# Harmonically rich moments in music, artery clogging



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

How do you interpret *rich*? What are some of the richest moments of harmonic activity? Thinking specifically of the piano, is there anything richer than the fat successions of chords conjured up by the likes of Medtner and Rachmaninoff? Orchestral; is there anything richer than Mahler or Bruckner's later symphonies? These pieces are harmonically rich. And of course, Bach is rich. These are the first places that I would look for "rich moments." There are certainly some less obvious(to me) places where rich things will happen, and I'd like to know about them. And as for particulars, are there moments in pieces of all eras that strike you for their clever and thick heart wrenching dissonances that you would like to cite?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yeah, it's artery clogging, like one slice too many of black forest cake.

Too add to those, Richard Strauss.

It's the turn of the 20th century, the fin-de-siecle kind of vibe I think of in terms of over the top richness.

But I think the Russians, eg. Rachmaninov who you mention, as well as Scriabin and probably Rimsky-Korsakov as well, they look forward a lot (esp. the first two, Rimsky made more impact as an orchestrator, his writings on that, rather than his music itself moving music forward). Stravinsky was in this circle as well, but I don't hear his music as rich in the same way.

So too Schoenberg, esp. early on in eg. _Transfigured Night_. Sibelius as well in his earlier works, as he went on he pared down more and more.

But also Messiaen, who went off Wagner's legacy - was a kind of Wagnerite of sorts - can be seen as rich. All those colours, luxuriant but modern. He was also influenced by others like BAch & Webern, and of course who he thought to be the greatest musicians on the planet - the birds.

& of course there's the richness of the post-harmonic era, the "new" era of pure sound, eg. Varese, Xenakis, Boulez, Carter, Birtwistle, our own Sculthorpe & Meale, etc. Also microtonal music opening up the possibilities, what they said as restrictions, getting rid of those. Harry Partch was one of the "usual suspects" of that direction...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Couchie said:


>


Beat me to it! I'd recognize that chord anywhere.

I'd also like to mention the opening chord to the final movement of Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony (G#-D-F#-B), which I find particularly rich when played directly after the final chord of the third movement, where it comes off (to me, at least) as a chromatic alteration of that powerful G major chord. In a way, it seems like the consonant G major chord resolves to that dissonant one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Surprised Debussy hasn't been mentioned. Takemitsu is a composer I think of being harmonically rich as well. So is Berg in a different kind of way.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

Well, I think this is as electryfying as Wagner's famous chord in Tristan :


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Anything by Ravel, Maurice Ravel  :


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

With Daphnis you can skip the clogged arteries and have a heart attack right there and then.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

What does "harmonically rich" mean, anyway? Lots of different notes?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> What does "harmonically rich" mean, anyway? *Lots of different notes?*


It also depends on how the notes are used.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I can't identify the harmonies by ear, but I love the opening to William Schuman's 7th symphony. It has a dense, modern, and very attractive sound to my ears.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> What does "harmonically rich" mean, anyway? Lots of different notes?


Harmonies are stacked notes (vertical) chords.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Harmonies are stacked notes (vertical) chords.


Yeah, so lots of different vertical notes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It depends on the intervals. Not necessarily a lot of notes.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> It depends on the intervals. Not necessarily a lot of notes.


Which intervals are richest?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's been a long time since I studied this stuff so I'll have to defer to Clavi or Violadude. There's quite a bit to be learned about chord theory and harmony. Intervals are the spaces between the notes. All half steps would be a chromatic scale. This is where your sharps and flats come into play.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> It's been a long time since I studied this stuff so I'll have to defer to Clavi or Violadude. There's quite a bit to be learned about chord theory and harmony. Intervals are the spaces between the notes. All half steps would be a chromatic scale. This is where your sharps and flats come into play.


I know all that stuff. I play the piano to a fairly advanced level and write music as well. I just don't see what exactly the concept of 'richness' is. Again, it seems to be one of those things that is dependent on other things - _i.e._ this chord sounds rich, but only because I'm used to traditional Western harmony.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I interpreted rich as meaning dense.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I interpreted rich as meaning dense.


Which is how I interpreted it. But by that token, if, with enough hands, I played every C, every E, and every G on a piano, that would be incredibly rich, though only constituted by a simple major triad. That's why I'm not sure about where particular intervals come into it. That suggests richness is about a certain kind of dissonance. But then maybe density is all the thread was looking for.

I'll stop being difficult.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Which intervals are richest?


That is a matter of opinion.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I take it to mean dense yet also characterized by unorthodox or exotic intervals, yet retaining a sense of chordal structure. For example I generally don't consider tone clusters as sounding harmonically rich, yet they may be dense.

As a basic example I would consider dominant, major and minor 7 chords all generally sound more harmonically rich than a major or minor triad.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Richness also has a lot to do with spacing (which is where particular intervals come in). That C major triad played with every C, E, and G key on the board would sound far too heavy to be considered rich. A chord played with wider spacing in the bass register and narrower spacing in the upper registers, however, would sound much more richer. Of course, other factors come into play, as well, such as tone color, accent, and the chord's function in the current context.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Which intervals are richest?


Tritone, basically. All the best chords have a tritone in them.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I like minor seconds and major 7ths, two very related intervals that demand resolution. But these have to be use judiciously of course. You hear this a lot in good minor key baroque and classical era music in its simplest form. In Medtner, you hear it in passing quite regularly, used in often very delayed and interesting ways. The beginning of both opus 8 skazki, there is one rich chord, a *doubled* version of this dissonance can be heard with the A flat octave in the bass and the 3rd inversion of C minor(meaning G to G) in the treble. A flat to G is a major seventh, *octivify*(made up word) it and add a minor chord to it that isn't even on the tonic of one of the notes and you have one hell of a chord. Then come the next chords. I love Medtner. In the good old A minor invention by our friend Juan Sebastien Bach, there is a minor second in there that is a part of functional harmony in lovely two part counterpoint.

Rich music I think consists of music that uses dissonance well, within the framework of "functional" harmony. But it also alludes to a less easily defined, but more easily experienced aspect of music, that can be attributed to more things like musicianship(if someone played Medtner like a robot, I might not feel it was quite as rich), and larger more complicated workings that we take for granted.

Now Polednice, I was not feeling like getting into "what is rich", and still kind of am not interested, but I'm a little curious to know what inspired you to be particular about this idea of richness. Certainly C major triads are not my idea of rich. And I might respond a little akin to HarpsichordConcerto and say that though farting can be construed as rich sounding(probably with another less savory(there's another gross one!, I'm keeping it) implication behind the adjective), it is not the tonally musical sort of richness I'm looking for.

Scriabin is particularly fascinating and enigmatic. His early period is almost too rich! I think I'd have a stroke if I listened to too much of that, but I love it very much. His later period chords are rich, but have some other sort of pith to them that I don't know what to call, and not just the chords themselves, but the way they defy conventional analysis and yet still work perfectly.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Now Polednice, I was not feeling like getting into "what is rich", and still kind of am not interested, but I'm a little curious to know what inspired you to be particular about this idea of richness. Certainly C major triads are not my idea of rich. And I might respond a little akin to HarpsichordConcerto and say that though farting can be construed as rich sounding(probably with another less savory(there's another gross one!, I'm keeping it) implication behind the adjective), it is not the tonally musical sort of richness I'm looking for.


It was just because I think "rich" is one of those namby pamby words that shouldn't really be used to describe harmony as there's no definition, only interpretation. I realise many threads such as these want our personal interpretations rather than a solid definition for us all to work with, but I very often forget that because I'm a little autistic and want everything to be tight and orderly.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I also think that deceptive cadences as in Beethoven most notoriously, are a horizontal aspect of music that can be stimulating in a way that feels rich to me.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I also think that deceptive cadences as in Beethoven most notoriously, are a horizontal aspect of music that can be stimulating in a way that feels rich to me.


Deceptive cadences just feel very deceptive to me.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Deceptive cadences are the most blunt way of stalling the inevitable resolution to the tonic, anything that works in that direction without going on too long, working within the delicate balance of too much of too little, very much contributes to me being impressed. 

I still really like CPE Bach, but an aspect of his music that sometimes disappoints me is that his resolution comes often as expected. This makes his music much lighter than that of Beethoven, though they have some similar elements. I think there is some of the concept of richness to be felt and observed by seeing this difference between the two.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Deceptive cadences are the most blunt way of stalling the inevitable resolution to the tonic, anything that works in that direction without going on too long, working within the delicate balance of too much of too little, very much contributes to me being impressed.
> 
> I still really like CPE Bach, but an aspect of his music that sometimes disappoints me is that his resolution comes often as expected. This makes his music much lighter than that of Beethoven, though they have some similar elements. I think there is some of the concept of richness to be felt and observed by seeing this difference between the two.


It's an interesting arbitrary interpretation of "richness", but I see no particular reason to regard it as special or even useful. I'd much rather get into finickety talk about the particulars of such cadences or other musical qualities than allow the word "rich" to stand for a whole host of vague musical concepts.

Anyway, we've established that I'm just wrong in the head, so I'll stop spoiling your thread.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I can't identify the harmonies by ear, but I love the opening to William Schuman's 7th symphony. It has a dense, modern, and very attractive sound to my ears.


William Schumann is not tonally functional in the conventional sense, but I agree that his music has great pith to it. He has a knack for hitting a lot of really thick and dissonant chords in certain ways that are not directly related in the horizontal tonal scheme to what happens before and after, but is still interesting. I don't have the ear to identify the first chord of that symphony, but it is something else!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Polednice, here's another one for you that I keep using, *pith*. Take it or leave it sonny.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, I love Schuman's harmonies and use of dissonance. I've been listening to symphonies 4, 7 ,9, 10 for about a year and a half and I still find them very exciting. He's one of the great symphonists, imo.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Here is one for Polednice - I find Brahms music sounds generally quite rich, but not overly harmonically rich. I think at times Brahms music sounds harmonically rich (which I often equate with bright interesting musical colors). But he tends to darken and muddy most of it. When I listen to Brahms music I am often left with the impression that here was a man with little faith.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

tdc said:


> Here is one for Polednice - I find Brahms music sounds generally quite *rich*, but not overly harmonically *rich*. I think at times Brahms music sounds harmonically *rich* (which I often equate with *bright* interesting musical *colors*). But he tends to *darken* and *muddy* most of it. When I listen to Brahms music I am often left with the impression that here was a man with little faith.


These words tell me nothing.  It's one thing to talk about your own interpretation in terms of vocabulary better suited to visual art, but to move the onus onto Brahms, like Brahms would have understood your criticisms gives your wishy-washy description more credit than it deserves!

I'm not being particularly mean to you, tdc, it's just that many people often talk about music in these very abstract terms, and I don't find it at all helpful. Again, it's my brain's fault.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Polednice said:


> These words tell me nothing.  It's one thing to talk about your own interpretation in terms of vocabulary better suited to visual art, but to move the onus onto Brahms, like Brahms would have understood your criticisms gives your wishy-washy description more credit than it deserves!
> 
> I'm not being particularly mean to you, tdc, it's just that many people often talk about music in these very abstract terms, and I don't find it at all helpful. Again, it's my brain's fault.


Haha, I see. Well for one I don't think my observations were really criticisms, more just observations. My description 'lack of faith' could be seen as a desirable musical trait to some - for example an atheist. I don't think my observations were wishy washy either. Unless you feel that anything that is not scientifically definable is 'wishy-washy'. Then I guess broad hard to define concepts like 'music' and 'life' are also 'wishy-washy'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

tdc said:


> Haha, I see. Well for one I don't think my observations were really criticisms, more just observations. My description 'lack of faith' could be seen as a desirable musical trait to some - for example an atheist. I don't think my observations were wishy washy either. Unless you feel that anything that is not scientifically definable is 'wishy-washy'. Then I guess broad hard to define concepts like 'music' and 'life' are also 'wishy-washy'.


I'm not saying that all non-scientific concepts and conversation are wishy-washy; I'm saying that certain methods of talking about aesthetics and subjectivity are less helpful than others. Talking about music in terms of brightness, colour, and richness, for example, might take some people so far, but probably less far than they realise. If you want to give a poetic account of your own experiences, then I think it's absolutely fine to use that kind of language, but when we start talking about compositional traits and qualities in the music rather than our listening experience, then I think a basic musical terminology is necessary to start making sense.

Also, when you said Brahms's music leaves the impression of a man with little faith, I thought you meant little faith in himself, not faith in a god. The notion that absolute music could reveal a person's theistic beliefs is, to me, a hundred times more ridiculous than talking about the colour of a c major triad!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think you are just being particular for the sake of it Polednice. I don't think rich is that useless or wishy washy or hard to understand.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I think you are just being particular for the sake of it Polednice. I don't think rich is that useless or wishy washy or hard to understand.


As I've mentioned before, I have a mind-set for which "richness" is wishy-washy talk, but I accept that for other people it may have some significance. The main distinction I would want to draw is that "richness" has more significance talking about your reaction to a piece than it does in actually describing a trait of the music itself. As is so often apparent, the concept of "richness" here is not really anything tangible, it is only "richness" _in relation to_ everything else you've ever heard.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> As I've mentioned before, I have a mind-set for which "richness" is wishy-washy talk, but I accept that for other people it may have some significance. The main distinction I would want to draw is that "richness" has more significance talking about your reaction to a piece than it does in actually describing a trait of the music itself. As is so often apparent, the concept of "richness" here is not really anything tangible, it is only "richness" _in relation to_ everything else you've ever heard.


This is true. But I have to politely say that I don't think I originally meant the thread to be that deep and precise, and therefore, I don't think we are terribly at odds with each other.

That is, unless your technical scrutiny is motivated by you not agreeing with the particularities my own ideas of richness, then I'm interested to hear your ideas.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Also, when you said Brahms's music leaves the impression of a man with little faith, I thought you meant little faith in himself, not faith in a god. The notion that absolute music could reveal a person's theistic beliefs is, to me, a hundred times more ridiculous than talking about the colour of a c major triad!


But I never said that Brahms music revealed his theistic beliefs. I just said that his music often leaves me with the impression of someone who has become a little pessimistic - or someone who has 'little faith'. Others might hear this differently, but to try to imply that music doesn't have the power to convey such things is what I think is ridiculous, though admittedly there are broad interpretations of this language. You worded this as if I said 'Through Brahms music it has been revealed to me that he was an atheist'. Which is simply not true, I simply listed a type of mood his music often conveys to me and then a group of people who might relate to this type of feeling. This has absolutely nothing to do with the straw man you created in your hundred times more ridiculous comment.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> As I've mentioned before, I have a mind-set for which "richness" is wishy-washy talk, but I accept that for other people it may have some significance. The main distinction I would want to draw is that "richness" has more significance talking about your reaction to a piece than it does in actually describing a trait of the music itself. As is so often apparent, the concept of "richness" here is not really anything tangible, it is only "richness" _in relation to_ everything else you've ever heard.


i think we can all agree that a unison is less harmonically rich than a thirteenth chord. i think that's what he meant.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

tdc said:


> But I never said that Brahms music revealed his theistic beliefs. I just said that his music often leaves me with the impression of someone who has become a little pessimistic - or someone who has 'little faith'. Others might hear this differently, but to try to imply that music doesn't have the power to convey such things is what I think is ridiculous, though admittedly there are broad interpretations of this language. You worded this as if I said 'Through Brahms music it has been revealed to me that he was an atheist'. Which is simply not true, I simply listed a type of mood his music often conveys to me and then a group of people who might relate to this type of feeling. This has absolutely nothing to do with the straw man you created in your hundred times more ridiculous comment.


"man of little faith" does not equal "pessimistic". Perhaps if you didn't exaggerate your feelings, they wouldn't come across so contentious.


----------

