1/5:4:3 and Schenker

On an earlier post (sorry I can't find it; it takes forever to search
on my slow dial up connection), discussing this chord, it was
mentioned that harmonics 3,4, and 5, according to current
psychoacoustical theory, may be crucial for the hearing mechasism
finding the fundamental of a chords and complex tones. (I've seen
that in the literature, as well, in a text by Greated.) I just think
it's neat that in Schenkerian theory, the background melodic structure
rests on a melodic descent from 5 (or 3). I wonder if there's a
connection...

--- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, "traktus5" <kj4321@h...> wrote:
>
> On an earlier post (sorry I can't find it; it takes forever to search
> on my slow dial up connection), discussing this chord, it was
> mentioned that harmonics 3,4, and 5, according to current
> psychoacoustical theory, may be crucial for the hearing mechasism
> finding the fundamental of a chords and complex tones.

Yes.

> (I've seen
> that in the literature, as well, in a text by Greated.)

Can you provide some more detail?

> I just think
> it's neat that in Schenkerian theory, the background melodic
structure
> rests on a melodic descent from 5 (or 3). I wonder if there's a
> connection...

Well, the 3 in minor is neither the 3rd nor the 5th harmonic of the
root, so depending on what kind of connection you were looking for, it
may be more present in major than in minor . . .

> > On an earlier post (sorry I can't find it; it takes forever to
search > > on my slow dial up connection), discussing this chord, it
was > > mentioned that harmonics 3,4, and 5, according to current
> > psychoacoustical theory, may be crucial for the hearing
mechasism > > finding the fundamental of a chords and complex tones.
>
> Yes.
>
> > (I've seen
> > that in the literature, as well, in a text by Greated.)
>
> Can you provide some more detail?

In 'The Musicians GUide to Acoustics' (1987, JM Dent and C Greated),
they quote the experiement with electronic tones by Plomp (1976,
p117, fig 46), which indicate that there is a dominance region
between 50-2000 Hz for harmonics which play a role in determining
the pitch of a complex tone. Specifically, for the bass cleff
region, the 4th and 5th harmonics predominate; for the treble clef
region (up to about 1000hz), the 2nd and 3rd harmonics predominate.
Only in the very high region does the fundamental itself determine
the pitch of a complex tone, according to this study.

Is there any more recent research and findings on the 'dominance
region'?

>
> > I just think
> > it's neat that in Schenkerian theory, the background melodic
> structure
> > rests on a melodic descent from 5 (or 3). I wonder if there's
a
> > connection...
>
> Well, the 3 in minor is neither the 3rd nor the 5th harmonic of
the
> root, so depending on what kind of connection you were looking
for, it
> may be more present in major than in minor . . .
>

--- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, "traktus5" <kj4321@...>
wrote:
>
> > > On an earlier post (sorry I can't find it; it takes forever to
> search > > on my slow dial up connection), discussing this chord,
it
> was > > mentioned that harmonics 3,4, and 5, according to current
> > > psychoacoustical theory, may be crucial for the hearing
> mechasism > > finding the fundamental of a chords and complex tones.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > (I've seen
> > > that in the literature, as well, in a text by Greated.)
> >
> > Can you provide some more detail?
>
>
> In 'The Musicians GUide to Acoustics' (1987, JM Dent and C
Greated),
> they quote the experiement with electronic tones by Plomp (1976,
> p117, fig 46), which indicate that there is a dominance region
> between 50-2000 Hz for harmonics which play a role in determining
> the pitch of a complex tone. Specifically, for the bass cleff
> region, the 4th and 5th harmonics predominate; for the treble clef
> region (up to about 1000hz), the 2nd and 3rd harmonics
predominate.
> Only in the very high region does the fundamental itself determine
> the pitch of a complex tone, according to this study.
>
> Is there any more recent research and findings on the 'dominance
> region'?

Probably, but I'm sure the statements you made above haven't been
completely refuted.