7th chords

Also interesting...in nature, the harmonics 4-5-6-7 form a dominant 7th chord, and it appears long before the maj 7, which is the 15th harmonic. Yet, in the Western system of using the so called major scale to build chords by stacking 3rds, the major 7th chord is the 1 chord, and the dominant 7th doesn't appear till the 5th chord. But, in my teaching, I find the scale of the flat 7th (Mixolydian) much more useful to students than the major scale, as the flat 7 is very helpful in most popular styles of music, such as blues/rock/country/bluegrass/reggae, and jazz. Of course, I'm not trying to be too dogmatic here, I've just noticed that phenomenon over the years....a flat 7 is very prominent in more "folk" styles, and gets me through more gigs than the major scale would. Just making a general point, you really gotta know a bunch of scales to survive as a freelance player...I just don't give the major scale as much press time as I used to...HHHH

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> Also interesting...in nature, the harmonics 4-5-6-7 form a dominant 7th chord, and it
appears long before the maj 7, which is the 15th harmonic. Yet, in the Western system of
using the so called major scale to build chords by stacking 3rds, the major 7th chord is
the 1 chord, and the dominant 7th doesn't appear till the 5th chord. But, in my teaching, I
find the scale of the flat 7th (Mixolydian) much more useful to students than the major
scale, as the flat 7 is very helpful in most popular styles of music, such as blues/rock/
country/bluegrass/reggae, and jazz. Of course, I'm not trying to be too dogmatic here, I've
just noticed that phenomenon over the years....a flat 7 is very prominent in more "folk"
styles, and gets me through more gigs than the major scale would. Just making a general
point, you really gotta know a bunch of scales to survive as a freelance player...I just don't
give the major scale as much press time as I used to...HHHH
>

I think this is the whole mistake of giving too much credence to "scale."
As the harmonic minor shows, western theorists talk about everything as
scales. But scales are only one part of the nature of pitch content.

In polyphonic music, the three major chords I-IV-V became prominant,
and the notes inluded become the major scale.
"the dominant 7th doesn't appear till the 5th chord"
is a simplistic and not very accurate way to talk about it. The 5th chord?
The 5th in what order? In the order of playing a chord with each note
of the scale as a root? But playing every other note in the scale above
in strict tetrads, never leaving the scale? That's totally arbitrary!
I could argue that the dominant chord never appears, since the diatonic
major scale doesn't have any harmonic sevenths in it. Or I could argue
that the one you are talking about DOES count, but it is the 2nd chord
not the fifth, since it is 2nd in prominance to the 1st chord.

I cannot in reasonable time discuss all the nature of scales vs. chords
and their nature and commonalities and differences.

I CAN, however, boldy state that I think the idea that the major scale
prefers a major 7 chord at the tonic, and that the dominant chord
is the "5th" chord in the series, and most of the other simple things
you've mentioned, well... These are all simplistic ways to teach theory
and are not at all actual explanations of how music systems work.

I think it'd be better if we stop talking about scales as being so
absolute.

Anyway, all that aside, the playing of four notes, each with a
complete spectrum, on a major 7 chord is nothing like the
major 7 in the harmonic series. The chord is more like an
extended harmonization with two sets of perfect fifths, and two
sets of major thirds that line up together and support each other
well. An open, two note root and major 7 harmony is much less
common and much weaker. It isn't the major 7 in the harmonic
series that supports the major 7 chord, it is the building on
strong harmonies on top of one another.

In conclusion, I think this is all interesting, but there's nothing
weird or contradictory to me, and I don't think the major scale's
prominance is artificial, nor do I think it is strange or contradictory
that the myxolydian mode is even more common in many styles.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> In polyphonic music, the three major chords I-IV-V became prominant,
> and the notes inluded become the major scale.

Polyphonic music went happily along for a long while before that
happened; it's nothing to do really with polyphony at all, and emerges
more clearly when the music is homophonic.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > In polyphonic music, the three major chords I-IV-V became prominant,
> > and the notes inluded become the major scale.
>
> Polyphonic music went happily along for a long while before that
> happened; it's nothing to do really with polyphony at all, and emerges
> more clearly when the music is homophonic.
>

Yeah, you're right. I think that's what I meant, except that the major scale
does have a place in polyphony especially because not all other scales are
as easy to make the combinations of pitches match. But my point really
is that the construction of the major scale and its evolution has nothing
to do with the arbitrary tetrads of every-other-note that people talk about
when discussing 7th chords. Chords are not defined by scales. Scales and
chords exist independantly and yes, we often consider how they affect one
another or how they co-exist.

The main thing is that within a simple, small scale structure, we can easily
add much more extensive chords that have content outside the scale,
without destroying the sense of scale at all. Outside the 12TET world,
it is even easier, ear-wise, to have 7/6's and 7/4's and even 14/9's or
whatever, within a piece that is totally a major scale piece.

Scales are essentially melodic frameworks. They don't preclude or include
much about potential chords.

I think my main revelation about this myself was when I realized that
adding up all the notes in all the chords I liked in a piece didn't mean
that the scale of the piece was the sum of those notes.

I think the main structural points, melodically, can be considered the
scale. It is most accurate to what makes sense to my ear to then
include the ideas of nonharmonic notes (passing notes and such)
and to consider hidden, extra, stacked sorts of chord-notes as being
part of their individual chord-context. They don't really change the
scale as perceived.

-Aaron

Hi guys,

It took a minute to click, and I'm hardly exhaustive in my
examination of it, but I don't believe, for example, that the *7th
harmonic* has anything to do with harmonic function, or a "dominant
seventh chord". At all. The "dominant" or "minor" "seventh" is a
merely a (usually) vague "wholetone" below some alleged tonic,
or "tonicizing" tone. It has no effective (or affective?) tension,
on its own, really, so it does not demand any resolution, in the
same sense that 15/8 is NOT a "leading tone". Not to me. For me,
it's why "modal" music is sometimes so much more interesting,
because it's not constrained by what I must unfortunately refer to
as western "scientific" cleverness, nor is it rendered insipid by
same.

It also pertains to where I think the "theory" feeds/fuels its own
deceptions, by confounding effectively unrelated phenomena in
dubious nomenclatures, or at least the dubious uses of various
naming systems, which are mostly used to intimidate the uninitiated,
and to secure fees or other such glory for those who allegedly
are. "Initiated".

;-)

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...>
wrote:

Oops! *[]* correction

>
It *[The 7/4]*, or seventh partial]* has no effective... (or
affective?) tension, ...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> It took a minute to click, and I'm hardly exhaustive in my
> examination of it, but I don't believe, for example, that the *7th
> harmonic* has anything to do with harmonic function, or a "dominant
> seventh chord". At all.

It has as much to do with harmonic function as the music you compose
gives it. That can be a lot. Unless, of course, you are taking
functional harmony in a restricted sense of I, V, IV, V7 etc.

Tonal function. Teleology. The highly restricted "functional
harmony" of which you speak, but which is still rather the 'lingua
franca' of masses of would-be musicians. Hee.

I'm just saying a 4:5:6:7 is not a "dominant seventh" chord.

That's a "Eurocentric"-, or "imperialist"-, vis a vis "harmonic"
function. (Domination.) Dig?

Sorry. Struck me funny. cf Dave Chappelle.

I also think it tends to debunk the notion--which I was charmed by!--
that the blues is JI influenced. I don't really think it is, any
more. It's much more dissenting than that. And the real folk blues
like Son House and Lightnin' Hopkins and Mississippi John Hurt (et
al?) are much more profound than that. Like Indian classical music or
gamelan, maybe?

And at the risk of...I think barbershop and some of the more heinous
big band jazz, etc. are part of the crackdown on that dissent. I'm
still very much at work on where I think gospel music fits in a more
precise (and esoteric) reading of all this. Thanks.

P

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > It took a minute to click, and I'm hardly exhaustive in my
> > examination of it, but I don't believe, for example, that the *7th
> > harmonic* has anything to do with harmonic function, or
a "dominant
> > seventh chord". At all.
>
> It has as much to do with harmonic function as the music you compose
> gives it. That can be a lot. Unless, of course, you are taking
> functional harmony in a restricted sense of I, V, IV, V7 etc.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...>
wrote:
>
> Tonal function. Teleology. The highly restricted "functional
> harmony" of which you speak, but which is still rather the 'lingua
> franca' of masses of would-be musicians. Hee.
>
> I'm just saying a 4:5:6:7 is not a "dominant seventh" chord.
>
> That's a "Eurocentric"-, or "imperialist"-, vis a vis "harmonic"
> function. (Domination.) Dig?
>
> Sorry. Struck me funny. cf Dave Chappelle.
>
> I also think it tends to debunk the notion--which I was charmed by!-
-
> that the blues is JI influenced. I don't really think it is, any
> more. It's much more dissenting than that. And the real folk
blues
> like Son House and Lightnin' Hopkins and Mississippi John Hurt (et
> al?) are much more profound than that. Like Indian classical music
or
> gamelan, maybe?
>
> And at the risk of...I think barbershop and some of the more
heinous
> big band jazz, etc. are part of the crackdown on that dissent. I'm
> still very much at work on where I think gospel music fits in a
more
> precise (and esoteric) reading of all this. Thanks.
>
> P
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > It took a minute to click, and I'm hardly exhaustive in my
> > > examination of it, but I don't believe, for example, that the
*7th
> > > harmonic* has anything to do with harmonic function, or
> a "dominant
> > > seventh chord". At all.
> >
> > It has as much to do with harmonic function as the music you
compose
> > gives it. That can be a lot. Unless, of course, you are taking
> > functional harmony in a restricted sense of I, V, IV, V7 etc.

But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-Bb
as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense? If we have to deal
with 81/80, is it that much of a stretch to bring in 64/63 and even
36/35? Or am I way off base here....

>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@...>
wrote:

> But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-Bb
> as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense?

There's some fusion, with the Bb sticking out; even though at 31 cents
sharp in 12edo it is way sharp, it has some of the sense of otonality.
In other words, sort of; it's a poor man's otonal tetrad but it does
do the work of one. The meantone C-E-G-A# is more to the point; this
has the sound of an otonal tetrad.

If we have to deal
> with 81/80, is it that much of a stretch to bring in 64/63 and even
> 36/35? Or am I way off base here....

1-9/7-3/2, with a third 36/35 sharper than 5/4, can be used as a major
triad of sorts but it sounds strange. I've made circulating
temperaments based on that idea, though. The 1-14/11-3/2 triad, with a
56/55 sharp third, sounds much more like a usual major triad, and the
Pythagorean major triad 1-81/64-3/2, 81/80 sharp, sounds downright
normal to ears accustomed to 12edo, a fact which helps explain its
widespread appearance in circulating temperaments.

on a strictly subjective perspective on this ,
i have found that i can much more accept what ever harmonies that are generated by a scale , more than tolerate the scale, if there is even one, generated by harmonies.
scales i believe might be more like a gestalt that the mind can comprehend and place its elements in some sort of orientation.
Torus structures have appeared in more than one case in research.
Harmony, while it can define tonal centers, can do less so the more harmonies that are added.
At its base i would conjecture that that melodic integrity is a stronger force than harmonic

>
> Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:58:25 -0000
> From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 7th chords
>
>
> >
>
> I think this is the whole mistake of giving too much credence to "scale."
> As the harmonic minor shows, western theorists talk about everything as
> scales. But scales are only one part of the nature of pitch content.
>
> In polyphonic music, the three major chords I-IV-V became prominant,
> and the notes inluded become the major scale.
> "the dominant 7th doesn't appear till the 5th chord"
> is a simplistic and not very accurate way to talk about it. The 5th chord?
> The 5th in what order? In the order of playing a chord with each note
> of the scale as a root? But playing every other note in the scale above
> in strict tetrads, never leaving the scale? That's totally arbitrary!
> I could argue that the dominant chord never appears, since the diatonic
> major scale doesn't have any harmonic sevenths in it. Or I could argue
> that the one you are talking about DOES count, but it is the 2nd chord
> not the fifth, since it is 2nd in prominance to the 1st chord.
>
> I cannot in reasonable time discuss all the nature of scales vs. chords
> and their nature and commonalities and differences.
>
> I CAN, however, boldy state that I think the idea that the major scale
> prefers a major 7 chord at the tonic, and that the dominant chord
> is the "5th" chord in the series, and most of the other simple things
> you've mentioned, well... These are all simplistic ways to teach theory
> and are not at all actual explanations of how music systems work.
>
> I think it'd be better if we stop talking about scales as being so
> absolute.
>
> Anyway, all that aside, the playing of four notes, each with a
> complete spectrum, on a major 7 chord is nothing like the
> major 7 in the harmonic series. The chord is more like an
> extended harmonization with two sets of perfect fifths, and two
> sets of major thirds that line up together and support each other
> well. An open, two note root and major 7 harmony is much less
> common and much weaker. It isn't the major 7 in the harmonic
> series that supports the major 7 chord, it is the building on
> strong harmonies on top of one another.
>
> In conclusion, I think this is all interesting, but there's nothing
> weird or contradictory to me, and I don't think the major scale's
> prominance is artificial, nor do I think it is strange or contradictory
> that the myxolydian mode is even more common in many styles.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> -- 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@...> wrote:
>
> on a strictly subjective perspective on this ,
> i have found that i can much more accept what ever harmonies that are
> generated by a scale , more than tolerate the scale, if there is even
> one, generated by harmonies.
> scales i believe might be more like a gestalt that the mind can
> comprehend and place its elements in some sort of orientation.
> Torus structures have appeared in more than one case in research.
> Harmony, while it can define tonal centers, can do less so the more
> harmonies that are added.
> At its base i would conjecture that that melodic integrity is a stronger
> force than harmonic
>
>

Kraig,

I agree completely. I like the gestalt way of wording it. I think scale can
be very prominant. The main thing is that we can have structural, functional
scales, and the subjective perception of scale is not destroyed by
having harmonies that include notes outside the scale. It is only if
those outside notes have prominant melodic or polyphonic presence
that they affect the sense of scale. At least that's how it seems to me.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
>
> > Harmony, while it can define tonal centers, can do less so the
more
> > harmonies that are added.
> > At its base i would conjecture that that melodic integrity is a
> stronger
> > force than harmonic
>
>
> I'm also inclined to see increasing melodic subtlety in *microtonal*
> music, from the inclusion of more pitches as scale tones. A suitably
> rich, intense melodic line may need only the barest of harmony for
> support.
>

I'm becoming more convinced that (thinking of blues and jazz, again?)
that harmony is really kind of a weird addition, or
contextual 'clutter' --if that's not too off the wall-- to what's
really going on in the emotional content of a melody.

And I've noticed lately that my favorite singers and players of jazz
standards can almost completely subvert a given melody to their
own 'nefarious' end, which is really the complex of emotional
qualities that THEY invest in the music, their intonation and
everything, and communicate almost despite whatever 'accompaniment'
has been devised. But when there's consensus at a genuine emotional
level from an arranger or accompanist, or other musicians, the
accompaniment can be really powerful, too.

But I don't think it's "support", really, except on a kind of
metaphysical level. Make any sense? Like, when someone's really
singing (!), they don't need any support?

Anyway, thanks for bringing that up, Kraig! That's kind of the next
step in what I was trying to get at, maybe.

Cheers,

P

I definitely think that overall, harmony and melody and lyric and
rhythm each have their place. And in order to work together there
needs to be a system of priorities and all the elements need to
honor that and be working in the same direction.

Some music, like babershop harmony, is actually focusing on the
harmony, and is partly defined by having a melody well-suited to
the harmonic structure. A good barbershop melody sorta includes
something of the harmonic structure by implication. Many melodies
do not do this, and overly harmonizing a melody that doesn't call
for it is usually not effective.

I appreciate music that focuses on any of these various elements,
but I find it annoying to have a complex, beautiful melody obscured
by overly complex harmony. Every piece, or interpretation for that
matter, really should have a focus (or shifting focus is fine) on one
of these elements. It is a very rare (but extraordinary and only the
best) piece that actually has a melody and lyric and rhythm and
harmony (and timbre and and etc) that all work together and support
each other instead of conflict.

-Aaron

Gene wrote:

> There's some fusion, with the Bb sticking out; even though at 31 cents
> sharp in 12edo it is way sharp, it has some of the sense of otonality.
> In other words, sort of; it's a poor man's otonal tetrad but it does
> do the work of one. The meantone C-E-G-A# is more to the point; this
> has the sound of an otonal tetrad.

I absolutely agree.
I don't know if I should say "unfortunately" or "fortunately" but anyway,
nowadays, the way I listen to some pieces has been so much influenced by
playing in various meantones quite a lot that I like using the 7/4 as an
augmented sixth in most cases.
It often happens to me, when i hear a 4:5:6:7 on G and then a 2:3:4:5 on C,
that I don't feel this progression as "pleasant to my ears" as others may,
which is simply caused by the fact that the descending interval in the top
voice (20/21) is too small for me to call it a minor second and I'm
"hearing" it as E#-E instead of F-E. And because it's not sort of my coup of
tea to end a harmonic phrase with a chroma in the top voice, I prefer to
choose a seventh of 16/9 for the first chord, which results in a regular
5-limit minor second on the top.
OTOH, when I hear a 4:5:6:7 on F and then a 2:3:4:5 on C, I'm pleased in
every way. For me, this progression doesn't have any "fault harming its
beauty" even from the "classical" point of view. The "soprano" (let's call
it like that for now) rises by a major second, which makes the harmonic
phrase maximally convincing as a "cadential" progression, or in other words,
perfect to be used at the very end. The alto stays unchanged so the common
tone is kept. The tenor falls by a major second, which makes a nice contrary
motion to the soprano. And the bass falls by a fourth, which confirms the
progression itself even better.
Some of you may find it weird of me to call the first chord an F-A-C-D# but,
you see, that's the way I hear it.
And, even more, hasn't this something in common with the favorite classical
progression of F-A-C-D# | E-G#-B-E?

Petr

> But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-Bb
> as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense?

Maybe yours does, anyway, mine does not.
When I play a 16/9 or a 9/5, I tend to go on with a 5/3. OTOH, when I play a
7/4, I somewhat intuitively tend to "resolve" this to a 15/8 or 28/15 or
something like that.

Petr

>
> But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-Bb
> as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense? If we have to deal
> with 81/80, is it that much of a stretch to bring in 64/63 and even
> 36/35? Or am I way off base here....
>

Hi Paul,

I thought maybe you were, but no...

For example,

The ear hears a 7/5, when it GETS a 7/5. It doesn't make s*** up to
suit itself, if you take my point. Maybe that's just my opinion.

Cheers,

P

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> > But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-Bb
> > as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense? If we have to deal
> > with 81/80, is it that much of a stretch to bring in 64/63 and
even
> > 36/35? Or am I way off base here....
> >
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I thought maybe you were, but no...
>
> For example,
>
> The ear hears a 7/5, when it GETS a 7/5. It doesn't make s*** up
to
> suit itself, if you take my point. Maybe that's just my opinion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P
>
Couldn't it hear 2^(1/2) as 7/5 with beating? Also, 2^(1/2) can act
as 10/7, like in C#-E-F#-A#. The brain is very flexible. I can
alter the apparent rhythm of a beating clock at night just by
thinking about it. 1.4142135/1.4 is only off by 1%....

Also, don't forget about sympathetic vibration in chords...

Kraig only reinforces what I've attempted to bring up
before -- the notion that VERTICALITIES, as opposed to
the COUNTERPOINT, are the the "raisons d'etre" in
music. All those fucking "1001 Jazz Chords for
Guitar," et al..... they have really distorted
people's vision on what is really happening in music!
A good example: remember the Tristan chord thread
that went on here for awhile? SOOOOO much energy and
time has been spent (and not only on this group) on
finding a name for that damned "chord" (the word
itself forces one to think in verticalities)... "a
modified minor seventh chord"..... and trying to find
which scale degree to pin on the thing. IT'S SIMPLY
AN APPOGGIATURA that smacks you in the face! Plain
and simple. And it is exactly the way it is heard in
the context of the piece -- in the piece's time/space.

This search for the magical/mystery chord is a fucking
dead-end street..... leading to some undoubtedly
crappy art. But hey..... to each his own....

Paul

--- Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:

> on a strictly subjective perspective on this ,
> i have found that i can much more accept what ever
> harmonies that are
> generated by a scale , more than tolerate the scale,
> if there is even
> one, generated by harmonies.
> scales i believe might be more like a gestalt that
> the mind can
> comprehend and place its elements in some sort of
> orientation.
> Torus structures have appeared in more than one case
> in research.
> Harmony, while it can define tonal centers, can do
> less so the more
> harmonies that are added.
> At its base i would conjecture that that melodic
> integrity is a stronger
> force than harmonic
>
>
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:58:25 -0000
> > From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: 7th chords
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is the whole mistake of giving too
> much credence to "scale."
> > As the harmonic minor shows, western theorists
> talk about everything as
> > scales. But scales are only one part of the
> nature of pitch content.
> >
> > In polyphonic music, the three major chords I-IV-V
> became prominant,
> > and the notes inluded become the major scale.
> > "the dominant 7th doesn't appear till the 5th
> chord"
> > is a simplistic and not very accurate way to talk
> about it. The 5th chord?
> > The 5th in what order? In the order of playing a
> chord with each note
> > of the scale as a root? But playing every other
> note in the scale above
> > in strict tetrads, never leaving the scale?
> That's totally arbitrary!
> > I could argue that the dominant chord never
> appears, since the diatonic
> > major scale doesn't have any harmonic sevenths in
> it. Or I could argue
> > that the one you are talking about DOES count, but
> it is the 2nd chord
> > not the fifth, since it is 2nd in prominance to
> the 1st chord.
> >
> > I cannot in reasonable time discuss all the nature
> of scales vs. chords
> > and their nature and commonalities and
> differences.
> >
> > I CAN, however, boldy state that I think the idea
> that the major scale
> > prefers a major 7 chord at the tonic, and that the
> dominant chord
> > is the "5th" chord in the series, and most of the
> other simple things
> > you've mentioned, well... These are all
> simplistic ways to teach theory
> > and are not at all actual explanations of how
> music systems work.
> >
> > I think it'd be better if we stop talking about
> scales as being so
> > absolute.
> >
> > Anyway, all that aside, the playing of four notes,
> each with a
> > complete spectrum, on a major 7 chord is nothing
> like the
> > major 7 in the harmonic series. The chord is more
> like an
> > extended harmonization with two sets of perfect
> fifths, and two
> > sets of major thirds that line up together and
> support each other
> > well. An open, two note root and major 7 harmony
> is much less
> > common and much weaker. It isn't the major 7 in
> the harmonic
> > series that supports the major 7 chord, it is the
> building on
> > strong harmonies on top of one another.
> >
> > In conclusion, I think this is all interesting,
> but there's nothing
> > weird or contradictory to me, and I don't think
> the major scale's
> > prominance is artificial, nor do I think it is
> strange or contradictory
> > that the myxolydian mode is even more common in
> many styles.
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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
>

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@...> wrote:
>
> Kraig only reinforces what I've attempted to bring up
> before -- the notion that VERTICALITIES, as opposed to
> the COUNTERPOINT, are the the "raisons d'etre" in
> music. All those fucking "1001 Jazz Chords for
> Guitar," et al..... they have really distorted
> people's vision on what is really happening in music!
> A good example: remember the Tristan chord thread
> that went on here for awhile? SOOOOO much energy and
> time has been spent (and not only on this group) on
> finding a name for that damned "chord" (the word
> itself forces one to think in verticalities)... "a
> modified minor seventh chord"..... and trying to find
> which scale degree to pin on the thing. IT'S SIMPLY
> AN APPOGGIATURA that smacks you in the face! Plain
> and simple. And it is exactly the way it is heard in
> the context of the piece -- in the piece's time/space.
>
> This search for the magical/mystery chord is a fucking
> dead-end street..... leading to some undoubtedly
> crappy art. But hey..... to each his own....
>
> Paul
>

That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you. And it's what
I've been saying all along... just because something can be shown
to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that can be used
to tell someone where to put there fingers or write a dot on a page
that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what is happening
MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a significant
place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and defining everything
by harmonic content is crazy.

Anyone here familiar with Schenker? And then when you take that
and realize its closer to the MUSIC of it all, but still western-centric
you can start to realize how ridiculous it is how most people,
especially those jazz theorists, talk about the nature of music.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@...> wrote:

>IT'S SIMPLY
> AN APPOGGIATURA that smacks you in the face!

But it doesn't. It's a long sustained chord used by Wagner as if it
was a chord in its own right. You seem to be saying everyone for the
last 150 years has been a complete idiot on this question.

Plain
> and simple. And it is exactly the way it is heard in
> the context of the piece -- in the piece's time/space.

By you and who else?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you. And it's what
> I've been saying all along... just because something can be shown
> to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that can be used
> to tell someone where to put there fingers or write a dot on a page
> that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what is happening
> MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a significant
> place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and defining everything
> by harmonic content is crazy.

For God's sake you two, this is WAGNER we are talking about here.
Harmony is the very life and breath of his music, and assuming he just
stumbled into the Tristan chord on the way to some other chord and
accidentially sustained it without much of a clue as to what he was
doing is, frankly, idiotic.

Hi Paul,

Of course, the brain and the feelings and the ego can do all kinds
of things. But I prefer not to blame the ear for what 'those guys'
do. (smile)

That's all I meant.

If it's off, it's off. It's not the same. If it subjectively
makes "no difference", or it's an "acceptable inaccuracy", that
could be a matter of sensitivity, or a matter of means to an
end...or a matter for my therapist. Hee!

And I'm not saying my "ears" can't be deceived, but...MINE work a
lot better when I can subordinate those other 'components'.

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul.hjelmstad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But 7/5 is only off by 18 cents, so doesn't the ear hear C-E-G-
Bb
> > > as 4:5:6:7, even in this simple diatonic sense? If we have to
deal
> > > with 81/80, is it that much of a stretch to bring in 64/63 and
> even
> > > 36/35? Or am I way off base here....
> > >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I thought maybe you were, but no...
> >
> > For example,
> >
> > The ear hears a 7/5, when it GETS a 7/5. It doesn't make s***
up
> to
> > suit itself, if you take my point. Maybe that's just my opinion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > P
> >
> Couldn't it hear 2^(1/2) as 7/5 with beating? Also, 2^(1/2) can act
> as 10/7, like in C#-E-F#-A#. The brain is very flexible. I can
> alter the apparent rhythm of a beating clock at night just by
> thinking about it. 1.4142135/1.4 is only off by 1%....
>
> Also, don't forget about sympathetic vibration in chords...
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you. And it's what
> > I've been saying all along... just because something can be shown
> > to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that can be used
> > to tell someone where to put there fingers or write a dot on a page
> > that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what is happening
> > MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a significant
> > place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and defining everything
> > by harmonic content is crazy.
>
> For God's sake you two, this is WAGNER we are talking about here.
> Harmony is the very life and breath of his music, and assuming he just
> stumbled into the Tristan chord on the way to some other chord and
> accidentially sustained it without much of a clue as to what he was
> doing is, frankly, idiotic.
>

Hey, hey, sorry if I butted in at the wrong place! I have no idea what
specific thing we're talking about. If it looks like a chord, and is felt
like a chord, and functions as a unique harmonic CHORD then it is a
chord. I'm just saying that lots of theorists try ridiculously to group
everything into chords, when sometimes that isn't how it is working.
Study Schenker. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Wagner, so don't lump
me in with that. I'd have to study and listen to the piece in question
to do that, and I haven't. I was just responding to the other post.

-Aaron

more subjective comments
The thing that might contribute to great work of art such, is its ability to mean different things to different people and it ability to be meaningful in many different ways. It is as if the intent of the composer serves as a point in which other meanings constellate around. yet without this intent, the expression to others might not be possible.
Likewise when analyzing a piece of music or just a chord, it often will be possible to come up with many explanations. Symbols tend to transcend any singular explanation and the more of these we can witness, the more we can possibly appreciate the depth a single musical object can take.
I tend to side with Gene on the Tristan chord. To my ear, it sounds more consonant than the chords it moves to. It is his use of the chromatic scale that allows such chords. Its structure representing a mystery which cannot be explained ( still like the sub 1-3-5-7 as the archetype behind it)
>
> From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 7th chords
>
>
> >> >
> That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you. And it's what
> I've been saying all along... just because something can be shown
> to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that can be used
> to tell someone where to put there fingers or write a dot on a page
> that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what is happening
> MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a significant
> place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and defining everything
> by harmonic content is crazy.
>
> Anyone here familiar with Schenker? And then when you take that
> and realize its closer to the MUSIC of it all, but still western-centric
> you can start to realize how ridiculous it is how most people,
> especially those jazz theorists, talk about the nature of music.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
> >
> -- 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

> >IT'S SIMPLY
> > AN APPOGGIATURA that smacks you in the face!
>
> But it doesn't. It's a long sustained chord used by
> Wagner as if it
> was a chord in its own right. You seem to be saying
> everyone for the
> last 150 years has been a complete idiot on this
> question.
>
> Plain
> > and simple. And it is exactly the way it is heard
> in
> > the context of the piece -- in the piece's
> time/space.
>
> By you and who else?

Well, for one, Jacques Chailley:
"Tristan's chromaticism, grounded in appoggiaturas and
passing notes, technically and spiritually represents
an apogee of tension. I have never been able to
understand how the preposterous idea that Tristan
could be made the prototype of an atonality grounded
in destruction of all tension could possibly have
gained credence."

I think those 150 years you are referring to.... maybe
certain people like to either A) mystify things more
than need be, or B) look for ways to reinforce their
current beliefs.... If a person believes (and sees)
that music exists as a series of vertical slices, then
thats the way he'll analyze music. A religious
blind-faith..... and couterpoint becomes this occult
art.

>
>
>
>
>
>

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

You are missing the point Gene -- he did not just
STUMBLE onto a chord!!! He knew his goal... where he
was pushing the music. This only reinforces my point
about CHORDS!!! These composers aren't thinking
"CHORDS" man..... ITS VOICE LEADING!!!

--- Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf"
> <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> > That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you.
> And it's what
> > I've been saying all along... just because
> something can be shown
> > to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that
> can be used
> > to tell someone where to put there fingers or
> write a dot on a page
> > that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what
> is happening
> > MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a
> significant
> > place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and
> defining everything
> > by harmonic content is crazy.
>
> For God's sake you two, this is WAGNER we are
> talking about here.
> Harmony is the very life and breath of his music,
> and assuming he just
> stumbled into the Tristan chord on the way to some
> other chord and
> accidentially sustained it without much of a clue as
> to what he was
> doing is, frankly, idiotic.
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

I sensed that you were a believer Gene!

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 28 Mart 2006 Sal� 21:05
Subject: [tuning] Re: 7th chords

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> > That's wordy a tad harshly, but I agree with you. And it's what
> > I've been saying all along... just because something can be shown
> > to follow some made-up system or pattern, and that can be used
> > to tell someone where to put there fingers or write a dot on a page
> > that doesn't mean it is at all in line with what is happening
> > MUSICALLY. Harmony DOES exist and CAN have a significant
> > place in a piece of music, but not gnerally, and defining everything
> > by harmonic content is crazy.
>
> For God's sake you two, this is WAGNER we are talking about here.
> Harmony is the very life and breath of his music, and assuming he just
> stumbled into the Tristan chord on the way to some other chord and
> accidentially sustained it without much of a clue as to what he was
> doing is, frankly, idiotic.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@...> wrote:
>
> You are missing the point Gene -- he did not just
> STUMBLE onto a chord!!! He knew his goal... where he
> was pushing the music. This only reinforces my point
> about CHORDS!!! These composers aren't thinking
> "CHORDS" man..... ITS VOICE LEADING!!!

Wagner didn't think about chords, and was only interested in counterpoint?

Hi all,

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> ... Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > on a strictly subjective perspective on this ,
> > i have found that i can much more accept what ever harmonies that are
> > generated by a scale , more than tolerate the scale, if there is even
> > one, generated by harmonies.
> > scales i believe might be more like a gestalt that the mind can
> > comprehend and place its elements in some sort of orientation.
> > Torus structures have appeared in more than one case in research.
> > Harmony, while it can define tonal centers, can do less so the more
> > harmonies that are added.
> > At its base i would conjecture that that melodic integrity is a stronger
> > force than harmonic
>
> I agree completely. I like the gestalt way of wording it. I think scale
can
> be very prominant. The main thing is that we can have structural,
functional
> scales, and the subjective perception of scale is not destroyed by
> having harmonies that include notes outside the scale. It is only if
> those outside notes have prominant melodic or polyphonic presence
> that they affect the sense of scale. At least that's how it seems to me.

Whenever melody reigns, harmonies can serve
more to enhance the timbres of melodic (scale)
notes than to impart form. This view of the role
of harmony is the antithesis of the functional
view.

If I understood (and remember) him correctly,
Nicolas Slonimsky's "pandiatonic harmony" is one
way of structuring harmonies around the melody
without leaving the (diatonic) scale: basically,
to harmonise an accented melody note, one can
choose any of the chords built solely from scale
degrees that contains that note. What Aaron
just said (and I think Kraig implied) goes beyond
that, allowing any structure rooted in the harmonic
series to harmonise any of its notes. Interestingly,
too, this is the same approach that Chris Bailey
took when composing the "Sax and Tape" piece -
see the "Crystallized JI (was Micro-Serialism)"
thread.

An intermediate possibility is to use recognisable
harmonies that exactly fit one's current tuning
but not one's current scale: a sort of "pan-chromatic
harmony". For example, in 12-EDO, and in a
homophonic style, we could harmonise the motif:
D E : F# G | a - : E - : F# E | D A : B C# | D

(sorry about the irregular metre!) with block chords,
generally moving more slowly, in a straight kind of
diatonic way, or perhaps as:
Bb - : D - | F : C#m7 : F#m7 | Bm7 : C#m7 | Gm6

In my view, the exact tuning of these accompanying
chords contributes little more than timbral colour.
Tuning them within 12-EDO produces a more active,
buzzy timbre; tuning them within JI produces a
more relaxed timbre which blends smoothly into a
role of supporting the melody.

It probably should not be necessary for me to add
here that whilst, yes, scale and melody can be very
prominent, they need not be, and are often subord-
inate to harmony, rhythm or timbre. How wonderful
that music-makers have these great resources to
use, choose from and balance!

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/295 - Release Date: 28/3/06

> If I understood (and remember) him correctly,
> Nicolas Slonimsky's "pandiatonic harmony" is one
> way of structuring harmonies around the melody
> without leaving the (diatonic) scale: basically,
> to harmonise an accented melody note, one can
> choose any of the chords built solely from scale
> degrees that contains that note. What Aaron
> just said (and I think Kraig implied) goes beyond
> that, allowing any structure rooted in the harmonic
> series to harmonise any of its notes. Interestingly,
> too, this is the same approach that Chris Bailey
> took when composing the "Sax and Tape" piece -
> see the "Crystallized JI (was Micro-Serialism)"
> thread.
>
> It probably should not be necessary for me to add
> here that whilst, yes, scale and melody can be very
> prominent, they need not be, and are often subord-
> inate to harmony, rhythm or timbre. How wonderful
> that music-makers have these great resources to
> use, choose from and balance!
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Thanks, Yahya! Well put. Exactly my feelings!
-Aaron

*sigh*....

--- Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay
> <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@...> wrote:
> >
> > You are missing the point Gene -- he did not just
> > STUMBLE onto a chord!!! He knew his goal... where
> he
> > was pushing the music. This only reinforces my
> point
> > about CHORDS!!! These composers aren't thinking
> > "CHORDS" man..... ITS VOICE LEADING!!!
>
> Wagner didn't think about chords, and was only
> interested in counterpoint?
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Hee!

Voice leading?!?!?! You mean one of those organic processes which
leads to great music, and which seems to provide careers for an
endless stream of pedants and critics, but often not for the
inspired composer?

"Harmony" is mostly the *failed* attempts of theorists to explicate
brilliant voice-leading, isn't it?

And even "counterpoint" is just a somewhat loaded and intimidating --
but ultimately meaningless-- catch-all term, perhaps to indicate
that one must have mastered Baroque (and Renaissance?) techniques,
before one can do s*** as a composer, right?

Cheers,

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@...>
wrote:
>
> *sigh*....
>
> --- Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jack DeMolay
> > <xxxmrsgarrettxxx@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are missing the point Gene -- he did not just
> > > STUMBLE onto a chord!!! He knew his goal... where
> > he
> > > was pushing the music. This only reinforces my
> > point
> > > about CHORDS!!! These composers aren't thinking
> > > "CHORDS" man..... ITS VOICE LEADING!!!
> >
> > Wagner didn't think about chords, and was only
> > interested in counterpoint?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Message: 17 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:20:16 +1100
From: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" Subject: Re: 7th chords

Whenever melody reigns, harmonies can serve
more to enhance the timbres of melodic (scale)
notes than to impart form. This view of the role
of harmony is the antithesis of the functional
view.

It is a symbiotic relationship between harmony and melody, i think so really not siding against functional harmony, not that we use it any more, except mildly

If I understood (and remember) him correctly,
Nicolas Slonimsky's "pandiatonic harmony" is one
way of structuring harmonies around the melody
without leaving the (diatonic) scale: Someone who i studied with briefly.
His idea was to treat the diatonic scale in a serial fashion and then from there the free use of these tones
but i am sure he would enjoy your take on this too.
I was way too young and musically inexperienced to gain what i might have later, except him instilling in me the amount of work i would have to do , to do what i want.
This lesson still effects me as far as my work ethic

basically,
to harmonise an accented melody note, one can
choose any of the chords built solely from scale
degrees that contains that note. What Aaron
just said (and I think Kraig implied) goes beyond
that, allowing any structure rooted in the harmonic
series to harmonise any of its notes. I would expand this to mean any scale in the sense of being basically an MOS or constant structure and needn't be based on solely the harmonic series.
But what you describe would work, and the Duo for two violins by Ben Johnston i am look at to talk on next month here, pretty much treats the harmonic series in just this fashion.
It probably should not be necessary for me to add
here that whilst, yes, scale and melody can be very
prominent, they need not be, and are often subord-
inate to harmony, rhythm or timbre. How wonderful
that music-makers have these great resources to
use, choose from and balance!

i agree, harmony and melody can give the listener a relief from each other and acts as a counter force, if not a counter voice

--
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

You will not find anyone in this community as committed to
the importance of voice leading as I am, but I have to
vigorously disagree here. One of the great qualities of music
is its capacity for polymorphism and ambiguity. Likewise, one
of the great qualities of our perceptual and cognitive apparatus
is its capacity to handle that polymorphism and ambiguity.

Simultaneous melodic lines can be heard as harmonic structures,
and sequences of harmonic structures can be heard as combinations
of melodic lines. While one can play chicken-and-egg and assign
priority -- compositional, interpretive, or perceptual -- to
either harmony or to voice leading, any such assignment is
ultimately a weak response to these capacities, and, to my ears,
a denial of that which is unique and essential to music.

We have had a good century and a half of analytical approaches to
highly ambiguous music, including the Tristan Vorspiel, with one tradition (let's call it the Rameauvian, including Riemann,
Schoenberg, and Martin Vogel) committed to harmonic interpretations of every vertical combination and another (let's call it the Fuxian, or voice-leading tradition, including the Schenkerians) zeroing in
on the melodic construction. It's about time to call a truce,
and note that the two approaches complement and enrich one another,
and still only begin to explain what makes music a rich and
human experience.

DJW

> Subject: Re: Re: 7th chords
> > You are missing the point Gene -- he did not just
> STUMBLE onto a chord!!! He knew his goal... where he
> was pushing the music. This only reinforces my point
> about CHORDS!!! These composers aren't thinking
> "CHORDS" man..... ITS VOICE LEADING!!!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> You will not find anyone in this community as committed to
> the importance of voice leading as I am, but I have to
> vigorously disagree here. One of the great qualities of music
> is its capacity for polymorphism and ambiguity. Likewise, one
> of the great qualities of our perceptual and cognitive apparatus
> is its capacity to handle that polymorphism and ambiguity.
>
> Simultaneous melodic lines can be heard as harmonic structures,
> and sequences of harmonic structures can be heard as combinations
> of melodic lines. While one can play chicken-and-egg and assign
> priority -- compositional, interpretive, or perceptual -- to
> either harmony or to voice leading, any such assignment is
> ultimately a weak response to these capacities, and, to my ears,
> a denial of that which is unique and essential to music.
>
> We have had a good century and a half of analytical approaches to
> highly ambiguous music, including the Tristan Vorspiel, with one
> tradition (let's call it the Rameauvian, including Riemann,
> Schoenberg, and Martin Vogel) committed to harmonic interpretations of
> every vertical combination and another (let's call it the Fuxian, or
> voice-leading tradition, including the Schenkerians) zeroing in
> on the melodic construction. It's about time to call a truce,
> and note that the two approaches complement and enrich one another,
> and still only begin to explain what makes music a rich and
> human experience.
>
> DJW
>

Amen! Explaining the existence of one of these in terms of the other is
definitely simplistic and innaccurate. I'll add that the neatest thing is
that musicians and composers who are aware of these interactions can
choose to dynamically move in one direction or another or maintain
an ambiguous middle ground, and use that balance to wonderful effect.
While we can never fully separate these elements, it is the control and
use and play between these factors that can make music so extremely
dynamic and expressive. I'm certainly all for intentional ambiguity.

I think the biggest value of Schenkerian theory is the rejection of
explaining everything vertically. Schenkerian theory, of course, can
be taken too rigidly as well though.

-Aaron