Functional tritones

> Gerald Eskelin wrote,
>
>>In this sense, the "tritone" between scale steps 2 to flat 6 in the minor
>>mode is not a functional tritone (unless, of course, its tuning is modified
>>from subdominant function toward dominant function and "leans toward" the
>>relative major key).

And Paul Erlich responded:
>
> I disagree. The "tritone" between scale steps 2 to flat 6 in the minor mode
> is used as a functional tritone in the dominant-function diminished seventh
> chord; the 2 resloves up a half step to b3 and the b6 resolves down a half
> step to 5.

Paul, this isn't really a disagreement with my post. It is actually
additional information. Insert the word "also" between your "is" and "used"
and it supports my point. The dominant-function diminished seventh chord is
of course TWO tritones, both of which tend to tune as diminished fifths
"leaning toward" their respective destination pitches. One relates to the
tonic/third destination while the other relates to the third/fifth
destination (or relative major key, as I pointed out).

It seems to me that when scale steps 2 and b6 are used in a subdominant
context the apparent tritone is more a "problem" than a tool. That is likely
why composers of the common practice period consistently inverted the ii
chord to ii6 in order to camouflage any functional-tritone effect. When the
third of the ii chord is placed in the bass, both the b6 and the 2 can more
easily tune directly to to the bass rather than to each other, thus
stabilizing the overall harmonic gravity toward subdominant.

My point was that these scale steps will tend to tune differently when used
in subdominant and dominant contexts.

Jerry

>My point was that these scale steps will tend to tune differently when used
>in subdominant and dominant contexts.

So you'd say that when in a dominant function to the relative major, scale
degree 2 to scale degree b6 is 5:7.
When in subdominant function, how would you tune them? If they form a
1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 half-diminished seventh chord, they're still 5:7, and if
they form a 5:6:7:9 half-diminished seventh chord, they're still 5:7. But
the overall pitch might be different. Is that whay you meant? Or the
first-inversion half-diminished seventh might in fact be 10:12:15:17, giving
17:24 for this interval

Gerald, at this point you clearly need a synth or something to answer these
questions. I know you don't like 1� accuracy, but isn't it more than enough
accuracy to answer these questions?

To my statement:
>
>>My point was that these scale steps will tend to tune differently when used
>>in subdominant and dominant contexts.

Paul Erlich replied:
>
> So you'd say that when in a dominant function to the relative major, scale
> degree 2 to scale degree b6 is 5:7.

Apparently.

> When in subdominant function, how would you tune them? If they form a
> 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 half-diminished seventh chord, they're still 5:7, and if
> they form a 5:6:7:9 half-diminished seventh chord, they're still 5:7. But
> the overall pitch might be different. Is that whay you meant? Or the
> first-inversion half-diminished seventh might in fact be 10:12:15:17, giving
> 17:24 for this interval

My opinion is based largely on logical assumptions (from common practice)
verified by aural perception. (A somewhat shaky basis for objective
scientific research, I admit) Let me state it this way. When 2 and b6 appear
in a subdominant chord there is no "need" to create a gravity seeking
tritone, and in fact that can be problemmatic (thus the need to invert, as
mentioned in my previous post). Since the functional root is now scale step
four, the tuning may well change (I'm not sure) but my impression of tuning
allegiance does change--thus minimizing the "tritone effect." Perhaps the
"high third" influence comes into play, thus exaggerating the tritone
effect.
>
> Gerald, at this point you clearly need a synth or something to answer these
> questions. I know you don't like 1� accuracy, but isn't it more than enough
> accuracy to answer these questions?

Yes. I agree that my posts are often rather subjective. Your response to
this one, however, was helpful to me (and, hopefully, to others).

I am working on getting some means to objectify my contributions. As I am
fairly new to the finer points of acoustic conversations, it may not happen
immediately. I hope, however, in the interim, that my experienced
"subjective" impressions are somewhat helpful to some on the list.

Jerry