Three views on the fourth

Brian Mclaren made some interesting observations in
his attack on Milton Babbitt. Specifically, Brian
pointed out Babbitt's rejection of the overtone series
as a musical determinant. However he did not fully explain
Babbitt's motivation for doing so. The reason is clear,
Babbitt is arguing for an extremely contextual approach to
interval syntax, and he is moreover interested in carrying
forward Arnold Schoenberg's "emancipation of dissonance", or
more specifically, the emancipation of dissonance from normative
rules which require that a dissonance behave according to
tonal function, namely that it must resolve to a consonance.
Babbitt takes the extreme position that the function of intervals
is always contextually defined, and therefore he must reject
the overtone series which implies an a priori hierarchy of interval
importance. This rejection is debatable as Mclaren has shown.
An interesting point in Babbitt's rejection of the overtone
series as musical determinant is his argument that the
perfect fourth comes earlier in the series than thirds, and yet
the fourth is treated as a dissonance in tonal music. Mclaren
claims this is circular reasoning: the fourth is a dissonance
because our theory says it is.

If we accept Mclaren's view on the fourth, we must accept that
it is a consonance relative to thirds by virtue of its relative
ratio simplicity. But this really does limit our pleasure if we
propose to look at some actual tonal music. By categorically
rejecting the fourth as a dissonance, we can no longer hear
4-3 suspensions in tonal function, especially in their
voice-leading function in the I(6/4) chord, often a moment of great
tension in classical works.

I think we are better served by making a distinction between
contextual dissonance based on tonal (or other) function, and what I'll
call Hindemith-Mclaren dissonance, based on the intervallic and
overtone complexity of a given simultaneity. We really can have
both; it doesn't have to be "my way or no way".

If we flip to the last four bars of the first movement of
JS Bach's Italian Concerto,we are presented with a big fat I(6/4) chord
on the downbeat. Question: do you hear this simultaneity as
a consonance or a dissonance? I can only speak for myself;
I hear it as a flaming dissonance which Bach briefly savors
by abruptly slowing the rhythm after 12 bars of steady 16th notes.
proceeding to the next bar, I hear a partial but hesitant
resolution, before a final confident drive to the tonic in the
last two bars. If we take a closer look at the downbeat of the
second of these four bars we see (and hear) something strange:
owing to a double suspension the downbeat simultaneity consists
of pitches C-D-E-F: a diatonic cluster. From the Hindemith-Mclaren
perspective (and any other I can think of), this simultaneity is
considerably more dissonant than the triad on the downbeat of
the previous bar. Yet I hear it as a resolution, a relative consonance.

In examining the two bars from a functional viewpoint,
I hear the harmonic sequence I(6/4)-V(5/3)-(something a bit
weird but basically) vi with a counterpuntal two voice outline
F-E-F/C-C-D, or 4-3-3. This is basically an elegant working out
of a deceptive cadence, driven by the contextual dissonance of
the 4th in the I(6/4) chord. But there is also a delicious
ambiguity between the contextual dissonance and the Hindemith-Mclaren
dissonance of the two downbeats which we cannot fully appreciate if
we insist on maintaining either Babbitt's total contextuality approach
or Mclaren's overtone simplicity approach to the exclusion of the other.

We have already seen how Babbitt reacts to an idea which challenges
his somewhat closed musical world view: denial. How does Mclaren
respond to a similar challenge?

It is clear that one of the premises of Mclaren as an advocate for
Xenharmonic music is that the primary relationship for evaluating and
creating music is the set of ratios between pitch elements. This
conception of music would be challenged by a music which incorporated
considerable noise elements such that it is no longer practical to
infer organization based on pitch ratios. This is precisely the
case with the percussion and other music by John Cage. In fact, the
prepared piano is a powerful, subversive attack on the notion of
interval. We have the keyboard laid out for us, predictably measuring
equal intervals and superimposing the structure of the diatonic
scale with the distribution of white and black keys. And yet, what
happens when we start to play the piano which Cage has prepared?
Sometimes we get a tone. Sometimes we get a noise. The amplitudes
are unpredictable. Sometimes a higher key on the piano makes a lower
sounding pitch. Many of the spectra are inharmonic, highlighting the
piano's membership in the percussion family. In short, the prepared
piano is an intervention and a prank which forces us to revisit
every assumption we may have about composing or playing music on a
keyboard. That Cage uses this new instrument masterfully in the
Three Dances for Two Prepared Pianos is a musical bonus.

We have already seen how Mclaren reacts to Cage and his work, and
therefore I conclude that despite Mclaren's attack on Babbitt,
they both share one important quality: they are both musical bigots.
My online Webster defines a bigot as:
one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.

As I have said before, we don't need to take a reductive either/or
approach, especially in the arts. We can accept music which is
based on Xenharmonic principles without rejecting music which is
clearly not, appreciating each in its own context.

It turns out that in the recording and computer age, many composers
have created excellent works which are based on other organization
principles than pitch ratio: Christopher Penrose, Maggie Payne,
Bill Schottstaedt, Robert Constable, Paul Reller, Eric Lyon, Francois Bayle,
Francis Dhomont, Paul Lansky, The Beatles with Revolution #9 and I Am the
Walrus, Industrial music by Skinny Puppy, Laibach, Jim Thirwell,
Nurse With Wound. And let's not forget the Japanese noise artists
who are completely about noise organization: Merzbow, Hijokaidan,
CCCC, The Incapacitants, Violent Onsen Geisha and many many other
artists.

So let's just relax a bit and enjoy the situation as we
march forward into the next millennium with increasing
musical diversity, and if we try hard enough,
perhaps even a tolerance clause.

Eric Lyon
eric@iamas.ac.jp
http://www.iamas.ac.jp/~eric



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:07 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA13668; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:09:20 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA13980
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id UAA04877; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:09:17 -0800
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:09:17 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu