Fwd: Re: con/dis chord progression chart

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50616.html#50782

***Hello Stephen!

It seems our conversation is verging a bit on *semantics* more than
anything.

It seems to me, to use ridiculously simple examples, that a chord
progression that uses all 12-tET major triads and goes C-G-F is just
*as* "consonant" as a chord progression that goes, say, C-D#-A in
major triads.

What you might say is that the progression is more *chromatic* since
the roots are chromatic rather than diatonic.

However, it seems to me that one series of major triads is just
as "consonant" as another series of them, regardless of the root...

STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::

Thanks for your reply. Are you saying that the chord progessions that keep coming up
in 12 EDO over and over are there by chance? I know I don't know much, but I think
that a (to simplifiy things even further) 2 chord progression that has C and G as tonics
is more consonant than one that has C and F# as the tonics. At least in the first progression
the g note is common to both chords. Wouldn't that by itself increase its consonance?

J. Pehrson
--- End forwarded message ---

Stephen Szpak

_________________________________________________________________
Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx

Stephen,

Your use of the word "consonance" agrees well with what musicians and
music theorists today typically mean by the word. A given sonority
can sound "consonant" or "dissonant" depending on the musical context.

However, there are other uses of the word "consonance". Bill
Sethares, in his book _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_, focuses
entirely on conceptions of consonance which do *not* consider
context, but treat each sonority as an isolated entity. He uses the
term "sensory consonance" for at least one such conception that is
the primary focus of his book.

Joseph is right on the money when he brings up the diatonic scale.
The "musician's" view of consonance is extremely intimately tied up
with the diatonic scale, which appears to have considerable power in
determining, at least, how "Western" common-practice music will be
heard by "Western" listeners. George Secor recently posted examples
here showing how the diminished fourth, diminished sixth, and
diminished seventh sound like dissonances, while the major third,
perfect fifth, and major sixth sound like consonances, despite the
fact that the only way of distinguishing the first set of intervals
from the second (since 12-equal was used) is by relating them to the
prevailing diatonic context.

-Paul

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_50616.html#50782
>
> ***Hello Stephen!
>
> It seems our conversation is verging a bit on *semantics* more than
> anything.
>
> It seems to me, to use ridiculously simple examples, that a chord
> progression that uses all 12-tET major triads and goes C-G-F is just
> *as* "consonant" as a chord progression that goes, say, C-D#-A in
> major triads.
>
> What you might say is that the progression is more *chromatic* since
> the roots are chromatic rather than diatonic.
>
> However, it seems to me that one series of major triads is just
> as "consonant" as another series of them, regardless of the root...
>
> STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::
>
> Thanks for your reply. Are you saying that the chord
progessions that
> keep coming up
> in 12 EDO over and over are there by chance? I know I don't know
much,
> but I think
> that a (to simplifiy things even further) 2 chord progression
that has C
> and G as tonics
> is more consonant than one that has C and F# as the tonics. At
least in
> the first progression
> the g note is common to both chords. Wouldn't that by itself
increase its
> consonance?
>
>
> J. Pehrson
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
> Stephen Szpak
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House &
Home.
> http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
Stephen,

Your use of the word "consonance" agrees well with what musicians and
music theorists today typically mean by the word. A given sonority
can sound "consonant" or "dissonant" depending on the musical context.

However, there are other uses of the word "consonance". Bill
Sethares, in his book _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_, focuses
entirely on conceptions of consonance which do *not* consider
context, but treat each sonority as an isolated entity. He uses the
term "sensory consonance" for at least one such conception that is
the primary focus of his book.

STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::::::::;

Yes, but I'm interested in consonance IN context. I'm not interested in 144 EDO, but
what would one do with 144 EDO if one started from scratch. If C (all triads are 0-
400-700 for simplicity) is the first tonic and (about) 551 is the second, there must be several
good choices for the third and several bad.

Joseph is right on the money when he brings up the diatonic scale.
The "musician's" view of consonance is extremely intimately tied up
with the diatonic scale, which appears to have considerable power in
determining, at least, how "Western" common-practice music will be
heard by "Western" listeners. George Secor recently posted examples
here showing how the diminished fourth, diminished sixth, and
diminished seventh sound like dissonances, while the major third,
perfect fifth, and major sixth sound like consonances, despite the
fact that the only way of distinguishing the first set of intervals
from the second (since 12-equal was used) is by relating them to the
prevailing diatonic context.

-Paul
>
>***Hello Stephen!
>
>It seems our conversation is verging a bit on *semantics* more than
>anything.
>
>It seems to me, to use ridiculously simple examples, that a chord
>progression that uses all 12-tET major triads and goes C-G-F is just
>*as* "consonant" as a chord progression that goes, say, C-D#-A in
>major triads.
>
>What you might say is that the progression is more *chromatic* since
>the roots are chromatic rather than diatonic.
>
>However, it seems to me that one series of major triads is just
>as "consonant" as another series of them, regardless of the root...
>
> STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::
>
> Thanks for your reply. Are you saying that the chord
progessions that
>keep coming up
> in 12 EDO over and over are there by chance? I know I don't know
much,
>but I think
> that a (to simplifiy things even further) 2 chord progression
that has C
>and G as tonics
> is more consonant than one that has C and F# as the tonics. At
least in
>the first progression
> the g note is common to both chords. Wouldn't that by itself
increase its
>consonance?
>
>
>J. Pehrson
>--- End forwarded message ---
>
> Stephen Szpak
>

_________________________________________________________________
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50830.html#50841

wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Your use of the word "consonance" agrees well with what musicians
and
> music theorists today typically mean by the word. A given sonority
> can sound "consonant" or "dissonant" depending on the musical
context.
>
> However, there are other uses of the word "consonance". Bill
> Sethares, in his book _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_, focuses
> entirely on conceptions of consonance which do *not* consider
> context, but treat each sonority as an isolated entity. He uses the
> term "sensory consonance" for at least one such conception that is
> the primary focus of his book.
>
> STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::::::::;
>
> Yes, but I'm interested in consonance IN context. I'm not
interested in
> 144 EDO, but
> what would one do with 144 EDO if one started from scratch. If C
(all
> triads are 0-
> 400-700 for simplicity) is the first tonic and (about) 551 is the
second,
> there must be several
> good choices for the third and several bad.
>

***Hello Stephen!

It sounds to me like you are looking for chord progressions whose
roots progress by our "common" consonant or diatonic intervals. So
you just need to calculate what steps these are in 144-tET.
A "perfect" fifth is, obviously, 84, etc...

However, please keep in mind that not all chords are 12-tET
*triads* :) so that will make things a bit more complicated.

Maybe it would be best to make a chart of progressions you want to
use, or which you feel are "consonant..." (in microtonality,
sometimes such interpretations are open to debate...)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50830.html#50841

wrote:
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>Stephen,
>
>Your use of the word "consonance" agrees well with what musicians
and
>music theorists today typically mean by the word. A given sonority
>can sound "consonant" or "dissonant" depending on the musical
context.
>
>However, there are other uses of the word "consonance". Bill
>Sethares, in his book _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_, focuses
>entirely on conceptions of consonance which do *not* consider
>context, but treat each sonority as an isolated entity. He uses the
>term "sensory consonance" for at least one such conception that is
>the primary focus of his book.
>
> STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::::::::;
>
> Yes, but I'm interested in consonance IN context. I'm not
interested in
>144 EDO, but
> what would one do with 144 EDO if one started from scratch. If C
(all
>triads are 0-
> 400-700 for simplicity) is the first tonic and (about) 551 is the
second,
>there must be several
> good choices for the third and several bad.
>

***Hello Stephen!

It sounds to me like you are looking for chord progressions whose
roots progress by our "common" consonant or diatonic intervals. So
you just need to calculate what steps these are in 144-tET.
A "perfect" fifth is, obviously, 84, etc...

However, please keep in mind that not all chords are 12-tET
*triads* :) so that will make things a bit more complicated.

Maybe it would be best to make a chart of progressions you want to
use, or which you feel are "consonant..." (in microtonality,
sometimes such interpretations are open to debate...)

STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This can't be this hard. To clarify... 144 EDO was my suggestion as a substitute for an
infinite EDO. If 1200 EDO is easier for you to grab on to that's fine. To clarify... the
0-400-700 triads would be used as a start. (maybe some other kind later).

I think it's time to stop. My original question was me wondering if anyone made
such a chart/list. You haven't heard of one so it probably doesn't exist. As for the
math involved, I'd just be guessing if I tried to come up with one. You see I didn't
want to do progressions based on what my ears heard, (especially with my lack of
equipment). Thanks anyway.

J. Pehrson
--- End forwarded message ---

Stephen Szpak

_________________________________________________________________
Have fun customizing MSN Messenger � learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Szpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50830.html#50949

> STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> This can't be this hard. To clarify... 144 EDO was my suggestion
as a
> substitute for an
> infinite EDO. If 1200 EDO is easier for you to grab on to that's
fine. To
> clarify... the
> 0-400-700 triads would be used as a start. (maybe some other kind
later).
>
> I think it's time to stop. My original question was me wondering
if
> anyone made
> such a chart/list. You haven't heard of one so it probably
doesn't
> exist.

***Hi Stephen,

Oh *finally* I see what you're getting at! :)

Well, Paul Erlich made a chart of sonorities (and "quasi" sonorities
and dissonances) for the 21-note "Blackjack" scale derived from 72-
tET... which is a "stepping stone" to the full inflections of 144-tET.

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50616.html#50616

wrote:
>
> To anyone:
>
> Has a chart(table) ever been compiled that would display
> the most consonant to the most dissonant chord progressions? I'm >thinking about 3 major triads (0-400-700) in a progression.
> The most consonant 24 , let's say,3 chord progressions would
> be at the top and the most dissonant 120 at the bottom.
> The graph, or whatever, would have 144 EDO accuracy or higher
> for the tonic notes. Would having such a table allow for more >consonant music
> to be made, or would it be of no real use?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen Szpak

***Hi Stephen,

I don't believe that "dissonant chord progressions" make any sense.
It would be difficult to disassociate the progression from the actual
sounding chords to be used. Each chord can be evaluated according to
ideas of "concordance" using different models. One is Paul Erlich's
Harmonic Entropy model. We evaluated the consonance of several
tetrads on my "Tuning Lab" site:

http://www.soundclick.com/tuninglab

best to you!

Joseph Pehrson
STEPHEN SZPAK WRITES::::::::::::::::::::::

{{{ First, just so we understand each other, I'm speaking of 000-400-700 major triads only.
I couldn't tell from what you wrote if you picked up on that.}}}

In 12 EDO there are certain chord progessions that keep coming up over and over.

Cmajor --- Fmajor ----G major

has the tonics 0---500-700 and is (or seems) more consonant than

Cmajor --- D# major ---A major

with its tonics of 0---300---900

Do you believe this is true? If it is NOT true than every chord progression has to
be equally consonant. Perhaps it is?!

Please note that your link results in ERROR 404.

Thanks for your comments,

Stephen Szpak

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com