cordance

I missed something really important on this list in the process of moving
earlier this year. I see that the two terms 'concordance' and
'discordance' have become widely accepted, but I don't have a clue how
they are different from 'consonance' and 'dissonance'.

Can someone please provide good definitions?

Also, I sense that the term 'cordance' should be used as the generic word
to indicate the entire continuum encompassing the two polar opposites,
just like the way I use 'sonance'. If so, I need an entry for that too,
emphasizing why this term is needed and how it differs from 'sonance'.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo San Diego monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
| 'I had broken thru the lattice barrier...' |
| -Erv Wilson |
---------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Joe Monzo wrote,

> Can someone please provide good definitions?

As I understand it, this is meant in the Easley Blackwood sense; where
consonance and dissonance are musically dependent terms - think of all
of Margo's posts on the contextual role of thirds and sixths, and
concordance and discordance are used in the "scientific" sense - think
of Paul's entropy curves, where height equals a relative discordance
across a cents continuum.

- dan

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Joe Monzo <MONZ@J...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13181

> I missed something really important on this list in the process of
moving earlier this year. I see that the two terms 'concordance' and
> 'discordance' have become widely accepted, but I don't have a clue
how they are different from 'consonance' and 'dissonance'.
>
Hi Joe!

I'm still frying onions... Paul Erlich and others will step in
here... but I will give my own "take" on this... since if it is
totally off, somebody will correct it, and that will be good for my
hubris...

I believe Paul was basing much of the definition he advanced on
studies by Easley Blackwood in his "The Structure of Recognizable
Diatonic Tunings," a book which I would love to possess, but can't
seem to find a copy. (Amazon is searching... but)

The idea of "consonance" is tied in with our traditional notions of
tonal "resolution," so "consonance" is really a *systematic* term,
and without a structure surrounding it, means nothing.

Therefore... to take some of the examples advanced by Margo
Schulter... the notion of "consonance" changes over time, depending
on the surrounding intervallic and harmonic context.

Obviously, major thirds were "dissonant" in 3-limit music, becoming a
primary "consonance" by the time that 5-limit meantone rolled
around... Of course, the size of the interval changed too, enhancing
and, perhaps, enabling this "consonant" effect, but the principal is
that the interval is seen in some kind of "context," albeit a
changing one...

"Concordance," in my understanding, considers sonorities completely
*distinct* from surroundings and their behavorial characteristics. It
merely reflects the low-integer nature of the sonance (or more
complex effects resulting from our perceptions through Harmonic
Entropy or your own "Finity").

Therefore, Paul Erlich, if I'm understanding this correctly, would
advance the theory that a 4:5:6:7 "concordant" tetrad is *NOT*
"consonant" in the traditional sense. It does *NOT* wish to resolve
in the same way a dominant seventh would in 12-tET, due to the
"dissonant" tritone and the common practice resolution of that
interval to the tonic.

It seems as though the "concordant" intervals and chords just "sit
there" doing nothing. Nothing much is expected of them. They don't
go anywhere. They just exist -- even if their "tonal system"
relatives are supposed to do some "heavy lifting" resolution.

It's all very existential...
______________ ____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Joe Monzo <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13185

>
> Therefore, Paul Erlich, if I'm understanding this correctly, would
> advance the theory that a 4:5:6:7 "concordant" tetrad is *NOT*
> "consonant" in the traditional sense. It does *NOT* wish to
resolve
> in the same way a dominant seventh would in 12-tET, due to the
> "dissonant" tritone and the common practice resolution of that
> interval to the tonic.
>

That should, of course, have read "dissonant" in the traditional
sense... sorry. booboo

_________ ___ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph wrote,

>Therefore, Paul Erlich, if I'm understanding this correctly, would
>advance the theory that a 4:5:6:7 "concordant" tetrad is *NOT*
>"consonant" in the traditional sense.

That's exactly how Blackwood, whose work is very steeped in common-practice
Western harmony, used the term, and the way I've been using it.

>It does *NOT* wish to resolve
>in the same way a dominant seventh would in 12-tET, due to the
>"dissonant" tritone and the common practice resolution of that
>interval to the tonic.

It _does_ resolve in the same way as a dominant seventh in 12-tET if it is
used in a common-practive context, q.v., barbershop singing. The 4:5:6:7 is
not "consonant" in the traditional, common-practive, 5-limit sense,
therefore it needs to resolve. However, in an absolute sense, it's a pretty
"concordant" chord.

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>> Therefore, Paul Erlich, if I'm understanding this correctly, would
>> advance the theory that a 4:5:6:7 "concordant" tetrad is *NOT*
>> "consonant" in the traditional sense. [...]

>That should, of course, have read "dissonant" in the traditional
>sense... sorry. booboo

Nope -- you had it right the first time.

In French, I distinct group [sonance, consonance, dissonance ...] and group
[accordance, concordance, discordance ...] on base of microtonality /
macrotonality distintion. If a property can be attributed to an isolated
interval independantly of context, it's belonging to first group. If
property has no sense without harmonic, melodic or systemic context, it's
belonging to second group. I observe choices you will make for prevision of
future translation problem.

Pierre Lamothe

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Pierre Lamothe
<plamothe@a...> wrote:
>
> In French, I distinct group [sonance, consonance, dissonance ...]
and group
> [accordance, concordance, discordance ...] on base of microtonality
/
> macrotonality distintion. If a property can be attributed to an
isolated
> interval independantly of context, it's belonging to first group. If
> property has no sense without harmonic, melodic or systemic
context, it's
> belonging to second group. I observe choices you will make for
prevision of
> future translation problem.

We are using the opposite choice . . .