At the core of cordance and sonance

Monz,

You wrote:

-----Original Message-----
... if there's a way to make a conceptual distinction clear by
using a linguistic distinction, i'm all for it.

to me, "concord" and "discord" clearly express the perceptions
of particular sonorities, without regard to any musical usage,
and "accordance" clearly expresses the concept of a continuum
of such perceptions.

as you say, "consonance" and "dissonance" are defined more
by a sense of musical progression, in that a dissonance sets
up a restlessness, a sense of having to resolve, and consonance
is that resolution. these are firmly established meanings for
these terms.

accordance deals instead with static sonorities.

...

[Yahya]
Let's indulge in a little linguistic analysis, shall we? :-)

Looking up my dictionary, I find that the words accordance,
concordance, discordance and the like all stem from the
Latin "cors" meaning heart or mind, and all carry meanings
of [dis-]agreement. They concern the spirit of the thing.
(Funny, I had thought it might have related to a "cord" or
string, as in eg a monochord, but I guess that "cord" comes
from Greek "chordos" and is not related to Latin "cors".)

However, all the words like assonance, consonance and
dissonance stem from the verb "sonare", to sound, and its
relatives. A "consonant" was that which was "sounded with"
a vowel (note - not quite simultaneously; before or after).
An "assonance" is a partial rhyme scheme in which only
vowels, but not consonants, (eg, "brave rain") sound alike.

Although some of the "sonance" terms have secondary
meanings which equate to "cordance" terms used musically,
this is not their primary meaning, either according to the
dictionary's listing or according to their linguistic origin.

Concordant with their origins, the words in "-cordance"
all carry strong meanings of musical [dis-]agreement, both
according to the dictionary's listing and according to their
linguistic origins.

It's interesting that most of these words existed in Latin,
and have come down to us through Old French and Middle
English. Not, as we might have thought, clever neoclassical
neologisms invented a mere couple of centuries ago ...

Normally, I'm for descriptive dictionaries, not prescriptive
ones. But in an Encyclopaedia article, one can be a little more
discursive than in a dictionary entry, and argue the merits of
the various cases.

Quoting you again "... if there's a way to make a conceptual
distinction clear by using a linguistic distinction, I'm all for
it." Me, too!

Look, since you went to all the trouble of making the
Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia, and are now going through the pains
of updating it, in order to clear up confusion, why not strike
a blow for clarity of thinking by promulgating a clear
distinction between these terms; moreover, one which is
based on their linguistic heritage?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/4/05

hi Yahya,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> Look, since you went to all the trouble of making the
> Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia, and are now going through the pains
> of updating it, in order to clear up confusion, why not strike
> a blow for clarity of thinking by promulgating a clear
> distinction between these terms; moreover, one which is
> based on their linguistic heritage?

with all due respect, i appreciate your arguments,
but i'm not likely to be swayed ... unless there's
a loud outcry from lots of other folks.

Paul Erlich agrees with my usage, which, as he pointed out
to me, was used earlier by Easley Blackwood (_The Structure
of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings_).

"promulgating a clear distinction between these terms"
is exactly what i've been doing ever since i added the
"-cordance" terms to the Encyclopedia (it was then
the Dictionary). if you have the patience to search
these Yahoo archives, you'll find that i have consistently
used "-cordance" and "-sonance" according to my definitions
for several years now.

regarding the "linguistic heritage" ... i don't have
proof, and must admit that i didn't research the
terminology before writing my definitions, but i do
believe that the *concept* of the accordance terminology
comes from ancient Greek music theory, which spoke of
"concords" and "discords", and which i believe *did*
in fact refer to lyre strings. Greek theory used the
Greek word "chord", which translates literally as "string",
to mean "note".

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> with all due respect, i appreciate your arguments,
> but i'm not likely to be swayed ... unless there's
> a loud outcry from lots of other folks.
>
> Paul Erlich agrees with my usage, which, as he pointed out
> to me, was used earlier by Easley Blackwood (_The Structure
> of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings_).

I'll see your Blackwood and raise you a Helmholtz/Ellis. :-)

I think that "On the Sensations of Tone" uses "consonance" and
"dissonance" for the continuous psycho-acoustic context-free property.

-- Dave Keenan

hi Dave,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > with all due respect, i appreciate your arguments,
> > but i'm not likely to be swayed ... unless there's
> > a loud outcry from lots of other folks.
> >
> > Paul Erlich agrees with my usage, which, as he pointed out
> > to me, was used earlier by Easley Blackwood (_The Structure
> > of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings_).
>
> I'll see your Blackwood and raise you a Helmholtz/Ellis. :-)
>
> I think that "On the Sensations of Tone" uses "consonance" and
> "dissonance" for the continuous psycho-acoustic context-free
> property.

that's a good one! ;-)

there's actually quite a long history of music theorists
using the "-sonance" words for the psycho-acoustic
context-free property -- probably going all the way back
to Boethius and perhaps even the ancient Greeks.

older theorists wrote about sonance and what i would now
call accordance interchangeably, using the "-sonance"
terms to describe both situations, the context-free one,
and the one which was determined by musical context.

but in more modern times (like since, say, the 1960s)
theorists have wanted to distinguish between the property
determined by musical context and the context-free one.
it probably has a lot to do with the conscious recognition
and manipulation of musical style as an aspect of composition.

before the 1960s, a composer's musical language was
generally less consciously determined, arising mostly
from a particular cultural _Zeitgeist_. but after the advent
and popularity of long-playing records, the whole history
of notated music became available to listeners, and this
had a profound effect on composers, who now are free to
pick and choose whatever stylistic aspects they want.

a recognition of these stylistic considerations are at
the heart of theories of sonance. and these days we now
are also aware how importantly tunings are connected with
the consideration of both style and sonance.

-monz

I'll see your Blackwood and raise you a Helmholtz/Ellis. :-) I CALL! Can't raise much high than a Helmholtz.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Monz,

Perhaps the best resource for uses of the
words consonance and dissonance is Tenney's book
devoted to the subject "A history of consonance
and dissonance." In the history, Tenney very clearly
describes 5 different historical uses of the words,
and brings it up to the modern era.

I think you would do well to consider adopting
Tenney's scheme, rather than trying to create one
of your own. There is enough confusion in this area that
creating a whole new strata of definitions
and half-synonyms is unlikely to lead to clarity.

In Chapter 5 of TTSS I have a sort of "executive summary"
of Tenney's scheme. I have just put this up on the
web, and I hope that you will at least consider
adopting Tenney's (more standard) terminology.
It's at:

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss5.pdf

In case it's of interest, you can also find chapters 1 and 2
of TTSS at:

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss1-2.pdf

--Bill Sethares

> there's actually quite a long history of music theorists
> using the "-sonance" words for the psycho-acoustic
> context-free property -- probably going all the way back
> to Boethius and perhaps even the ancient Greeks.
>
> older theorists wrote about sonance and what i would now
> call accordance interchangeably, using the "-sonance"
> terms to describe both situations, the context-free one,
> and the one which was determined by musical context.>
>
> but in more modern times (like since, say, the 1960s)
> theorists have wanted to distinguish between the property
> determined by musical context and the context-free one.
> it probably has a lot to do with the conscious recognition
> and manipulation of musical style as an aspect of composition.
>
> before the 1960s, a composer's musical language was
> generally less consciously determined, arising mostly
> from a particular cultural _Zeitgeist_. but after the advent
> and popularity of long-playing records, the whole history
> of notated music became available to listeners, and this
> had a profound effect on composers, who now are free to
> pick and choose whatever stylistic aspects they want.
>
> a recognition of these stylistic considerations are at
> the heart of theories of sonance. and these days we now
> are also aware how importantly tunings are connected with
> the consideration of both style and sonance.
>

Dave Keenan wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> with all due respect, i appreciate your arguments,
> but i'm not likely to be swayed ... unless there's
> a loud outcry from lots of other folks.
>
> Paul Erlich agrees with my usage, which, as he pointed out
> to me, was used earlier by Easley Blackwood (_The Structure
> of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings_).

I'll see your Blackwood and raise you a Helmholtz/Ellis. :-)

I think that "On the Sensations of Tone" uses "consonance" and
"dissonance" for the continuous psycho-acoustic context-free property.

-- Dave Keenan

[Yahya] Now THAT may explain my prejudices! :-)
I first read Helmholtz/Ellis "On the Sensations of Tone"
over 30 years ago, and have been known to start preaching
about "the Good Book" with the slightest provocation ...
So ... mind if I quote you chapter and verse?

(Page 194) Dover edition of 1954 -
"Chapter X - Degree of Harmoniousness of Consonances:

... the results of this chapter may be summed up as follows:

When two musical tones are sounded at the same time, their
united sound is generally disturbed by the beats of the upper
partials, so that a greater or lesser part of the whole mass of
sound is broken up into pulses of tone, and the joint effect is
rough. This relation is called _Dissonance_.

But there are certain determinate ratios between pitch
numbers, for which this rule suffers an exception , and either
no beats at all are formed, or at least only such as have so
little intensity that they produce no unpleasant disturbance
of the united sound. These exceptional cases are called
_Consonances_. ... "

(Page 211)
"Chapter XII - Degree of Harmoniousness of Consonances:
We have hitherto examined the effect of sounding together
only two tones which form a determinate interval. It is now
easy to discover what will happen when more than two tones
are combined. The simultaneous production of more than two
separate compound tones is called a _chord_. We will first
examine the harmoniousness of chords in the same sense as
we examined the harmoniousness of any two tones sounded
together. That is, we shall in this section deal exclusively
with the isolated effect of the chord in question, quite
independently of any musical connection, mode, key,
modulation and so on. The first problem is to determine
_under what conditions chords are consonant_, in which case
they are termed _concords_. It is quite clear that the first
condition of a concord is that each tone of it should form a
consonance with each of the other tones ... If this is the case
each one of the three tones forms a consonant interval with
each one of the other two, and the chord is consonant, or is
a concord."

[Yahya again]
So, Monz, I'd say that your usage of the last few years is
directly at odds with Helmholtz and Ellis and all those who
have studied in their tradition.

Mind you - since we seem to be playing poker now - I'd say
a Sch�nberg beats a Helmholtz any time (who cares what
theoreticians say, if there's a REAL musician in the house?
:-) ) - so -

Does anyone have "HarmonieLehre" ready to hand, to see
how Sch�nberg used the "sonance" and "cordance" terms?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/4/05

hi Yahya,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> <snipped quotes from Helmholtz>
>
> [Yahya again]
> So, Monz, I'd say that your usage of the last few years is
> directly at odds with Helmholtz and Ellis and all those who
> have studied in their tradition.
>
> Mind you - since we seem to be playing poker now - I'd say
> a Schönberg beats a Helmholtz any time (who cares what
> theoreticians say, if there's a REAL musician in the house?
> :-) ) - so -
>
> Does anyone have "HarmonieLehre" ready to hand, to see
> how Schönberg used the "sonance" and "cordance" terms?

Schoenberg didn't write anything about "-cordance", AFAIK.
he always spoke of "consonance" and "dissonance".

as i just pointed out in a recent post, i think it was
a big disadvantage that he never produce a single term
("sonance") to represent the whole continuum of perception
of this quality, since he emphasized strongly in
_Harmonielehre_ that there is no clear distinction
between the two, and that they are merely the extreme
ends of the continuum.

i don't know how far back in history this idea goes,
but Helmholtz was certainly walking down that path.
his "degree of harmoniousness of consonances" sets up
a measure which expresses a continuum of perception
as opposed to a sharp distinction. Euler was possibly
the first music-theorist to present this idea, with
his "gradus suavitatis".

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
microtonal music software

While research Bharatta (c. 500 B.C.) in his discussions on Indian music and
dance, I found his use of 4 terms that were undefined:

sonance, assonance, consonance, dissonance

They go at least that far back, and afar.

Also, is the Italian 6th more consonant than the German 6th because it has
one less musical tone?

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> hi Dave,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > > with all due respect, i appreciate your arguments,
> > > but i'm not likely to be swayed ... unless there's
> > > a loud outcry from lots of other folks.
> > >
> > > Paul Erlich agrees with my usage, which, as he pointed out
> > > to me, was used earlier by Easley Blackwood (_The Structure
> > > of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings_).
> >
> > I'll see your Blackwood and raise you a Helmholtz/Ellis. :-)
> >
> > I think that "On the Sensations of Tone" uses "consonance" and
> > "dissonance" for the continuous psycho-acoustic context-free
> > property.
>
>
>
> that's a good one! ;-)

I'm not really arguing for the distinction to be reversed, but rather
that the attempt to distinguish them should be forgotten. I think we
should recognise that musically -sonance and -cordance have been used
as synonyms far more often than anyone has made the distinction either
way. We just have to make our meaning clear in other ways.

We also have Margo Schulter's history of medieval tuning using mostly
"-cordance" for the context-dependent property.
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth3.html

I also found this paper that uses both terms and makes the distinction
that way.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~yeary/papers/einheitlichkeit.pdf

-- Dave Keenan

hi Johnny,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> While research Bharatta
> (c. 500 B.C.) in his
> discussions on Indian music
> and dance, I found his use
> of 4 terms that were undefined:
>
> sonance, assonance,
> consonance, dissonance
>
> They go at least that
> far back, and afar.

i find this very interesting!

around 1993, i had a friend (an old American guy)
who was a student of things Indian, particularly
the Sanskrit language.

i spoke to him a bit about my interests in microtonal
music and acoustics, and he was fascinated, because
he told me that the one field of inquiry that ancient
Indians had really studied systematically and in depth
was that dealing with sound.

i found this very interesting. i'm a dabbler in
languages, and noticed that Indian syllabaries
(like alphabets, but each symbol represents a whole
syllable ... Japanese writing works the same way)
were arranged not in a linear order like our alphabet,
but rather in a 2-dimensional table, the 2 dimensions
representing actual physi0-acoustical properties of
the sound represented by the symbol.

this method of presentation was apparently used for
all languages of India, regardless of the language
family to which they belong. i have a teach-yourself
book for Maylayalam, spoken in southern India but a
member of the Dravidian family, and has a simlar table
showing the symbols. Sanskrit is of course the ancient
Indian member of the Indo-European family.

(i tried searching the web for something like this
but didn't find it. for those of you who are having
visualizing what i'm talking about, you can also look
in the appendix to the 3rd book of _Lord of the Rings_,
"The Return of the King", where Tolkien explains the
fictional elvish Quenya writing ... his presentation
put that alphabet into a 2-D table with axes representing
acoustics, in the same way as the Indian ones i've seen.)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
microtonal music software

oops ...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> (i tried searching the web for something like this
> but didn't find it. for those of you who are having
> visualizing what i'm talking about, you can also look
> in the appendix to the 3rd book of _Lord of the Rings_,

my bad.

i meant to say "for those of you who are having
trouble visualizing ..."

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
microtonal music software

The most amazing thing about Helmholtz is that he had a great ear and a great understanding. Schoenberg failed to have the understanding that basing music on non acoustical relations was not a good idea.
The former i learn much , the latter i learned not what to do
In fact we can safely say he lead western music into one of it ugliest periods from which it has yet to recover. It now recovers only through the incorporation of 'pop" composers. The 'Henry Ford' school of corporate composition
Mind you - since we seem to be playing poker now - I'd say
a Sch�nberg beats a Helmholtz any time (who cares what
theoreticians say, if there's a REAL musician in the house?
:-) ) - so -

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> In fact we can safely say he lead western music into one of it
ugliest periods from which it has yet to recover.

Kyle Gann has had a number of essays recently about the legacy of a
failed dodecaphonic policy - here is one that follows your train of
thought:

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/archives20050301.shtml#98286

Cheers,
Jon

> Look, since you went to all the trouble of making the
> Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia, and are now going through the pains
> of updating it, in order to clear up confusion, why not strike
> a blow for clarity of thinking by promulgating a clear
> distinction between these terms; moreover, one which is
> based on their linguistic heritage?

It seems most likely that "dissonance" and "consonance" were in
use by musicians under Blackwood's definition before they were
applied by pyschoacoustics researchers to a different phenomenon.

-Carl

>I think that "On the Sensations of Tone" uses "consonance" and
>"dissonance" for the continuous psycho-acoustic context-free property.

He clearly borrowed them from musicians.

-Carl

>I think you would do well to consider adopting
>Tenney's scheme, rather than trying to create one
>of your own. There is enough confusion in this area that
>creating a whole new strata of definitions
>and half-synonyms is unlikely to lead to clarity.
>
>In Chapter 5 of TTSS I have a sort of "executive summary"
>of Tenney's scheme. I have just put this up on the
>web, and I hope that you will at least consider
>adopting Tenney's (more standard) terminology.
>It's at:
>
>http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss5.pdf

I don't see any conclusions about how to clarify the
terminology here; merely descriptions of all the ways
the terms have been overloaded.

-Carl

Schoenberg brought one thing to the table that inspired thousands of
terrible imitations and a few decent ones. Helmholtz brought lots of
things; maybe he didn't fully use them himself, but neither did Bob
Moog, who couldn't play a lick. I care what Helmholtz and Moog say no
matter how many musicians are around. Helmholtz's findings apply to
more than just music, too.

-Chuckk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> The most amazing thing about Helmholtz is that he had a great ear
and a great understanding.
> Schoenberg failed to have the understanding that basing music on non
acoustical relations was not a good idea.
> The former i learn much , the latter i learned not what to do
> In fact we can safely say he lead western music into one of it
ugliest periods from which it has yet to recover.
> It now recovers only through the incorporation of 'pop" composers.
The 'Henry Ford' school of corporate composition
>
>
> Mind you - since we seem to be playing poker now - I'd say
> a Schönberg beats a Helmholtz any time (who cares what
> theoreticians say, if there's a REAL musician in the house?
> :-) ) - so -
>
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > In fact we can safely say he lead western music into one of it
> ugliest periods from which it has yet to recover.
>
> Kyle Gann has had a number of essays recently about the legacy of a
> failed dodecaphonic policy - here is one that follows your train of
> thought:
>
> http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/archives20050301.shtml#98286
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

What an articulate man. I mean that seriously, this is well-thought out.
Most of the arts went through some pretty ugly stuff through the 20th
Century. Music is far from the only field where artists wanted to
violate the rules. I think most Cubism and Dadaism is ugly, as well
as a good deal of German Expressionism and Abstract Expressionism.
Beckett is ugly, and Apollinaire too. Outside of 12-tone music,
Varese, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg himself were making some ugly music
already. George Crumb has made some of the ugliest stuff I've ever heard.

Maybe computers were a big incentive to end the ugliness? Suddenly
it's easier to have everything line up perfectly than to have things
appear haphazard. Lots of 80's music is far less ugly than
Schoenberg, but just as hard to take. There is plenty of disruptive,
hideous stuff done with computers today, but it takes extra effort.

-Chuckk

hi Chuckk,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Chuckk Hubbard" <BadMuthaHubbard@h...>
wrote:

> Schoenberg brought one thing
> to the table that inspired
> thousands of terrible imitations
> and a few decent ones. Helmholtz
> brought lots of things; maybe he
> didn't fully use them himself,
> but neither did Bob Moog, who
> couldn't play a lick. I care
> what Helmholtz and Moog say no
> matter how many musicians are
> around. Helmholtz's findings
> apply to more than just music,
> too.

i'm *so* glad you wrote that last statement!

one of the main things that fascinates me about musical tunings
is how the data pops up in other places. Erv Wilson studies
botany and sees the natural architecture of plants reflected
in his lattice diagrams. many ancients felt that musical tuning
provided a key to the harmony of proportions which holds the
universe together. it's obvious that a helical Muzika meantone
lattice resembles a DNA molecule (see the Encyclopedia
"meantone" page), etc. etc.

in the same way, Helmholtz's work on music relates to any
periodic vibration, so it has had many practical applications
in machinery mechanics, where rotating engines produce
periodic vibrations.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
microtonal music software

One of the things i have observed in Botany's influence on Erv Wilson is in the way he sees scales grow into larger systems. This is why he has referred to himself as a Yasserian, since he says he learned to view it this way from him, ( though he comes to different conclusions) . Just as a plant will put on a series of branches to fill in the gaps to capture light , scales do likewise when developing or evolving into smaller subdivisions. Hence when he would first have me rotate a scale through a cycle of fifths ( in a variety of different ways) or investigate the subsets of a scale via the same approach. it seemed more organic. i should mention that this approach really gives one a good idea of what a scale is and can do. it is one thing to look at a 12 tone scale for instance in terms of ratios from a given point, but to understand it how it can work musically ( on it most archetypal level) it is important to run through all your 5 and 7 tones scales and see and hear how they transform through these common tone modulations ( common ton in the sense usually only one tone is changed going from one scale to another.)

As i have mentioned that Helmholtz's system is my own basis of measuring con/dis. by the addition of primary and difference tones omitting the repeated numbers. I composed a series of lullabies based on this idea which i have up on my personal pages on my site.

>
>one of the main things that fascinates me about musical tunings
>is how the data pops up in other places. Erv Wilson studies
>botany and sees the natural architecture of plants reflected
>in his lattice diagrams. many ancients felt that musical tuning
>provided a key to the harmony of proportions which holds the
>universe together. it's obvious that a helical Muzika meantone
>lattice resembles a DNA molecule (see the Encyclopedia
>"meantone" page), etc. etc.
>
>in the same way, Helmholtz's work on music relates to any
>periodic vibration, so it has had many practical applications
>in machinery mechanics, where rotating engines produce
>periodic vibrations.
>
>
>
>-monz
>http://tonalsoft.com
>microtonal music software
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 16 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:11:48 -0000
> From: "monz" <monz@tonalsoft.com>
>Subject: Re: 'Tristan' chord
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
>"Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
>wrote:
>
> >
>>The idea that intervals differ
>>in terms of relative
>>agreeableness or concordance
>>is by no means so recent as >>Helmholtz, and reading older
>>literature will show that.
>> >>
>
>
>the ancient Greeks specifically
>cited the 3:2 and 4:3 intervals
>as "_symphoniae_", which we would
>now translate as "consonances".
>it was widely felt that only >epimoric ratios ( i.e., (n=1)/n ) >should be admitted into a tuning
>system, and in the proportional
>progression 1:2:3:4:5:... etc.,
>1:2 is the ratio of the octave >and does not produce any new notes,
>then 2:3 and 3:4 both do produce
>new notes, from which an entire
>scale can be created. 5 was not
>admitted as a consonance by the >most ancient authors, thus, there
>was a recognition of a connection
>between numerical complexity of the
>ratio and the music perception of
>consonance.
>
>
>
> >
>>Can anyone find clear citations
>>earlier than the 20th century
>>for dissonance as a purely
>>contextual notion? I'm
>>skeptical any such notion was
>>clearly put forward until much
>>more recently than the time
>>when the agreeableness distinction
>>was widely understood.
>> >>
>
>
>did you see my post talking about the recognition of differing
>musical styles? i think it was not possible for anyone to
>notice a contextual meaning for "dissonance" until the
>variability of musical styles was consciously discerned.
>this only happened after the invention of long-playing record,
>early 1950s. i would not be surprised if Blackwood was
>the first to discuss it in depth.
>
>
>
>-monz
>http://tonalsoft.com
>microtonal music software
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Carl replied to a suggestion I made, thus:

[Yahya]
> Look, since you went to all the trouble of making the
> Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia, and are now going through the pains
> of updating it, in order to clear up confusion, why not strike
> a blow for clarity of thinking by promulgating a clear
> distinction between these terms; moreover, one which is
> based on their linguistic heritage?

[Carl]
It seems most likely that "dissonance" and "consonance" were in
use by musicians under Blackwood's definition before they were
applied by pyschoacoustics researchers to a different phenomenon.

[Yahya]
Would "psychoacoustics researchers" happen to include Helmholtz
and Ellis? And if you define that term narrowly enough to exclude
them, I'd still want to call them "physio-acoustic" researchers par
excellence. Personally, I'd call them "psychoacoustics research
pioneers" ... Whatever, I've already quoted extensively to show that
Helmholtz used "sonance" terms to deal with sound taken out of its
musical context, and "cordance" terms to deal with sound taken in
a musical context. And he did so more than a lifetime before Easley
Blackwood.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/4/05

Hi Yahya,

>Carl replied to a suggestion I made, thus:
>
>[Yahya]
>> Look, since you went to all the trouble of making the
>> Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia, and are now going through the pains
>> of updating it, in order to clear up confusion, why not strike
>> a blow for clarity of thinking by promulgating a clear
>> distinction between these terms; moreover, one which is
>> based on their linguistic heritage?
>
>[Carl]
>It seems most likely that "dissonance" and "consonance" were in
>use by musicians under Blackwood's definition before they were
>applied by pyschoacoustics researchers to a different phenomenon.
>
>[Yahya]
>Would "psychoacoustics researchers" happen to include Helmholtz
>and Ellis?

Yes.

>And if you define that term narrowly enough to exclude
>them, I'd still want to call them "physio-acoustic" researchers par
>excellence. Personally, I'd call them "psychoacoustics research
>pioneers" ... Whatever, I've already quoted extensively to show that
>Helmholtz used "sonance" terms to deal with sound taken out of its
>musical context, and "cordance" terms to deal with sound taken in
>a musical context. And he did so more than a lifetime before Easley
>Blackwood.

So he chose the reverse of Blackwood. But Blackwood's suggestion
is more in line with contemporary musical use (in my experience).
But it doesn't really matter much, as long as your reader understands
you. If I remember, Tom and Gene had a miscommunication here, but
instead of straightening it out and moving on, an entire argument
over the 'right terminology' got started. That's very distracting
to progress, in my view.

-Carl