven false with one counter-example). In this case
however, you're hard pressed even to list examples.
Tony T. Warnock
>What I DID say is that there is not D-major chord in the "key" of C.
Hence, using basic logic, one >would readily deduce that something is
terribly wrong with a "theory" which is based upon a "key" in >which
there is no D-major chord, but in which such a chord appears regularly
in the type of composition >which the "theory" is supposed to be
explaining.
>In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot
be rationally explained *in the key >of C*.
If you theory cannot explain the F#, perhaps you should modify the
theory to explain it.
Tony T. Warnock
>What I DID say is that there is not D-major chord in the "key" of C.
Hence, using basic logic, one >would readily deduce that something is
terribly wrong with a "theory" which is based upon a "key" in >which
there is no D-major chord, but in which such a chord appears regularly
in the type of composition >which the "theory" is supposed to be
explaining.
>In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot
be rationally explained *in the key >of C*.
If your theory cannot explain the F#, perhaps you should modify the
theory to explain it.
Kristian Mark Twombly
: Ancient Theory either "borrows" this chord(!) or attributes it to some
: imaginary "secondary dominant", which is a nonsensical invention that
: attempts to explain the existence of such "foreign" tones.
Actually, what is being "borrowed" is the function. A secondary dominant
does not borrow a tone, but rather serves a dominant function, in this
case leading to dominant in the original key, thus "secondary dominant".
Also, Machaut uses the equivalent of F# often as a "double leading tone",
leading to scale degree 5 over scale degree 1 for a consonance. (I know
that I am oversimplifying it)
Kristian
Joey Goldstein
Georg wrote:
>
>
> Fine, continue to SHOUT and throw tantrums. Al wins. You lose.
Hey, from where I sit, you lose.
Dr.Matt
>> >
>> > Easy, there. Chill.
>> > Lose the caps-lock key, one sign
>> > of a ranting lunatic. Don't let the village idiot
>> > get so deep under your skin that you stoop to his level.
>>
>> this group longer than you have and I know exactly what is going on. But
>> thanks for the thought.
>
An old pond. A frog jumps---the sound of water.
--
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers: http://www.goldinc.com/cgi-bin/harvest_this.cgi
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
Sampson
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Georg wrote:
> >
> >
> > Fine, continue to SHOUT and throw tantrums. Al wins. You lose.
>
> Hey, from where I sit, you lose.
Joey bcomes more and more like Al. Sad.
Dr.Matt
The whole dialog reminded me of the voice of The Teacher in animated
Peanuts cartoons.
Albert Silverman
Tony T. Warnock <t...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>>What I DID say is that there is not D-major chord in the "key" of C.
>Hence, using basic logic, one >would readily deduce that something is
>terribly wrong with a "theory" which is based upon a "key" in >which
>there is no D-major chord, but in which such a chord appears regularly
>in the type of composition >which the "theory" is supposed to be
>explaining.
>
>>In other words, that F# is a terrible embarrassment, because it cannot
>be rationally explained *in the key >of C*.
>
>theory to explain it.
You have not been following the discussion.
My statement is not talking about MY theory; it is talking about Ancient
Theory. MY theory does not inherently deny the existence of tone F# in
any arbitrary "key."
It rejects Ancient "key" as such, and relies upon a harmonic structure
(organization of chords) which is based upon the "tonal center" (unrelated
to any particular scale) instead of the "tonic," which in Ancient Theory
is identified with the first scale degree.
Albert Silverman
>> >
>> > Easy, there. Chill.
>> > Lose the caps-lock key, one sign
>> > of a ranting lunatic. Don't let the village idiot
>> > get so deep under your skin that you stoop to his level.
>>
>> this group longer than you have and I know exactly what is going on. But
>> thanks for the thought.
>
I just consider the source. This is all that I need to know about the
credibility of such information. Pure Gibberish.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
frustrated guitarists have to exist too!
Albert Silverman
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
>> >In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
>> >progression.
>>
>> We are not talking about the *root* progression. We are talking about the
>> tones which make up the chord. Do not confuse the two things. They are
>> entirely different.
>
Tell that to Walter Piston, the foremost advocate of Ancient Theory!
You don't understand what this theory is all about, and you continue to
demonstrate this in post after post.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>Just trying to help out.
>
David Sherman
> From: slv...@panix.com (Albert Silverman)
> Subject: Re: The m6b5 chord (Ancient "diminished 7th")
>
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
> frustrated guitarists have to exist too!
And this coming from a lounge piano player!
Albert Silverman
What is this business about "original key"?
When there is a change to a new key, this is now THE key.
Who said that a change of key is a "nonsensical invention." Certainly *I*
did not say this.
>Or do you dismiss the idea of secondary dominants and
>simply say that the example mentioned has modulated for a couple of
>beats or bars to the key of G?
Tell me what you think a "secondary dominant" is.
>
>How about development sections that switch modes, from major to minor?
>Mozart uses this frequently, although I still am wondering why you
>continue to address this chord spelling system when you have claimed
>before that you are using this system to deal with Mozart and Beethoven
>and Chopin, none of whom used popular chord charts to describe or spell
>their music. I'm still wondering why you're trying to re-write what
>they've written (and written quite well, in my opinion).
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>I've never thought of F# as a foreign tone in the key of C.
This is because you do not understand what is meant by the "key of C." For
your information, the key of C contains only chords with tones of the
diatonic C-major scale. If you don't believe this, then how do YOU define
the "key" of C. Be precise. I am dying to hear it.
>In the key
>of C, F# is likely used to lead to G melodically. It appears that you
>have some issue with that because F# is not part of the C major scale.
Really?
Do you think that there is a place for an F# major triad in the "key" of
C? If so, then is tone F# in this chord likely to "lead to G melodically"?
>
>For me, all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are useful in every key.
Once more, tell me what you mean by "key".
>In
>some keys, we might notice certain patterns that certain tones use to
>move to other tones.
What are these "certain patterns" that you are referring to?
>That is the essence of music theory. It is to our
>advantage to write these movements using two different note names (i.e.
>B flat to A, not A sharp to A natural) because the notation then
>emphasizes the movement.
>i
>For me, using an F# intensifies the D-G root progression in the key of
>C. That is what I hear in the sound. If you stay with the D chord long
>enough, I might even start to hear that section in the key of G instead
>of C.
>
>You will obviously dispute what I hear as being incorrect or simply
>flawed ancient theory.
>
>I am curious though ... if your system denies that there are any
>borrowed chords or secondary dominants, then how do you define the
>function of a D major chord moving to G major in the key of C?
NOW we finally get to the heart of the matter!
The heart of "my" theory is simply that there are four basic chord forms,
one of which is the major triad. In a major triad, the third degree (i.e.,
the tone which forms a pitch interval of four semi-tones with the
root-tone) has an upward semi-tone tendency. The tone which it seeks is
the root-tone of a chord which is in a perfect fifth relationship with the
original chord.
The root-tone of the original chord can be any one of twelve tones. Thus,
*regardless of which tone is the tonal center* (I do not use the term
"tonic," since this implies the first degree of some diatonic scale
associated with the "key"), the third degree of a major triad will possess
an upward semi-tone tendency.
Thus, if C is the tonal center, tone F# in a D-major triad will possess an
upward tendency toward tone G. Similarly, if Bb is the tonal center, tone
F# in a D-major triad will STILL possess an upward tendency toward tone
G. Note that this explanation does NOT require the use of any "secondary
dominant", since it is based upon the properties of tones in a particular
chord form, without regard to which particular tone happens to be the
tonal center.
This is NOT the case in Ancient Theory, which attempts to explain chord
progression in relation to a "tonic".
> >You've developed a system that works for you. I think that's wonderful.
>As long as any musician can quickly read the chord charts you write,
>then I don't see a problem with your system.
By and large, the chord symbols which I use are those in so-called
"standard" popular notation. Where I differ is with complicated notations
that are nonsensical and irrational, and can be replaced with notations
that can be read more quickly and efficiently.
>If your system requires
>intensive study in order to play the correct notes, then I would see a
>problem with it. But the eventual proof of your system would be for you
>to write charts and use your chord system and analysis with them, and
>then as your charts become popular, your system will become more
>popular.
I have presented numerous analyses in this newsgroup, over the past
several years, using my notations and concepts.
>
>Or you can do what I'm doing ... write a book. Get it published. Teach
>a course at a community college. Get people interested in your system
>OUTSIDE of Usenet. Then you might have a chance at having your name
>live on after you've passed away, which is why I assume you're spending
>so much energy on convincing us that your system should be the sole way
>that all chord writing and harmonic analysis should be done.
>
>BTW, my book is aimed at children ... trying to find a way to introduce
>them to music theory that isn't dry or boring. It should be published
>within a year ... I'm at the 7th re-write and my publisher may even
>require one more revision just to make sure that everything is perfect.
>I might not have written this if I'd known how involved it would be.
>
>> >Whereas, in fact, the popular music would simply mark it as a D.
>> >
>> >In the classical roman numeral spelling this would simply be a II-V
>> >progression.
>>
>> We are not talking about the *root* progression. We are talking about the
>> tones which make up the chord. Do not confuse the two things. They are
>> entirely different.
>> >
>
>But you've said that the tone that make up the chord MUST be spelled
>based on the keys of the roots that make up the chord,
I don't know what you are saying. It does not make sense.
What I said is that a chord should be spelled in conformance with
construction from the diatonic major scale based upon the root-tone, with
"chromatic alterations" as required. I said nothing about "keys of roots."
>so I was using
>your criteria to name the chords and the tones that make up the chord.
>In that regard, root progression *is* important. I'm not confusing the
>two things. You're continually trying to confuse us into agreeing that
>everything you claim is true. I continue to see inconsistencies and I
>try to address them, since one of your claims is that your system is
>completely consistent.
>
>> >And again, when there is ambiguity in the root tone, there will be
>> >ambiguity (which means less consistency) in the chord naming. Which
>> >puts a serious flaw in your argument that your system is consistent,
>> >especially with regard to these "certain important cases" that your
>> >system was intended to address.
>>
>> I don't know what you are talking about. There is no ambiguity in the
>> root-tone progression D-->G in the key of C. You have a very fuzzy notion
>> of what this harmonic business is about.
>
>The way you describe it, yes, I am fuzzy about it. But I don't think
>D->G is one of the "certain important cases" you were talking about
>earlier. You still haven't given me an example of that certain
>important case. In this example, I was merely stating that since you're
>in the key of C and D major includes a chord that's not part of that
>key, it sounded to me like you were saying that calling the chord "D"
>was wrong, and I was trying to come up with a solution that would fit
>your ideas and notation.
No, I was not saying this at all! Obviously the tone combination DF#A, for
example, is noted as "D" in popular chord notation, which I use without
question.
I don't know where you got the idea that I said that calling this chord
"D" was wrong.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
Albert Silverman
Kristian Mark Twombly <twom...@y.glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>: Ancient Theory either "borrows" this chord(!) or attributes it to some
>: imaginary "secondary dominant", which is a nonsensical invention that
>: attempts to explain the existence of such "foreign" tones.
>
>does not borrow a tone, but rather serves a dominant function, in this
>case leading to dominant in the original key, thus "secondary dominant".
Not every F# tone in the "key" of C exists in a so-called "secondary
dominant" chord. This term refers to a chord which progresses to another
chord in a 5th-degree root-tone relationship.
>
>Also, Machaut uses the equivalent of F# often as a "double leading tone",
>leading to scale degree 5 over scale degree 1 for a consonance. (I know
>that I am oversimplifying it)
Since the concept is nonsensical, there is no such thing as
"oversimplifying" it. Once garbage, always garbage!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>Kristian
Kristian Mark Twombly
Al: Ancient Theory either "borrows" this chord(!) or attributes it to some
Al: imaginary "secondary dominant", which is a nonsensical invention that
Al: attempts to explain the existence of such "foreign" tones.
Me> Actually, what is being "borrowed" is the function. A secondary
Me> dominant does not borrow a tone, but rather serves a dominant
Me> function, in this case leading to dominant in the original key, thus
Me> "secondary dominant".
Al: Not every F# tone in the "key" of C exists in a so-called "secondary
Al: dominant" chord. This term refers to a chord which progresses to
Al: another chord in a 5th-degree root-tone relationship.
Now that I have reposted EVERYTHING in my original post, please take this
opportunity to reread the conversation. I *never* mentioned F#...I merely
responded to the mislabeling of Secondary Dominant as a "borrowed" triad.
Going on...
Me> Also, Machaut uses the equivalent of F# often as a "double leading
Me> tone", leading to scale degree 5 over scale degree 1 for a
Me> consonance. (I know that I am oversimplifying it)
Al: Since the concept is nonsensical, there is no such thing as
Al: "oversimplifying" it. Once garbage, always garbage!
What concept is nonsensical? I oversimplified the concept of a double
leading tone to show an example of an F# appearing in a work in the key of
C from the 14th Century, not to argue against any point made by Al, but
rather to give an alternate "source" of a non-diatonic pitch appearing
(and accepted at at that) in another "key". It is oversimplified to avoid
going OT.
Please, if we are going to have intelligent and rewarding discussions in
here, then let's begin by actually reading each other's posts and not
simply taking the fact that someone responded to your post as a reason to
build a soapbox.
KT
David Webber
> Tony T. Warnock <t...@lanl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >If you theory cannot explain the F#, perhaps you should modify the
> >theory to explain it.
>
> You have not been following the discussion.
>
> My statement is not talking about MY theory; it is talking about Ancient
> Theory. MY theory does not inherently deny the existence of tone F# in
> any arbitrary "key."
>
> It rejects Ancient "key" as such,...
So you can't "explain" an F# in the key of C because you can't explain the
key of C?
And "Ancient theory" is "wrong" because it can do something you can't?
Thought so.
David Webber
> This is because you do not understand what is meant by the "key of C." For
> your information, the key of C contains only chords with tones of the
> diatonic C-major scale.
There you go again quoting one possible view of things as dogma and the only
true creed. One often sees a II V I sequence (with the major II chord - a
secondary dominant - mea culpa) which feels very final. Thinking of it as
modulation to the dominant and back again may not be helpful - in which
case you have to conclude that the chromatic II chord exists in some sense
the key of the I, even thugh it cotains a note which is not on the major
scale. Now I know this will prove mind-bogglingly confusing to you, but
don't let it worry you too much - most people come to terms with it sooner
or later. It's just a different way of looking at it - which may be more or
less helpful in different cases. Life is like that.
Joey Goldstein
Sampson wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > Georg wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Fine, continue to SHOUT and throw tantrums. Al wins. You lose.
> >
> > Hey, from where I sit, you lose.
>
> Joey bcomes more and more like Al. Sad.
Yeah I'm exactly like Al. I always try to confuse newcommers to music
theory and make them believe in my own twisted ideas while I convince
them of my own intellectual superiority as I insult them. I always
insult everybody who posts to this group who has a different opinion
from my own because only my own opinion counts.
No that's not true .... I'm Joey not Al .... Aren't I? ....
Evil Joey I must be.
I've never said anything useful or helped anybody out in this group and
I've never learned anything here myself because I know it all.
I must cower and hide now as little anonymous newcomers feel they must
save the group by criticizing me for trying to make sure they are not
sucked into Albert Silverman's quagmire of nonsense. Oh please forgive
me Sampson. I can change if you help me. Please give me another chance!
Nice name btw.
I'm just like Al.
Sheesh.
FYI
The reason I used caps in the post that you seem to need to discuss
further was not for yelling at Albert. I was yelling at the people who
seemed to believe that he was right when he said that chords are built
from major scales. They are not.
Don't let Albert suck you into his own lopsided and completely wrong
interpretation of traditional music theory. Albert has no idea what it
is that he is trying to fix. He really, really, does not understand
traditional theory. Just ask him, he'll tell you. When you see Albert
explain somthing about how traditional theory is wrong about this or
wrong about that be VERY careful because he does not know what he is
talking about. But he may well convince you that he does know what he's
talking about and that his criticism is valid and may well destroy your
own understanding of traditional theory in the process.
And IMO ANYONE WHO GETS EMOTIONALLY UPSET WHEN THEY READ TEXT THAT
HAPPENS TO BE IN CAPITAL LETTERS HAS SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH.
Albert Silverman
David Sherman <d.sherm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: slv...@panix.com (Albert Silverman)
>> Subject: Re: The m6b5 chord (Ancient "diminished 7th")
>>
>> (Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>And this coming from a lounge piano player!
>
ignorance of music theory exposed so brutally by a lounge pianist! Perhaps
YOU should learn how to improvise on the piano. But then, I suppose that
this is an impossible task for one with your limited mental capacity.
Sampson
Joey completely agrees. Al has never engaged in any discussion
of music theory here, he has merely stated his bogus theories
and trolled for flames. Joey answers Al's spark by pouring
on the gasoline.
Joey calls me a newcomer, without even knowing me, but acts
like a newbie by insisting that anyone who is annoyed by his
shouting has some serious problems to deal with.
One thing about Al's musical talent: he's playing Joey like a
violin. Sadly, Joey's reflection in the looking glass resembles
Al's evil grin more and more.
Dance, Joey, Dance! While Albert Puppetmaster pulls your strings.
Make sure he gets what he wants here, to guarantee that he will
be back for more. Help him vandalize the newsgroup. He loves
it. What a team, silver and gold. Working in concert together
to make the newsgroup unreadable. Al wins, Joey loses, Joey
converts to the dark side. Pathetic.
Joey Goldstein
Sampson wrote:
>
> Al likes to turn this place into a flame war. On that point,
> Joey completely agrees. Al has never engaged in any discussion
> of music theory here, he has merely stated his bogus theories
> and trolled for flames. Joey answers Al's spark by pouring
> on the gasoline.
>
> Joey calls me a newcomer, without even knowing me, but acts
> like a newbie by insisting that anyone who is annoyed by his
> shouting has some serious problems to deal with.
>
> One thing about Al's musical talent: he's playing Joey like a
> violin. Sadly, Joey's reflection in the looking glass resembles
> Al's evil grin more and more.
>
> Dance, Joey, Dance! While Albert Puppetmaster pulls your strings.
> Make sure he gets what he wants here, to guarantee that he will
> be back for more. Help him vandalize the newsgroup. He loves
> it. What a team, silver and gold. Working in concert together
> to make the newsgroup unreadable. Al wins, Joey loses, Joey
> converts to the dark side. Pathetic.
Nice to have you here. Welcome to the group. You'll fit right in.
Dr.Matt
DON'T CARE. A GREMLIN. NOW, CAN YOU CALM DOWN ABOUT IT? BOTH OF YOU?
AND STOP GETTING SO WORKED UP AT EACH OTHER! STOP IT! RIGHT NOW!
NO! I'M NOT GETTING WORKED UP! WHATEVER MADE YOU THINK I'M GETTING
WORKED UP?!?!
Albert Silverman
James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Or you can do what I'm doing ... write a book. Get it published. Teach
>a course at a community college. Get people interested in your system
>OUTSIDE of Usenet. Then you might have a chance at having your name
>live on after you've passed away, which is why I assume you're spending
>so much energy on convincing us that your system should be the sole way
>that all chord writing and harmonic analysis should be done.
But we have different objectives. You are writing a book in order to tell
people WHAT to do, rather than UNDERSTANDING the basis for triadic musical
composition. This newsgroup is purportedly about musical THEORY, which
supposedly explains the underlying concepts of music. It is NOT meant to
be a "how-to-do-it" instruction.
But, as with everything else, only a tiny minority is interested in WHY
they are doing it, as opposed to HOW to do it. Hence it is futile to
attempt to write a book on the WHY, rather than on the HOW. Furthermore,
in case you do not know it, the Academic Musical Establishment proclaims
itself as the "keeper of the the theory," despite the fact that what it
continues to promote to the unwary is "theory" is irrelevant and an
unmitigated disaster. This is of course the reason for the abysmal
ignorance of musicians about the nature of harmonic theory. They cannot
possibly understand it when it is taught in a manner intended to preserve
Musical History and uphold Ancient Authority, rather than to promote
UNDERSTANDING of the essential concepts.
My Adventures in this newsgroup are for the purpose of finding out the
general state of knowledge of individuals about musical "theory" and
attempting to depict Ancient Theory (at least, that part of it devoted
to the harmonic process) for what it is: hopelessly irrelevant. No book
which dwells on theory and does not have the blessing of those who are
dedicated to the preservation of History and "Art" instead of to basic
understanding would never get off the ground.
Nevertheless, I enjoy fighting with those who have no concept of what they
are talking about, but nevertheless insist upon talking about it, in a
forum which is free from Academic Authoritative Control.
Does this answer your implied question about what I am doing here?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where residents are functionally illiterate
M. Schulter
: The major, minor and diminished triads we use now were _ originally
: discovered and conceived of_ as subsets of the major scale and of the
: overtone series but their actual construction is defined by an
: intervallic pattern.
Hello, there, and I would say that these combinations (specifically taking
them as based on major and minor thirds of 5:4 and 6:5, as opposed to the
earlier and unstable combinations of medieval polyphony) predate both
major/minor tonality and the recognition of the overtone series in the
early 17th century.
They are based on harmonious combinations of concords, and are used by
16th-century musicians in various modes. Arrangements like C3-E3-G3,
D3-F3-A3, or F3-A3-D4 represent the most complex and saturated sonorities
possible using ratios based on primes no higher than 5.
The idea of associating them specifically with major and minor scales, or
with the overtone series, comes later.
It's true that Zarlino (1558) describes a series of "sonorous numbers"
with successive ratios of 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and 6:5 which in later terms
could be associated with the harmonic series, thus C2-C3-G4-C4-E4-G4. He
uses this arrangement to conclude that a major third is more naturally
placed below a minor third (e.g. C3-E3-G3) rather than below it (e.g.
D3-F3-A3), etc. However, the actual concept of a fundamental tone
producing successive partials is more of a 17th-century development.
We might view the major/minor tonality of the later 17th century as a kind
of change of fashions based both on a selection of traditional
16th-century sonorities and progressions, and the incorporation of some
new elements (including bold dissonances) introduced around 1600.
The new system offers novel possibilities while excluding or restricting
lots of equally beautiful ones which are routine in earlier practice and
theory.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
M. Schulter
: Also, Machaut uses the equivalent of F# often as a "double leading tone",
: leading to scale degree 5 over scale degree 1 for a consonance. (I know
: that I am oversimplifying it)
Hello, there, and in fact you've mentioned the very example I was tempted
to bring up here, but wasn't sure would be directly relevant, since
14th-century music is indeed based on vertical centers, but not on stable
tertian triads or keys.
The basic concept here is what 14th-century as well as modern theorists
call "closest approach." In Gothic music, the most powerful cadences often
involve unstable intervals expanding to stable ones by stepwise contrary
motion, e.g. 3-1, 3-5, 6-8, 7-5, or 2-4.
Closest approach, toward which there are some tendencies in the late 13th
century and which becomes a general principle of practice and theory in
the early 14th century, says that these directed resolutions should more
specifically involve progressions to the "nearest consonance" such as
m3-1, M3-5, M6-8 -- and in some 14th-century musical dialects (including
Machaut's) also m7-5 or M2-4.
In all of these "closest approach" progressions, one voice moves by a
whole-tone and the other by a diatonic semitone. In Pythagorean tuning,
where a whole-tone is a generously large 9:8 (~204 cents) and a diatonic
semitone a compact 256:243 (~90 cents), this contrast of melodic steps can
be very pleasing and expressive.
The general guideline is that a third expanding to a fifth should be
major, as should a sixth expanding to an octave, while a third contracting
to a unison should be minor. If necessary, _musica ficta_ -- "assumed
notes" outside the usual medieval gamut of the seven diatonic notes and Bb
-- is often introduced to achieve these closest approach progressions.
Let's look at two progressions, one of them the resolution you
mention. Here C4 shows middle C:
B3 C4 C4 D4
F#3 G3 G3 A3
D3 C3 Eb3 D3
(M6-8 + M3-5) (M6-8 + M3-5)
Note that both progressions follow the "closest approach" principle, with
expansive progressions of major third to fifth and major sixth to octave.
In the first progression, F# is used to obtain a major third D-F# before
the stable fifth C3-G3; the sixth D3-B3 expanding to the octave C3-C4 is
already major, so no alteration is needed here.
In the second progression, Eb is used to obtain a major third Eb3-G3
before the fifth D3-A3, and the major sixth Eb-C4 before the octave D3-D4.
In Pythagorean tuning, with major thirds at a rather complex 81:64 (~408
cents) and major sixths at 27:16 (~906 cents), these intervals have a
nicely active flavor lending a bit of dynamic tension or "edge" to the
cadential action. As medieval theorists put it, these intervals
"strive" to expand to stable fifths and octaves.
Note that this cadence, which I would describe as "(M6-8 + M3-5)," can
feature either ascending or descending semitonal motions. The first
choice is common at final as well as internal cadences, while the second
is less conclusive and is a very popular sectional ending for Machaut and
Landini, etc.
These cadences and alterations can occur for cadences on C and D, for
example, in various octave-species or modes: for example, an internal
cadence on C in a piece concluding on F.
As Paramucho remarked more generally in a previous thread, concepts of
"modality" interact with various norms of vertical action, here the
"closest approach" principle calling for various accidentals.
While the term "double-leading-tone cadence" is common in music history, I
consider "closest approach cadence" a more apt description, because it
fits the theory of the period and may communicate the idea of unstable
intervals such as thirds and sixths expanding to stable intervals in the
most efficient way. The melodic semitonal motion is a vital element, but
the vertical instability/stability contrast is equally important.
Also, "closest approach" applies to versions with a single descending
semitonal motion, e.g. the above example of Eb3-G3-C4 to D3-A3-D4, as well
as versions with two ascending semitonal motions.
If we want to be more specific, we could speak of "an intensive cadence
with (M6-8 + M3-5)," the term "intensive" referring to _ascending_
semitones. For versions with descending semitones, we could use the term
_remissive_.
Another point: these favorite 14th-century cadences resolve to the richest
and most complex stable sonority of the period, the complete trine (_trina
harmoniae perfectio_) with outer octave, lower fifth, and upper fourth.
We might call it a case of harmonious parts combining to form a harmonious
whole.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
paramucho
>Kristian Mark Twombly <twom...@y.glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>: Also, Machaut uses the equivalent of F# often as a "double leading tone",
>: leading to scale degree 5 over scale degree 1 for a consonance. (I know
>: that I am oversimplifying it)
>
>Hello, there, and in fact you've mentioned the very example I was tempted
>to bring up here, but wasn't sure would be directly relevant, since
>14th-century music is indeed based on vertical centers, but not on stable
>tertian triads or keys.
Fascinating material Margo.
I've saved it for a time when I can concentrate a little more. I
really enjoy these contributions. Many thanks.
Ian
Joey Goldstein
"M. Schulter" wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> : The major, minor and diminished triads we use now were _ originally
> : discovered and conceived of_ as subsets of the major scale and of the
> : overtone series but their actual construction is defined by an
> : intervallic pattern.
>
> Hello, there, and I would say that these combinations (specifically taking
> them as based on major and minor thirds of 5:4 and 6:5, as opposed to the
> earlier and unstable combinations of medieval polyphony) predate both
> major/minor tonality and the recognition of the overtone series in the
> early 17th century.
Sorry I should have said: "The major, minor and diminished triads we use
now were _ originally discovered and conceived of_ as subsets of the
diatonic scale scale" rather than the major scale. Of course the major
and minor triads pre-date major/minor tonality as it is traditionally conceived.
> They are based on harmonious combinations of concords, and are used by
> 16th-century musicians in various modes. Arrangements like C3-E3-G3,
> D3-F3-A3, or F3-A3-D4 represent the most complex and saturated sonorities
> possible using ratios based on primes no higher than 5.
>
> The idea of associating them specifically with major and minor scales, or
> with the overtone series, comes later.
>
> It's true that Zarlino (1558) describes a series of "sonorous numbers"
> with successive ratios of 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and 6:5 which in later terms
> could be associated with the harmonic series, thus C2-C3-G4-C4-E4-G4. He
> uses this arrangement to conclude that a major third is more naturally
> placed below a minor third (e.g. C3-E3-G3) rather than below it (e.g.
> D3-F3-A3), etc. However, the actual concept of a fundamental tone
> producing successive partials is more of a 17th-century development.
>
> We might view the major/minor tonality of the later 17th century as a kind
> of change of fashions based both on a selection of traditional
> 16th-century sonorities and progressions, and the incorporation of some
> new elements (including bold dissonances) introduced around 1600.
>
> The new system offers novel possibilities while excluding or restricting
> lots of equally beautiful ones which are routine in earlier practice and
> theory.
>
> Most respectfully,
>
> Margo Schulter
> msch...@value.net
--