Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1985

On 3/28/02 8:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:47:17 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: deriving classical major/minor scales
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jjensen142000" <jjensen14@h...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
>
>>> Yes, and one thing we all find is that the explanation of a major
>> scale in
>>> terms of 4:5:6 triads is historically incorrect. The major scale
>>> originated from the spiral of fifths before triadic harmony was
>>> recognized.
>>
>> I think I'm going to stay restricted to a "logical" discussion,
>> rather than go into what happened historically. Maybe I should
>> add a remark though, of what you just said.
>
> well, the advent of the major and minor modes was a historical
> phenomenon (around 1670), and before that the other modes were used
> perfectly 'logically', and just as frequently, if not more so. it is
> my strong belief that the *tritone* is the reason the major and minor
> modes 'won out' -- the tritone is disjoint from the tonic triad
> *only* in the major and minor modes. the style that crystallized by
> 1670 is known commonly as 'tonality' or 'western common-practice',
> and the resolution tritone played an all-important role in making
> this new kind of 'logic' really work.

Right on the money, Paul. The kaleidoscopic frenzy of modulation that arose
in the seventeenth century gives ample evidence that the "true purpose" of
the tritone had been discovered.
>
> i don't think you can understand music without understanding its
> evolution. stick around and you may learn a lot about historical
> scales, tuning systems, and musical style -- particularly if margo
> chooses to join in our discussion (hint hint).

Yes. I agree.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> Right on the money, Paul. The kaleidoscopic frenzy of modulation
that arose
> in the seventeenth century gives ample evidence that the "true
purpose" of
> the tritone had been discovered.

exactly. where you and i differ is that you don't think the tritone
of the natural minor scale is functional, while i think it is. major
borrowing the 2-b6 tritone from minor is nearly as common as minor
borrowing the 4-7 tritone for major, and in both cases the function
is to help provide a powerful resolution to the tonic chord. play
both tritones together, and you get the diminished seventh chord, the
engine of tonality since bach, of modulation since beethoven, and of
excursion into the diminished/octatonic system in the 20th century
(dating bach to rimsky-korsakov, but found as variously as in bloch,
progressive rock, and jazz).

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35951.html#35974

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > Right on the money, Paul. The kaleidoscopic frenzy of modulation
> that arose
> > in the seventeenth century gives ample evidence that the "true
> purpose" of
> > the tritone had been discovered.
>
> exactly. where you and i differ is that you don't think the tritone
> of the natural minor scale is functional, while i think it is.
major
> borrowing the 2-b6 tritone from minor is nearly as common as minor
> borrowing the 4-7 tritone for major, and in both cases the function
> is to help provide a powerful resolution to the tonic chord. play
> both tritones together, and you get the diminished seventh chord,
the
> engine of tonality since bach, of modulation since beethoven, and
of
> excursion into the diminished/octatonic system in the 20th century
> (dating bach to rimsky-korsakov, but found as variously as in
bloch,
> progressive rock, and jazz).

****I saved this post, too!

This makes just an incredible amount of sense. The diminished
seventh chord contains *both* tritones from the major and minor!
And, of course, it frequently resolves to all those places, even
before the Romantic era!

I don't believe I've ever heard it put quite this way. Paul, you've
got yet *another* career as a star "traditional" theory teacher!

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> I don't believe I've ever heard it put quite this way. Paul,
you've
> got yet *another* career as a star "traditional" theory teacher!

well, i wouldn't be so confidently and frequently posting about
microtonal theory if i didn't feel i had a strong understanding
of 'traditional' theory! of course, i listen to music all the time,
and i constantly hear the tritones doing these things, as surely as i
taste the sugar in my tea . . .

as to the assertion that i'm an ignoramus about these issues because
i haven't produced 10 cds of music in every equal temperament from 5
to 53 . . .

lots of great composers are really weak on theory, and personally,
i'm too much of a perfectionist to ever finish composing much of
anything (thus i improvise my way through most of my musical
performances). but i can take dictation (preferably reproducing what
i hear on an instrument rather than on staff paper) like nobody's
business . . . and i know what 'sounds good' to me . . . so that's
why i feel qualified to talk about theory so much . . .

but enough about me . . .