Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1891

On 2/12/02 4:05 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:38:50 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1883
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, the dynamic tritone (considering the 4:7 "lowered"
> tuning of
>> the dominant seventh pitch combined with the conventional "raising"
> of the
>> leading tone propels a shift in tonality like a magnet.
>
> hi gerry.
>
> this is a nice theory.

Glad you like it. ;-)
>
> however, as i recall monz put together some midi dominant seventh to
> tonic resolutions, and the one where the seventh of the dominant
> seventh was a 7:4 over its tonic, and the third of the dominant
> seventh was a 'high third' over its tonic, sounded ugly and
> unconvincing to everyone. perhaps its time to dig up those web pages
> again.

Even to me??? Whoa! It's hard to believe we're talking about the same thing.
(Do we have to go back there? Clearly I wasn't convinced then. On the other
hand, that might be a good place to start our 'experiments.')
>
>
>> The diminished fifth
>> sucks like a vacuum toward a major or minor third resolution and an
>> augmented fourth pushes like an explosion toward a major or minor
> sixth.
>
> i agree that this is a defining feature of tonal music as it
> developed in the western world. i disagree that the augmented fourth
> has to be larger than the diminished fifth for it to work. that
> tendency is only about half as old as tonality.

Yes. And what a discovery. While the clerics of the middle ages forbade the
tritone, and the devil-may-care Renaissance composers bent the rules, it was
the early Baroque that discovered the full value of the "tritone." Some of
those slow introductions to their concertos were mind blowing. No wonder the
harpsichordist tried to add extra digitals on his 'axe.'

> perhaps it became
> important once (a) the system was fully 'closed' at 12 pitches; and
> (b) modulations were so common and so great in span (on the chain of
> fifths) that a given tritone could easily resolve to two different
> tonal centers.

That's my point, dear heart. It's the ambiguous *keyboard* "tritone" that
prompted its "three whole steps" nickname. It's not that it "has to," but
that it *can*. A well-tuned diminished fifth (by my definition) is easy to
distinguish from a well-tuned augmented fourth. Clearly, the keyboard
tritone "works." Not only that, but jazzers (including me) get off on the
"substitute chords" of a Db chord for a G7 (in C). However, the resolving
"tritone" can be appropriately squeezed or stretched in either case.
>
>> Call it "style" it you like. I call it "tonal gravity."
>>
>> My response here is say that, in my opinion, the major/minor system
> works
>> best when considered in terms of flexible tuning--not 12tET tuning.
> If only
>> choral groups and orchestras were fully aware of the power of the
> flexible
>> tritone in "flinging" tonality into myriad tonal directions simply
> by
>> modifying its tuning.
>
> this seems to support my statement above. before modulations became
> as 'flingy' as they have been since beethoven, there was really no
> desire to make the augmented fourth larger than the diminshed fifth.

Surely, you don't swallow everything the historians say? Perhaps if they
heard my group sing, they might have relaxed their "theories." I know my own
sources regarding music theory didn't always describe what they were
hearing--rather what they expected to hear. (Okay, save your ink. I get it!
But I have to use the words and concepts I know to express my experience.
And I can't believe *all* my concepts are the result of subjective
conjecture.)

By the way, Paul, your 'arguments' are, as always, welcome and helpful.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > perhaps it became
> > important once (a) the system was fully 'closed' at 12 pitches;
and
> > (b) modulations were so common and so great in span (on the chain
of
> > fifths) that a given tritone could easily resolve to two different
> > tonal centers.
>
> That's my point, dear heart. It's the ambiguous
*keyboard* "tritone" that
> prompted its "three whole steps" nickname.

uhhmm . . . it was called a 'tritone' long before it was 'ambiguous'
due to closing the system at 12 notes.

> > this seems to support my statement above. before modulations
became
> > as 'flingy' as they have been since beethoven, there was really no
> > desire to make the augmented fourth larger than the diminshed
fifth.
>
> Surely, you don't swallow everything the historians say?

historians? no, i'm talking about what the musicians themselves said.
in the time of telemann and even mozart, a diminished fourth was
supposed to be _smaller_ than an augmented fifth. for string players,
even. this follows from the composers' own instructions.

> Perhaps if they
> heard my group sing, they might have relaxed their "theories."

riiiiiiiight . . .

> And I can't believe *all* my concepts are the result of subjective
> conjecture.)

no, i wouldn't say that at all. i would say there's a stylistic norm
that's been in place for about two hundred years, and you've been
brought up hearing little else. what if you were born in indonesia,
with instruments tuned to scales with steps s s L s s s L instead of
the western major scale's L L s L L L s. do you really think you
wouldn't have any different opinions about what 'sounds right'? think
of people from different countries or different parts of the country
speaking english. to you, their english sounds 'funny' or
even 'wrong' because they have a different accent than you. but you
sound funny to them. it's a result of experience. don't you think
similar forces could be at play in music?