Harmony vs Melody:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:

> I also don't understand why anyone would not view melody and harmony
> as different aspects of the same phenomenon....what am I missing here?

> I've always thought: harmony=simultaneous, melody=sequential.

The idea that melody and harmony are on the same
musical "plane" is ridiculous, and one of the
worst results of serialism.

Monophonic melody can be completely free.
Harmony is only a special case of counterpoint,
being 3 or more voices sounding simultaneously.

Then there is the attribute of dimensionality.
A melody can only be fully represented/graphed
in 2 dimensions, whareas a harmony only requires
1 dimension (points on a line).

Bill.Flavell at GMail.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <musictheorybill@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@>
> wrote:
>
> > I also don't understand why anyone would not view melody and harmony
> > as different aspects of the same phenomenon....what am I missing here?
>
> > I've always thought: harmony=simultaneous, melody=sequential.
>
>
> The idea that melody and harmony are on the same
> musical "plane" is ridiculous, and one of the
> worst results of serialism.

I never said they were on the same "plane" (whatever that might mean).
Your argument is a straw man.

I'm no fan of serialism, either--what's your point?

My point was that if you play the melodic sequence C-E-G as opposed to
the chord (CEG) whether arrived at by counterpoint or simple
homophonic texture are temporally distinct yet related. What's so
difficult about that concept? And sorry, some harmony is conceived in
a very homophonic planar fashion--some Debussy, jazz, etc--although
voice leading was the dominant paradigm for most of Western Music
history. Homophony as a concept exists, it's used whether you like it
or not and *not* everything harmonic ought be viewed as counterpoint.
It depends on the style, piece, composer, etc. There are many
composers who weren't/aren't big on contrary or oblique motion.

French music in the 20th century liberated this. Bach is great, but
not the sum total of all musical experiences.

> Monophonic melody can be completely free.
> Harmony is only a special case of counterpoint,
> being 3 or more voices sounding simultaneously.

Speaking of Bach, have you ever listened to a Bach solo violin or
cello piece? Are you saying that you don't hear harmony in single
lines? Read Heinrich Schenker to understand this. The concept of
'unfolding' of harmony for instance. The idea that the ear doesn't
connect melodic skip and form harmonic gestalts is actually the
ridiculous idea!

Another thing, how is it that harmony cannot be 'free' as you say, if
you combine, contrapuntally, several voices?

> Then there is the attribute of dimensionality.
> A melody can only be fully represented/graphed
> in 2 dimensions, whareas a harmony only requires
> 1 dimension (points on a line).

I don't quite get what you are trying to say? So the representation of
a phenomena says the deepest truth about the phenomena? What do you
mean by points on a line? If harmony is counterpoint as you say, each
strand requires two dimensions.

Anyway, all this aside, your descriptions of what you are talking
about are less than clear to me, and I get the sense that they are
obfuscated simple tautolgies, or a personal language for I don't know
what. Some clarification would sure help....

-A.

I think the question is whether a listener who never ever has heard
C-E-G harmonically would recognize that as harmonic function when
hearing them played melodically...

There is no getting around the biases we develop as we become familiar
with musical styles and traditions.

I would argue, however, that true harmony is certainly a different
experience than melody. No solo melody will ever have the effect of a
solid chord. And likewise, no chord will ever have the effect of a
melody. Mostly we're talking about different temporal dimensions.
We're talking about experiencing the timbre and blend of a complex
sound (a chord) which occurs over a very short time, as opposed to a
melody that occurs over a longer time.

Melody certainly has more inherent relationship to verbal language and
other fundamental human vocal expression. Harmony is a different
beast, although the two can overlap when we have counterpoint that the
listener can hear harmony and still pick out the individual melodic
parts as well.

As far as "plane" and priority, we have to specify what our artistic
or musical goal is in order to have that discussion. I would argue,
for instance, that harmony alone *could* be more effective for
meditation than melody alone.

The real problem with this language is trying to break everything into
these separate ideas. Harmony CAN be separate from melody. But in a
complex piece of music there are certainly things that really are not
one or the other, and I'd say we'd be fundamentally mistaken to even
discuss them separately (in certain contexts).

-Aaron Wolf

Well said, my dear namesake!

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> I think the question is whether a listener who never ever has heard
> C-E-G harmonically would recognize that as harmonic function when
> hearing them played melodically...
>
> There is no getting around the biases we develop as we become familiar
> with musical styles and traditions.
>
> I would argue, however, that true harmony is certainly a different
> experience than melody. No solo melody will ever have the effect of a
> solid chord. And likewise, no chord will ever have the effect of a
> melody. Mostly we're talking about different temporal dimensions.
> We're talking about experiencing the timbre and blend of a complex
> sound (a chord) which occurs over a very short time, as opposed to a
> melody that occurs over a longer time.
>
> Melody certainly has more inherent relationship to verbal language and
> other fundamental human vocal expression. Harmony is a different
> beast, although the two can overlap when we have counterpoint that the
> listener can hear harmony and still pick out the individual melodic
> parts as well.
>
> As far as "plane" and priority, we have to specify what our artistic
> or musical goal is in order to have that discussion. I would argue,
> for instance, that harmony alone *could* be more effective for
> meditation than melody alone.
>
> The real problem with this language is trying to break everything into
> these separate ideas. Harmony CAN be separate from melody. But in a
> complex piece of music there are certainly things that really are not
> one or the other, and I'd say we'd be fundamentally mistaken to even
> discuss them separately (in certain contexts).
>
> -Aaron Wolf
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...>
wrote:
>
> I think the question is whether a listener who never ever has heard
> C-E-G harmonically would recognize that as harmonic function when
> hearing them played melodically...

If you put an infant on an island, raised by deafmutes, it will grow
up speaking the King's French.

> There is no getting around the biases we develop as we become
>familiar with musical styles and traditions.

Completely getting around the biasas? Probably not, but getting rid
of most of them is simply a matter of actually listening to what IS
rather than what is "supposed to be", as best as you can.

As fine and fun as functional triadic harmony is, it evolved into
such a specific artificial environment that an unfortunate side
effect of living in it is the danger of losing the ability to
survive anywhere else, either as visitor or inhabitant. A veritible
hothouse for growing Fachidioten.

> The real problem with this language is trying to break everything
>into these separate ideas. Harmony CAN be separate from melody.
>But in a complex piece of music there are certainly things that
>really are not one or the other, and I'd say we'd be fundamentally
>mistaken to even discuss them separately (in certain contexts).
>
> -Aaron Wolf
>

Yes- we're always "dancing about architecture". I find your views
reasonable and fair.

-Cameron Bobro