Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning A Wealth of Harmony

To answer Justin's question, I believe that all musical cultures embody an inherent harmony within. Maqam Music is one such culture, whose harmonic wealth awaits to be unearthed, and tools for harnessing it - if not the implementation thereof from the already available resources on composition and performance - require development .

The concept of modulation from one maqam (key - rather than mode) to another should have been the natural outcome of discovering tonal links in the passage of music from one type of scale to the next depending on the mood, skills and acquisitions of the musician. If we do not insinuate that Middle Eastern musicians were dumber as compared to the rest of the world, I hypothesize that they must have looked into the possibilities and the means of realizing modulation as early as their European counterparts.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: hstraub64
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 28 Eylül 2005 Çarşamba 15:17
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Okay please forgive my extremem ignorance. Actually I
> don't really know what harmony means! (I'd be so glad
> if someone could explain but understand that might be
> far too tedious for many of you.) With your analogy of
> space moving, it feels to me like chord changes? When
> you say "there is a primary movement (the harmonic
> context) and a secondary one of the melody relative
> to that context." is it that the primary one is a
> chord which changes, or a drone perhaps or whatever.
> Like a basic mood-space. Then the melody is a dynamic
> "dancer", a sequence of changing pitches enertaining
> and ornamenting that space?
> What about if 2 instruments play together, but with
> equal dynamic character. Like, two oboes for example,
> playing away. If they are not playing the same
> sequence of notes, is that 2 melodies or a harmony? I
> mean, if they are making sense with each other. At
> what point is it called a harmony?

Ah, well, things are indeed a little more complicated than they look
at first sight! The word "harmony" as such has a rather broad meaning
- the examples you give above can all fall into that - so, in this
sense, "harmony" is present in nearly all music...

But to elaborate a little more on Ansermet's idea - drones are a good
keyword. Imagine a melody played over a drone - and then the same
melody played over a different drone. The perceptions will be quite
different, since the effect of a drone is to emphasize a kind of base
or reference tone - it is often the tone the melody starts or stops
on, so the melody will be heard relative to that base tone.
A single drone, however, is rather a non-moving space, so music with
just one drone would still be called, so to say, "pre-copernican".
But imagine a piece where the drone changes in the middle - then the
reference tone changes: moving ground! Maybe the word "modulation" is
a good keyword that describes what I mean.
Which brings me to another point. On the website about maqam music you
posted here a whlie ago, I read that in maqam music there are
modulations, too - just not "harmony", but, as far as I understand it,
between different kinds of melody. So far for the question about maqam
music and "Dark Ages"!
I am sorry I do not know much about maqams (nor did Ansermet, I
suppose) - but I am just imagining that the concept of modulation may
not always have been present in maqam music and entered at a certain
period of time - maybe Ozan can tell something here?
--
Hans Straub

🔗Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>

Hello Justin, Ozan and all,

Some of the definitions I collected on Google searching on "Harmony",
are given below. This search was useful only to the extent that, I
could continue to believe that there is NO HARMONY in Indian music --
except, perhaps, in a remotely implied and rudimentary way. In fact,
To strongly bring out the characteristics of melody, harmony [and
chords] must have been carefully avoided, even if considered at all.
Nor is there any modulation in Indian music of today. This is
notwithstanding some "experimental" attempts at harmonization and at
modulation we hear about these days.

Regards,
Haresh.

Some of the definitions of Harmony I came across are:
*The structure of music with respect to the composition and
progression of chords.
*Harmony is the art of using pitch simultaneity (or chords, actual or
implied) in music. It is sometimes referred to as the "vertical"
aspect of music, with melody being the "horizontal" aspect. Very
often, harmony is a result of several melodic lines or motifs being
played at once, creating counterpoint and called polyphony.
The sounding of two or more tones simultaneously; the vertical aspect
of music.
*Two or more notes sounding simultaneously.
*The combination of simultaneous musical notes in a chord.
*In general, a combination of tones, or chords, producing music.
*The vertical blocks of different tones that sound simultaneously; a
progression of chords.
*Harmony is the chordal or vertical structure of a piece of music, as
opposed to melody (and polyphony, or multiple melodies) which
represents the horizontal structure. The succession of chords in a
given piece is referred to as a chord progression.
*Simultaneous sounding of two or more different tones conceived as a unit.
*Two or more notes played simultaneously and compatibly; the
combination of notes into chords and chord progressions.
*In the most general sense, harmony refers to the types of chords used
predominantly in a work, or the harmonic system (ie tonal or
otherwise) that is used in a composition. Harmony is also used to
refer to a specific chord or series of chords.
*The way in which chords are arranged in a musical composition.
*The simultaneous combination of notes and the ensuing relationships
of intervals and chords. Not all musics of the world rely on harmony
for interest, but it is central to most Western music.
*Harmony is the result when 2 or more notes are played at the same
time. The combinations of notes that develop are referred to as
"chords". Often harmony is used to support a melody or melodies.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> To answer Justin's question, I believe that all musical cultures
embody an inherent harmony within. Maqam Music is one such culture,
whose harmonic wealth awaits to be unearthed, and tools for harnessing
it - if not the implementation thereof from the already available
resources on composition and performance - require development .
>
> The concept of modulation from one maqam (key - rather than mode) to
another should have been the natural outcome of discovering tonal
links in the passage of music from one type of scale to the next
depending on the mood, skills and acquisitions of the musician. If we
do not insinuate that Middle Eastern musicians were dumber as compared
to the rest of the world, I hypothesize that they must have looked
into the possibilities and the means of realizing modulation as early
as their European counterparts.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Greetings Haresh!
----- Original Message -----
From: Haresh BAKSHI
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Eylül 2005 Perşembe 2:57
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

Hello Justin, Ozan and all,

Some of the definitions I collected on Google searching on "Harmony", are given below. This search was useful only to the extent that, I could continue to believe that there is NO HARMONY in Indian music -- except, perhaps, in a remotely implied and rudimentary way. In fact, To strongly bring out the characteristics of melody, harmony [and chords] must have been carefully avoided, even if considered at all.

That is the primary argument that attempts to explain why Maqam Music was not and cannot be harmonized. Also, polyphony has been shunned thus far. I do not think, though, that the full potential of microtonal polyphony has been considered yet!

Nor is there any modulation in Indian music of today. This is notwithstanding some "experimental" attempts at harmonization and at modulation we hear about these days.

There are certainly parallels with this side of the world.

Regards,
Haresh.

Some of the definitions of Harmony I came across are:
*The structure of music with respect to the composition and
progression of chords.

Homophonic harmony?

*Harmony is the art of using pitch simultaneity (or chords, actual or implied) in music. It is sometimes referred to as the "vertical"
aspect of music, with melody being the "horizontal" aspect. Very
often, harmony is a result of several melodic lines or motifs being
played at once, creating counterpoint and called polyphony.
The sounding of two or more tones simultaneously; the vertical aspect of music.

Obviously the stress is on polyphonic harmony.

*Two or more notes sounding simultaneously.

There are, in polyphonic music, solo passages which continue to give a sense of harmony. This definition is not clear-cut in my opinion.

*The combination of simultaneous musical notes in a chord.

That is chordal harmony, not even homophonic at this stage, and no good for music itself as it is.

*In general, a combination of tones, or chords, producing music.

This definition could stand some improvement.

*The vertical blocks of different tones that sound simultaneously; a progression of chords.

The `composer's block` perhaps? The fluent passages of J.S. Bach's music can hardly be thought of as `vertical blocks`. Even Handel, who is considered homophonic, was not this BLOKE-ish.

*Harmony is the chordal or vertical structure of a piece of music, as opposed to melody (and polyphony, or multiple melodies) which
represents the horizontal structure. The succession of chords in a
given piece is referred to as a chord progression.

Would that perchance imply that polyphony has nothing to do with harmony?

*Simultaneous sounding of two or more different tones conceived as a unit.

The psycho-acoustic phenomena are clearly disregarded here. A broken violin in a barber shop makes horrible sounds as compared to a Stradivarius in a cathedral concert.

*Two or more notes played simultaneously and compatibly; the
combination of notes into chords and chord progressions.

Getting better. I like the addition of the concept of `compatibility`. It implies that not all simultaenously sounding pitches can be thought of as harmonious. Yet the definition is lacking, since harmony is not just chord progressions in my view, but the aural phenomenon resulting from the perception of soothing or perplexing chord-like units during the flow of music.

*In the most general sense, harmony refers to the types of chords used predominantly in a work, or the harmonic system (ie tonal or
otherwise) that is used in a composition. Harmony is also used to
refer to a specific chord or series of chords.

There is no mention of how these should be used, and when.

*The way in which chords are arranged in a musical composition.

But how? `compatibly arranged` would have been a better term. And I would have preferred the concept `chunks of simultaneously sounded rich, vibrant tones that resonate with their individual harmonic partials, pertaining to established rules of music theory, which are perceived as static chords within a favorable acoustic space`.

*The simultaneous combination of notes and the ensuing relationships of intervals and chords. Not all musics of the world rely on harmony for interest, but it is central to most Western music.

This is the best definition so far.

*Harmony is the result when 2 or more notes are played at the same
time. The combinations of notes that develop are referred to as
"chords". Often harmony is used to support a melody or melodies.

Lacking most certainly.

Ozan

🔗Justin . <justinasia@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Hello Justin,

If one can infer the C-D-Eb-G-Ab-C (9/8 6/5 3/2 8/5 2/1) scale as the basis for Japanese Gagaku ensembles, while two distinct melodies are heard simultaneously where certain established interval relationships provide the guidelines for the flow of music (even without the inclusion of antiphony) this may indeed be called harmony, or rather, the skeletal framework for it. However, I'm more partial to calling it heterophony.

Nevertheless, I still believe there is an inherent (microtonal?) harmony in Eastern musics that is waiting to be discovered and exploited.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Justin .
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Eylül 2005 Perşembe 16:47
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

Hi Ozan
You said "harmony is not just chord progressions in my
view, but the aural phenomenon resulting from the
perception of soothing or perplexing chord-like units
during the flow of music." In my example of Japanese
ensemble music, I am not sure if there are "chord-like
units". There is certainly a lovely effect of
intertwining 2 (or more) melodies. I do not understand
if this is harmony or not. I wish you could hear some
to judge. I don't suppose you know the piece "Haru no
Yo" do you? Actually that is modern, composed by
Miyagi Michio in 1913. But it illustrates my point.
Best wishes
Justin.

🔗Justin . <justinasia@yahoo.com>

Hi Ozan
I have searched and searched for audio samples for you
and only come up with these - not so satisfactory but:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000026XT/qid=1128004928/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4455628-0915822?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846

Listen to track 13. Haru No Umi. It's a different
piece by Michio miyagi. Is that harmony? And then
there is a traditinal piece here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001V42/qid=1128005542/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4455628-0915822?v=glance&s=music

Listen to Track 4. Chidori. I found that it didn't
open with Windows Media player for some reason, but
did with Realplayer. This piece (though I don't much
like that recording) is pretty typical I think.

What do you reckon about them?

> If one can infer the C-D-Eb-G-Ab-C (9/8 6/5 3/2 8/5
> 2/1) scale as the basis for Japanese Gagaku
> ensembles,

Sorry I don't really know anything about Gagaku. I
would love to know what pitches they are using though.

> while two distinct melodies are heard
> simultaneously where certain established interval
> relationships provide the guidelines for the flow of
> music (even without the inclusion of antiphony) this
> may indeed be called harmony, or rather, the
> skeletal framework for it.

Does that apply also to the samples I mention above?
If so, what is then "next step" towards more full
harmony?
Best wishes
Justin.

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: Justin .
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Eylül 2005 Perşembe 18:02
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

Listen to track 13. Haru No Umi. It's a different
piece by Michio miyagi. Is that harmony?

That is certainly heterophonous polyphony, with significant antiphonal elements ingrained in the counterpoint. No doubt, harmony in its own right. And its beautiful by the way!

And then
there is a traditinal piece here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001V42/qid=1128005542/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4455628-0915822?v=glance&s=music

What do you reckon about them?

This one is almost monophonic, but not quite. I hear simultaneously sounding close intervals like the whole-tone and the pure fourth, thinly spread in the fabric of the composition, which certainly gives the impression that an inherent harmony is trying to burst out of this very music itself.

> If one can infer the C-D-Eb-G-Ab-C (9/8 6/5 3/2 8/5
> 2/1) scale as the basis for Japanese Gagaku
> ensembles,

Sorry I don't really know anything about Gagaku. I
would love to know what pitches they are using though.

I am equally in the dark as to what kind of music they perform in the Far East. All I know is, the few Japanese I was priviledged to meet are decent open-minded fellows who know the concept of respect far better than many `so-called modern` people elsewhere.

Does that apply also to the samples I mention above?
If so, what is then "next step" towards more full
harmony?

I would have to say so, especially for the first example. For `full harmony`, the next step is to add more and more tones and even timbres at appropriate intervals employing the available tools of organum, counterpoint, modulation, transposition, chord-inversion, canon, invention, fugue, etc... in such a way as to correctly represent the character of the genre in question. Microtonal Polyphony comes to mind right here. But I wouldn't know if there is a limit for this "fullness" of harmony. The most fulfilling harmonies I have heard emanate from the Mars movement of `The Planets` by Gustav Holst. Others' taste might differ nonetheless!

Also, I believe that the Chinese have started with a basic pentatonic scale and synthesized orchestral harmony that glorifies Chinese Maoist nationalism. I find such attempts distasteful, however. The Turkish nationalist school of music resonates so badly in my ears.

Best wishes
Justin.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> From: Justin .
>
>> Hi Ozan
>> I have searched and searched for audio samples for you
>> and only come up with these - not so satisfactory but:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
>/B0000026XT/qid=1128004928/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4455628-0915822?
>v=glance&s=classical&n=507846
>>
>> Listen to track 13. Haru No Umi. It's a different
>> piece by Michio miyagi. Is that harmony?
>>
>>
> That is certainly heterophonous polyphony, with significant
> antiphonal elements ingrained in the counterpoint. No doubt,
> harmony in its own right. And its beautiful by the way!
>

Quite beautiful indeed!
To my western ear, it sounds mainly melody-oriented, with the
harmonies appearing sort of coincidentially, sounding good because
of the construction of the scale. But I may be wrong...
What is antiphonal, BTW?

>> If so, what is then "next step" towards more full
>> harmony?
>>
>>
> I would have to say so, especially for the first example. For
> `full harmony`, the next step is to add more and more tones and
> even timbres at appropriate intervals employing the available
> tools of organum, counterpoint, modulation, transposition, chord-
> inversion, canon, invention, fugue, etc... in such a way as to
> correctly represent the character of the genre in question.

I would say the distinctive property of "full" harmony is the use of
harmony in a sort of "linguistic" way, harmonies as independent
elements with their own dynamic. Essential elements are standard
harmonic changes, such as V-I which signals that something is ending
and therefore creates expectations, which in turn can be deceived
(deceptive cadence) or end on a different point (modulation - the
mentioned "moving space") etc. Actually, harmonic progressions to be
used in a quite similar manner as melodies in monophonic music.
And the good news is: all of this can work perfectly in microtonal
music!
--
Hans Straub

🔗Justin . <justinasia@yahoo.com>

Hi Ozan and Hans

> >> Listen to track 13. Haru No Umi. It's a
> different
> >> piece by Michio miyagi. Is that harmony?
> >>
> >>
> > That is certainly heterophonous polyphony,

What a lovely name!

> with
> significant
> > antiphonal elements ingrained in the counterpoint.
> No doubt,
> > harmony in its own right. And its beautiful by the
> way!
> >
>
> Quite beautiful indeed!
> To my western ear, it sounds mainly melody-oriented,
> with the
> harmonies appearing sort of coincidentially,

I'm glad you both liked it. When you say
coincidentaly, do you mean that the composed has not
focused on the harmony, i.e. not written from the
perspective of harmony, but gone more for the seperate
melodies and though making sure they sound good
together, not deliberately using the co-arising
impression resultant from the two melodies as his
focus? If you know what I mean!

> sounding good because
> of the construction of the scale.

Could you explain that a bit more?

> >> If so, what is then "next step" towards more
> full
> >> harmony?
> >>
> >>
> > I would have to say so, especially for the first
> example. For
> > `full harmony`, the next step is to add more and
> more tones and
> > even timbres at appropriate intervals employing
> the available
> > tools of organum, counterpoint, modulation,
> transposition, chord-
> > inversion, canon, invention, fugue, etc...

I hope I will find the time to look those terms up in
my friend's music dictionary! Could it mean, to add
another part? The example I wished you to hear, Haru
no Yo, has both shakuhachi and koto (as does Haru no
Umi which you heard) and voice. But still, maybe they
are not using what you say is appropriate intervals. I
don't know.

in such
> a way as to
> > correctly represent the character of the genre in
> question.

I wonder if it is possible to make it more
harmony-like (how would you say that? Harmonic?
Harmonious?) and yet still correctly represent the
character of the genre. Wouldn't it change the
character? I would love to hear the possibilities!

>
> I would say the distinctive property of "full"
> harmony is the use of
> harmony in a sort of "linguistic" way, harmonies as
> independent
> elements with their own dynamic.

Is THAT what is missing from eastern music? Is it that
that makes it not like western harmony?

Essential elements
> are standard
> harmonic changes, such as V-I which signals that
> something is ending
> and therefore creates expectations, which in turn
> can be deceived
> (deceptive cadence) or end on a different point
> (modulation - the
> mentioned "moving space") etc. Actually, harmonic
> progressions to be
> used in a quite similar manner as melodies in
> monophonic music.
> And the good news is: all of this can work perfectly
> in microtonal
> music!

Sorry to ask, but what is microtonal music? Is it just
music which uses intervals smaller than 100cents?
Would there be any reason why one would expect
microtonal music to NOT work with all those harmony
things?
Thank you both
Best wishes
Justin

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Hello again Justin and Hans!
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin .
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 0:49
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

> > That is certainly heterophonous polyphony,

What a lovely name!

Catchy too.

Humm, I would have to surmise that the inherent harmony of the music was a guide for the composer and he deliberately tried to extract it by the skillful use of the dual progression of melody and supple accompaniment, which, because of compatible intervallic resolutions at the right moments, resulted in `exiguous & elastic polyphony`.

> sounding good because
> of the construction of the scale.

Could you explain that a bit more?

That would possibly mean fewer tones to work with, easier resolutions, higher chances of compatibility with harmonic partials or proportional beating schemes.

I hope I will find the time to look those terms up in
my friend's music dictionary! Could it mean, to add
another part?

Most certainly adding more parts, or rather, introducing exquisite flavor to an already gourmet cuisine.

The example I wished you to hear, Haru
no Yo, has both shakuhachi and koto (as does Haru no
Umi which you heard) and voice. But still, maybe they
are not using what you say is appropriate intervals. I
don't know.

I couldn't either, unless you can provide an internet address by which I can listen and discern.

That's the spirit! Harmoniousness of a music depends on the concordant fusion of timbre, scale, variations in pitch, dynamics, instrumental parts, beat and tempo. The possibilities are truly limitless. As for the character change... that's a tricky one! I have been working on Maqam Music polyphony without destroying its subtle character since two years now, but it requires great skill in maintaining a most sensitive pitch-timbre equilibrium. It's like a fragile antique china vase from the Ming dynasty! My knowledge of instrumentation is insufficient to produce a satisfactory result as yet. I don't believe many people have succeeded in this direction either. That is one reason why I am reluctant to compose anything for some time now. Lots of experimentation has to be done before I can even consider returning to composing.

Is THAT what is missing from eastern music? Is it that
that makes it not like western harmony?

Missing? I don't think its missing, its just absent, awaiting to be unearthed in skillful hands.

Sorry to ask, but what is microtonal music? Is it just
music which uses intervals smaller than 100cents?

Simply put, music that uses intervals smaller or larger than 100 cents or its multiples. Some also include 100 cents into the microtonal category. But generally, it is thought that microtonality is just any tuning that exists `between the cracks of the piano keys`.

Would there be any reason why one would expect
microtonal music to NOT work with all those harmony
things?

Some here in Turkey say, that the elegant nuances of pitch dissapear with added parts for harmony, but I think its just a load of hogwash. Skillful employment of instrumental parts should enrich the experience, not hamper it.

Thank you both
Best wishes
Justin

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:

> I wonder if it is possible to make it more
> harmony-like (how would you say that? Harmonic?
> Harmonious?) and yet still correctly represent the
> character of the genre. Wouldn't it change the
> character? I would love to hear the possibilities!

Pentatonic scales have fairly limited harmonic resources, and moving
to 5-equal does not help, as it simply makes everything sound like a
single chord. I don't know how well it fits the genre, but the best
bet for maximizing harmony might be the pentatonic scale of meantone.

However, here are some pentatonic scales from the archives which might do:

! cons9.scl
!
Set of intervals with num + den <= 9 not exceeding 2/1

5
!
5/4
4/3
3/2
5/3
2/1

! farey3.scl
!
Farey fractions between 0 and 1 until 3rd level, normalised by 2/1

5
!
6/5
4/3
3/2
8/5
2/1

This one is a Fokker block:

! KOREA_5.SCL
!
According to Lou Harrison, called "the Delightful" in Korea

5
!
9/8
4/3
3/2
9/5
2/1

Another Fokker block:

! TRANH.SCL
!
Bac Dan Tranh scale, Vietnam

5
!
10/9
4/3
3/2
5/3
2/1

Other Fokker blocks with two triads could be given.

> Sorry to ask, but what is microtonal music? Is it just
> music which uses intervals smaller than 100cents?

I don't know an exact cutoff, but 100 cents is too large in that it
would make circulating temperaments microtonal.

> Would there be any reason why one would expect
> microtonal music to NOT work with all those harmony
> things?

Just the opposite; the more notes, the more possibilities for creating
chords.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> *Harmony is the chordal or vertical structure of a piece of
music, as opposed to melody (and polyphony, or multiple melodies)
which
> represents the horizontal structure. The succession of chords in a
> given piece is referred to as a chord progression.
>
>
> Would that perchance imply that polyphony has nothing to do with
harmony?

They often coexist. Analyzing Bach for harmony is always a
fascinating experience; it's rare that he leaves any chord in the
progression less than clearly implied at any point in his music, and
yet the melodies seem so free and beautiful in their own right.

> *Simultaneous sounding of two or more different tones conceived
>as a unit.
>
> The psycho-acoustic phenomena are clearly disregarded here. A
>broken violin in a barber shop makes horrible sounds as compared to
>a Stradivarius in a cathedral concert.

???

> *In the most general sense, harmony refers to the types of chords
used predominantly in a work, or the harmonic system (ie tonal or
> otherwise) that is used in a composition. Harmony is also used to
> refer to a specific chord or series of chords.
>
>
> There is no mention of how these should be used, and when.

Why should there be? How these are be used, and when, *defines* the
harmonic style of the work according to this definition.

> *The way in which chords are arranged in a musical composition.
>
>
> But how?

Exactly -- *How* the chords are arranged *is* the harmony, or
harmonic language, of the composition.

>`compatibly arranged` would have been a better term. And I >would
>have preferred the concept `chunks of simultaneously sounded >rich,
>vibrant tones that resonate with their individual harmonic
>partials, pertaining to established rules of music theory, which are
>perceived as static chords within a favorable acoustic space`.

Instruments with inharmonic partials are frequently used for harmony,
and as Klaus pointed out, you don't even need simultaneous sounding.
Why must they "perceived as static chords"?

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 0:07
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

>
> Would that perchance imply that polyphony has nothing to do with
harmony?

They often coexist. Analyzing Bach for harmony is always a
fascinating experience; it's rare that he leaves any chord in the
progression less than clearly implied at any point in his music, and yet the melodies seem so free and beautiful in their own right.

Ahem. Paul, that was a rhetorical question, a sarcasm, a cynical colloquy. You take everything too literally, I told you.

???

Signs of puzzlement? Tone-color of an instrument is a critical element in harmony. The wrong tone-color will ruin it. What's so surprising about that?

> There is no mention of how these should be used, and when.

Why should there be? How these are be used, and when, *defines* the harmonic style of the work according to this definition.

You mean to say that any jumble of sounds can be categorized as harmony? I think not. There are rules, independent of culture or genre that MUST define harmony in the broadest sense. Why don't I perceive a screaming convoy of fanatical ultra-nationalist hooligans blasting their car&truck horns that resonate with such intervals as 4/3, 9/8, 27/22 (with a myriad of melodies of their own at that!) during midnight hours yelling "The greatest soldier is OUR soldier!" right as they pass across my street as harmonious? No my dear compatriot, that's called a `noise`, not `music`, let alone `harmony`. But then again, what do I know? Maybe it's music to THEIR ears!

> *The way in which chords are arranged in a musical composition.
>
>
> But how?

Exactly -- *How* the chords are arranged *is* the harmony, or
harmonic language, of the composition.

Sarcasm Paul, sarcasm, I can't help myself.

Instruments with inharmonic partials are frequently used for harmony, and as Klaus pointed out, you don't even need simultaneous sounding. Why must they "perceived as static chords"?

Good, now why don't you suggest your own definition along that line?

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Justin . <justinasia@yahoo.com>

> > Would that perchance imply that polyphony has
> nothing to do with
> harmony?
>
> They often coexist. Analyzing Bach for harmony is
> always a
> fascinating experience; it's rare that he leaves
> any chord in the
> progression less than clearly implied at any point
> in his music, and yet the melodies seem so free and
> beautiful in their own right.
>
>
>
> Ahem. Paul, that was a rhetorical question, a
> sarcasm, a cynical colloquy. You take everything too
> literally, I told you.

Could someone then explain the when polyphony is
harmony and when it isn't?

> Why should there be? How these are be used, and
> when, *defines* the harmonic style of the work
> according to this definition.
>
> You mean to say that any jumble of sounds can be
> categorized as harmony? I think not. There are
> rules, independent of culture or genre that MUST
> define harmony in the broadest sense.

Please state these rules if you may, and this was what
I was originally trying to decipher. I would love to
hear.

Why don't I
> perceive a screaming convoy of fanatical
> ultra-nationalist hooligans blasting their car&truck
> horns that resonate with such intervals as 4/3, 9/8,
> 27/22 (with a myriad of melodies of their own at
> that!)

Is free improvisation generally understood as harmony
or mere polyphony?

during midnight hours yelling "The greatest
> soldier is OUR soldier!" right as they pass across
> my street as harmonious? No my dear compatriot,
> that's called a `noise`, not `music`, let alone
> `harmony`.

I find free inprovisation very interesting. Many
people would perceive it as exactly that - noise - and
yet, it is clearly (to me) music. Of course there is
good and bad like in all music. I find it fascinating
though. It seems to be a music so not based on
preconceptions, and I think that makes it stand out. I
even consider that it might be the most appropriate
genre for "modern Buddhist music", as, wherever
Buddhism has gone in it's 2500 year history it has
connected with and been expressed by the various
cultures it meets, and also changed them and so on. I
think free impov fits, for a number of reasons.

Best wishes
Justin.

______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

Justin . wrote:

> Could someone then explain the when polyphony is
> harmony and when it isn't?

It's in the way of thinking, nowadays, at least. Polyphonic thinking preceded harmonic thinking and was only concerned with interval relationships between melodies: consonances are allowed anytime, but dissonances have to introduced and resolved in specific ways. The consonances are the thirds and sixths, the unison and the fifth plus their octave replacements. The fourth is accepted between inner parts, but is a dissonance above the bass. Since the fifth and sixth are a second apart forming a dissonance, at most three different notes can sound together and still be consonant: bass, third and fifth or bass, third and sixth. They are equally valid. The progression from consonance to consonance is determined by the melodies.

Harmonic thinking only has one consonance, the triad: root, third and fifth. Octave displacement of the root results in the same consonances as polyphonic thinking, but they are "inversions" of a "chord" and not equal in their own right anymore. There are rules for stringing together chords, and a melody has to fit the chords. There are also rules about voice leading that more or less strive to make the inner voices as inconspicuous as possible, since there is supposed to be only one melody - the other parts are accompaniment.

This describes "common practice", "western" music until atonality came along, and most musicians will know about sides of the musical coin.

>>perceive a screaming convoy of fanatical
>>ultra-nationalist hooligans blasting their car&truck
>>horns that resonate with such intervals as 4/3, 9/8,
>>27/22 (with a myriad of melodies of their own at
>>that!)
> > > Is free improvisation generally understood as harmony
> or mere polyphony?

Or noise? :O)

> I find free inprovisation very interesting. Many
> people would perceive it as exactly that - noise - and
> yet, it is clearly (to me) music.

There are many types of free music. For free jazz in an ensemble setting with a traditionally acting rhythm section, players will probably pick up implied chords from the bass player, who in turn will listen for "new" notes from the horns that imply modulation to a different tonality.

Duos or other small groups may manage pure polyphony - but there may be different rules, a new understanding of dissonance that includes higher prime limits, &c.

For the noise part, the consonance and chord concept are irrelevant. there is a totality of sound (say, the chromatic 12et scale) which serves as material for different textures.

klaus

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Hello again Justin!
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin .
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 11:29
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

Could someone then explain the when polyphony is
harmony and when it isn't?

Counterpoint polyphony ALWAYS contains harmony, unless one is specifically attempting to ruin it. However, there are instances of simultaneous notes in a chord not giving the impression of melodic mobility, but static polyphony. For counterpoint polyphony to take place, at least two parts with melody must be sounded together with consequent gaping or closing intervals. The amount of counterpoint polyphony in a piece would be determined by how elegantly melodic lines intertwine.

On the other hand, static polyphony is just that, simultaneous sounding of different frequencies.

Please state these rules if you may, and this was what
I was originally trying to decipher. I would love to
hear.

These rules cannot be explained in a single paragraph. There are written volumes on how it should be done for specific genres. Nevertheless, the quality of a rich harmony depends on the correct tuning, consonance-dissonance relationships, sonorous harmonic partials, timbre quality, resonance, etc...

Is free improvisation generally understood as harmony
or mere polyphony?

Could be both at the same time.

I find free inprovisation very interesting. Many
people would perceive it as exactly that - noise - and
yet, it is clearly (to me) music.

Of course free improvisation is music, because the intent is to make music! My example with the car horns was geared towards showing how vagabonds can only make racket, not music.

Of course there is
good and bad like in all music.

There is art, and there is imitation. Then again, there is bungling too.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 0:07
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony
>
>
> >
> > Would that perchance imply that polyphony has nothing to do with
> harmony?
>
> They often coexist. Analyzing Bach for harmony is always a
> fascinating experience; it's rare that he leaves any chord in the
> progression less than clearly implied at any point in his music, and yet the melodies
seem so free and beautiful in their own right.
>
>
>
> Ahem. Paul, that was a rhetorical question, a sarcasm, a cynical colloquy. You take
everything too literally, I told you.

Probably a result of posting at work -- I feel like I gotta be serious in my little cubicle. But
actually, my offhand comment above was purely tangential to your question, and did not
seek to address it directly at all.

>
> > There is no mention of how these should be used, and when.
>
> Why should there be? How these are be used, and when, *defines* the harmonic style
of the work according to this definition.
>
> You mean to say that any jumble of sounds can be categorized as harmony? I think not.
>There are rules, independent of culture or genre that MUST define harmony in the
>broadest sense.

What might these rules be like?

> Why don't I perceive a screaming convoy of fanatical ultra-nationalist hooligans blasting
>their car&truck horns that resonate with such intervals as 4/3, 9/8, 27/22 (with a myriad
>of melodies of their own at that!) during midnight hours yelling "The greatest soldier is
>OUR soldier!" right as they pass across my street as harmonious? No my dear compatriot,
>that's called a `noise`, not `music`, let alone `harmony`. But then again, what do I
>know? Maybe it's music to THEIR ears!

Ozan, I admire your courage to speak out in this way (if on an obscure internet forum) . . .

> Instruments with inharmonic partials are frequently used for harmony, and as Klaus
>pointed out, you don't even need simultaneous sounding. Why must they "perceived as
>static chords"?
>
>
>
>
> Good, now why don't you suggest your own definition along that line?

The definition in that list that included the word "implied" in it worked for me. How is
harmony implied? Can an arpeggio do it even if one or two non-harmonic tones are
interspersed? Etc. I don't think this is a mathematical question or one which has a single
answer cross-culturally. The answers for a given musical culture can only be ascertained,
or approached I should say, by testing listeners from the given musical culture. Are you
familiar with Krumhansl's probe-tone studies? Perhaps something along those lines . . .

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Dear Paul,
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 1:44
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

SNIP!

But actually, my offhand comment above was purely tangential to your question, and did not seek to address it directly at all.

I agree with you that the word "implied" is all one needs to "feel" harmony.

SNIP!

>There are rules, independent of culture or genre that MUST define harmony in the broadest sense.

What might these rules be like?

Please refer to my post to Justin.

SNIP!

>Maybe it's music to THEIR ears!

Ozan, I admire your courage to speak out in this way (if on an obscure internet forum) . . .

Thank you. Would you know of a less obscure internet forum you would like to recommend?

SNIP!

The definition in that list that included the word "implied" in it worked for me. How is harmony implied? Can an arpeggio do it even if one or two non-harmonic tones are interspersed? Etc.

Of course. Implication, even when notes are not sounding simultaneously, is enough for harmony in my opinion.

I don't think this is a mathematical question or one which has a single answer cross-culturally.

No, it's an ontological question which MUST have a universal answer in regards to harmony.

The answers for a given musical culture can only be ascertained, or approached I should say, by testing listeners from the given musical culture.

I opt for analyzing the observed phenomenon without bias instead. This is hardly a poll-thing which can be settled democratically. And I'm a muslim liberal democrat!

Are you familiar with Krumhansl's probe-tone studies? Perhaps something along those lines . . .

Enlighten me please.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗justinasia <justinasia@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Paul, forgive my ignorance in these matters, my knowledge of species counterpoint, organum and Pre-Classical practices is insufficient to argue any longer. If you provided some examples which I can listen to, then I may be able to comment.

On the other hand, it may just be that we do not understand the same thing from "inferred harmony".

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 22:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Hello again Justin!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Justin .
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 11:29
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony
>
>
>
>
> Could someone then explain the when polyphony is
> harmony and when it isn't?
>
>
> Counterpoint polyphony ALWAYS contains harmony, unless one is
>specifically attempting to ruin it.

Sorry if I'm taking you too literally again, Ozan. But I was taught
that much Medieval, Renaissance, and early Baroque counterpoint does
not contain "harmony" (in the sense of an implied chord sequence),
and the examples I've listened to sure seem to bear this out. The
melodic lines are constrained to be consonant (or to set up
resolutions to consonance) with each other on the rhythmically strong
beats, but other than that they seem quite free to go where they
please, and there's no "harmonic rhythm" as there is with nearly all
Western tonal music. Have you studied species counterpoint?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

>> I don't think this is a mathematical question or one which has a
>>single answer cross-culturally.
>
>
> No, it's an ontological question which MUST have a universal answer
>in regards to harmony.

I still think it's partly cultural.

> The answers for a given musical culture can only be ascertained,
>or approached I should say, by testing listeners from the given
>musical culture.
>
> I opt for analyzing the observed phenomenon without bias instead.

I agree with the "without bias" part.

>This is hardly a poll-thing which can be settled democratically.

Poll? What did you have in mind?

>> Are you familiar with Krumhansl's probe-tone studies? Perhaps
>>something along those lines . . .
>
>
>
> Enlighten me please.

Carol Krumhansl's writings can be found in several books -- I
recommend _Harmony and Tonality_ edited by J. Sundberg if you can
find that since it contains other interesting articles.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

But do you agree that another sort of harmony is not at all implied by this organum and plainchant music, Jon?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 1:13
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> True. My hearing of harmony was shaped by lots and lots of Western
> music.

One of my most difficult tasks during the music degree was the
composition of species counterpoint. If I ever listened (either with
eyes or ears), I would end up writing things that sounded fine but
broke rules, all because I was inadvertently utilizing the harmonic
knowledge that had been accumulated during my years of study and
playing. There was an older woman in class that semester that always
got the highest grades and comments on her species pieces, and she
later admitted that she explained to her husband - a non-musician -
the rules that must be followed, and structures, etc, and he composed
them on business trips on the airplane instead of doing crossword puzzles.

Fortunately that semester ended at the end of the semester...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Please tell me that you do not imply I have not been listening to
>lots and lots of Western Music Paul.

I didn't mean to imply anything about your listening. I just know
that I heard almost nothing but Western Classical music, especially
Chopin, until I was 12. This probably makes my hearing of harmony
different from that of others, though I don't necessarily include you
in that, Ozan.

>I have a humble collection of the giants of the Baroque and
>Classical Eras.

Then perhaps you'll be able to hear, as I do, how Medieval and
Renaissance polyphony seems to be missing the harmonic rhythm and
tonal directive functions that carry most later Western music. This
early music is not played on classical radio stations around here,
perhaps because it sounds too "alien" or just plain "wrong" to modern
Western ears. But there's a whole other beauty, that doesn't reside
in "harmony" as I understand it, in the simultaneities (and
everything else!) one finds in this early music -- it just seems to
take more time for modern ears to become accustomed to it.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 1:58
Subject: [tuning] Re: A Wealth of Harmony

I didn't mean to imply anything about your listening. I just know
that I heard almost nothing but Western Classical music, especially Chopin, until I was 12. This probably makes my hearing of harmony
different from that of others, though I don't necessarily include you in that, Ozan.

We are quite the same in that respect, I assure you.

>I have a humble collection of the giants of the Baroque and
>Classical Eras.

Then perhaps you'll be able to hear, as I do, how Medieval and
Renaissance polyphony seems to be missing the harmonic rhythm and
tonal directive functions that carry most later Western music.

When did Western Music monopolize on harmony, I wonder. Can't we for one second take the broadest scientific definition instead of conventions?

This early music is not played on classical radio stations around here, perhaps because it sounds too "alien" or just plain "wrong" to modern Western ears. But there's a whole other beauty, that doesn't reside in "harmony" as I understand it, in the simultaneities (and everything else!) one finds in this early music -- it just seems to take more time for modern ears to become accustomed to it.

And "accustomed" is the word. One cannot perceive harmony in this music or other "alien musics" because one is conditioned with the harmony of a genre that is perceived to govern over all others. You think harmony exists only in the West? What do you think about the general term "Ahenk" in this region that is used in context of "inferred harmony through inclination towards consonance"?

Cordially,
Ozan