TnI types

Paul E writes:

> I think most differently from you here. Besides, one could go "even
> further" and, say, not distinguish a pitch set from its complement,
> or what have you . . . I have a pretty firm sense of where a
> reasonable place is to draw the line, and in that I seem to be in
> close agreement with the author of the webpage in question.

Paul--it would be tedious to rebut this at length, but the TnI types were
formulated for music in which inversional equivalence (might as well use
the commonly accepted term) was certainly part of the compositional
process (e.g. late Schoenberg, Webern). No one here is suggesting that
affixing set-class labels to a page of Brahms would be a sensible or
revealing approach to tonal analysis. Ok I grant you it *has* been done,
and in print too, but don't blame the concept of the abstract unordered
set-class for its abuse at the hands of the unmusical.

As for what is perceptible, first of all you can learn to perceive all
sorts of equivalences that at first seem abstract. Look at how slowly the
concept of triadic identity despite change in rotation ("inversion")
developed--Zarlino thinks of a major triad in 1st inversion as something
minor, because of the m3 and m6 above the bass. I can certainly hear
inversional equivalence, consciously *and* pre-consciously--I was
personally convinced, after much skepticism, when a composition teacher
pointed out parallel passages in a piece I had written, whose set-classes
were consistently related by inversion. Is the perception of such things
hard-wired? Probably not. But since when is that a criteria for
usefulness?

And invoking set-classes doesn't mean you're suddenly not allowed to
additionally distinguish the L and R versions of a chord (I call them
"left-handed" and "right-handed", because I find "prime" and "inverted" a
bit obnoxious, as if one's more important than the other). Just as in
tonal harmonic analysis, once you've identified something as a V chord,
say, it's not forbidden to mention that it's played by the brass, or that
it's in a low register, etc.

That's all for now --Jon

hi Jon,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:

> And invoking set-classes doesn't mean you're suddenly
> not allowed to additionally distinguish the L and R versions
> of a chord (I call them "left-handed" and "right-handed",
> because I find "prime" and "inverted" a bit obnoxious,
> as if one's more important than the other).

bravo! that's one of best refinements of music-theory
terminology that i've ever seen!

-monz