Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1987

On 3/29/02 7:27 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:08:31 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1985
>
> --- 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).

Where did you get the idea that we differ on that point? Perhaps because I
mentioned that composers often "hide" the 2-b6 tritone by sounding the ii
chord in first inversion, emphasizing its subdominant function? In such
cases, the composer is not intending a modulation to the relative major and
prefers to not mislead the listener.

The key word is "functional." When the 2-b6 tritone sounds with the b7 root,
there is no doubt about where the music is going. Also, when the 2-b6
tritone is part of the V9 (complete or incomplete) it certainly is a
dominant function.

Otherwise, the b6 is nothing more than a normal minor-flavored "third" in
the subdominant function. In this case, the "function" is not dominant,
therefore the "tritone" is somewhat a pain in the you-know-what. That's the
difference.

I think you have a tendency to jump to conclusions about our "differences."
We may have more in common than you realize.

Appreciatively, (to borrow a phrase)

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/29/02 7:27 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:08:31 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1985
> >
> > --- 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).
>
> Where did you get the idea that we differ on that point?

it came up quite a few times before, you and i disagreeing on this
point and you saying that the 2-b6 tritone of the natural minor scale
is not a functional one.
>
> The key word is "functional." When the 2-b6 tritone sounds with the
b7 root,
> there is no doubt about where the music is going.

well no, that's not the kind of case i was thinking of (though it's a
very effective modulatory move).

> Also, when the 2-b6
> tritone is part of the V9 (complete or incomplete) it certainly is a
> dominant function.
>
> Otherwise, the b6 is nothing more than a normal minor-
flavored "third" in
> the subdominant function. In this case, the "function" is not
dominant,
> therefore the "tritone" is somewhat a pain in the you-know-what.
That's the
> difference.

i disagree. why have composers throughout the history of tonal music
been so eager, in a major key, to borrow the *subdominant* from minor?
because it's a pain? no -- it's the powerful drive of the diminished
fifth to resolve inward into a third.

> I think you have a tendency to jump to conclusions about
>our "differences."

sorry, but i don't think that's true. i was going by our previous
discussions on this topic, i think two years ago.

i have no prejudices about how much agreement or disagreement i
should have with you or any other individual. i have no sense of
fostering rivalries or alliances around here -- i take everything on
an issue-by-issue basis.

> We may have more in common than you realize.

and you as well. nevertheless, i'm not merely imagining that we have
difference in opinion on this matter. i recall it clearly. maybe i
just happened to be reading the right part of the archives from two
years ago, when i was browsing them a couple of weeks ago.

i would agree that the 7-4 tritone is a bit more powerful/essential
than the 2-b6 tritone, because only in the former is the *tonic
pitch* one of the goals of the resolution. perhaps we can leave it at
that (as this is kinda off-topic)?

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

/tuning/topicId_35996.html#36000

> >
> > Otherwise, the b6 is nothing more than a normal minor-
> flavored "third" in the subdominant function. In this case,
the "function" is not dominant,therefore the "tritone" is somewhat a
pain in the you-know-what. That's the difference.
>
> i disagree. why have composers throughout the history of tonal
music been so eager, in a major key, to borrow the *subdominant* from
minor? because it's a pain? no -- it's the powerful drive of the
diminished fifth to resolve inward into a third.
>

***I believe I would tend to agree with Paul here...

>
> and you as well. nevertheless, i'm not merely imagining that we
have difference in opinion on this matter. i recall it clearly. maybe
i just happened to be reading the right part of the archives from two
> years ago, when i was browsing them a couple of weeks ago.
>

***Paul! Here I was so impressed and at first thought it was you
*photographic memory* again! :)

> i would agree that the 7-4 tritone is a bit more powerful/essential
> than the 2-b6 tritone, because only in the former is the *tonic
> pitch* one of the goals of the resolution. perhaps we can leave it
at that (as this is kinda off-topic)?

***Metatuning.

But I really think these discussions are important. We (I) need to
keep our traditional "theory chops" up to date if we are to develop
microtonal theory. Some people teach this stuff, of course, but I've
never been in that position, so I relish every *review* I can find.

jp