Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Fwd: consonant chord progressions?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bailey <chris@m...> wrote:

> 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?!

Actually, I am very interested in music that is not necessarily
harmonically directed (in the sense of being "label-able" with I, IV, V
and other functional symbols), but where every chord is in fact
consonant, and the "direction" of the progression derives not from
harmonic rules, but from counterpoint.

Rennaissance counterpoint is an example of this (for the most part). You
wouldn't label the "verticals" with "I V IV VI" etc., or if you did, the
progrssion wouldn't make much sense from that point of view.

On the other hand, the verticals are all either consonances or carefully
regulated dissonances (i.e. suspensions). And there is usually a logic to
the flow of things, but it comes from the counterpoint and the lines,
rather than the harmony.

Another quite different example of this is from Strauss "Till
Eulenspeigel's Merry Pranks" #19 of the score. (a wicked awesome loud
brass thing.)

CB
--- End forwarded message ---

Hi Chris

Stephen writes:

(Be advised I don't know what I'm talking about.)

In the book Music Theory (volume 2) by Earl Henry page 28 the author wirtes:

"A well-planned harmonic scheme is essential in counterpoint. In two voice writing,
the harmony is implied rather than fully stated, and while the harmonic implications
of a perfect fifth are clear, thirds and sixths (the predominant consonances) are subject
to at least two different interpretations.
Although linear movement in the counterpoint may clarify the harmony, the
importance of quickly and consistenly establishing a tonality through strong, well-
defined progressions cannot be minimized.
The author also makes use of a lot of Roman numerals too.
Don't ask me if he's totally right or not, I have thought about learning 12 EDO
music theory but it just never happens.

It is very difficult for me to listen to selected music so I'll take your word about
the Strauss piece.
When I was young I tried ( and failed) to play a lot of Bach's stuff. This one has got
to be in couterpoint if your interested, Invention #14. I always liked it.

MAIN POINT:

I am trying to find a chord progession table/list/whatever to make sense of what is
really going on,musically, if I could just choose any tonics I wanted. This is actually somewhat
possible in 15. NOT 15 EDO but 15. I, with a pen and paper, came up with 5 tonics
with 700 cent 5ths and major and minor 3rds in 15. There must be hundreds of poss-
ibilities here. I am hoping to get (have given to me) something that identifies what are
the best tonics. 551 and 969 are important, but others are too. A progression
that has two tonics very close together probably wouldn't be consonant. That is another
consideration.

stephen_szpak@hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_51367.html#51367
>
> (Be advised I don't know what I'm talking about.)
>

***Don't feel bad, Stephen. This is also one of
my "specialities..." :)

> In the book Music Theory (volume 2) by Earl Henry page 28 the
author
> wirtes:
>
> "A well-planned harmonic scheme is essential in counterpoint. In
two
> voice writing,
> the harmony is implied rather than fully stated, and while the
harmonic
> implications
> of a perfect fifth are clear, thirds and sixths (the
predominant
> consonances) are subject
> to at least two different interpretations.
> Although linear movement in the counterpoint may clarify the
harmony,
> the
> importance of quickly and consistenly establishing a tonality
through
> strong, well-
> defined progressions cannot be minimized.
> The author also makes use of a lot of Roman numerals too.
> Don't ask me if he's totally right or not, I have thought
about
> learning 12 EDO
> music theory but it just never happens.
>

***Well, he takes a bit "the cart before the horse" approach, but he
isn't the first, as this is commonly the way harmony is taught in
many schools.

The fact of the matter is that harmony has evolved historically from
*counterpoint*... only later is it codified.

>
> MAIN POINT:
>
> I am trying to find a chord progession table/list/whatever
to make
> sense of what is
> really going on,musically, if I could just choose any tonics I
wanted.
> This is actually somewhat
> possible in 15. NOT 15 EDO but 15. I, with a pen and paper,
came up
> with 5 tonics
> with 700 cent 5ths and major and minor 3rds in 15. There must
be
> hundreds of poss-
> ibilities here. I am hoping to get (have given to me) something
that
> identifies what are
> the best tonics. 551 and 969 are important, but others are too.
A
> progression
> that has two tonics very close together probably wouldn't be
consonant.
> That is another
> consideration.
>

***Well, Stephen... this is actually called "composing..." or "pre-
composing..."

Why don't you just make charts of different things that you like and
classify them into various progressions "dissonant" or "consonant"
according to your *own* ear.

Then, make some music out of them... (??)

J. Pehrson

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

Stephen Szpak wrote:

> MAIN POINT:
> > I am trying to find a chord progession table/list/whatever to make > sense of what is
> really going on,musically, if I could just choose any tonics I wanted. > This is actually somewhat
> possible in 15. NOT 15 EDO but 15. I, with a pen and paper, came up > with 5 tonics
> with 700 cent 5ths and major and minor 3rds in 15. There must be > hundreds of poss-
> ibilities here. I am hoping to get (have given to me) something that > identifies what are
> the best tonics. 551 and 969 are important, but others are too. A > progression
> that has two tonics very close together probably wouldn't be consonant. > That is another
> consideration.
> > stephen_szpak@hotmail.com

Just make up such a list yourself. 15 can be divided by 3 and 5, which means intervals of 3 and 5 will take you back where you started too fast to make music, and they leave out most of your tonal resources. Any other number can cycle you through all the fifteen tones. This is is the equivalent of the cycle of fifths.
Use a theoretical mapping of some of your 15 tones to the harmonic series or your ears to find a prototypical aggregate ("chord"). You already did that. Note that in English chords have roots, keys have tonics (in German, for instance, they can be called the same).
Now, combine the two, move your chord through the different 15 tone cycles, and watch for good voice leading. Common tones will probably be nice, and pure parallel motion (that's 1 and 14 steps) will almost certainly be dull. The Schenkerian thing (falling through the cylce of fifths) pretty much relies on the chords having common tones, because the chords do contain a fifth. Keep your ears open, this may not be necessary.

One kind of "consonant chord progression" could be the class of progressions that has common tones and stepwise progression and enables movement through all your material.

The next thing could be to find a key. There are probably three ways to do that if you start from scratch:
- use your cycling interval, but don't go all the way. This list uses the acronym MOS (Moments Of Symmetry, don't ask me why) for instances when the resulting scale has only two kinds of interval, large and small; these count as "good" pentatonics and diatonics. If you have samll, large and very large intervals, cycle on until the gaps are filled.
- take your chord and cycle it for a FEW times. This, too, will give you a collection of intervals. You may want to try this with different chord types. The scale building principles above can apply, but don't need to. You might also like a mix of chord types (harmonic minor is created from a minor-minor-major chain).
- write a simple melody, one that donesn't modulate. This may be hard to tell in tonal system nobody knows.

There a progressions that sound natural because they stay in the key. If you can build your chord types on each of the scale tones, it's nice. If you move stepwise from each one of a chord's tones, and the results are the same, even nicer (if not, you may think of think of tones you have to skip to achieve the first result somewhat like blue notes; none of the above has to be criterion to trash a scale). Now, cycle the scale chords with your favorite generators from above and call it "consonant chord progression".

Is that what you wanted to know?

klaus

And PLEASE, look for a reply function in your mail program. The way you handle e-mail is a case for the humane society; if it hadn't been for pauls participation, i would have stopped reading long ago (something i hardly ever do).

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

🔗Stephen Szpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com>

> MAIN POINT:
>
> I am trying to find a chord progession table/list/whatever
to make
>sense of what is
> really going on,musically, if I could just choose any tonics I
wanted.
>This is actually somewhat
> possible in 15. NOT 15 EDO but 15. I, with a pen and paper,
came up
>with 5 tonics
> with 700 cent 5ths and major and minor 3rds in 15. There must
be
>hundreds of poss-
> ibilities here. I am hoping to get (have given to me) something
that
>identifies what are
> the best tonics. 551 and 969 are important, but others are too.
A
>progression
> that has two tonics very close together probably wouldn't be
consonant.
>That is another
> consideration.
>

***Well, Stephen... this is actually called "composing..." or "pre-
composing..."

Why don't you just make charts of different things that you like and
classify them into various progressions "dissonant" or "consonant"
according to your *own* ear.

Then, make some music out of them... (??)

J. Pehrson
--- End forwarded message ---
Stephen writes:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

First my own ear would probably betray me. Second, as I have mentioned previously,
I have very limited equipment. Like extremely, extremely.

Thanks,

stephen_szpak@hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed �net deals � comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com

🔗Stephen Szpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
Stephen Szpak wrote:

> MAIN POINT:
>
> I am trying to find a chord progession table/list/whatever to make >sense of what is
> really going on,musically, if I could just choose any tonics I >wanted. This is actually somewhat
> possible in 15. NOT 15 EDO but 15. I, with a pen and paper, came up >with 5 tonics
> with 700 cent 5ths and major and minor 3rds in 15. There must be >hundreds of poss-
> ibilities here. I am hoping to get (have given to me) something that >identifies what are
> the best tonics. 551 and 969 are important, but others are too. A >progression
> that has two tonics very close together probably wouldn't be >consonant. That is another
> consideration.
>
> stephen_szpak@h...

Just make up such a list yourself. 15 can be divided by 3
and 5, which means intervals of 3 and 5 will take you back
where you started too fast to make music, and they leave out
most of your tonal resources. Any other number can cycle you
through all the fifteen tones. This is is the equivalent of
the cycle of fifths.
Use a theoretical mapping of some of your 15 tones to the
harmonic series or your ears to find a prototypical
aggregate ("chord"). You already did that. Note that in
English chords have roots, keys have tonics (in German, for
instance, they can be called the same).
Now, combine the two, move your chord through the different
15 tone cycles, and watch for good voice leading. Common
tones will probably be nice, and pure parallel motion
(that's 1 and 14 steps) will almost certainly be dull. The
Schenkerian thing (falling through the cylce of fifths)
pretty much relies on the chords having common tones,
because the chords do contain a fifth. Keep your ears open,
this may not be necessary.

One kind of "consonant chord progression" could be the class
of progressions that has common tones and stepwise
progression and enables movement through all your material.

The next thing could be to find a key. There are probably
three ways to do that if you start from scratch:
- use your cycling interval, but don't go all the way. This
list uses the acronym MOS (Moments Of Symmetry, don't ask me
why) for instances when the resulting scale has only two
kinds of interval, large and small; these count as "good"
pentatonics and diatonics. If you have samll, large and very
large intervals, cycle on until the gaps are filled.
- take your chord and cycle it for a FEW times. This, too,
will give you a collection of intervals. You may want to try
this with different chord types. The scale building
principles above can apply, but don't need to. You might
also like a mix of chord types (harmonic minor is created
from a minor-minor-major chain).
- write a simple melody, one that donesn't modulate. This
may be hard to tell in tonal system nobody knows.

There a progressions that sound natural because they stay in
the key. If you can build your chord types on each of the
scale tones, it's nice. If you move stepwise from each one
of a chord's tones, and the results are the same, even nicer
(if not, you may think of think of tones you have to skip to
achieve the first result somewhat like blue notes; none of
the above has to be criterion to trash a scale). Now, cycle
the scale chords with your favorite generators from above
and call it "consonant chord progression".

Is that what you wanted to know?

klaus

And PLEASE, look for a reply function in your mail program.
The way you handle e-mail is a case for the humane society;
if it hadn't been for pauls participation, i would have
stopped reading long ago (something i hardly ever do).
--- End forwarded message ---

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

klaus schmirler wrote:

>Just make up such a list yourself. 15 can be divided by 3 and 5, which >means intervals of 3 and 5 will take you back

I had better said steps or interval classes. So
100+60+100=60+100+60.

klaus

Stephen writes::::::::::::::

Klaus

Chords have roots. I thought I could use either term. Thanks.
Using progressions that have common tones is something that occured to me a
few days ago. Playing C-E-G then F-A-C HAS to be consonant because the c note
is common to both.
The rest is incomprehensible (as usual). Don't worry about getting back to me on it.
I'll think about it for a while. As with all e-mails that seem important, this one goes to
my special e-mail account until printed out or whatever.
Originally I just wanted a table or something that provided a rough idea/concept
of what to do, or what to avoid, if one could choose any roots one wants. I figured
I'd get something with 'don't go up a major 3rd,,go up a perfect 4th . don't go up a
semiaugmented 4th(551 cents),, go up a perfect 5th etc etc etc.

If I need to save some letter I cut and paste it to my Compose page in Hotmail and
then send it back to Yahoo AND my special e-mail account. This is probably what is
causing the humane society concerns.

Thanks,

stephen_szpak@hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

Stephen Szpak wrote:

> few days ago. Playing C-E-G then F-A-C HAS to be consonant because > the c note
> is common to both.

But by that measure, A-C-E, C-Eb-G or even C-E-G-Db are even more consonant. "Consonance" is a quality of intervals and chords, not of progressions (you might argue the above aren't pregressions, though).

> The rest is incomprehensible (as usual). Don't worry about getting > back to me on it.
> I'll think about it for a while. As with all e-mails that seem > important, this one goes to
> my special e-mail account until printed out or whatever.
> Originally I just wanted a table or something that provided a > rough idea/concept
> of what to do, or what to avoid, if one could choose any roots one > wants. I figured
> I'd get something with 'don't go up a major 3rd,,go up a perfect 4th . > don't go up a
> semiaugmented 4th(551 cents),, go up a perfect 5th etc etc etc.

In your system, you will have to try that out yourself (e.g. in the way I described). Even if everybody here could give you the cut and dry answer that movement by perfect fifths is very, very OK, there may be better ways (and movement by perfect fifths only bypasses your tones that are 60 cent off).

"Consonant progression" might mean "progression within a regular set of tones (scale) by a preferred number of steps"? Depending on what you like to end up with, there may be many scales to choose from, and more than one way to cycle through. The movement within the scale also entails a regular change between different chord types. But before looking at musical pregressions, you have to find a scale where your chord movement can take place.

Just a little bit more before I leave you alone: Don't let easy theory books tell you a scale has a preordained tonic. Music has a tonic, it's the note where your melody comes to rest; so a scale has room for several tonics (and the ordering of a scale from one of the tonics is called mode).

klaus

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

> Just make up such a list yourself. 15 can be divided by 3
> and 5, which means intervals of 3 and 5 will take you back
> where you started too fast to make music,

Huh? All kinds of great, 'consonant' progressions take you right back
where you started really fast. Schubert, for one, made great use of
the progression where the roots divide the octave into 3 equal parts.
Blackwood made great use of the 5-fifths-in-15-get-you-back-where-you-
started in his guitar suite.

> and they leave out
> most of your tonal resources.

That's actually a *good* thing -- the most 'consonant progressions'
familiar on a 12-tone piano will tend to leave out 5 notes per
octave, for example.

> Any other number can cycle you
> through all the fifteen tones.

Not so -- for example, try 9.

> This is is the equivalent of
> the cycle of fifths.

See above.

> Now, combine the two, move your chord through the different
> 15 tone cycles,

Why would the most useful progressions necessarily be cycles of a
single chord progressing over and over by a single interval? I think
most wouldn't be.

> One kind of "consonant chord progression" could be the class
> of progressions that has common tones

That much I can agree with. Though restrictive (you won't be able to
go from C major to D minor triads, for example) it still leaves you
with a mind-boggling number of options to consider . . .

> There a progressions that sound natural because they stay in
> the key. If you can build your chord types on each of the
> scale tones, it's nice.

One example of this would be Blackwood's symmetrical 10-tone scale in
15 equal, which is simply a large step (2/15 oct.) alternating with a
small step (1/15 oct.) all the way through the octave. A single
pattern of steps in this scale will give you, alternately, nice-
sounding (at least on nylon-string guitar) major and minor triads.
Note that this construction does not follow from the way klaus and
mark generalize the diatonic scale, but does follow from the way some
of us are presently doing and describing here, with more background
on tuning-math -- the diatonic scale results from tempering out
81:80, and in just the same way, Blackwood's 10-tone scale in 15-
equal results from tempering out 256:243 . . .

-Paul

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> > >>Just make up such a list yourself. 15 can be divided by 3 >>and 5, which means intervals of 3 and 5 will take you back >>where you started too fast to make music,
> > > Huh? All kinds of great, 'consonant' progressions take you right back > where you started really fast. Schubert, for one, made great use of > the progression where the roots divide the octave into 3 equal parts. > Blackwood made great use of the 5-fifths-in-15-get-you-back-where-you-
> started in his guitar suite.
> > >>and they leave out >>most of your tonal resources.
> > > That's actually a *good* thing -- the most 'consonant progressions' > familiar on a 12-tone piano will tend to leave out 5 notes per > octave, for example.

I proposed two types of lists (exercises) in my mail. The purpose of the first one was to find useful cycles and to get a feel for the interdependence of cycling interval and chord type, voice leading for short. Maybe I shouldn't have singled out the obviously short cycles beforehand. The more, since the other short ones (like 6, 9, 10, 12) result in permutations of 3 and 5, which again may be a good and useful thing - depending on the music you want to make.

The second part of the mail concerned finding a context (other than the whole pitch collection) for the cycle(s) he found to be useful. Here the short cycles could have been mentioned, but like JP, I tend to think that getting your way around "traditional" procedures like filling generator gaps or chaining chords are more fundamental than Messiaen- or Webern-like structures that reflect back on themselves (the real reason I went to such great pains to circumvent these scales is probably that I didn't want to show my bias for them ... there... now I've said it).

snip... hopefully all satisfactorily botched into the above.

> > One example of this would be Blackwood's symmetrical 10-tone scale in > 15 equal, which is simply a large step (2/15 oct.) alternating with a > small step (1/15 oct.) all the way through the octave. A single > pattern of steps in this scale will give you, alternately, nice-
> sounding (at least on nylon-string guitar) major and minor triads. > Note that this construction does not follow from the way klaus and > mark generalize the diatonic scale, Actually, I hope I didn't generalize at all... even if I censored, the message should have been that there is more than one way (to scale a ...?).

but does follow from the way some
> of us are presently doing and describing here, with more background > on tuning-math -- the diatonic scale results from tempering out > 81:80, and in just the same way, Blackwood's 10-tone scale in 15-
> equal results from tempering out 256:243 . . .

This gets me confused. Tempering out 81:80 results in meantony realizations of the diatonic scale, no? If not, what is the pitch collection of just major chords on F, C, and G? I should have said, diatonic C major (of F lydian, or whatever) with a flat A. (If I'm far off here please explain in a new thread.)

klaus

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 1/11/04 2:58 PM, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>> If I need to save some letter I cut and paste it to my
> Compose
>>> page in Hotmail and
>>> then send it back to Yahoo AND my special e-mail account.
> This is
>>> probably what is
>>> causing the humane society concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> stephen_szpak@h...
>>
>> Yes, well... whatever it is you're doing, you should seriously
> consider
>> stopping it. Please write me off list if you need any advice on
> how to
>> structure your e-mail setup.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>
> Stephen writes:::::::::
> (Actually I meant to say COPY and PASTE above.)
> The first complaint I got about my e-mailing was last night.
> I fail to see what's wrong. Is there confusion about the subject
> line?
>
> Stephen

Well this particular one is better. And perhaps you're more recent one's
have been better. But in the past you were not using ">" quoting for what
you were replying to, and I think sometimes your replies were interspersed.
The result of this was often that if I saw a message was from you I would
take a quick look to see if I could find what you were writing in a few
seconds, and if now I would just throw the message away.

-Kurt