ASS resolution (was Re: 72-EDO Saggital Notation

In-Reply-To: <a2229n+mbac@eGroups.com>
jpehrson2 wrote:

> See... a "suspension" implies "resolution..." That's why a different
> name has to come up for the ASSes. In fact, Paul Erlich was
> reminding me that they can be quite consonant... I need to listen to
> them again. But "suspension" in music is not like a
> *chemical* "suspension" or anything of the kind. It's a dissonance
> that needs to be resolved...

A normal sus4 chord is also a 9-limit consonance. And it happens to be
the best tuned 3-note 9-limit consonance in 12-equal. So why call it a
dissonance? It's a matter of context. In two part counterpoint, a fourth
is still treated as a suspension that needs to be resolved. But I'm sure
you'll agree that perfect fourths can be quite consonant.

In context of an o/utonal definition of consonance, ASSes are dissonances,
so you could always say they have to be resolved. As I showed before, you
can use them as suspended dissonances between an o/utonal pair. If they
don't sound dissonant, they're anomalies, as the name suggests.

You could even define all saturated 9-limit chords to be dissonances that
have to resolve onto 5-limit consonances. That's pretty much the way
traditional harmony works.

One other idea, though. We have three kinds of n-limit chords:
otonalities, utonalities and the anomalous cases. So why not call the
latter anomalous-tonalities, or atonalities? That would tie in with them
not including the 1/1.

Graham

>>See... a "suspension" implies "resolution..." That's why a
>>different name has to come up for the ASSes.

That's true -- I said the same thing in a much more confusing
way eariler. But I still think the name is good enough.

>>In fact, Paul Erlich was reminding me that they can be quite
>>consonant... I need to listen to them again. But "suspension"
>>in music is not like a *chemical* "suspension" or anything of
>>the kind.

I agree completely. Magic chords are like super-saturated
suspensions, though.

>A normal sus4 chord is also a 9-limit consonance.

Is a 9-limit concordance, but a dissonance in common-practice
diatonic music.

>And it happens to be the best tuned 3-note 9-limit consonance
>in 12-equal.

[0 7 14] and [0 4 14] are both more concordant to my ear.

>So why call it a dissonance? It's a matter of context.

Right. That's the normal musical definition of dissonance,
as Easley Blackwood points out. Unfortunately, psychoacoustics
took up the same word. As microtonalists, we're the only
folks caught in the middle. Blackwood suggests concordance
for the psychoacoustic term, and I thought there was some
consensus on this a while back...

>One other idea, though. We have three kinds of n-limit chords:
>otonalities, utonalities and the anomalous cases. So why not
>call the latter anomalous-tonalities, or atonalities?

That's a terrible idea -- too many people associate atonal with
discordant (since discordance is the way most atonal composers
seem to get the atonality).

-Carl

> From: clumma <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:09 PM
> Subject: [tuning] ASS resolution (was Re: 72-EDO Saggital Notation
>
>
> > A normal sus4 chord is also a 9-limit consonance.
>
> Is a 9-limit concordance, but a dissonance in common-practice
> diatonic music.

Good for you, Carl, for adhering to the subtelties of
terminology which we ironed out here over the last couple
of years! What you wrote is exactly what Joe meant.

> Right. That's the normal musical definition of dissonance,
> as Easley Blackwood points out. Unfortunately, psychoacoustics
> took up the same word. As microtonalists, we're the only
> folks caught in the middle. Blackwood suggests concordance
> for the psychoacoustic term, and I thought there was some
> consensus on this a while back...

Yep, as I said above, there was. Other folks have just
slacked off in keeping the distinction straight between
"sonance" and "cordance" (or "accordance", which I think
is the better term).

> > One other idea, though. We have three kinds of n-limit chords:
> > otonalities, utonalities and the anomalous cases. So why not
> > call the latter anomalous-tonalities, or atonalities?
>
> That's a terrible idea -- too many people associate atonal with
> discordant (since discordance is the way most atonal composers
> seem to get the atonality).

The idea itself is terrific, but the term is a bad one.
That's unfortunate, because logically it works great. It's
merely the associations which musicians have with that word
that cause it to be unsuitable.

I suggest "anotonality".

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> That's a terrible idea -- too many people associate atonal with
> discordant (since discordance is the way most atonal composers
> seem to get the atonality).

What about amtonal, for ambiguously tonal? The ambiguity of these chords seems to me their most salient characteristic--they lack the rootedness of otonal chords, even the ones without roots, and utonal chords sound somehow solider also.

>>That's a terrible idea -- too many people associate atonal with
>>discordant (since discordance is the way most atonal composers
>>seem to get the atonality).
>
>What about amtonal, for ambiguously tonal? The ambiguity of these
>chords seems to me their most salient characteristic--they lack
>the rootedness of otonal chords, even the ones without roots, and
>utonal chords sound somehow solider also.

I really don't see what tonality has to do with the phenomenon.
Some of the ASSs probably approximate otonal chords in some
inversions.

A good term here really hinges, in a sense, on a good method
for generating all n-(pairwise)-limit chords. When we have
the method, the term should present itself.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32833.html#32853

> --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > That's a terrible idea -- too many people associate atonal with
> > discordant (since discordance is the way most atonal composers
> > seem to get the atonality).
>
> What about amtonal, for ambiguously tonal? The ambiguity of these
chords seems to me their most salient characteristic--they lack the
rootedness of otonal chords, even the ones without roots, and utonal
chords sound somehow solider also.

Geez, Gene... you're a great "wordsmith" in addition to being our
math guru!

JP