# Why do tendency tones want to resolve in the direction they do?



## youngcapone

I understand what tendency tones are, but does anyone have any insight into the implications dealing with tonality that explain why tendency tones want to move the way they do? I’m less interested in the tradition and rules of functional harmony regarding tendency tones and more interested in the principals that made those composers prefer them. I realize culture influences alot of why decisions are made when people make music, but I still believe there are measurable concepts we can understand to make new and better music.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Because of how human ear apparatus functions and the way of cognition of intervals. Grab any modern book on psychoacoustics for more details. (If we follow what psychoacoustic says, we can't also have coherent 12tone music, so most 20th century classical is experimentation gone in the wrong direction.)
It's not really a cultural phenomena - most non-Western music is 5 to 7 notes, tuned in a different way and is not breaking any "laws of hearing".


----------



## millionrainbows

youngcapone said:


> I understand what tendency tones are, but does anyone have any insight into the implications dealing with tonality that explain why tendency tones want to move the way they do? I'm less interested in the tradition and rules of functional harmony regarding tendency tones and more interested in the principals that made those composers prefer them. I realize culture influences alot of why decisions are made when people make music, but I still believe there are measurable concepts we can understand to make new and better music.


Well, if you thought about it, Capone, you might see that two of them are obvious. The "leading tone" 7-1 and the "suspension" 4-3. 
The major scale has two semitones: 3-4 and 7-1. Both of these resolutions are based on these scale degrees.

Do I really have to explain why?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if you thought about it, Capone, you might see that two of them are obvious. The "leading tone" 7-1 and the "suspension" 4-3.
> The major scale has two semitones: 3-4 and 7-1. Both of these resolutions are based on these scale degrees.
> 
> Do I really have to explain why?


"if you thought about it..."

"Do I really have to explain why?"

Condescension, anyone?


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> "if you thought about it..."
> 
> "Do I really have to explain why?"
> 
> Condescension, anyone?


You missed patronising!


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> "if you thought about it..."
> 
> "Do I really have to explain why?"
> 
> Condescension, anyone?


You missed patronising!

Mind you I think a lot of these types of threads are used to show off the contributors theoretical musical erudition, or what, in their minds, passes for erudition.

Now that's what I call patronising.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Another key feature of MR's arguments (which I find adorable):


TalkingHead said:


> Hah! I know Mike, don't worry, I took the bait knowing it would lead to some very interesting discussions!
> *You have to realize that Million is very much like minimalist music à la Reich: a process whereby the material is worked through over an extended period until most of the avenues have been exhausted, followed by a short dénouement.*


----------



## Woodduck

"Tendency tones" are dissonant and seeks stability by moving to the nearest consonance. In the tonic key, both the fourth and seventh scale degrees seek resolution in the most stable entity in the tonality, the tonic triad. Movement by half-step is also the smoothest possible movement, the path of least resistance. In minor keys the fourth has to drop a whole step, and the seventh has to ascend a whole step except in the melodic minor, which "borrows" the half-step leading tone from the major. 

Speaking of tones as "seeking" sounds anthropomorphic, but people have been talking this way for centuries. The mind seeks resolution of dissonance, and tendency tones, by their close proximity to consonances, provide it easily.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> "if you thought about it..."





Woodduck said:


> "Do I really have to explain why?"
> 
> Condescension, anyone?




I'm encouraging Capone to do a little thinking on his own.



Woodduck said:


> "Tendency tones" are dissonant and seeks stability by moving to the nearest consonance. In the tonic key, both the fourth and seventh scale degrees seek resolution in the most stable entity in the tonality, the tonic triad. Movement by half-step is also the smoothest possible movement, the path of least resistance. In minor keys the fourth has to drop a whole step, and the seventh has to ascend a whole step except in the melodic minor, which "borrows" the half-step leading tone from the major.
> 
> Speaking of tones as "seeking" sounds anthropomorphic, but people have been talking this way for centuries. The mind seeks resolution of dissonance, and tendency tones, by their close proximity to consonances, provide it easily.


Now that's what I call "erudite."


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> You missed patronising! Mind you I think a lot of these types of threads are used to show off the contributors theoretical musical erudition, or what, in their minds, passes for erudition.Now that's what I call patronising.


What does this have to do with tendency tones? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> Another key feature of MR's arguments (which I find adorable):





> Originally Posted by *TalkingHead*





> _Hah! I know Mike, don't worry, I took the bait knowing it would lead to some very interesting discussions!
> *You have to realize that Million is very much like minimalist music à la Reich: a process whereby the material is worked through over an extended period until most of the avenues have been exhausted, followed by a short dénouement.*_


_*

You should try to come up with examples yourself, instead of borrowing.*_


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> "Tendency tones" are dissonant and seeks stability by moving to the nearest consonance. In the tonic key, both the fourth and seventh scale degrees seek resolution in the most stable entity in the tonality, the tonic triad. Movement by half-step is also the smoothest possible movement, the path of least resistance. In minor keys the fourth has to drop a whole step, and the seventh has to ascend a whole step except in the melodic minor, which "borrows" the half-step leading tone from the major.
> 
> Speaking of tones as "seeking" sounds anthropomorphic, but people have been talking this way for centuries. The mind seeks resolution of dissonance, and tendency tones, by their close proximity to consonances, provide it easily.


That's what I said. However, I question YoungCapone's sincerity in asking these kinds of questions. That's not 'condescension,' but healthy skepticism.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's what I said. However, I question YoungCapone's sincerity in asking these kinds of questions. That's not 'condescension,' but healthy skepticism.


What "kinds of questions"? The question of WHY tendency tones tend to tend is an _excellent_ question, one which actually calls for a more complex answer than the one I gave, although I think that's correct as far as it goes. Also relevant is the debate between nature and nurture implied in youngcapone's corollary statement, "I realize culture influences a lot of why decisions are made when people make music, but I still believe there are measurable concepts we can understand." Convention (nurture) plays a role here; as we all know, the leading tone doesn't have to resolve in every style of music.

Enough with the psychologizing from the saddle of your high horse (perilously close to a mixed metaphor, I know; guess I need another cup of black coffee to rouse the gray matter).


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What "kinds of questions"?


Seemingly "innocent" questions that I suspect aren't.



> Enough with the psychologizing from the saddle of your high horse (perilously close to a mixed metaphor, I know; guess I need another cup of black coffee to rouse the gray matter).


It seems that all the "psychologizing" is being done by others here, not me. And your metaphor is apropo; it _*is*_ starting to smell like horses have been here.


----------



## mmsbls

The OP asked a question about tendency tones. The majority of responses included negative comments about members posts. Those are against our Terms of Service. Please focus on the OP question and not other members.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> The OP asked a question about tendency tones. The majority of responses included negative comments about members posts. Those are against our Terms of Service. Please focus on the OP question and not other members.


I completely agree. If my initial response to the OP's question appeared to be "condescending" to anyone, then it's up to the moderators to decide if a line has been crossed, not other members. I do not wish to be "baited" into arguments which might cause reports and infractions.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's what I said.


No, it isn't what you said. If you had said it, I wouldn't have had to. If I left out anything essential, I'm sure youngcapone would appreciate hearing it.



> However, I question YoungCapone's sincerity in asking these kinds of questions. That's not 'condescension,' but healthy skepticism.


I prefer healthy respect for the question and the questioner. The question was good and the questioner gives no reason to doubt his sincerity. If you do doubt it, you might ask him to affirm it, but that wouldn't be much better than broadcasting your suspicions about him to the whole forum.

It's flabbergasting that any of this needs to be said.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> No, it isn't what you said. If you had said it, I wouldn't have had to. If I left out anything essential, I'm sure youngcapone would appreciate hearing it.


No, you're just being disagreeable. My answer was correct, and your answer was essentially the same.



> I prefer healthy respect for the question and the questioner. The question was good and the questioner gives no reason to doubt his sincerity. If you do doubt it, you might ask him to affirm it, but that wouldn't be much better than broadcasting your suspicions about him to the whole forum. It's flabbergasting that any of this needs to be said.


You were not interested in the question initially. If you will recall, your first response was all about me and my supposed condescension. You weren't even interested in answering any question.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, you're just being disagreeable. My answer was correct, and your answer was essentially the same.
> 
> You were not interested in the question initially. If you will recall, your first response was all about me and my supposed condescension. You weren't even interested in answering any question.


The question just appeared here three days ago, and I answered it less than 24 hours later. I hadn't even looked at it until I answered it. If I'm not interested in a question, I don't bother composing a response to it.

All _you_ said, besides insulting youngcapone, was:

_'The "leading tone" 7-1 and the "suspension" 4-3. The major scale has two semitones: 3-4 and 7-1. Both of these resolutions are based on these scale degrees.'_

That's more of a sketch than an answer. I could show you how my response was more complete than yours, as well as more polite, but you already know all that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The question just appeared here three days ago, and I answered it less than 24 hours later. I hadn't even looked at it until I answered it. If I'm not interested in a question, I don't bother composing a response to it.
> 
> All _you_ said, besides insulting youngcapone, was:
> 
> _'The "leading tone" 7-1 and the "suspension" 4-3. The major scale has two semitones: 3-4 and 7-1. Both of these resolutions are based on these scale degrees.'_
> 
> That's more of a sketch than an answer. I could show you how my response was more complete than yours, as well as more polite, but you already know all that.


I didn't "insult" the OP. You're not a moderator, though you act like it, so that's not your call. Yes, your response was more detailed.


----------



## RubberDuckie

Have we resolved the dissonance here yet?

(Buddum-ching)

Here's my 2 cents ... "tendency" tones are active tones in a melody pushing the melody from one tone to the next, which is not always its intended "resolution".

For example, in "America, the Beautiful" :

Oh beau-ti-ful, for spa-cious skies, for am-ber waves of .... ?

So, in the end ... the deciding factor is the structure of the piece.

That pesky lingering 7-1(8) resolution is delayed.

Oh ... 9-8 resolution can happen too. So can 6-8 which makes 6 the active tone ... 10-8 can happen too (the NBC 3-note jinggle) ... Hmmm... oh heck ... it's a whole resolution thingamajigger.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Oh beau-ti-ful, for spa-cious skies, for am-ber waves *of *.... ?





> That pesky lingering 7-1(8) resolution is delayed.




The "leading tone" in this case is on a V chord of the key, so it's really a *major third* of a V chord, *not a **seventh* degree.


----------



## RubberDuckie

millionrainbows said:


> [/FONT]
> The "leading tone" in this case is on a V chord of the key, so it's really a *major third* of a V chord, *not a **seventh* degree.


Isn't it always the case? I.e. every "leading tone" on a V chord is a major 3rd of a V chord at the final cadential point of a piece as well?

I can understand when this is an inner voice, where the leading tone does not have to be resolved.


----------



## mikeh375

RubberDuckie said:


> Isn't it always the case? I.e. every "leading tone" on a V chord is a major 3rd of a V chord at the final cadential point of a piece as well?
> 
> I can understand when this is an inner voice, where the leading tone does not have to be resolved.


Correct. One sees the downward resolution of the leading note to the 5th quite often in Bach's chorales for example. In your quote above (America the Beautiful) the 7th still functions as a leading note even though it does not resolve upwards, the resolution is implied subliminally as the next chord after the dominant is the tonic. No sense in splitting hairs over this.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## millionrainbows

What I mean is, the leading tone could be a melodic seventh passing tone of the I chord, or a viiº. In the example, it's a component of a V chord.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Today I listened to three pieces, all favorites of mine:

First, in remembrance of the Hiroshima bombing, I revisited the Penderecki _Threnody_ in an interpretation conducted by the composer.

To soothe my ears (and mind) of that sobering music, I reflected to a video performance of John Cage's 4'33", performed by William Marx at the Steinway grand.

To return to some sense of "normalcy" (or at least as close to it as I can ever get) I immersed myself in the Webern Piano Variations, Opus 27, in the Glenn Gould performance.

Along the way, I tended to completely ignore hearing any "tendency tones". But please, don't begin a contentious quibble with me over that.


----------



## Kyler Key

It’s similar to why are there 7 distinct main colors. It’s the way we interpret sound as we interpret light. It’s all waves frequency and how close of far apart it is. Our ears and eyes are designed to only interpret up to a certain point.


----------

