Re: [tuning] Digest Number 3496

>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:43:28 -0000
>From: "Gene Ward Smith"
>Subject: Re: 'Tristan' chord, confusion of nationalities

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" wrote:

>>
>> So you are not interested in talking about Wagner, only in picking
>> holes in what other people say, with the help of omission and
>> misrepresentation. I find this a very dull sport.

>I don't know why you want to become personally insulting. Since you
>seem bent on maintaining the misconceptions drilled into you by
>teachers who themselves did not know much about tuning on a list
>*devoted* to tuning, you are not in a very good position to start
>throwing spitballs if that is what it is coming to. I suggest you
>start by learning the tuning basics, such as what 7-limit chords are
>and what they actually sound like, before dismissing the idea that a
>septimal interpretation of some common practice chords, as well
>apparently as some Wagner chords, makes a lot of sense.

>> I said 'a quite strong dissonance', which in British English, my
> >native language, means 'somewhat strong'. Possibly it may mean
> >something else in American. In any case, it is correct, because the
> >German 6th may resolve onto a dominant 7th, which is itself a mild
> >dissonance. The fact that this *is* a resolution implies that we are
> >not in ET, since if we were, there would be no difference between a
> >dominant 7th and a German 6th.

>Yes, we've covered this. I think your terminology is unfortunate and
>confusing here, but obviously you like it, so why not move on?

Mr. Dent is using the standard terminology of traditional theory/harmony. His usage is not in any way eccentric, incorrect or confusing to anyone familiar with pre-20th c. music theory. A chord which in a traditional tonal context needs to be resolved is a dissonance. For example, read Grove's "Beethoven & his Nine Symphonies", he refers to dominant sevenths as dissonances.
Sorry for butting in, but it gets really tedious wading through endless arguments based on willful misunderstandings, or refusals to understand, of what people say.

Chris

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher John Smith
<christopherjohn_smith@y...> wrote:

> Mr. Dent is using the standard terminology of traditional
theory/harmony. His usage is not in any way eccentric, incorrect or
confusing to anyone familiar with pre-20th c. music theory.

The usage conflates different notions, which I think Dent was clearly
doing. It is not only inherently coinfusing, it had both of us, and
certainly Dent is included in this, confused. I mentioned The German
sixth as an example of what can only be interpreted as a septimal
chord from the common practice period. Dent responded that it was a
strong dissonance, and the French sixth even stronger. In context,
since we were talking about *psychoacoustical* dissonance, and since
the French sixth is indeed a harsher chord, this clearly carried an
implication that the French sixth was psychoacoustically rather
dissonant (which is true) and the German sixth somewhat less so (at
best confusing; the chords are not really comperable
psychoacoustically, only in terms of functional harmony and
nomenclature.)

>A chord which in a traditional tonal context needs to be resolved is
a dissonance.

I know that, dammit. I've known that for years. This is not helpful.

> Sorry for butting in, but it gets really tedious wading through
endless arguments based on willful misunderstandings, or refusals to
understand, of what people say.

Which, it seems to me, you are in danger of adding to. Could you do me
the courtesy of trying to figure out what I was saying, and why, and
not merely assume I must be ignorant?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher John Smith
<christopherjohn_smith@y...> wrote:

> Mr. Dent is using the standard terminology of traditional
theory/harmony. His usage is not in any way eccentric, incorrect or
confusing to anyone familiar with pre-20th c. music theory.

Here is the article in question:

/tuning/topicId_58229.html#58235

Tom responds to my claim that a German sixth is not a dissonace in any
meantone tuning near to 2/9 comma, which is *clearly* talking about
psychoacoustical dissonance, with a claim that 7-limit chords will
always require resolution in the classical period, introducing
functional dissonance. So far so good, but then comes the discussion
of the French sixth, with an augmented fourth in place of a fifth, as
therefore being a "more extreme" dissonance that the German sixth. We
appear to be discussing psychoacoustical dissonance at this point; the
paragraph doesn't really make much sense in context otherwise.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Here is the article in question:
>
> /tuning/topicId_58229.html#58235

Which also contains this gem:

"How do I tell if I am hearing something as septimal or not? I hear a
dissonance, whereas if septimality were anything like 5-limit, I
would hear a consonance."

Do they teach people how to hear the functional implications of chords
taken in isolation in music schools these days? Tom "hears" a
dissonance when he listens to a German sixth. I submit you can only do
that if you are hearing a psychoacoustical dissonance.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> Do they teach people how to hear the
> functional implications of chords
> taken in isolation in music schools
> these days? Tom "hears" a dissonance
> when he listens to a German sixth.
> I submit you can only do that if
> you are hearing a psychoacoustical
> dissonance.

or a "discordance", as i would prefer to put it.

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

>>Yes, we've covered this. I think your terminology is unfortunate and
>>confusing here, but obviously you like it, so why not move on?
>
>Mr. Dent is using the standard terminology of traditional theory/harmony.
>His usage is not in any way eccentric, incorrect or confusing to anyone
>familiar with pre-20th c. music theory. A chord which in a traditional
>tonal context needs to be resolved is a dissonance. For example, read
>Grove's "Beethoven & his Nine Symphonies", he refers to dominant sevenths
>as dissonances.
>Sorry for butting in, but it gets really tedious wading through endless
>arguments based on willful misunderstandings, or refusals to understand,
>of what people say.
>
>Chris

After being absent from the list for only a week, I have to agree.

-Carl