# Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is bei



## millionrainbows

*Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is being, and being is always now. Can you dig it, man?
*
All function came from the vertical. All else is arbitrary, and came after. All scales are modeled after the harmonic series.

Harmony is instantaneous. All horizontal events involve time, and the thinking brain.

Harmony is experienced immediately and instantaneously.


----------



## Tedski

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together.
Goo goo ga joob.


----------



## millionrainbows

In the beginning, was the stack. The syrup came later.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> *Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is being, and being is always now. Can you dig it, man?
> *All function came from the vertical. All else is arbitrary, and came after. All scales are modeled after the harmonic series.
> Harmony is instantaneous. All horizontal events involve time, and the thinking brain.
> Harmony is experienced immediately and instantaneously.


Well, nobody's going to argue that music is _not_ sound (and that any sound can be perceived as having "musical properties" depending on the context and the ear/mindset combination that receives such signals), but I cannot agree that all sound is harmonic. Is this what you are suggesting? As far as I am concerned, there are sounds with definite pitch (perceived frequency) or indefinite pitch (let us call it inharmonic spectra). I will pass on commenting on the rest of your post.


----------



## Dim7

Is there also "sort of definite" or "almost indefinite" pitch?


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Is there also "sort of definite" or "almost indefinite" pitch?


Yes, for example cathedral bells that seem to have multiple pitches instead of one clear "note".


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> *Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is being, and being is always now. Can you dig it, man?
> *
> All function came from the vertical. All else is arbitrary, and came after. All scales are modeled after the harmonic series.
> 
> Harmony is instantaneous. All horizontal events involve time, and the thinking brain.
> 
> Harmony is experienced immediately and instantaneously.


Isn't there a more appropriate place for threads like this? Perhaps in the Community Forum or something?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I wouldn't smoke from that tree.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I don't know...

In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.

It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.

(Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> *It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority*.
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


I agree to a point, Sept, but there are instances where the sonority is more important than function, for example in the *Bach* 'cello suite N° 5 (C minor) where the A string is tuned down to G, resulting in much richer chords (because of the overtones).


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Well, nobody's going to argue that music is _not_ sound (and that any sound can be perceived as having "musical properties" depending on the context and the ear/mindset combination that receives such signals), but I cannot agree that all sound is harmonic. Is this what you are suggesting? As far as I am concerned, there are sounds with definite pitch (perceived frequency) or indefinite pitch (let us call it inharmonic spectra). I will pass on commenting on the rest of your post.


I used to play a game, and I still do; I would try to hear the "pitch" of noises in the environment. Some of them had pitches, but with some of them, like vacuum cleaners, which produced a constant roar of noise which contained a lot of harmonics, I realized that I could hear it as almost any pitch I wanted. Later, I realized what was happening. I was "filtering" the sound with my brain, and just tuning in to the pitch I wanted to hear.

As Dim7 was asking, all "noise" is, is sound with a whole bunch of harmonics and no definite pitch; and yes, there are degrees of this.

Stockhausen did a piece called Mikrophonie, where he struck a gong (pretty noisy), and got a flat-head condenser mike, and ran it over the surface, not touchin, but very close. Through the amps, it sounded like a single tone. This is because the mike was picking up whatever harmonic was present in that particular spot.

He invites us to get microphones ourselves, and become "microscopic sound explorers."


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Isn't there a more appropriate place for threads like this? Perhaps in the Community Forum or something?


If you ask me, this rude response is inappropriate. This thread is about music theory; isn't it, man? Stay groovy!


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I wouldn't smoke from that tree.


Gee, that's quite an avatar you've got there! Who is that, Wagner? What a gigantic, towering figure!


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> 
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> 
> It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.
> 
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


That's fine if you are a "flatlander." For many people, the cognitive, horizontal dimension is all-important. Of course, it might take you a bit longer to process all that contextual information, whereras the vertical is instantaneous. Hurry up, and don't block the hallway!


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> 
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> 
> It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.
> 
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


Oh, I almost forgot, I was grooving so hard: doesn't a neopolitan sixth have a different root under it?


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> 
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> 
> It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.
> 
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


Isn't the root of a neopolitan chord a vertical context? Maybe you're not seeing what I'm saying.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I agree to a point, Sept, but there are instances where the sonority is more important than function, for example in the *Bach* 'cello suite N° 5 (C minor) where the A string is tuned down to G, resulting in much richer chords (because of the overtones).


In vertical-land, all function is derived from the vertical. This also gives rise to sonority. They are the same thing.


----------



## Guest

I can't tell; is this thread a serious, over my head discussion or a place to take the wet?


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> I can't tell; is this thread a serious, over my head discussion or a place to take the wet?


It's serious, but not "wrinkling up your brow" serious. I'm sure it has that potential, though.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> It's serious, but not "wrinkling up your brow" serious. I'm sure it has that potential, though.


Ok, thanks for the clarification!


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> I can't tell; is this thread a serious, over my head discussion or a place to take the wet?


It's serious. I'll explain my motivation.

If you will recall, there was a marathon discussion between me & Woodduck, in which he grilled me and I provided three examples with each answer; all to no avail. Apparently, the 'vertical' and the 'horizontal' are concepts you just have to believe in.

For example, Woodduck explains all tonality in terms of a "flatlander" or in horizontal terms, such as expectation, dashed expectation, anticipation, and regret. Also ideas such as root stations and function.

Mahlerian explains to us that there is little difference in late 12-tone Schoenberg and John Williams' soundtrack work. Apparently, the only differences are due to "harmonic density" or "non-density" and "non-repetition" (or the lack of non-repetition, as in Philip Glass).

So I thought that this thread might clear things up.

P.S. In case any "flatlanders" are offended, they may refer to verticalists like me as "wedgeheads."

(sorry it took so long; I must post in segments; having problems with posts being erased)


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification!


Perhaps this should be moved to the "Stupid Thread Ideas" section.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I used to play a game, and I still do; I would try to hear the "pitch" of noises in the environment. Some of them had pitches, but with some of them, like vacuum cleaners, which produced a constant roar of noise which contained a lot of harmonics, I realized that I could hear it as almost any pitch I wanted. Later, I realized what was happening. I was "filtering" the sound with my brain, and just tuning in to the pitch I wanted to hear.
> 
> As Dim7 was asking, all "noise" is, is sound with a whole bunch of harmonics and no definite pitch; and yes, there are degrees of this.
> 
> Stockhausen did a piece called Mikrophonie, where he struck a gong (pretty noisy), and got a flat-head condenser mike, and ran it over the surface, not touchin, but very close. Through the amps, it sounded like a single tone. This is because the mike was picking up whatever harmonic was present in that particular spot.
> 
> He invites us to get microphones ourselves, and become "microscopic sound explorers."


I play that 'game' everyday, too. As you have said, there are many common objects around us that readily reveal their pitch content after a couple of moments of focused listening: vacuum cleaners, fridges, air-con units, wooden and metallic handrails, etc. However, there are objects and sounds that do not do so to the *naked human ear*, such as the sound of one's nails scratching wallpaper, or listening to white noise. I doubt your ear can filter such sounds and tune into pitch in these particular examples without the use of hi-tech mikes and digital recording technology and studio techniques. This is why I disagree with you that all sound is _*inherently*_ harmonic.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I play that 'game' everyday, too. As you have said, there are many common objects around us that readily reveal their pitch content after a couple of moments of focused listening: vacuum cleaners, fridges, air-con units, wooden and metallic handrails, etc. However, there are objects and sounds that do not do so to the *naked human ear*, such as the sound of one's nails scratching wallpaper, or listening to white noise. I doubt your ear can filter such sounds and tune into pitch in these particular examples without the use of hi-tech mikes and digital recording technology and studio techniques. This is why I disagree with you that all sound is _*inherently*_ harmonic.


Hmmm; I can listen to white noise and hear it as about any pitch I want. I think that this is due to my brain actually focusing in on that content. This may be learned to an extent, as I have experience with synthesizers, and playing with filters, etc.

I mean, if a violin maker can thump a piece of wood and hear it...

I can locate resonant frequencies, too. I used to make digeridoos at work, out of discarded cardboard tubes, about 3" in diameter. I would sing into them to find the resonant note. I could tune several tubes in this way. I could do it by striking the tube as well, but singing worked better.

If a sound is too transient, you won'[t be able to hear it harmonically.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine if you are a "flatlander." For many people, the cognitive, horizontal dimension is all-important. Of course, it might take you a bit longer to process all that contextual information, *whereras the vertical is instantaneous*. Hurry up, and don't block the hallway!


I'm having problems following you. Are you (you and Septimal) arguing from the position of functional/CP harmony?


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> 
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> 
> It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.
> 
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


I'm returning to this thread because I haven't really grasped its point, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to block the hallway for a while and take things point by point.
It seems Septimal that you are talking from the position of CP harmony, where function imparts 'meaning' or direction to the narrative. 
Clearly, in isolation, a bunch of first inversion chords (as in a harmony text book) will all "sound" the same, the N6 (a first inversion of the flattened supertonic) only taking on its special flavour in relation to the tonic. 
That said, the voicing/placing and instrumentation of any such chords within CP practice will surely add 'perfume' to the strictly functional aspects, will they not?
So whilst harmony (in CP) may well be 'instantaneous' as Million proposes, surely the vertical constituents can only be grasped as they unfold horizontally. 
Am I barking up the wrong tree, here? In any case, I still don't agree with Million that all sound is 'harmonic'.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I'm having problems following you. Are you (you and Septimal) arguing from the position of functional/CP harmony?


No. I'm using a more general definition of tonality, not CP.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I'm returning to this thread because I haven't really grasped its point, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to block the hallway for a while and take things point by point.
> It seems Septimal that you are talking from the position of CP harmony, where function imparts 'meaning' or direction to the narrative.
> Clearly, in isolation, a bunch of first inversion chords (as in a harmony text book) will all "sound" the same, the N6 (a first inversion of the flattened supertonic) only taking on its special flavour in relation to the tonic.
> That said, the voicing/placing and instrumentation of any such chords within CP practice will surely add 'perfume' to the strictly functional aspects, will they not?
> So whilst harmony (in CP) may well be 'instantaneous' as Million proposes, *surely the vertical constituents can only be grasped as they unfold horizontally. *
> Am I barking up the wrong tree, here? In any case, I still don't agree with Million that all sound is 'harmonic'.


I'm not getting you.

I realize that time is moving all the time, and so in that sense everything is "horizontally moving." Therefore, in a sense, there is no "vertical" dimension, except as a simultaneity.

What are the "vertical constituents" you speak of?

To me, all function is derived from internal relations of a harmonic model, which is vertical in nature and needs no horizontal relationships. The functions are all derived from the vertical relations of each scale step to the root, without any need to proceed or unfold horizontally. The functions and relations are already there.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I almost forgot, I was grooving so hard: *doesn't a neopolitan sixth have a different root under it?*


I don't really know what you mean by 'grooving so hard' but here is my answer in any case: the root of the N6 is the flattened supertonic (flat II, if you prefer). Is this the answer you were looking for?


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know...
> 
> In C major, a first inversion C tonic chord has such a vastly different effect and meaning than, say, a Neapolitan sixth chord, even though they're the same first inversion major chord sonority.
> 
> It seems that the context of a chord is much more important than its sonority.
> 
> (Or for that matter... a root position tonic chord vs dominant chord, even without the seventh, are so different)


Here is your original post. You explain it, in terms of what I've been saying. It seems to me, though, that this confirms what I am proposing, not opposes it, because the roots of both chords are verticalities. There is no horizontal context, as I see it. No chord progression. Just a comparison of two chords, each one different because of its sonority, which is determined by its root and upper members.

do you not consider the root of a chord to be its most defining characteristic?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Isn't the root of a neopolitan chord a vertical context? Maybe you're not seeing what I'm saying.


Yes, analytically (abstractly, on paper) the N6 is 'defined' vertically (i.e. notated by the scribes as _flat-II6_) but only heard and 'understood' in relation to the preceding chord and the chord that follows it, so only 'comprehensible' horizontally (over time).
I'm afraid I'm not seeing (or hearing, more importantly) what you're saying. Keep trying, I want to understand.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> In vertical-land, all function is derived from the vertical. This also gives rise to sonority. They are the same thing.


Taking this point by point:
a) If by "vertical-land" you mean CP (common practice/functional harmony), this is the case on paper, but only understood in real time performance over time (horizontally); I believe that function (in CP terms) can only be understood across both _*y*_ and _*x*_ axes;
b) Sonority (as far as I understand the term) has nothing to do with CP harmonic function.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Taking this point by point:
> a) If by "vertical-land" you mean CP (common practice/functional harmony), this is the case on paper, but only understood in real time performance over time (horizontally); I believe that function (in CP terms) can only be understood across both _*y*_ and _*x*_ axes;
> b) Sonority (as far as I understand the term) has nothing to do with CP harmonic function.


We are using different meanings and terms. I want nothing to do with CP tonality or its definitions.

By "vertical," I mean notes stacked on top of each other.

"Vertical" also refers to a harmonic model: a fundamental, with its harmonics stacked vertically on top.

These harmonic models (there can be many different ones, and many scales) all consist of a set of internal relations of this "stack." This model is where all function comes from.

Example: fundamental C, harmonic G, is a ratio of 2:3 (a fifth) so it is the most consonant interval (besides the octave 1:2 and unison 1:1). Therefore, it is the most important relationship (or function).


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Here is your original post. You explain it, in terms of what I've been saying. It seems to me, though, that this confirms what I am proposing, not opposes it, because the roots of both chords are verticalities. There is no horizontal context, as I see it. No chord progression. Just a comparison of two chords, each one different because of its sonority, which is determined by its root and upper members.
> 
> do you not consider the root of a chord to be its most defining characteristic?


What you are referring to was not my post, you are confusing me with Septimal and yours is rather confused, Million.
Of course, on paper (abstractly) such chords are vertical events, if you will, as they are in the harmony textbooks. But harmony textbooks are not music; the N6 as it exists in such textbooks is a dry and empty 'verticality', and _*without any sonority*_ whatsoever. 
On the other hand, to hear it in context (the early bars of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata to take an easy example) we hear both its functional impact (always 'exotic') and its sonorous effect owing to the spacing/voicing of the chord. You say you don't see any horizontal contexts; maybe that's because you don't hear them.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> What you are referring to was not my post, you are confusing me with Septimal and yours is rather confused, Million.


Oh, sorry...............



TalkingHead said:


> Of course, on paper (abstractly) such chords are vertical events, if you will, as they are in the harmony textbooks. But harmony textbooks are not music; the N6 as it exists in such textbooks is a dry and empty 'verticality', and _*without any sonority*_ whatsoever.
> On the other hand, to hear it in context (the early bars of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata to take an easy example) we hear both its functional impact (always 'exotic') and its sonorous effect owing to the spacing/voicing of the chord. You say you don't see any horizontal contexts; maybe that's because you don't hear them.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> We are using different meanings and terms. I want nothing to do with CP tonality or its definitions.
> By "vertical," I mean notes stacked on top of each other.
> "Vertical" also refers to a harmonic model: a fundamental, with its harmonics stacked vertically on top.
> These harmonic models (there can be many different ones, and many scales) all consist of a set of internal relations of this "stack." This model is where all function comes from.
> Example: fundamental C, harmonic G, is a ratio of 2:3 (a fifth) so it is the most consonant interval (besides the octave 1:2 and unison 1:1). Therefore, it is the most important relationship (or function).


I see now we have been talking at cross purposes. Thank you for the clarification (which took a while coming). I'll leave this thread to you and others, but I still don't agree that all _sound_ is harmonic.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> What you are referring to was not my post, you are confusing me with Septimal and yours is rather confused, Million.
> Of course, on paper (abstractly) such chords are vertical events, if you will, as they are in the harmony textbooks. But harmony textbooks are not music; the N6 as it exists in such textbooks is a dry and empty 'verticality', and _*without any sonority*_ whatsoever.
> On the other hand, to hear it in context (the early bars of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata to take an easy example) we hear both its functional impact (always 'exotic') and its sonorous effect owing to the spacing/voicing of the chord. You say you don't see any horizontal contexts; maybe that's because you don't hear them.


You're not really talking about sounds; you're talking about perception.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I see now we have been talking at cross purposes. Thank you for the clarification (which took a while coming). I'll leave this thread to you and others, but I still don't agree that all _sound_ is harmonic.


Yes, it's been a real pleasure. Good luck.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You're not really talking about sounds; you're talking about perception.


Well, I do hope so!


----------



## millionrainbows

There are good reasons I do not see eye-to-eye with proponents of CP tonality. 

For example, the fourth is considered a dissonance in CP tonality.

Let's look at it in context:

unison...1:1
octave...2:2
fifth...2:3
fourth...3:4
major third...4:5

So in strict terms of sonance, a fourth is more consonant than a maj 3; and in CP tonality. a third is more consonant than a fourth. 

But this is due to context, not sonance.

This also reveals inherent dissonances built-in to the major scale: the degrees IV and vii (F and B).

This tritone F/B is not present in the pentatonic scale, which is more consonant because of the absence of this tritone.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> There are good reasons I do not see eye-to-eye with proponents of CP tonality.
> For example, the fourth is considered a dissonance in CP tonality, and it is.


How am I to take this statement, Million? What radical idea are you trying to convey? 
Bach was not a proponent of CP tonality, he simply accepted its framework and produced the works he did. And I believe he considered the 4th to be a dissonant interval and treated it according to the "grammar" of the time (that lasted at least until Bruckner). What is your point, _bon sang_!?


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> How am I to take this statement, Million? What radical idea are you trying to convey?
> Bach was not a proponent of CP tonality, he simply accepted its framework and produced the works he did. And I believe he considered the 4th as a dissonant interval and treated it according to the "grammar" of the time (that lasted at least until Bruckner). What is your point, _bon sang_!?


I'm having problems with my posts being erased, so I'm having to post in small increments. You may want to read my whole post before responding. Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> How am I to take this statement, Million? What radical idea are you trying to convey?
> Bach was not a proponent of CP tonality, he simply accepted its framework and produced the works he did. And I believe he considered the 4th as a dissonant interval and treated it according to the "grammar" of the time (that lasted at least until Bruckner). What is your point, _bon sang_!?


I'm saying that all function derives from the vertical relationships of the harmonic model. All horizontal relations came later, and are cerebral constructs, and arbitrary.

CP tonality is an arbitrary procedure of dealing with music, and should be seen as arbitrary. Tonality is derived from the vertical, not the horizontal. The horizontal can reinforce a sense of tonality. but tonality in its essence is vertical, as are all functions.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> *I'm having problems with my posts being erased, so I'm having to post in small increments*. You may want to read my whole post before responding. Sorry for the inconvenience.


I really don't have the time for this, but I will indulge you for the moment.
I'm going to address your modified post #40 in a moment ...


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Well, I do hope so!


But perception as you speak of it takes place over spans of time. This does not represent sound, it represents perception.

For example; if we hear middle C, we hear it as "tonic" in isolation. If we then hear the F below that, C suddenly becomes a fifth, with F as the new root.

If we hear C, then the G above that, C still retains its rootedness.

So where is the "true meaning" of C?

It lies in the scale of the key we are in. This determines the key.

G will always be the fifth in a C scale. F will always be a fourth in C.

Context can change; it is arbitrary. The relations within a scale are fixed. Function is determined, and given meaning, by the vertical.


----------



## millionrainbows

I gotta go cook supper. I shall return tomorrow. Thanx, Talkinghead.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> But perception as you speak of it takes place over spans of time. This does not represent sound, it represents perception. For example; if we hear middle C, we hear it as "tonic" in isolation.


No. Why should we hear "C _*as tonic*_" if the note is played in isolation? It's just a note in isolation. It's as you suggested before, we can be walking down a road and hear an air-con unit from an open window in the street and hear a pitch (could be a C, could be micro-tonally just above a C) - why call that a "tonic"? Calling notes tonic or subdominant and so on is already going to condition how you listen to and process those sounds. If you then hear an F below, we may well (as classically-trained musicians) perceive that as a fifth below but why hear that as the *root* if there is no 3rd to confirm? Are you thinking and hearing sounds in CP terms? You are making big assumptions about the ways other people hear and respond to sounds, Million.



millionrainbows said:


> If we then hear the F below that, C suddenly becomes a fifth, with F as the new root.
> 
> If we hear C, then the G above that, C still retains its rootedness.


Sure, the F below the C becomes a fifth (in CP and aural analysis) but not that F is the root as in F major; and playing the G after the C also makes a fifth but that does not confirm any root or tonality. 
You are just taking notes in isolation and applying possible basic tonalities according to the habits of your ears. 
It just so happens that when I hear a 'C' I hear it as the third of A-flat major, so when I next hear an 'F' I am hearing the subdominant, and when I hear the 'G' I hear the leading note. 
In your argument, you need someone to tell you what is the referent "key" for your argument to hold water.



millionrainbows said:


> G will always be the fifth in a C scale.


Or function (in C major) as a 7th in VI6. Its _*vertical*_ pitch function (out of time) as "V" will be diluted by its _*horizontal*_ role as a secondary 7th. But you said before you are not interested in CP harmony, so again I don't see where you are going with all this.



millionrainbows said:


> F will always be a fourth in C.


Sure, on paper 'F' will always be _*the 4th of the scale*_ but could be a fifth or a fourth as an interval.



millionrainbows said:


> Context can change; it is arbitrary. The relations within a scale are fixed. Function is determined, and given meaning, by the vertical.


Harmonic context can change, for sure. The relations within a scale are fixed only in terms of stylistic grammar, they are not all set in stone for all time. Function, in the grammar of CP, can only be heard within the context of the vertical and horizontal, the _y_ and _x_ axes.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> No. Why should we hear "C _*as tonic*_" if the note is played in isolation? It's just a note in isolation. It's as you suggested before, we can be walking down a road and hear an air-con unit from an open window in the street and hear a pitch (could be a C, could be micro-tonally just above a C) - why call that a "tonic"?


I'm just using musical nomenclature out of habit when I say "tonic." I should have said "tone center."But there is really no difference; the isolated C functions as a "tonic" or tone center.



TalkingHead said:


> Calling notes tonic or subdominant and so on is already going to condition how you listen to and process those sounds.


I disagree, since I see the various functions (tonic, dominant, etc.) as being derived from the harmonic hierarchy, which is the model of one note and its harmonics. The functions are already "inside" this note, as inherent relations to the fundamental. No perception or processing through time is necessary. The function is built-in to the scale hierarchy, whatever that scale may be, as a harmonic model.



TalkingHead said:


> If you then hear an F below, we may well (as classically-trained musicians) perceive that as a fifth below but why hear that as the *root* if there is no 3rd to confirm? Are you thinking and hearing sounds in CP terms? You are making big assumptions about the ways other people hear and respond to sounds, Million.


I always back up this 2-note interval perception theory by referring people to the book I got it from, Schoenberg's _*Structural Functions of Harmony,*_ which explains root movement and progression in terms of interval perception. You want the details? I can paste a previous explanation, but I'm tired of going over and over it.



TalkingHead said:


> Sure, the F below the C becomes a fifth (in CP and aural analysis) but not that F is the root as in F major; and playing the G after the C also makes a fifth but that does not confirm any root or tonality. You are just taking notes in isolation and applying possible basic tonalities according to the habits of your ears.


That's what the perception of tonality is based on; the way things sound to our ears.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> It just so happens that when I hear a 'C' I hear it as the third of A-flat major, so when I next hear an 'F' I am hearing the subdominant, and when I hear the 'G' I hear the leading note. In your argument, you need someone to tell you what is the referent "key" for your argument to hold water.


You're trying to stuff a horse into a suitcase. All I've really said is that tonality is a potentiality which is self-contained in its vertical relationships to "1" or the root fundamental. I never said that this could not be _elaborated on_, or that it_ invalidates the horizontal activity which results,_ or that the horizontal invalidates the vertical. I don't really see a conflict with the two views. Whatever works for you.



TalkingHead said:


> Or function (in C major) as a 7th in VI6. Its _*vertical*_ pitch function (out of time) as "V" will be diluted by its _*horizontal*_ role as a secondary 7th. But you said before you are not interested in CP harmony, so again I don't see where you are going with all this.


You need to think about it some more, then, because I have all the source material and confirmation of these ideas that I need.

Quoting *Harry Partch, from Genesis of a New Music:*_

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.
*_


TalkingHead said:


> Sure, on paper 'F' will always be _*the 4th of the scale*_ but could be a fifth or a fourth as an interval.


 I'm talking *only* of the key scale, and its functions.



TalkingHead said:


> Harmonic context can change, for sure. The relations within a scale are fixed only in terms of stylistic grammar, they are not all set in stone for all time.


I disagree. Tonality, and function, are potentialities which are self-contained in their vertical relationships to "1" or the root fundamental. I never said that this could not be elaborated on, or that it invalidates the horizontal activity which results, or that the horizontal invalidates the vertical; but only assert that _the vertical relationships are primary, and came first. The horizontal is simply an elaboration of these functions, and can bee seen as "playing" with them. 
_


TalkingHead said:


> Function, in the grammar of CP, can only be heard within the context of the vertical and horizontal, the _y_ and _x_ axes.


Then stay within that paradigm, if that works for you, but don't attempt to invalidate my truth with your CP truth.


----------



## millionrainbows

http://www.talkclassical.com/38920-serialism-move-forward-backward-11.html

I refer you to this thread, starting on page 11. This stuff has already been hashed-out.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/38920-serialism-move-forward-backward-11.html
> *I refer you to this thread, starting on page 11. This stuff has already been hashed-out*.


I know it's hard to keep threads airtight, but I'm a little dismayed that I need to go to *another* thread to be able to fully understand where you're coming from. I'm going to have to address your post #49 at a later date.


----------



## Guest

^ Duplicated post


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I know it's hard to keep threads airtight, but I'm a little dismayed that I need to go to *another* thread to be able to fully understand where you're coming from. I'm going to have to address your post #49 at a later date.


I'm sorry for the inconvenience, TalkingHead.

It also requires effort on my part to post these involved responses.

If you feel as if I'm 'brushing you off,' also realize that when I hear "I'm not sure where you're going with this" repeatedly, it tends to dampen my enthusiasm.

Actually, my motivation is innocent and sincere. Generally, this is where I am coming from.

This does not refer to you specifically, but only to a 'general mindset' which I encounter in dicussions about music, wherever that occurs.

I hear proponents of classical music talk about the listening experience as if it were something which requires a certain type of thought style, a mindset which is able to follow long passages over spans of time, and perceive forms and events with a very deliberate and controlled way of thinking. They make it sound as if the perception of classical music is somehow different than experiencing other forms of music.

I disagree with this attitude. While I admit that historical and technical knowledge of the vast history of classical music is admirable, and that this may set it apart from other genres in somem ways, and adds to the experience, and that I too have done some 'homework' in this area, this is all secondary to the full perceptual experience of music.

Since I have some theoretical knowledge of music, I am able to articulate this in practical music terms, such as ratios, hierarchies, harmony, etc.

The sum of it is that perception of music is instantaneous, natural, and universal. This opinion is at odds, apparently, with those who assert that, for one example, tonality is not perceived except as a long, involved thought and perceptual process of the conscious mind, which makes connections and relationships over spans of time, only. I disagree with this, and with the entire way of thinking this embodies. To me, the perception of any art involves a certain posture of receptiveness, not a controlling thought process.

However, different strokes for different brain-wiring and neural pathway styles. I realize that my position and ideas on this will never be accepted by some, because it just doesn't resonate with the way they think about things.

That's fine with me. However, and this may simply be an egotistical misperception on my part, but I feel that I have a unique perspective on this, due to the way I think about things.

I finally realized, after years of interacting with people who I now see as basically uncreative, or "too practical," or have knowledge which they have memorized, but never really "grokked" or understood on a basic level, or ruminated for hours about, or whatever, that a creative person, like myself, thinks differently about the most basic things. This subject is big enough to fill pages, so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Xaltotun

millionrainbows said:


> I'm saying that all function derives from the vertical relationships of the harmonic model. All horizontal relations came later, and are cerebral constructs, and arbitrary.
> 
> CP tonality is an arbitrary procedure of dealing with music, and should be seen as arbitrary. Tonality is derived from the vertical, not the horizontal. The horizontal can reinforce a sense of tonality. but tonality in its essence is vertical, as are all functions.


I sort of agree with you to a point. (And I really like your way of thinking, as always, even when I think differently.) "All horizontal relations are cerebral constructs and arbitrary", this is the key. But I tend to think that it is indeed these cerebral constructs that may indeed be arbitrary, that make up what music is to us as human beings. I don't believe that music is sound. Music is what sound points towards, it's an arbitrary and necessary cerebral construct. Sound is the appearance of music. Sound is being, but being lacks meaning. Music is the meaning. And meaning may be an arbitrary construct. A castle in the air that is nonetheless necessary.


----------



## Xaltotun

millionrainbows said:


> The sum of it is that perception of music is instantaneous, natural, and universal. This opinion is at odds, apparently, with those who assert that, for one example, tonality is not perceived except as a long, involved thought and perceptual process of the conscious mind, which makes connections and relationships over spans of time, only. I disagree with this, and with the entire way of thinking this embodies. To me, the perception of any art involves a certain posture of receptiveness, not a controlling thought process.


This is also extremely clarifying. I realize that I'm indeed in the camp that is averse to too much receptiveness, prefering a controlling thought process. Music is not instantaneous, natural and universal to me. That's sound. And sound is not music. I don't want to "be", I want to "mean". But I'll grant you that a certain degree of "being" and receptiveness is needed lest we desiccate into mummies (or petrify into Greek statues, which is much more beautiful!). Wagner was into this "being", this refreshing receptiveness, I think. But I think that this idea of "being" must be told to us in the terms of "meaning". I.e. we need an artist-philosopher-hero to tell us by language and concepts that we could actually be human beings every once in a while.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm glad you are able to see this. I think it is a matter of putting things in their natural order.

All the horizontal meaning in the world will not replace what must come first, as the foundation for all activity that follows, as potentiality, as meaning in seed form, in music, as in life: being is primary, and it is the generator and manifestation of the meaning which follows, which is a manifestation of the "seed" of being. 

Otherwise, the 'meaning' which we attempt to create without this prerequisite will be deficient. This is what makes great art, and also what makes great human beings. 

Wagner found this, in his music, I agree; and all the extraneous "artistic dressing," cultural conditioning, and attempts to impose his own artistic ideas on to it are rendered irrelevant, as Arnold Schoenberg, waiting in the cold and dark outside of the opera house to hear the music, must have seen, must have known, and must have shared.

In spite of ourselves, and all our attempts to impose our own desires and "will" beauty into being, there will always be that first core of being and meaning, our connection to the essence of music and sound and vibration, from which all that follows is given meaning. All else is hollow.


----------



## Che2007

Million, this is a very strange thread...

Firstly, to clear up the point about whether all sounds are harmonic or not - the answer is: not all sounds are harmonic. In fact most sounds are correctly described as inharmonic. White noise is an inharmonic sound whether or not you decide to ignore large parts of its energy profile to find a pitch. A harmonic sound is is sound more or less conforming to the harmonic series - for example a violin string or the human voice. The further the sound diverges away from the harmonic spectrum (for example by including a much denser or less evenly distributed pattern of frequencies) it becomes less and less harmonic. That is the definition.

Secondly, I will discuss the idea that all musical pitch relationships are inherent in the harmonic series. You don't seem to claim this but I thought I should make it clear - the harmonic series doesn't play out for a great deal of contemporary music (spectralism somewhat excepted). If you are referring to tonality (you seem to claim this though I am unclear as to what you think tonality is) there is a relationship between harmonic ratios and tonality, but it is nowhere near as straight forward or 1-1 as you are making out. The consonance of a sound is often measured by beats. Simply put, the more near misses in the aligned spectrums of two or more sounds the more beats. A sound will be more grainy the more near misses in the spectrum we hear within the audible range. That is why a low piano note sounds so inharmonic and grainy, it is because so many of the overtones that are very close together are within audible range. As a general rule when it comes to harmonic sounds, they will have less beats the lower the epimoric ratio of their fundamental frequencies are. So, a 3:2 relationship generally has no audible beats if it is between two harmonic sounds. For this reason, when music started to include simultaneous voices, harmonic consonances were preferred. In the medieval era, 5ths and 4ths were perfect consonances to be freely used, while 3rds and 6ths were treated as imperfect consonances which had to be treated carefully. This also has a practical dimension - it is simply easier to tune 5ths and 4ths than 3rds or 6ths. As more and more voices began to be stacked together, the triad became an important unit. This is because it is the most consonant spacing of three pitches within an octave. I believe it is for this reason that 3rds and 6ths began to be treated freely, demoting 4ths to their position of consonant dissonance. To put it plainly, a 4th against the bass implies a lower virtual fundamental than the 5/3 or 6/3 positions of a triad as well as later becoming associated with the rhetoric of cadential suspension. From these starting points (8ve, 5th, 4th, 3rd as consonances) tonality grew. That is as far as the harmonic series relates to tonality. From then onwards it is the ordering of counterpoint to lead to logical successions of consonance and dissonance that takes precedence. This consonance and dissonance of course relates to the concordance of the sound which has a relationship to harmonicity, but it is also to do with expectation, line, voice and rhetoric.

Thirdly, a niggle of mine is when people use the terms horizontal and vertical. Music is not a spacial art (generally) and we should all be careful of taking the score as a literal map. Speak in time instead, there are simultaneities and there are successions.

On a more general note - this idea that all function springs from the harmonic series is very old fashioned and pretty useless theoretically. Of course, any sound art will take note of the way that multiple sounds work together, but that is not to privilege one spectrum above another, it is just a practicality of performance. Take a tonal piece and play it on a succession of large bells - it sounds pretty rubbish. That is because the bells aren't tuned harmonically so they do not fuse in harmonic ratios. The links of some human music to the harmonic spectrum is an accident of evolution, and not even reflected in all cultures, and not reflected in a great deal of western art music since 1945.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Firstly, to clear up the point about whether all sounds are harmonic or not - the answer is: not all sounds are harmonic. In fact most sounds are correctly described as inharmonic. White noise is an inharmonic sound whether or not you decide to ignore large parts of its energy profile to find a pitch. A harmonic sound is is sound more or less conforming to the harmonic series - for example a violin string or the human voice. The further the sound diverges away from the harmonic spectrum (for example by including a much denser or less evenly distributed pattern of frequencies) it becomes less and less harmonic. That is the definition.


Well, I'm certainly glad we've cleared that up! But I never said 'all sounds are harmonic' in that sense. That would be stupid, wouldn't it?


Che2007 said:


> Secondly, I will discuss the idea that all musical pitch relationships are inherent in the harmonic series. *You don't seem to claim this... *


No, I don't claim that.


Che2007 said:


> ...but I thought I should make it clear - the harmonic series doesn't play out for a great deal of contemporary music (spectralism somewhat excepted).


I never said "the harmonic series" was anything but a model for scales.


Che2007 said:


> ...If you are referring to tonality (you seem to claim this though I am unclear as to what you think tonality is) there is a relationship between harmonic ratios and tonality, but it is nowhere near as straight forward or 1-1 as you are making out.


It's based on an hierarchy of ratios to "1" or tonic, like the harmonic series. All scales are models of this. It reeaaly is that simple. You can make it complicated if you wish, but you will be misinterpreting this general truth.



Che2007 said:


> ...The consonance of a sound is often measured by beats. Simply put, the more near misses in the aligned spectrums of two or more sounds the more beats. A sound will be more grainy the more near misses in the spectrum we hear within the audible range. That is why a low piano note sounds so inharmonic and grainy, it is because so many of the overtones that are very close together are within audible range. As a general rule when it comes to harmonic sounds, they will have less beats the lower the epimoric ratio of their fundamental frequencies are. So, a 3:2 relationship generally has no audible beats if it is between two harmonic sounds. For this reason, when music started to include simultaneous voices, harmonic consonances were preferred. In the medieval era, 5ths and 4ths were perfect consonances to be freely used, while 3rds and 6ths were treated as imperfect consonances which had to be treated carefully. This also has a practical dimension - it is simply easier to tune 5ths and 4ths than 3rds or 6ths. As more and more voices began to be stacked together, the triad became an important unit. This is because it is the most consonant spacing of three pitches within an octave. I believe it is for this reason that 3rds and 6ths began to be treated freely, demoting 4ths to their position of consonant dissonance. To put it plainly, a 4th against the bass implies a lower virtual fundamental than the 5/3 or 6/3 positions of a triad as well as later becoming associated with the rhetoric of cadential suspension. From these starting points (8ve, 5th, 4th, 3rd as consonances) tonality grew. That is as far as the harmonic series relates to tonality. From then onwards it is the ordering of counterpoint to lead to logical successions of consonance and dissonance that takes *precedence.*


I disagree. All that follows is the elaboration of the initial harmonic model, so, yes, it has*"precedence"* after that because there is nothing left to do but elaborate on that model, using thought-up musical ideas and mechanisms. It's called "composition," and it takes place horizontally in time.
Plus, you forget that CP tonality has always been a compromise, from as far back as Pythagoras. He stacked 2:3 fifths, and closed the circle with error, to get an octave. Consonant triads are just an ideal which was never realized.

*This consonance and dissonance of course relates to the concordance of the sound which has a relationship to harmonicity*, but it is also to do with expectation, line, voice and rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

But my whole point is that harmonicity came first, and defined all the functions beforer any of the rest of it occured. Expectation, line, voice, and rhetoric is secondary.


Che2007 said:


> ...Thirdly, a niggle of mine is when people use the terms horizontal and vertical. Music is not a spacial art (generally) and we should all be careful of taking the score as a literal map. Speak in time instead, there are simultaneities and there are successions.


When music is scored, it has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. This doesn't cause me any problem.



Che2007 said:


> ...On a more general note - this idea that all function springs from the harmonic series is very old fashioned...


Harry Partch backs this idea, and I'm sure Terry Riley and Philip Glass would as well. This is an ancient truth.



Che2007 said:


> ...and pretty useless theoretically.


I beg your pardon! If you feel that way, why am I even bothering to communicate with you about this?



Che2007 said:


> ...Of course, any sound art will take note of the way that multiple sounds work together, but that is not to privilege one spectrum above another, it is just a practicality of performance. Take a tonal piece and play it on a succession of large bells - it sounds pretty rubbish. That is because the bells aren't tuned harmonically so they do not fuse in harmonic ratios.


That's irrelevant to the idea of a harmonic model from which arises all function.



Che2007 said:


> ...The links of some human music to the harmonic spectrum is an accident of evolution, and not even reflected in all cultures, and not reflected in a great deal of western art music since 1945.


You're thinking very literally.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> (I explain the not all sounds are harmonic) Well, I'm certainly glad we've cleared that up! But I never said 'all sounds are harmonic' in that sense. That would be stupid, wouldn't it?


So why did you literally say "all sounds are harmonic"? And then argue with people when they pointed out that they are not? You know words mean things right?



> It's [tonality] based on an hierarchy of ratios to "1" or tonic, like the harmonic series. All scales are models of this. It reeaaly is that simple. You can make it complicated if you wish, but you will be misinterpreting this general truth.


Oh so your whole point was that notes have frequency ratios? I just had tried to read something extra into it because that would be a hugely asinine comment and a waste of everyone's time to point out.

Also, the harmonic series doesn't imply any hierarchy whatsoever. Any will to impose hierarchy resides in human conceptualization, not in the phenomena itself.



> it [composition] takes place horizontally in time.


What does that even mean?? How can something take place 'horizontally' in time? That is a meaningless phrase.



> Plus, you forget that CP tonality has always been a compromise, from as far back as Pythagoras. He stacked 2:3 fifths, and closed the circle with error, to get an octave. Consonant triads are just an ideal which was never realized.


So much to mention here:
1) Common practice music stretches from 1720ish through to 1880ish in the main. Pythagoras lived thousands of years before that.
2) We have no idea what Pythagoras did with intervals. We have literally nothing written by him or anyone immediately around him. Some theorists from the Pythagorean school stacked 5ths and were interested in the tetractys. I think it is pretty outlandish to claim a musical procedure for someone we know next to nothing about. The myths surrounding Pythagoras are just that: myths.
3) If you want to hear a consonant triad go and see a good choir. Whenever they hold a chord for a long time they will lock into a consonant triad. Or listen to a meantone organ. Or a good quartet. Or a barbershop quartet. Or an orchestra. Hardly an unrealized ideal.



> (I write that consonance and disonance is related to harmonically but also other features of music) But my whole point is that harmonicity came first, and defined all the functions beforer any of the rest of it occured. Expectation, line, voice, and rhetoric is secondary.


So you are saying harmony came before melody right? That is your basic premise? Except of course that ,historically, melody came before harmony. Ancient Greek theorists were speculating on a melodic practice. There is no good reason to believe that the precise tuning of the intervals to harmonic ideals had anything to do with Ancient Greek performance practice. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that they ever played notes simultaneously at all.



> When music is scored, it has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. This doesn't cause me any problem.


It does mean you end up saying pretty nonsensical things though... Plus, I hope you realize that music can happen without a score?



> Harry Partch backs this idea, and I'm sure Terry Riley and Philip Glass would as well. This is an ancient truth.


I doubt Philip Glass would have any opinion on this at all. As for Partch and Riley I don't think they are really the go to guys for understanding history, theory and history of theory.



> (I claim that function does not spring purely from the harmonic series)I beg your pardon! If you feel that way, why am I even bothering to communicate with you about this?


Perhaps because you aren't totally close minded and are actually interested in learning about music theory. I thought that is what this forum is for?



> (I mention other cultures that don't tune intervals harmonically)That's irrelevant to the idea of a harmonic model from which arises all function.


I think you think it is irrelevant because it really clearly contradicts something you have read recently. Also, you must think gamelan is irrelevant since that uses inharmonic instruments and doesn't use harmonic tunings. There is a whole world of practice out there!



> You're thinking very literally.


No, I am trying to think about the real world and how music actually happens. If you have used language that was misleading, then I suggest you try harder to use terms like 'harmonic' and 'model' as they are properly defined.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> (I explain the not all sounds are harmonic)





millionrainbows said:


> Well, I'm certainly glad we've cleared that up! But I never said 'all sounds are harmonic' in that sense. That would be stupid, wouldn't it?





Che2007 said:


> So why did you literally say "all sounds are harmonic"? And then argue with people when they pointed out that they are not? You know words mean things right?


You keep referring back to the harmonic series, and that is too literal; it does not apply to what I am saying. 'Inharmonic" is defined as sound which departs from the whole-numbered harmonic series, and my model does not use the harmonic series literally, but as a model. You seem to have a problem with "abstracting" this principle out from the actual, literal harmonic series.
It's not my problem if you are constantly distorting what I say. I never said "all sounds are harmonic" in the simplistic, literal sense you are saying.


millionrainbows said:


> Tonality is based on an hierarchy of ratios to "1" or tonic, like (not literally) the harmonic series. All scales are_ models _of this. It reeaaly is that simple. You can make it complicated if you wish, but you will be misinterpreting this general truth.





Che2007 said:


> Oh so your whole point was that notes have frequency ratios? I just had tried to read something extra into it because that would be a hugely asinine comment and a waste of everyone's time to point out.


Not only do notes have frequency ratios, but these ratios are derived from their relation to "1" or the tonic. This gives them "function" which is manifest in degrees of sonance to "1". This creates an hierarchy, gradated on those ratios.


Che2007 said:


> Also, the harmonic series doesn't imply any hierarchy whatsoever. Any will to impose hierarchy resides in human conceptualization, not in the phenomena itself.


No, the hierarchy is "hard numbers."

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

Once again, quoting *Harry Partch, from Genesis of a New Music:*_
The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.*_



millionrainbows said:


> I disagree that no hierarchy is implied. All that follows is the elaboration of the initial harmonic model, so, yes, the horizontal has*"precedence"* after that because there is nothing left to do but elaborate on that model, using thought-up musical ideas and mechanisms. It's called "composition," and it takes place horizontally in time.





Che2007 said:


> What does that even mean?? How can something take place 'horizontally' in time? That is a meaningless phrase.


*You will have to start thinking of a "time line."* Apparently you have no experience with computer-based recording sysyems. Everything takes place on a time line. This visual way of depicting music in time is elementary. I'm beginning to think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it, or you enjoy "invalidating" other people's ideas.



millionrainbows said:


> Plus, you forget that CP tonality has always been a compromise, from as far back as Pythagoras. He stacked 2:3 fifths, and closed the circle with error, to get an octave. Consonant triads are just an ideal which was never realized.





Che2007 said:


> So much to mention here:
> 1) Common practice music stretches from 1720ish through to 1880ish in the main. Pythagoras lived thousands of years before that.


Yes, but he invented our 12-note scale, basing it on fifths. To deny his influence is ridiculous.



Che2007 said:


> 2) We have no idea what Pythagoras did with intervals. We have literally nothing written by him or anyone immediately around him. Some theorists from the Pythagorean school stacked 5ths and were interested in the tetractys. I think it is pretty outlandish to claim a musical procedure for someone we know next to nothing about. The myths surrounding Pythagoras are just that: myths.


Wow, I never heard anybody completely invalidate Pythagoras like that. That's hubris to the nth degree.



Che2007 said:


> 3) If you want to hear a consonant triad go and see a good choir. Whenever they hold a chord for a long time they will lock into a consonant triad. Or listen to a meantone organ. Or a good quartet. Or a barbershop quartet. Or an orchestra. Hardly an unrealized ideal.


CP tonality is based on an unrealized, imperfect, compromised model of perfectly consonant triads. Pythagoras stacked his 2:3 fifths in an attempt to get this. The "Pythagoran comma" is the compromise, in order to close the circle and preserve the octave. Major thirds (4:5) suffered greatly, hence, all of the tempered tunings like "mean tone" which attempted to get better M3rds.



Che2007 said:


> (I write that consonance and disonance is related to harmonically but also other features of music)





millionrainbows said:


> But my whole point is that harmonicity came first, and defined all the functions beforer any of the rest of it occured. Expectation, line, voice, and rhetoric is secondary.





Che2007 said:


> So you are saying harmony came before melody right? That is your basic premise?


No, that is not my basic premise.



Che2007 said:


> Except of course that ,historically, melody came before harmony. Ancient Greek theorists were speculating on a melodic practice. There is no good reason to believe that the precise tuning of the intervals to harmonic ideals had anything to do with Ancient Greek performance practice. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that they ever played notes simultaneously at all.


All I can tell you is that Pythagoras wanted those 2:3 fifths. Why he stopped at 12 is our problem now. Harry Partch calls it a five-limit system of octave division.



millionrainbows said:


> When music is scored, it has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. This doesn't cause me any problem.





Che2007 said:


> *It does mean you end up saying pretty nonsensical things though...* Plus, I hope you realize that music can happen without a score?


*Watch out. Don't get rude, or there will be a report.*

Like I said with recording programs, a vertical/horizontal space in which music happens in time is just "par for the course, Charlie." It's common knowledge.



millionrainbows said:


> Harry Partch backs this idea, and I'm sure Terry Riley and Philip Glass would as well. This is an ancient truth.





Che2007 said:


> I doubt Philip Glass would have any opinion on this at all. As for Partch and Riley I don't think they are really the go to guys for understanding history, theory and history of theory.


 What are your sources, then? You refute mine, yet you have cited nothing!


Che2007 said:


> (I claim that function does not spring purely from the harmonic series)





millionrainbows said:


> I beg your pardon! If you feel that way, why am I even bothering to communicate with you about this?





Che2007 said:


> Perhaps because you aren't totally close minded and are actually interested in learning about music theory. I thought that is what this forum is for?


I've given up on "teachers" who do not grasp their ideas in depth.



Che said:


> (I mention other cultures that don't tune intervals harmonically)


That's irrelevant to the idea of a harmonic model from which arises all function.



Che said:


> *I think you think it is irrelevant because it really clearly contradicts something you have read recently*. Also, you must think gamelan is irrelevant since that uses inharmonic instruments and doesn't use harmonic tunings. There is a whole world of practice out there!





millionrainbows said:


> Don't presume to tell me what you think I am thinking.
> 
> You're thinking very literally. Besides, Balinese Gamelon music is essentially melodic, not harmonic.





Che2007 said:


> No, I am trying to think about the real world and how music actually happens. If you have used language that was misleading, then I suggest you try harder to use terms like 'harmonic' and 'model' as they are properly defined.


If you can't use more general definitions of "tonality" and "harmonic," that's not my problem, although I suspect that this "specific definition and meaning for everything" is the biggest part of your argumentation strategy.

*It should be obvious by now that I don't think like you do. I find your argumentation attempts to pin everything down to little boxes of specific meaning to be very, very tedious, and not much fun.*


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> You keep referring back to the harmonic series, and that is too literal; it does not apply to what I am saying. 'Inharmonic" is defined as sound which departs from the whole-numbered harmonic series, and my model does not use the harmonic series literally, but as a model. You seem to have a problem with "abstracting" this principle out from the actual, literal harmonic series.


It is because that is what the word 'harmonic' means when you are referring to sounds. Sorry to be the messenger but it doesn't mean anything to say sounds are all harmonic in some undefined 'general' way. If what you mean is that all sounds can be broken down by Fourier analysis into sine waves then that is what you should say.



> It's not my problem if you are constantly distorting what I say. I never said "all sounds are harmonic" in the simplistic, literal sense you are saying.


Then how did you mean it? (I made a guess just above but feel free to explain because you haven't so far)



> Not only do notes have frequency ratios, but these ratios are derived from their relation to "1" or the tonic. This gives them "function" which is manifest in degrees of sonance to "1". This creates an hierarchy, gradated on those ratios.


How does that hold true if there are people who prefer intervals which are inharmonic? How does your hierarchy work in that case? (I ask this to demonstrate that your claim is discounting a great many valid musical experiences and perhaps to show you that that hierarchy you speak of is as much arbitrary as any other.)



> Once again, quoting *Harry Partch, from Genesis of a New Music:*_
> The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.*_


Yeah but Partch isn't right about that. He is making a polemical point to bolster his claim of reaching some truth in music. It is ahistoric and not representative of all musical experience.



> I'm beginning to think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it, or you enjoy "invalidating" other people's ideas.


This isn't true. I am just saying that time and space are different things. Mixing them up leads to clumsy language and privileges a score based understanding of music which is not always profitable.



> Yes, but he [Pythagoras] invented our 12-note scale, basing it on fifths. To deny his influence is ridiculous.


You should know that this isn't at all true. In any way. Whatsoever. Maybe you should actually learn about some of these things before making pronouncements like this. That way you could avoid making such embarrassing mistakes.



> Wow, I never heard anybody completely invalidate Pythagoras like that. That's hubris to the nth degree.


Is it hubris to state some verifiable facts?



> CP tonality is based on an unrealized, imperfect, compromised model of perfectly consonant triads. Pythagoras stacked his 2:3 fifths in an attempt to get this. The "Pythagoran comma" is the compromise, in order to close the circle and preserve the octave. Major thirds (4:5) suffered greatly, hence, all of the tempered tunings like "mean tone" which attempted to get better M3rds.


Yep that is right, just ignore those pesky examples of places you can go and hear 4:5:6 consonances. Keep telling yourself it is an unrealizable dream to hear them in musical practice.



> All I can tell you is that Pythagoras wanted those 2:3 fifths. Why he stopped at 12 is our problem now. Harry Partch calls it a five-limit system of octave division.


1) I don't know how many times I should repeat this... We know nothing about what Pythagoras did or didn't do with pitches. One thing which is pretty certain however is he wasn't stacking 3:2s to create a 12 note scale. That would be completely anachronistic.
2) When Partch talks about the 5-limit he isn't referring to Pythagorean tuning, he is referring to Zarlino's scenario which is a lattice of 3s and 5s. Re-read the chapter in his book on 5-limit tonality.



> *Watch out. Don't get rude, or there will be a report.*


Good luck with that.



> What are your sources, then? You refute mine, yet you have cited nothing!


Andrew Barker: Greek Musical Writing Vol. 2
Andrew Barker: The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece
Stefan Hagel: Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical Approach
John Chalmers: Divisions of the Tetrachord
Cambridge History of Music Theory. Thomas Mathieson: Greek Music Theory pp.109-135, Calvin Bower: The transmission of ancient music theory into the Middle Ages pp. 136-167, Jan Herlinger: Medieval canonics pp.168-192, Rudolf Rash: Tuning and Temperament pp. 193-222.
Joel Lester: Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century

There's a little starter for you.



> If you can't use more general definitions of "tonality" and "harmonic," that's not my problem, although I suspect that this "specific definition and meaning for everything" is the biggest part of your argumentation strategy.


You seem to suggest that knowing what you are talking about and then using to correct words to communicate it is a bad thing...



> *It should be obvious by now that I don't think like you do.*


It isn't a case of thinking differently. That isn't the problem. You are making specific claims which are wrong. It doesn't matter how you think, there is still a reality out there.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine with me. However, and this may simply be an egotistical misperception on my part, but I feel that I have a unique perspective on this, due to the way I think about things.
> 
> I finally realized, after years of interacting with people who I now see as basically uncreative, or "too practical," or have knowledge which they have memorized, but never really "grokked" or understood on a basic level, or ruminated for hours about, or whatever, that a creative person, like myself, thinks differently about the most basic things. This subject is big enough to fill pages, so I will leave it at that.


I had missed this gem! So someone who, for example knows a lot about a range of styles, genres, practices etc. plus lives a life based on music, listens to music constantly, plays music, studies music and teaches music is uncreative in your mind? I think you might find that all that endeavour over hundreds of years to formulate understandings of music (carried out by many fantastic musicians/theorists/teachers) actually adds up to quite a bit if you bother to take the time to get to grips with it.


----------



## millionrainbows

You keep referring back to the harmonic series, and that is too literal; it does not apply to what I am saying. 'Inharmonic" is defined as sound which departs from the whole-numbered harmonic series, and my model does not use the harmonic series literally, but as a model. You seem to have a problem with "abstracting" this principle out from the actual, literal harmonic series.


Che2007 said:


> It is because that is what the word 'harmonic' means when you are referring to sounds. Sorry to be the messenger but it doesn't mean anything to say sounds are all harmonic in some undefined 'general' way. If what you mean is that all sounds can be broken down by Fourier analysis into sine waves then that is what you should say.


You'll have to quote me exactly instead of making off-the-wall generalizations which mean nothing.It's not my problem if you are constantly distorting what I say. I never said "all sounds are harmonic" in the simplistic, literal sense you are saying.​

Che2007 said:


> Then how did you mean it? (I made a guess just above but feel free to explain because you haven't so far)


\​You'll have to exactly quote me and then ask me, in reference to that exact statement.Not only do notes have frequency ratios, but these ratios are derived from their relation to "1" or the tonic. This gives them "function" which is manifest in degrees of sonance to "1". This creates an hierarchy, gradated on those ratios.​

Che2007 said:


> How does that hold true if there are people who prefer intervals which are inharmonic? How does your hierarchy work in that case? (I ask this to demonstrate that your claim is discounting a great many valid musical experiences and perhaps to show you that that hierarchy you speak of is as much arbitrary as any other.)


I never said it wasn't arbitrary; it's a model. You are the one who keeps referring back to the actual harmonic series. Once again, quoting *Harry Partch, from Genesis of a New Music:*
_The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.[/QUOTE]*_​

Che2007 said:


> Yeah but Partch isn't right about that. He is making a polemical point to bolster his claim of reaching some truth in music. It is ahistoric and not representative of all musical experience.


You are completely in a fringe minority, to say that about Harry Partch.
I'm beginning to think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it, or you enjoy "invalidating" other people's ideas.



Che2007 said:


> This isn't true. I am just saying that time and space are different things. Mixing them up leads to clumsy language and privileges a score based understanding of music which is not always profitable.


Go look at somebody's Pro Tools program. Get with the 12st century. Or look at a player piano roll.







​Pythagoras invented our 12-note scale, basing it on fifths. To deny his influence is ridiculous.



Che2007 said:


> You should know that this isn't at all true. In any way. Whatsoever. Maybe you should actually learn about some of these things before making pronouncements like this. That way you could avoid making such embarrassing mistakes.


You are totally wrong. Apparently there are academics with an education have had their minds so programmed that they can no longer think without making embarassing statements.
Wow, I never heard anybody completely invalidate Pythagoras like that. That's hubris to the nth degree.



Che2007 said:


> Is it hubris to state some verifiable facts?


You should try doing that. All I've heard is the effects of the dust in a dark, dank, 19th century academic study hall somewhere.
CP tonality is based on an unrealized, imperfect, compromised model of perfectly consonant triads. Pythagoras stacked his 2:3 fifths in an attempt to get this. The "Pythagoran comma" is the compromise, in order to close the circle and preserve the octave. Major thirds (4:5) suffered greatly, hence, all of the tempered tunings like "mean tone" which attempted to get better M3rds.



Che2007 said:


> Yep that is right, just ignore those pesky examples of places you can go and hear 4:5:6 consonances. Keep telling yourself it is an unrealizable dream to hear them in musical practice.


You just won't admit that CP tonality is based on compromises and half-truths.
All I can tell you is that Pythagoras wanted those 2:3 fifths. Why he stopped at 12 is our problem now. Harry Partch calls it a five-limit system of octave division.



Che2007 said:


> 1) I don't know how many times I should repeat this... We know nothing about what Pythagoras did or didn't do with pitches. One thing which is pretty certain however is he wasn't stacking 3:2s to create a 12 note scale. That would be completely anachronistic.
> 2) When Partch talks about the 5-limit he isn't referring to Pythagorean tuning, he is referring to Zarlino's scenario which is a lattice of 3s and 5s. Re-read the chapter in his book on 5-limit tonality.


But that's exactly what Pythgoras did when he closed the circle at 12. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of this.
*Watch out. Don't get rude, or there will be a report.*



Che2007 said:


> Good luck with that.


So how much are they paying you, or are you doing this for the sheer sadistic pleasure?

What are your sources, then? You refute mine, yet you have cited nothing!



Che2007 said:


> Andrew Barker: Greek Musical Writing Vol. 2
> Andrew Barker: The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece
> Stefan Hagel: Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical Approach
> John Chalmers: Divisions of the Tetrachord
> Cambridge History of Music Theory. Thomas Mathieson: Greek Music Theory pp.109-135, Calvin Bower: The transmission of ancient music theory into the Middle Ages pp. 136-167, Jan Herlinger: Medieval canonics pp.168-192, Rudolf Rash: Tuning and Temperament pp. 193-222.
> Joel Lester: Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century
> 
> There's a little starter for you.


Better late than never. Next time, cite as you go.
If you can't use more general definitions of "tonality" and "harmonic," that's not my problem, although I suspect that this "specific definition and meaning for everything" is the biggest part of your argumentation strategy.



Che2007 said:


> You seem to suggest that knowing what you are talking about and then using to correct words to communicate it is a bad thing...


You are obsessively concerned with inflexible definitions, which do not describe my ideas anyway.
*It should be obvious by now that I don't think like you do.*



Che2007 said:


> It isn't a case of thinking differently. That isn't the problem. You are making specific claims which are wrong. It doesn't matter how you think, there is still a reality out there.


You are inflexible and uncreative in your interactions with me. I get the impression that you don't know how to really use ideas. You just regurgitate information which means nothing.​


----------



## Mahlerian

MR, there's no way that Pythagorean tuning was designed for perfect triads, first of all because the triads it produces are nowhere near as perfect even as those in equal temperament, and secondly because the concept of a triad as a self-sufficient harmonic entity didn't even exist until the early 17th century.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> MR, there's no way that Pythagorean tuning was designed for perfect triads, first of all because the triads it produces are nowhere near as perfect even as those in equal temperament, and secondly because the concept of a triad as a self-sufficient harmonic entity didn't even exist until the early 17th century.


I never said that.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that.


Then what did you mean here?



millionrainbows said:


> CP tonality is based on an unrealized, imperfect, compromised model of perfectly consonant triads. Pythagoras stacked his 2:3 fifths *in an attempt to get this*.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Then what did you mean here?


What is it that you dispute?


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> What is it that you dispute?


What is "this" referring to?

If it refers to "CP tonality," then this is obviously anachronistic.
If it refers to "perfectly consonant triads," then this is equally anachronistic and laughably wrong.


----------



## Che2007

For you MillionRainbows, some of your earlier posts:



> Music is sound, and sound is harmonic


Sound is not innately harmonic. Harmonic sounds are a small subset of all sounds. This is you saying something which is, by definition, untrue.



> As Dim7 was asking, all "noise" is, is sound with a whole bunch of harmonics and no definite pitch; and yes, there are degrees of this.


No, those are frequencies not harmonics. Harmonics are waves that have a whole number frequency ratio with another wave below.

How about we get down to business shall we?



> You are totally wrong.[about Pythagoras not inventing the 12tone scale] Apparently there are academics with an education have had their minds so programmed that they can no longer think without making embarassing statements.


Show me the money - you have claimed Pythagoras developed the 12tone scale many times. Show me something to prove it is true. You seem to be dedicated to it. So where did you read it?



> You are completely in a fringe minority, to say that about Harry Partch.


I don't think it is fringe to read his book as a polemic.



> (I point out that there is no evidence that Pythagoras made a 12tone scale and that Partch's 5-limit is a lattice of 5s and 3s)But that's exactly what Pythgoras did when he closed the circle at 12. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of this.


How about instead of keeping repeating this fallacious mantra, you go and bother to closely read the text you are claiming is the holder of truth? Since you haven't even absorbed the 5-limit chapter of Partch's book I don't see how you can make arguments about its content.



> So how much are they paying you, or are you doing this for the sheer sadistic pleasure?


I am sorry to hear you suffer from paranoia.



> You are inflexible and uncreative in your interactions with me. I get the impression that you don't know how to really use ideas. You just regurgitate information which means nothing.


Thus speaks someone who has nothing of substance to add to the discussion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> What is "this" referring to?


Yes, it is rather ambiguous, isn't it? "This" could refer to *more than two *things.



Mahlerian said:


> If "it" refers to "CP tonality," then this is obviously anachronistic.


I'm disappointed, Mahlerian, that you would accuse me of making such a* literal *chronological connection, and then invite eveyone to laugh at me.[/QUOTE]



Mahlerian said:


> If "it" refers to "perfectly consonant triads," then this is equally anachronistic and laughably wrong.


Those are two big, distorted "ifs." "It" refers to the "ideal" which CP tonality was constantly chasing, always with compromise and failure.

The_* consequences *_of Pythagoras' actions: this is a "big connection" you fail to make in your haste to prove me wrong. He gave us the 12-note system, after all.
But I understand; "divide and conquer" by fragmenting everything up into a literal series of unconnected facts in time, and then insisting that everything fit this template, with no abstraction, no extrapolation, no creativity...



millionrainbows said:


> CP tonality is based on an unrealized, imperfect, compromised model of perfectly consonant triads.


I see nothing wrong with that statement.
_You must understand in context,_ now, that when I say this, I meean that CP tonality is based on consonant sonorities_* ultimately *_exemplified by an ideal consonant triad, and that mean-tone tunings were a further effort to acheive this (and failed). This is opposed to a *geometric system *which in our case would be based on the 12-division of the octave, _which Pythagoras also unwittingly did._
The point to get is that everything that followed in CP is a direct consequence of Pythagoras' division of the octave, using fifths.
I'm disappointed, Mahlerian, that you are thinking so literally, as if everything had to be "right or wrong."
The CP system is based on an ideal which will never be realized, because "1" (the octave) can never be evenly divided by any other number except 1, or a multiple of 2 (4,8,16, etc.). I.e. you can't get an octave (1) by adding 2/3 + 2/3, or 3/4 + 3/4, or 4/5 + 4/5, etc.
*But I never said that Pythagoras was after consonant triads. That came later, but as a consequence of what he did. He just wanted 2:3 fifths, and an octave.*
This is not achievable, as stated above. You can't have an octave (2:1) and a perfect 2:3. It's mathematically impossible.

Here is the less ambiguous version. Caution! This requires abstract thinking!


millionrainbows said:


> Pythagoras stacked his 2:3 fifths in an attempt to get _*towards this ideal.*_ The "Pythagoran comma" is the compromise, in order to close the circle and preserve the octave. Major thirds (4:5) (LATER) suffered greatly, hence, all of the tempered tunings like "mean tone" which attempted to get better M3rds.


Is that better? I thought not.


----------



## Che2007

So your citation for Pythagoras stacking 5ths is... yourself... Good one.


----------



## Che2007

> The consequences of Pythagoras' actions: this is a "big connection" you fail to make in your haste to prove me wrong. He gave us the 12-note system, after all.


That isn't true. He didn't give us the 12tone system. Neither did any of the Pythagorean school.


----------



## Che2007

> This is opposed to a geometric system which in our case would be based on the 12-division of the octave, which Pythagoras also unwittingly did.


This is untrue. He did nothing of the sort.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> That isn't true. He didn't give us the 12tone system. Neither did any of the Pythagorean school.


Yes he did. You have no proof that he did not. Are we supposed to believe you "because you said so?"


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> This is untrue. He did nothing of the sort.


That's where "12" came from, the projecting of fifths. If you disagree, show us the origin of the 12-note division of the octave. The origin, the root of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> So your citation for Pythagoras stacking 5ths is... yourself... Good one.


This stuff is so ancient that much is based on legend. Pythagoras probably never went beyond a tetrachord, but his stacking of fifths created the consequences of all that followed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> So your citation for Pythagoras stacking 5ths is... yourself... Good one.


A lot of this is legend, and can't be proven or disproven.


----------



## millionrainbows

Music is sound, and sound is harmonic


Che2007 said:


> Sound is not innately harmonic. Harmonic sounds are a small subset of all sounds. This is you saying something which is, by definition, untrue.


Ok, maybe for you I should say "overtones" or partials. But all sounds contain some inhamonicity, so you are not perfectly correct either.

As Dim7 was asking, all "noise" is, is sound with a whole bunch of harmonics and no definite pitch; and yes, there are degrees of this.

[


Che2007 said:


> No, those are frequencies not harmonics. Harmonics are waves that have a whole number frequency ratio with another wave below.


Ok, partials.



Che2007 said:


> ...you have claimed Pythagoras developed the 12tone scale many times.


No, Pythagoras *led* to the 12-note system.



Che2007 said:


> (I point out that there is no evidence that Pythagoras made a 12tone scale.


But that is the consequence of what Pythgoras did when he closed the circle at 12. I NEVER said he made a 12-note scale. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of this.

So how much are they paying you, or are you doing this for the sheer sadistic pleasure?



Che2007 said:


> I am sorry to hear you suffer from paranoia.


Duly reported.

You are inflexible and uncreative in your interactions with me. I get the impression that you don't know how to really use ideas. You just regurgitate information which means nothing


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> But all sounds contain some inhamonicity, so you are not perfectly correct either.


You said sounds are harmonic. I said they are not (which they aren't). How that means I am in any way incorrect I cannot see.



> No, Pythagoras *led* to the 12-note system.
> 
> But that is the consequence of what Pythgoras did when he closed the circle at 12. I NEVER said he made a 12-note scale. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of this.


He didn't do anything like closing the circle at 12, there is no good reason to believe he did. It would mean nothing to a Greek music theorist to talk about such things. If you want to believe legends are literally true then how about Heracles? Or Beowulf?


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Yes he did. You have no proof that he did not. Are we supposed to believe you "because you said so?"


I have cited multiple sources of Ancient Greek Theory literature above. If you choose not to read that research then that is your deal. It doesn't make you right.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I play that 'game' everyday, too. As you have said, there are many common objects around us that readily reveal their pitch content after a couple of moments of focused listening: vacuum cleaners, fridges, air-con units, wooden and metallic handrails, etc. However, there are objects and sounds that do not do so to the *naked human ear*, such as the sound of one's nails scratching wallpaper, or listening to white noise. I doubt your ear can filter such sounds and tune into pitch in these particular examples without the use of hi-tech mikes and digital recording technology and studio techniques. This is why I disagree with you that all sound is _*inherently*_ harmonic.


I never said all sound is inherently harmonic. Can you reproduce the post where I said that? Then things get really confused in post #57. I never said all sound was harmonic. Where did this "non-issue" come from? Somebody made it up, but not me.

~


Che2007 said:


> *So why did you literally say "all sounds are harmonic"? *And then argue with people when they pointed out that they are not? You know words mean things right?


*What are you talking about? I never said such a thing!*


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows;944721[B said:


> _What are you talking about? I never said such a thing!_[/B]


You said "sound is harmonic".

Do you mean to say that when you wrote that in the title of the thread we were meant to read "sound is harmonic, except for sound that is not because I know that so please don't point it out, it will really upset me"?


----------



## millionrainbows

Function, and tonal meaning, come first from the instantaneous perception of sound and its inner relations, not from successions of events, which simply elaborate this.


----------



## Guest

I once worked with a guy who was a gifted pianist who could play about anything and also wrote his own pieces. Once we were assigned to write a manual on an Allison transmission the soldiers in the field could actually use. So they gave me a trans and I had to take it apart, photograph everything and detail the order in which it came apart and then put together again and use my notes and photos to make a step-by-step manual with illustrations. When I was done, he had to take what I wrote and follow it exactly as I wrote it and make any changes he felt were necessary. 

At one point he had an air-drill in his hand and had removed the drill bit from the chuck and was poring over my procedure to see what to do next. He was wearing these thick leathery welder's gloves because the trans parts were sharp and oily. He put the drill chuck in his gloved hand and, as he's reading, he absently starts pumping the on switch so the air motor is making a kind of high pitched "voom-vooom-vooooom-voom" sound. But he was opening and closing his gloved hand over the chuck as it spun which was making it change pitch and he's doing "Fur Elise" while he's reading--he wasn't even aware that he was doing it. But it was a perfect rendition of "Fur Elise' done with a pneumatic drill motor--every note was dead on.

As I'm watching him, he's playing the whole piece perfectly while reading my instructions and I just started laughing. He had to slur the faster passages but it still sounded great. A few people even came over to see what the hell was going on and now I'm laughing so hard I had to lay my head on my desk. I was angry at myself later because it did not even occur to me to take out my phone and film it for posterity but I didn't. Shows you, though, that to musical people, every sound is music and every object is a musical instrument.


----------



## millionrainbows

I really liked this thread. It's too bad that it got tainted with all these distortions and fabricated quotes. I never said 'all sound is harmonic,' and the meaning of 'harmonic' has been distorted into a rigid definition to be used for argumentation.

The term 'harmonic' has several meanings, and the sense in which I use it in this thread is perfectly valid.




_Adjective_
_*harmonic* ‎(comparative *more harmonic**, superlative most harmonic)*_


_*pertaining to harmony*_
_*pleasant to hear; harmonious; melodious *_

~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_(disambiguation)

By 'harmonic' I mean in a general sense, vertical harmonic structures, as opposed to linear progressions of tones, as in the term 'harmony.'


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> I really liked this thread. It's too bad that it got tainted with all these distortions and fabricated quotes. I never said 'all sound is harmonic,' and the meaning of 'harmonic' has been distorted into a rigid definition to be used for argumentation.
> 
> The term 'harmonic' has several meanings, and the sense in which I use it in this thread is perfectly valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Adjective_
> _*harmonic* ‎(comparative *more harmonic**, superlative most harmonic)*_
> 
> 
> _*pertaining to harmony*_
> _*pleasant to hear; harmonious; melodious *_
> 
> ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_(disambiguation)
> 
> By 'harmonic' I mean in a general sense, vertical harmonic structures, as opposed to linear progressions of tones, as in the term 'harmony.'


You can't mean "vertical harmonic structures" in a general sense: what does that even mean as a statement? I think you are trying to talk of the spectrum of a sound but you don't have your language right. Harmonic has a much more specific technical sense that just "pleasing to hear". This is the definition given in the Grove music dictionary online for harmonics: "Sets of musical notes whose frequencies are related by simple whole number ratios." It pertains to music notes, not to inharmonic frequencies. They are two different things. You said (and I can't believe I have to remind you yet again) "Sound is harmonic" That is factually not the case.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> You can't mean "vertical harmonic structures" in a general sense.


 Yes I can.



> what does that even mean as a statement?


The definition is right there, as an adjective, not a noun. I use it descriptively, not as a definer.



> I think you are trying to talk of the spectrum of a sound but you don't have your language right.


The only reason this conflict arose is because you want to use the term as a noun. The thread title is clear in its use of the term as an adjective.



> Harmonic has a much more specific technical sense that just "pleasing to hear".


It doesn't have to. It can be used generally, as an adjective.



> This is the definition given in the Grove music dictionary online for harmonics: "Sets of musical notes whose frequencies are related by simple whole number ratios." It pertains to music notes, not to inharmonic frequencies. They are two different things.


 That's using it as a noun, which defines. I used it in the title as an adjective, which is a descriptor.



> You said (and I can't believe I have to remind you yet again) "Sound is harmonic."


 That's correct. I used it as an adjective. Also, it was in the context of verticality vs. horizontality.



> That is factually not the case.


 I wasn't stating facts; I was describing.



> Get over yourself and your philosophical postings.


 No, I think I have a valid point; the sense tonality is created by vertical relationships, not horizontal linear ones. I explained all of this in detail in the other thread.

Besides, if it's philosophy, it is not factual. It's more like poetry.


----------



## millionrainbows

*The Ear is Vertical, The Eye is Linear*

If you have a 'good ear,' and by this I mean a really good ear, where you can name intervals instantly, you are in the 'ear mode.' I'm not talking about perfect pitch, although I'm sure this couldn't be a detriment, but good relative pitch.

This really applies more directly to perception of pitch areas and tonality, in the way we sense tonal centers and areas. But the process is the same, time-wise, in experiencing music temporally.

Those of us who do not have such acute perception of pitch are necessarily drawn to a more literal, cognitive memory-based mode of perception, more in keeping with reading, or looking at a map, or seeing a scene visually. This is a narrative mode of the eye. I explained this in more detail in the other thread on Schoenberg. The eye 'engulfs' the narrative sequence, and sees it in all its relations as a series of continuous, connected events.

The ear, on the other hand, is "blind" to this kind of perception and connection of events. Sound 'sneaks up' on the ear, and everything is sudden, and in the moment, and most of all, unpredictable; so all it can do is "take samples" of the various moments and events.

In terms of music, this quick sampling process, to those with acute pitch perception, is a 'template of comparisons' which can be instantly accessed.

Of course, some memory is involved, but this is more of a "sense memory" (rather than cognitive/visual memory, where we would recall a series of events, and connect them cognitively).

Many so-called 'primitive' folk and ethnic musicians, who happen to have exceptional ears and pitch perception, often create 'mental templates' of pitch memory in this way, and their music is structured around this template.

I urge you not to 'split hairs' too literally about this, since the fact is, we are all 'beings in time,' and time does pass. But on the other hand, we must examine how we are perceiving this continuum.

If we are 'inside' the world of the ear, which is more subjective and non-Western, we experience time as 'being,' and we are "a travelling point of being," as events occur to us.

If we are literate and visually biased, we will experience time as something "out there" which is uniform, continuous, and connected, as in a narrative which "moves in time" as we examine it from a more objective viewpoint.

Messiaen is like the "ear" mode of non-Western experience. His music is a series of sudden events. His music has no narrative "development" or progression to a goal, as in most Western classical music. He is concerned with verticalities and sonorities, which may defy the laws of voice-leading and progression. His music is not about progression, but is a succession of sonorous events.

Applied to time, the simple answer is that we can view time and structure as an objective thing, which is what most visually-biased listeners get bogged down in, or we can examine time in subjective terms, which is a different mode of perception which deals more with the ear and how we experience music that way. This is a necessary distinction, subtle and worth pondering at great length, if we are to be able to approach the music of many moderns, notably Messiaen. Of course, a listener who tends not to over-analyze music might already be listening in this intuitive way already, so there is no need to point this out to them. It always helps to know this, though, and it can provide a good template for listening.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> *The Ear is Vertical, The Eye is Linear*
> 
> If you have a 'good ear,' and by this I mean a really good ear, where you can name intervals instantly, you are in the 'ear mode.' I'm not talking about perfect pitch, although I'm sure this couldn't be a detriment, but good relative pitch.
> 
> This really applies more directly to perception of pitch areas and tonality, in the way we sense tonal centers and areas. But the process is the same, time-wise, in experiencing music temporally.
> 
> Those of us who do not have such acute perception of pitch are necessarily drawn to a more literal, cognitive memory-based mode of perception, more in keeping with reading, or looking at a map, or seeing a scene visually. This is a narrative mode of the eye. I explained this in more detail in the other thread on Schoenberg. The eye 'engulfs' the narrative sequence, and sees it in all its relations as a series of continuous, connected events.
> 
> The ear, on the other hand, is "blind" to this kind of perception and connection of events. Sound 'sneaks up' on the ear, and everything is sudden, and in the moment, and most of all, unpredictable; so all it can do is "take samples" of the various moments and events.
> 
> In terms of music, this quick sampling process, to those with acute pitch perception, is a 'template of comparisons' which can be instantly accessed.
> 
> Of course, some memory is involved, but this is more of a "sense memory" (rather than cognitive/visual memory, where we would recall a series of events, and connect them cognitively).
> 
> Many so-called 'primitive' folk and ethnic musicians, who happen to have exceptional ears and pitch perception, often create 'mental templates' of pitch memory in this way, and their music is structured around this template.
> 
> I urge you not to 'split hairs' too literally about this, since the fact is, we are all 'beings in time,' and time does pass. But on the other hand, we must examine how we are perceiving this continuum.
> 
> If we are 'inside' the world of the ear, which is more subjective and non-Western, we experience time as 'being,' and we are "a travelling point of being," as events occur to us.
> 
> If we are literate and visually biased, we will experience time as something "out there" which is uniform, continuous, and connected, as in a narrative which "moves in time" as we examine it from a more objective viewpoint.
> 
> Messiaen is like the "ear" mode of non-Western experience. His music is a series of sudden events. His music has no narrative "development" or progression to a goal, as in most Western classical music. He is concerned with verticalities and sonorities, which may defy the laws of voice-leading and progression. His music is not about progression, but is a succession of sonorous events.
> 
> Applied to time, the simple answer is that we can view time and structure as an objective thing, which is what most visually-biased listeners get bogged down in, or we can examine time in subjective terms, which is a different mode of perception which deals more with the ear and how we experience music that way. This is a necessary distinction, subtle and worth pondering at great length, if we are to be able to approach the music of many moderns, notably Messiaen. Of course, a listener who tends not to over-analyze music might already be listening in this intuitive way already, so there is no need to point this out to them. It always helps to know this, though, and it can provide a good template for listening.


You should read some music cognition and perception studies before just throwing out stuff like this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> You should read some music cognition and perception studies before just throwing out stuff like this.


 I already have, back in 1971. I also run across confirmation of these ideas all the time, pertaining to minimalism.
This "stuff" is good stuff! Here, try some!


----------



## millionrainbows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_tuning

This seems to refute what Che2007 (whatever happened to him?) was trying to say.


----------



## Razumovskymas

millionrainbows said:


> *Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is being, and being is always now. Can you dig it, man?
> *
> All function came from the vertical. All else is arbitrary, and came after. All scales are modeled after the harmonic series.
> 
> Harmony is instantaneous. All horizontal events involve time, and the thinking brain.
> 
> Harmony is experienced immediately and instantaneously.


Can't you also say:

Sound and harmonics and the vertical stuff is nature

And the melody and ordering sounds in time is human (cultural). So men took the vertical stuff, spread it out in time and created music?


----------



## millionrainbows

Razumovskymas said:


> Can't you also say:
> 
> Sound and harmonics and the vertical stuff is nature
> 
> And the melody and ordering sounds in time is human (cultural). So men took the vertical stuff, spread it out in time and created music?


Yes, that's a good way of looking at it.

I also see other elements which can be connected to the concepts of 'vertical' and 'horizontal.' There are some who say that consciousness itself, or the feeling of experiencing time horizontally as a linear continuum, which has memory attached to it, is the result of our brain development as predators. We hunt, we stalk, we wait. Now, we build civilizations.

But "being" itself is timeless and vertical; it has no agenda. Animals can be like this. I see the interconnection of all living beings as similar in this way.

Other animals also possess the horizontal "predator" mode, to greater and lesser degrees. Sometimes I wonder if the horizontal tends to overshadow the vertical; they need to be in balance.


----------



## Razumovskymas

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's a good way of looking at it.
> 
> I also see other elements which can be connected to the concepts of 'vertical' and 'horizontal.' There are some who say that consciousness itself, or the feeling of experiencing time horizontally as a linear continuum, which has memory attached to it, is the result of our brain development as predators. We hunt, we stalk, we wait. Now, we build civilizations.
> 
> But "being" itself is timeless and vertical; it has no agenda. Animals can be like this. I see the interconnection of all living beings as similar in this way.
> 
> Other animals also possess the horizontal "predator" mode, to greater and lesser degrees. Sometimes I wonder if the horizontal tends to overshadow the vertical; they need to be in balance.


"the vertical" vs "the horizontal" is also a strong interesting field of tension between different styles of music I think and even in every piece of music on itself. For example Beethoven being more horizontal and Debussy being more vertical. Of course every piece of music is both vertical as horizontal but has it's own emphasis on both aspects.


----------



## millionrainbows

Razumovskymas said:


> "the vertical" vs "the horizontal" is also a strong interesting field of tension between different styles of music I think and even in every piece of music on itself. For example Beethoven being more horizontal and Debussy being more vertical. Of course every piece of music is both vertical as horizontal but has it's own emphasis on both aspects.


Yes, Debussy is less "developmental" than Beethoven, and his music leans more towards "events" which occur;

...lots of emphasis on timbre and color, which is a vertical trait.

It certainly weakened the "goal-oriented" agenda of CP tonality, which by nature is progressional and linear.


----------



## ArtMusics Dad

It needs to sound good, that's my only rule


----------



## Genoveva

ArtMusics Dad said:


> It needs to sound good, that's my only rule


.........................................


----------



## Ariasexta

All languages even have harmonic characteristics, harmony is not just instantaneous, also very complex.


----------



## millionrainbows

This whole thread was in response to another high-ranking poster of academic bent, who insisted that "function" was exclusive to the common practice era. I refuted this by showing how "function" was an idea that could be applied to any scale. He was stuck on the academic definition of function. He also had the same restricted definition of "tonality," insisting that it applied to only CP music. I kept dragging out the general definition of tonality from the Harvard Dictionary of Music. This still did not satisfy him.


----------



## Razumovskymas

ArtMusics Dad said:


> It needs to sound good, that's my only rule


That's only one of my rules


----------



## millionrainbows

Natural tonalities mean those _general_ tonalities which are based on harmonic models. Music is simple and unified if it is exhaustively referable to a basic scale-type.

This simplest form and definition of tonality is defined exclusively vertically, not horizontally.

This means that concepts such as "dimension," "attraction," and "directionality," which are all horizontal ideas, occur _after the fact_ of vertically established tonality, and are "unnatural" in this sense, since they involve the passage of time and cognition.

Function, and tonal meaning, come first from the instantaneous perception of sound and its inner relations, not from successions of events, which simply elaborate this.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm still developing these basic ideas of verticality. This one, for example.

The simplest form and definition of "natural" tonality is defined exclusively vertically, not horizontally. 

This means that concepts such as "dimension," "attraction," and "directionality," which are all horizontal ideas, occur after the fact of vertically established tonality, and are "unnatural" in this sense, since they involve the passage of time and cognition. 

Function, and tonal meaning, come first from the instantaneous perception of sound and its inner relations, not from successions of events, which simply elaborate this.

Western tonality is not "that natural," although, like all similar tonal harmonic-model systems, it started that way. 

Soon after, it departs from its simple pre-compositional scale-index of diatonic beginnings and becomes more and more a horizontal syntax which is based on various horizontal mechanisms of voice leading, resolutions, cadences, and chord function, all of which are ways of convincing the ear that the modulation or new key area is a new tonic. 

CP Western tonality, and its unstable diatonic scale with the F-B tritone, and the key signature system, are designed for travel and movement through different key areas, and this makes it complex, as well as 'unnatural,' to the degree that it is a syntax which "departed" from its natural beginnings. 
I'm not criticizing this, but you can't call it totally 'natural.'

With this conclusion in mind, Schoenberg wanted to proceed in the horizontal direction, to have a music of "dimension," "attraction," and "directionality," but he did not want the baggage of a pre-compositional vertically established tonality. So with an ordered row as the starting point, every pre-compositional element is defined as a horizontal succession of pitches. There is no pre-compositional, predetermined vertical tonality.

This lack of a pre-compositional defined vertical dimension of tonality insured that this vertical dimension would be undetermined, and unpredictable to the ear, except as a consequence of horizontal, directional events resulting from the tone row's unfolding.

In other words, Schoenberg took all of the horizontal, cerebral, cognitive, directional elements of Western tonality, all those things which distinguished it from simple, "natural" tonalities based on harmonic models (scales), and created a music based (structurally) totally on these forward-moving cognitive procedures, with no predetermined vertical tonality.

This makes the "harmony" and vertical dimension of Schoenberg's music totally undefined except as definition is imposed upon it during composition and its movement. There is no vertical pre-compositional "goal" or direction imposed; all this is now under the control of the composer in his creation of the row.


----------



## millionrainbows

Some people are stuck in the mud, definitely. This PHD discussion confirms my ideas about verticality. BTW, arriving at these conclusions was not a matter of simply watching a video or reading a book; it took my own pondering and intellectual searching to get to this point.


----------

