# What is a tonic?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Consider the C major scale. If you write with it, it follows that your tonic is C. But it is also conceivable that you can write with the same "scale" (i.e. all the white notes) and achieve something that does not solidly suggest C as a tonic, as evidenced by this example given by aleazk in another thread.

So it's clear that using the notes in a given key's scale is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish that key as the tonic. What else is required?

In clavi's thread today, Kopa mentioned this:



Kopachris said:


> Tonality is created when there is a distinct relationship between two or more notes, usually tonic and dominant, which is reinforced by certain harmonic and/or melodic progressions such as your typical perfect authentic cadence (tonic-predominant-dominant-tonic). You can use whatever method you want to make your music atonal as long as it gets rid of that hierarchical relationship.


I think this is a very good explanation, but I'm interested in what happens when you take the question a step further. _Why_ is it that the relationship of tonic and dominant creates our inner sense of a tonic? _Why_ do certain melodic progressions push us in that direction? _Why_ is it this cadence instead of that cadence, and this chord instead of that chord?

You can answer from any perspective you'd like, but, as may be implied by my questions, I'm particularly interested in an acoustics perspective. My hunch, which may well be wrong, is that perhaps the sense of a tonic is created because the hierarchy of chords that are I, IV, V etc. are necessary features of the overtone series. How far does that get us?

Please note: if your answer is "cultural conditioning", leave the thread. That may well be true _to an extent_, and I don't deny it, but your absolutist propaganda and denial of science is not wanted here.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The reason playing the C major scale confirms C as a tonic is because the harmony implied is that of a cadence. In any key the dominant contains the leading note as its third note, this is the note that gives it the greatest 'dominant' quality.

Cultural conditioning


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2012)

Polednice said:


> You can answer from any perspective you'd like,


but


Polednice said:


> if your answer is "cultural conditioning", leave the thread.


Well? Which is it to be?



Polednice said:


> ...your absolutist propaganda and denial of science is not wanted here.


Thanks for the prejudging.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Cultural conditioning


Joking aside, I really cant explain it on a scientific or acoustic basis. For some reason the notes contained within a dominant chord pull towards those of their tonic. Whenever you feel a 'cadence' it is because the harmonies are there or they are implied.

On second thought; we know that a semitone has that odd ratio of frequencies which are unappealing to our ear, and this would beg for a resolution which is the case with our leading note. Im wondering about the role of the V note as a kind of anchor as it is contained in both the dominant and tonic chords.... (i.e. it implies the tonic and therefore reinforces the need for resolution of the leading note)

Just conjecture.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> The reason playing the C major scale confirms C as a tonic is because the harmony implied is that of a cadence. In any key the dominant contains the leading note as its third note, this is the note that gives it the greatest 'dominant' quality.


When you say "implied harmony", do you mean that we have a sense of the harmony because of the overtone series being buried within each note, or purely because we're used to thinking that that's the function of a particular note (I suppose the reasonable answer is "both")?



some guy said:


> but
> 
> Well? Which is it to be?
> 
> Thanks for the prejudging.


Interesting how you identify yourself with an extreme hypothetical persona I did not attach to any poster on this forum, particularly given my immediate concession that cultural conditioning is a factor. Perhaps you do acknowledge that your presence on TC has largely been pushing a repetitive agenda?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I was thinking more the latter, but its possible that overtones play a role - I dont know anything about them.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vinegar and honey, diluted in water, is a (spring) tonic. The drinks known now as 'soda' used to be called 'tonic'. There were and are several hair tonics, most of them sure to get the dandruff stirred up.


----------



## FrankieP (Aug 24, 2011)

I'm not sure if this is especially relevant, but here's what I thought:
1. maybe something to do with the triad built on the dominant acting implicitly (would be dissonant if over tonic pedal) as dissonance, and therefore must be resolved by a return to the tonic - dissonance/consonance etc I'm not great at explaining stuff.. maybe? or have i got it completely wrong?!
2. something to do with the circle of 5ths? go up a 5ths it's the dominant, down a fifth it's the subdominant.. so there could, say, be a progression of IV, vii, iii, vi, ii, V, I, then skip out the minor chords (in C major) and you've got a basic IV, V, I cadence?

No idea about overtones - not an area with which I'm well acquainted! Sorry if the above thoughts are a bit convoluted!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

FrankieP said:


> I'm not sure if this is especially relevant, but here's what I thought:
> 1. maybe something to do with the triad built on the dominant acting implicitly (would be dissonant if over tonic pedal) as dissonance, and therefore must be resolved by a return to the tonic - dissonance/consonance etc I'm not great at explaining stuff.. maybe? or have i got it completely wrong?!
> 2. something to do with the circle of 5ths? go up a 5ths it's the dominant, down a fifth it's the subdominant.. so there could, say, be a progression of IV, vii, iii, vi, ii, V, I, then skip out the minor chords (in C major) and you've got a basic IV, V, I cadence?


I think you're generally right, though I'm not entirely sure, but my question is more about _why_ it is the 5th note that performs the function of a dominant yearning to be resolved rather than any other note in the scale.


----------



## FrankieP (Aug 24, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I think you're generally right, though I'm not entirely sure, but my question is more about _why_ it is the 5th note that performs the function of a dominant yearning to be resolved rather than any other note in the scale.


Ah, sorry - can't really help there.. only other thought is that it's something related to old church mode theory, as I know they had 'dominants' which were not always the 5th tone but had some kind of importance..? nah I'm lost, sorry!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I've found an interesting science article on it and shall report back once I've understood it...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I sure have gotten a lot of great music theory information here lately. This thread is no exception. Without wanting to make a separate thread to do this *thanks* (in no order) : Polednice, Kopachris, Violadude, some guy, emiellucifuge, webernite, philip and composerofavantegarde (and probably forgetting some others) for posting stimulating topics, and/or just giving some great musical information of late in this and other threads, I've found a lot of this helpful in my overall understanding of music. Carry on.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Fifth because of it's position on the harmonic series (root, octave, *fifth*, another octave, third, etc.) Our brains are conditioned to more readily identify intervals that come early on in that series. Because we identify them more easily, they're associated with a greater rise or fall in tension.

I'm just pulling that out of my hat, really, because that leaves a question about leading tones that I don't know how to answer. Gonna go with cultural conditioning for leading tones.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

FrankieP said:


> I'm not sure if this is especially relevant, but here's what I thought:
> 1. maybe something to do with the triad built on the dominant acting implicitly (would be dissonant if over tonic pedal) as dissonance, and therefore must be resolved by a return to the tonic - dissonance/consonance etc I'm not great at explaining stuff.. maybe? or have i got it completely wrong?!
> 2. something to do with the circle of 5ths? go up a 5ths it's the dominant, down a fifth it's the subdominant.. so there could, say, be a progression of IV, vii, iii, vi, ii, V, I, then skip out the minor chords (in C major) and you've got a basic IV, V, I cadence?
> 
> No idea about overtones - not an area with which I'm well acquainted! Sorry if the above thoughts are a bit convoluted!


Ah yes, your first point is a variant of what I was trying to say. The dominant chord contains a few dissonances (dissonant against the tonic) which aim to resolve to the tonic. If somehow the tonic was in your head, you would feel the need for this resolution. Also as the root of the dominant is also in the tonic chord, this could help the association.

I rather think the circle of fifths is an artifical construct, a learning tool used to describe the relations rather than the other way around.

Its a really odd thing, this whole tonal thing is so powerful, and personally; modulations affect me physically (or psychosomatically). (i.e. I get a flutter in my stomach or goosebumps, dont worry - nothing major)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Fifth because of it's position on the harmonic series (root, octave, *fifth*, another octave, third, etc.) Our brains are conditioned to more readily identify intervals that come early on in that series. Because we identify them more easily, they're associated with a greater rise or fall in tension.
> 
> I'm just pulling that out of my hat, really


though i don't know if it's correct i was doing exactly the same reasoning.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Please note: if your answer is "cultural conditioning", leave the thread. That may well be true _to an extent_, and I don't deny it, but your absolutist propaganda and denial of science is not wanted here.


Take, for example, the pathet of the slendro and pelog scales of Indonesian music. Firstly, the actual scales are tuned from pitches that vary from one gamelan to the next, all of which rarely correspond to exact consonant (small number ratio) harmonies or intervals found in the harmonic series. Secondly, each metallophone instrument is tuned in beating partnership with another of its kin. I have experimented with using some of these tunings on a retuned synthesizer and my ear only 'tonicizes' one or possibly two of the tones in each mode, yet their theory says that there is a pathet with a tonic on at least three of the tones of the two overall scales.

Is this not an example of the fact that my diatonicised (and somewhat equal temperamented) ears are different to those of a native Javanese who grew up with that music?

This may just be down to my skill and knowledge of the tradition, but there are also many of the hundreds of janya ragas derived from the melakarta that my ear has trouble recognising the intended shadja as being the tonic with one of the other swara feeling more like the actual tonic.

But to answer your original question, a tonic is a pitch (or chord built around a pitch) that the ear identifies as being the most stable and least restless.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I do find it interesting how fixated on the harmonic side of music that classical fans (at least here anyway) seem to be. So much talk about tonal/atonal. It's old hat.

This might explain why some people here are unable to enjoy music where the harmony is relatively simple (or not even a consideration) and the focus is on rhthym, timbre, texture, lyrics and making you want to get up and dance.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Argus said:


> I do find it interesting how fixated on the harmonic side of music that classical fans (at least here anyway) seem to be. So much talk about tonal/atonal. It's old hat.
> 
> This might explain why some people here are unable to enjoy music where the harmony is relatively simple (or not even a consideration) and the focus is on rhthym, timbre, texture, lyrics and making you want to get up and dance.


i wonder if the two things are in some way really in opposition.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

norman bates said:


> i wonder if the two things are in some way really in opposition.


Depends on how you look at it. Sometimes, harmony is borne from multiple melodic parts, other times, melody is borne from a single harmonic voice.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Argus said:


> I do find it interesting how fixated on the harmonic side of music that classical fans (at least here anyway) seem to be. So much talk about tonal/atonal. It's old hat.
> 
> This might explain why some people here are unable to enjoy music where the harmony is relatively simple (or not even a consideration) and the focus is on rhthym, timbre, texture, lyrics and making you want to get up and dance.


Each of these parameters produces different responses in people, some prefer one response over another. I dont like dancing.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Each of these parameters produces different responses in people, some prefer one response over another. I dont like dancing.


But why don't you like dancing? Maybe because you can't dance to harmony alone. I get not liking dancing in front of people but are you telling me you don't like moving your body to some music?



norman bates said:


> i wonder if the two things are in some way really in opposition.


Explain why classical fanboys like Polednice or Clavichorder don't like Zapp & Roger or Grimes (they probably never heard of them but I have an inkling) even though they are both tonal then? They are slaves to the harmony (they won't like Grace Jones enough to get that reference)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

**** me sideways with a wooden spoon.

I already made the concession in my OP that _cultural conditioning is a factor_, I was merely making the point that I have no time for people who say it is the _only_ factor. Mathematically, there are billions of possible scales and harmonies that you could make from the distinct pitches that our ears are capable of hearing, but though we see wonderful variety across the world, our various musical cultures are actually tremendously close in structure given the total possible range. This is _partly_ biological.

So please stop using this as another opportunity to bang on about cultural differences and musical relativism. Acoustically and mathematically, all scales are _not_ equal - we have a preference for certain kinds for a reason - and that's what I'm asking about. Take the agenda to the atonal thread.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Argus said:


> But why don't you like dancing? Maybe because you can't dance to harmony alone. I get not liking dancing in front of people but are you telling me you don't like moving your body to some music?


You know me better than myself; I do.

And its true I do listen to works where those other parameters take the focus; Minimalism, Ligeti, Xenakis etc.. etc..


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> **** me sideways with a wooden spoon.
> 
> I already made the concession in my OP that _cultural conditioning is a factor_, I was merely making the point that I have no time for people who say it is the _only_ factor. Mathematically, there are billions of possible scales and harmonies that you could make from the distinct pitches that our ears are capable of hearing, but though we see wonderful variety across the world, our various musical cultures are actually tremendously close in structure given the total possible range. This is _partly_ biological.
> 
> So please stop using this as another opportunity to bang on about cultural differences and musical relativism. Acoustically and mathematically, all scales are _not_ equal - we have a preference for certain kinds for a reason - and that's what I'm asking about. Take the agenda to the atonal thread.


Hey Mr Science Man
You should know
If a law ain't universal
It ain't a law at all

Personally, I think you're more culturally biased than IQ tests.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> Hey Mr Science Man
> You should know
> If a law ain't universal
> It ain't a law at all
> ...


Says the person who thinks the brain is a magic box. You are hopelessly clueless about what I'm talking of here. The bias is yours.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Says the person who thinks the brain is a magic box. You are hopelessly clueless about what I'm talking of here. The bias is yours.


How much non-Eurocentric music do you listen to? How many elements of non-European musical traditions have you endeavoured to incorporate into your composing/playing? How much actual experimentation have you done with the foundations of music?

Read all the scientific journals you want, we are talking about music here, not dry data.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> How much non-Eurocentric music do you listen to? How many elements of non-European musical traditions have you endeavoured to incorporate into your composing/playing? How much actual experimentation have you done with the foundations of music?
> 
> Read all the scientific journals you want, we are talking about music here, not dry data.


How much have you compared all the extant scales in the world to the possible spectra of scales available to us? How much have you looked into how children learn music and language? How much have you explored how evolution shaped our brains to process certain sounds and structures?

Your intuition is as faulty as mine, so experiment all you want in the absence of data, but you'll fool yourself into believing false conclusions as you've already shown. _Any_ proper understanding of how music _works_ must _necessarily_ be scientific, so take the airy-fairy claptrap elsewhere.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> How much have you compared all the extant scales in the world to the possible spectra of scales available to us? How much have you looked into how children learn music and language? How much have you explored how evolution shaped our brains to process certain sounds and structures?
> 
> Your intuition is as faulty as mine, so experiment all you want in the absence of data, but you'll fool yourself into believing false conclusions as you've already shown. _Any_ proper understanding of how music _works_ must _necessarily_ be scientific, so take the airy-fairy claptrap elsewhere.


Oh, the old answer a question with a question tactic. Let me try:

Is scientific dogmatism more or less annoying than religious dogmatism?

My advice to you is listen to a wider variety of music. All that Brahms has warped your fragile little mind.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> ... My advice to you is listen to a wider variety of music. All that Brahms has warped your fragile little mind.


Do you honestly think many of us here have not listened to a wide variety of music? We're all either Wagnerites, Brahms fans, wig-wearers or whatever? And do you suppose many of us presume your experience and your advice are based on more substantial listening based variety?


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

I like music because it stirs up emotions in me, and music without a clear tonic can have a vast array of indescribable emotions, ambivalence, positive and negative emotions at once. there are many scales out there, some seem to lend themselves to harmonization and tonicization more than others, and some lend themselves to melodic ornamentation more than others. some result in nonfusing harmonies, combined with nonfusing instruments allowing for interesting orchestration, harmony, and sometimes melody, though more on the ornamentation of simple melodies (looking at gagaku and adi-vilambit khyal). music is an intense aural experience that I find most humans enjoy, I also find a lot do not enjoy it so much.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

chee_zee said:


> I like music because it stirs up emotions in me, and music without a clear tonic can have a vast array of indescribable emotions, ambivalence, positive and negative emotions at once. there are many scales out there, some seem to lend themselves to harmonization and tonicization more than others, and some lend themselves to melodic ornamentation more than others. some result in nonfusing harmonies, combined with nonfusing instruments allowing for interesting orchestration, harmony, and sometimes melody, though more on the ornamentation of simple melodies (looking at gagaku and adi-vilambit khyal). music is an intense aural experience that I find most humans enjoy, I also find a lot do not enjoy it so much.


Thanks for the sentiment, but this thread was never intended as a discussion of preference for tonal music or what tonal music does - only what it is and acoustically why.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Argus said:


> scientific dogmatism


Does not exist. Google defines 'dogmatism' as 'the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, *without consideration of evidence* or the opinions of others'.

You made some fair points earlier though, and I think your definition of tonic is the best so far. Debussy's Syrinx is mostly based around a tonal centre of Bb, and this is achieved largely by giving it prominence in the melodic material (for instance, the first section up to about 0:40 is based around a mode made up by Debussy with no discernible harmonic implications, it does't even include the would-be dominant F, yet Bb definitely sounds stable).


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> What is a tonic?
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


What's up with all these basic questions lately? "What is atonality"? "What is a tonic"? Can't you chaps just look it up in the dictionary... ?

Anyway, according to my guide of music theory by Abromont, the tonic is: _the first degree of major and minor scales_.

Why the relationship between tonic and dominant? Now that's a more interesting question, at least from the physical point of view. The vibration of an object, say a string, is decomposed in modes, and any state of the vibrating string can be described by a combination of these modes. (This is analogous to the quantum theory and mathematically it has strong ties with Fourier's theorem.)

The first mode is the tonic, the second mode the octave, the third the dominant, and so on. Modes, harmonics, overtones, are basically interchangeable terms. When plucking a string, the geometry of the string and the initial conditions (position, velocity) dictate what the overtone series will look like. For example: a fixed string plucked at 1/3 of it's length will _not_ excite the dominant overtone.

In the general case, the most excited overtones are usually the tonic, the first octave, then the dominant, and the others... therefore, aside from the octave, the strongest harmonic relationship is the dominant, hence the name.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Philip said:


> Why the relationship between tonic and dominant? Now that's a more interesting question, at least from the physical point of view. The vibration of an object, say a string, is decomposed in modes, and any state of the vibrating string can be described by a combination of these modes. (This is analogous to the quantum theory and mathematically it has strong ties with Fourier's theorem.)
> 
> The first mode is the tonic, the second mode the octave, the third the dominant, and so on. Modes, harmonics, overtones, are basically interchangeable terms. When plucking a string, the geometry of the string and the initial conditions (position, velocity) dictate what the overtone series will look like. For example: a fixed string plucked at 1/3 of it's length will _not_ excite the dominant overtone.
> 
> In the general case, the most excited overtones are usually the tonic, the first octave, then the dominant, and the others... therefore, aside from the octave, the strongest harmonic relationship is the dominant, hence the name.


This is the kind of stuff that I wanted to hear. I think I'm going to make a new thread to clarify a specific point...


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

what is tonality and why? who cares, it's music, and so is atonal music. too much bickering on these forums over why one is supposedly better than the other because of neuroscience this or that. if a person likes something, the science behind it is that they enjoy it and that's it. there just isn't enough science to give us more of a clear answer than tonality being a hierarchy of pitches where it centers around 1 pitch class, and everything is to be analyzed in relation to it. other than that, it'll be many years before we know much more.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

chee_zee said:


> what is tonality and why? who cares, it's music, and so is atonal music. too much bickering on these forums over why one is supposedly better than the other because of neuroscience this or that. if a person likes something, the science behind it is that they enjoy it and that's it. there just isn't enough science to give us more of a clear answer than tonality being a hierarchy of pitches where it centers around 1 pitch class, and everything is to be analyzed in relation to it. other than that, it'll be many years before we know much more.


*musters a little composure and lets out a little "ahem"*: I REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE VALUE OF TONAL AND ATONAL MUSIC. IT IS PURELY ABOUT THE ACOUSTIC MECHANICS. 

What on earth does it take? If you don't want to talk about the science and are quite happy ignoring it, that's absolutely fine by me - do whatever the hell you like - but don't come into a thread explicitly about science and tell everyone that it's pointless! GO AWAY! 

Now, Philip, I was going to make that new thread, but I've changed my mind because I still don't get it. I mean, I'm still drawn to my question about being able to use the same scale (C maj, for example) to create one note as the tonic (C) and also to establish a less clear kind of tonality, even no tonality at all. Now, I suppose that this must necessarily be to do with the harmonies used. If you use Is, IVs and Vs, you're going to establish the tonic nice and clear. If you use all kinds of 'strange' intervals and dissonances, the tonic won't be so clear, even if you stick strictly to the white notes. So I'm trying to understand which harmonies in particular are vital to the establishment of a tonic, and _why_ those harmonies rather than other ones. Does that make sense?

Thinking about it a little more, maybe I'm just making the issue more difficult than it needs to be. Although the idea of dissonance has changed over time, I gather that there are still intervals which are, technically, more dissonant than others from a human acoustical perspective - so perhaps this whole question regards consonance and dissonance. The more consonance, the more you successfully establish a tonic, the more dissonance, the more you cloud it. Is it that simple?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Now, Philip, I was going to make that new thread, but I've changed my mind because I still don't get it. I mean, I'm still drawn to my question about being able to use the same scale (C maj, for example) to create one note as the tonic (C) and also to establish a less clear kind of tonality, even no tonality at all. Now, I suppose that this must necessarily be to do with the harmonies used. If you use Is, IVs and Vs, you're going to establish the tonic nice and clear. If you use all kinds of 'strange' intervals and dissonances, the tonic won't be so clear, even if you stick strictly to the white notes. So I'm trying to understand which harmonies in particular are vital to the establishment of a tonic, and _why_ those harmonies rather than other ones. Does that make sense?
> 
> Thinking about it a little more, maybe I'm just making the issue more difficult than it needs to be. Although the idea of dissonance has changed over time, I gather that there are still intervals which are, technically, more dissonant than others from a human acoustical perspective - so perhaps this whole question regards consonance and dissonance. The more consonance, the more you successfully establish a tonic, the more dissonance, the more you cloud it. Is it that simple?


I think you may be confusing the concepts of tonic and fundamental bass. The tonic is simply the first note of a scale. The fundamental bass is the root of a chord. When you do analysis, you stack up the notes of a chord in thirds, this reveals the harmonic structure of the passage.

Tonal music has naturally evolved in the 12 note system that we still use today. With only a few harmonics, you can completely reconstruct the natural scale. Of course, it was later well-tempered, then equal tempered for convenience, but its origin lies in the natural harmonics and thus the physics of waves.

Tonality creates a framework of tones: 12 equal tones, logarithmically dividing the octave. Atonality simply takes this 12 note system and disregards its motives; We have 12 notes, now what can we do with them, without further restrictions?

A useful analogy could be in visual arts: (I'm no expert but) we can imagine that painting was originally meant to be a reproduction of reality. The techniques has evolved into independent characteristics like colors, texture, shape, etc. and has created an artistic framework in which all paintings can be parametrized. Naturally, visual arts have evolved with people asking themselves: What else could we do with color, texture and shape, if we let go of our preconceived notions of reality? Abstract art was born.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

OK, maybe I haven't made it clear enough what I meant by a tonic. I know the technical jargon of tonics and fundamental basses. What I'm concerned about is the psychological pull. The fact that a tonic is a note that we implicitly expect before hearing it, and that, upon hearing it, a piece feels resolved. So that's another way of framing the question: where does the sense of resolution come from? Why does it exist at all?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> OK, maybe I haven't made it clear enough what I meant by a tonic. I know the technical jargon of tonics and fundamental basses. What I'm concerned about is the psychological pull. The fact that a tonic is a note that we implicitly expect before hearing it, and that, upon hearing it, a piece feels resolved. So that's another way of framing the question: where does the sense of resolution come from? Why does it exist at all?


You have to accept that some intervals are stronger than others (for the physical reasons stated in my other post)... then everything comes together. The dominant chord by itself is undetectable. Meaning that, out of context, it is difficult to tell what degree it actually is. Harmonize it to a dominant seventh chord, and the weaker more dissonant intervals want to resolve themselves to stronger ones. They don't _have_ to, but if they do, it sounds resolved because the harmony is much more natural then.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Philip said:


> You have to accept that some intervals are stronger than others (for the physical reasons stated in my other post)... then everything comes together. The dominant chord by itself is undetectable. Meaning that, out of context, it is difficult to tell what degree it actually is. Harmonize it to a dominant seventh chord, and the weaker more dissonant intervals want to resolve themselves to stronger ones. They don't _have_ to, but if they do, it sounds resolved because the harmony is much more natural then.


So the sense of resolution and finality we feel is, more technically, weak harmonies moving to stronger ones as defined by the physical reasons you stated earlier?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Argus what do you think of this?


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

the science simply isn't there yet mate, it may not be for a while. How am I ignoring science? they simply don't have all the answers to that just yet, the closest you're going to get is mathematical relationships between tonic and dominant, good luck tying that to the human connectome if you're not a physiologist/neuroscience double major.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

chee_zee said:


> the science simply isn't there yet mate, it may not be for a while. How am I ignoring science? they simply don't have all the answers to that just yet, the closest you're going to get is mathematical relationships between tonic and dominant, good luck tying that to the human connectome if you're not a physiologist/neuroscience double major.


And I suppose you've got all the qualifications necessary to determine that no one in the scientific community has proposed answers? I suppose you spend most of your time reading journal articles in order to come to the conclusion that the science just isn't there? Or is your hunch informed by the fact that current scientific theories have not yet trickled down to you on 4chan?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> So the sense of resolution and finality we feel is, more technically, weak harmonies moving to stronger ones as defined by the physical reasons you stated earlier?


Yes... resolution is going from a state of tension to a state of relaxation. Dissonance resolves itself in consonance, but it can also be a rhythm, timbre, or intensity, etc. As long as it goes from tensed to relaxed, you can qualify it as a resolution.


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

lol I don't hang out on 4chan and yes I do read scientific studies, don't be putting on any airs mate no one likes a jackass. you should log off the forum, turn off the music, and ask yourself why you are taking life so seriously and attempting to put on airs of superiority to random strangers on a forum. were you abused as a child? if it was only physical or verbal abuse, tough it out man, you're better than that so don't let it define you. has someone insulted your intelligence in a public place? perhaps this is leading you to have the subconscious need to self-evidence your intelligence by showing off your knowledge in public stages such as internet forums. what external factors in your life that you can't control could be causing this egotistical behavior? since you can't control them, let them slide and don't allow them to be a source of stress. what are some external factors you can control? why have they sprouted up? has it been your fault, perhaps a result of laziness on your part? spend less time patting yourself on the back for reading studies when you do read them, and just enjoy reading them. use the time you save to meditate on why you are lashing out on the internet and assuming someone is less knowledgeable and inferior to you. you strike me as unfortunately being the type of person who could benefit from the use of psychedelics, but first really try and improve yourself without them if at all possible you don't won't to have to resort to that stuff if you don't absolutely have to.

Yes, I would know that science has yet to get to the real deep causes of tonality, as I'm sure you do if you actually study up, as music is one of the several topics of neuroscience I have spent many hours studying, in addition to many other topics in science and mathematics (brownian motion, higgs boson, electric universe/the anti-gravity as law movement, time travel, relativity, gathering evidence of multiverse, antihydrogens, endocannabis, antiangiogenesis, quantum mechanics and computing, basic astronomy, etc). just that the mind prefers tonality as it's a hierarchy of pitches, our mind doesn't like fractionally splitting pitches (tritones etc) so the consonant intervals are slightly off (a p5 isn't quite perfect even in just intonation).

if you happen to have any paid subscriptions to journals, especially psychology and neuroscience journals, it'd be awesome if you were to share some articles with me. Which subscriptions do you have? do you have the SFN journal? Here's a good article that may help you; the mind very very quickly learns a new musical system provided the hierarchy is made obvious enough ("These indices of expectation learning were eliminated when sound patterns were played equiprobably")

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/2/454.full.pdf+html?sid=f11bcb52-ad57-4c5b-afaf-82556c1ec762

it's general enough that I'd think it to be biological. if you have a sub to the journal of experimental psychology, there is a study I've been wanting to get at for a couple months now, can't find it posted anywhere through googs:

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0012732

sorta challenges the exposure hypothesis, or at least once you get sufficient exposure to a specific musical idiom, say qawwali, you can actually learn quite a bit from just listening. so there's gotta be something where our brains are picking tonality systems up almost like a language, as our brains are wired for language; interpreting symbols, their syntax and grammar and how they slightly change in different contexts, the dynamics of systems so to speak. for atonal music, it can actually be interpreted by our brains, we can actually obtain expectations. you would have to listen to a given piece a lot as it seems every composer has their own system that they constantly update, within the whole 'tone row' system. I imagine if you listen to enough of a specific period of schoenberg, you could recognize certain patterns even consciously, and perhaps even find times where he upsets these patterns a la a deceptive cadence of sorts, not beyond the realm of possibility after all.

again though man, lighten up a bit, you need to do some serious introspection.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

chee_zee said:


> I have spent many hours studying, in addition to many other topics in science and mathematics (brownian motion, higgs boson, electric universe/the anti-gravity as law movement, time travel, relativity, gathering evidence of multiverse, antihydrogens, endocannabis, antiangiogenesis, quantum mechanics and computing, basic astronomy, etc).


You're like a genius or something!


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

rather hardly, I consider myself to be not all that intelligent, average perhaps, just above average at best. it's simply a matter of hard work for most of us, the ones not genetically blessed that is. I'm as knowledgeable as anyone who simply tries their best and works hard every day, I've no gifts either mentally or physically, self-discipline and autodidacticism is the great equalizer


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not going to read that long post chee_zee. You see, I don't take life _so_ seriously that I feel the need to read the ramblings of someone who has nothing of use to say. :tiphat:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

EDIT: Hahahahaha! I actually read the first few sentences. Was I abused as a child?! Jesus Christ, you're demented.


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

see now, you could've missed out on quite the chuckle good sir, orange ya glad you didn't?


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

honestly its hard to say: D Dorian mode shares alot of the same characteristics as C Ionian (your major scale) in that the stepping pattern remains when you go down the scale, which concludes to D (like Dminor) but has a subtle difference with the b natural. 

I think the leading tone explains why there was a need to create a harmonic minor - because the leading tone in a natural minor scale is a whole step away, and does not have the conclusiveness or leading tone feel as a half-step away from the tonic note. It can also explain to some extent why we consider the c scale to have c as the tonic, rather than any other note.

Im just assuming, but:

tonic = intervals of p4/p5/M7 in a scale with the tonic note.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Argus what do you think of this?


No likey. Do you like that Brian?



chee_zee said:


> again though man, lighten up a bit, you need to do some serious introspection.


Good points. Just remeber this is his thread and he'll cry if he wants to.



jalex said:


> Does not exist. Google defines 'dogmatism' as 'the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, *without consideration of evidence* or the opinions of others'.


In this situation the dogmatism apsect is correct because the sciencific reasons for tonality are not fully understood. I suppose you could argue I should have technically said psuedo-scientific dogmatism in that case.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Do you honestly think many of us here have not listened to a wide variety of music? We're all either Wagnerites, Brahms fans, wig-wearers or whatever? And do you suppose many of us presume your experience and your advice are based on more substantial listening based variety?


I honestly think that many here have not listened to a wide variety of music. I do however think that many people here think that listening to some jazz, rock, blues and world music on top of classical music equates to a wide variety of music. I also know for sure that Polednice has an extremely narrow taste spectrum.

Even _some_ of the people here who can legitimately say they listen to a wide variety of music, often dismiss a lot of it as populist or without merit.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> I honestly think that many here have not listened to a wide variety of music. I do however think that many people here think that listening to some jazz, rock, blues and world music on top of classical music equates to a wide variety of music. I also know for sure that Polednice has an extremely narrow taste spectrum.
> 
> Even _some_ of the people here who can legitimately say they listen to a wide variety of music, often dismiss a lot of it as populist or without merit.


Are you on a crusade to widen that perceived "narrow taste spectrum"?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> I think the leading tone explains why there was a need to create a harmonic minor - because the leading tone in a natural minor scale is a whole step away, and does not have the conclusiveness or leading tone feel as a half-step away from the tonic note. It can also explain to some extent why we consider the c scale to have c as the tonic, rather than any other note.
> 
> Im just assuming, but:
> 
> tonic = intervals of p4/p5/M7 in a scale with the tonic note.


The leading tone is _exactly_ why the harmonic minor was necessary because the natural minor doesn't have a leading tone. (It has a 7th scale degree, but it's not a leading/tendency tone.)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> Even _some_ of the people here who can legitimately say they listen to a wide variety of music, often dismiss a lot of it as populist or without merit.


Oh, so it's you who's been stalking me and looking at my CD collection?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Are you on a crusade to widen that perceived "narrow taste spectrum"?


No. I'm on a crusade to free your ***, so your mind will follow.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I dunno but if you add some gin in it it turns out pretty well I hear. Only kidding, interesting conversation though.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Joking aside, I really cant explain it on a scientific or acoustic basis. For some reason the notes contained within a dominant chord pull towards those of their tonic. Whenever you feel a 'cadence' it is because the harmonies are there or they are implied.
> 
> On second thought; we know that a semitone has that odd ratio of frequencies which are unappealing to our ear, and this would beg for a resolution which is the case with our leading note. Im wondering about the role of the V note as a kind of anchor as it is contained in both the dominant and tonic chords.... (i.e. it implies the tonic and therefore reinforces the need for resolution of the leading note)
> 
> Just conjecture.


Just conjecture? Well, I think you've stabbed right at the issue, already. At least in terms of how tonality came to be prominent, I would definitely say that we progressed from modalism because of semitones and implied semitones.

Maybe later today I'll pull out some literary references on the subject. You folks may be surprised at how much Luther, the reformer, for example, focused on music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> In this situation the dogmatism apsect is correct because the sciencific reasons for tonality are not fully understood. I suppose you could argue I should have technically said psuedo-scientific dogmatism in that case.


Meh, I can see where you are going with that, but I would say that people arguing for either perspective there have begged questions like: "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?"


----------

