Rothenberg vs. Chromatic Harmony & Jazz

Here's a little itch I've been wanting scratched: why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic as heck, does not sound atonal? And even in the classical tradition, tonal music can employ chromatic harmony, which (contrary to what one might expect) often strengthens the sense of tonal center, rather than weakening it. Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS) structure. It appears to me that the presence of a tonal center does not depend on simple 7-10-note scales, generator chains, propriety, or any suchlike properties, but something all together more sophisticated (though I'll be darned if I can surmise *what*). I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like these varieties of music completely contradict them.

Any thoughts on how heavily-chromatic music manages to maintain a sense of tonal center?

-Igs

And before this gets dismissed as being irrelevant to tuning (since it's anchored in common practice), I'm asking about it because I think understanding the mechanisms that create a sense of tonal theory would be vastly beneficial in developing more serious microtonal *music* theory. Could be there's a perceptual mechanism at work that transcends recognizable common-practice music.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a little itch I've been wanting scratched: why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic as heck, does not sound atonal? And even in the classical tradition, tonal music can employ chromatic harmony, which (contrary to what one might expect) often strengthens the sense of tonal center, rather than weakening it. Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS) structure. It appears to me that the presence of a tonal center does not depend on simple 7-10-note scales, generator chains, propriety, or any suchlike properties, but something all together more sophisticated (though I'll be darned if I can surmise *what*). I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like these varieties of music completely contradict them.
>
> Any thoughts on how heavily-chromatic music manages to maintain a sense of tonal center?
>
> -Igs
>

Igs>"And even in the classical tradition, tonal music can employ chromatic
harmony, which (contrary to what one might expect) often strengthens the sense
of tonal center, rather than weakening it."

The first thing that comes up in my mind is Debussy and the way he switches
from, say, a C-major chord to a D-major chord using the chord's intervals, and
not the scale's, as the "constant". Call it a vague assumption...but it seems
obvious to me the mind looks for overlapping patterns on a greater scale...and
conforming to the harmonic series or a scale is only one such pattern. Experts
please correct me if you have a counter-example, but from what I hear jazz uses
a whole lot of common themes/motifs, chord types, and parts of chords which stay
constant whenever modulation of any sort is introduced to "balance out the
confusion".
For the same reason scales based on taking standard diatonic modes in 12TET
and repeating on the 5th rather than the octave often seem to work well: you end
up simply "rotating the harmonic series along another axis" and often end up
revealing stronger tonalities toward certain root tones from the original scale
in the process. Then you can create "major" chords related to strength new
tones in those chords and so on. In the end of the day all the diatonic scale
seems to be...is a scale that favors a few major chords as resting
points...rotate those resting points (and do so gradually and not
suddenly/wrecklessly) and you get loads of new possibilities that are
surprisingly easy to listen to. My guess is this doesn't apply just to 12TET
either...but any tuning system which intentionally uses certain types of chords
as musical resting points.

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

> Any thoughts on how heavily-chromatic music manages to maintain a sense of tonal center?

Chord relationships is a good deal of it.

Hi Igs

> why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic
> as heck, does not sound atonal?

Because it uses consonant chords, in progressions connected
by 5ths, or one or more common tones?

> Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes
> off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief
> flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS)
> structure.

Isn't it a brief flirtation with the aeolian mode of the
same scale?

> It appears to me that the presence of a tonal center does
> not depend on simple 7-10-note scales, generator chains,
> propriety, or any suchlike properties, but something all
> together more sophisticated

I'd say the core of it is much less sophisticated -- the
central role of consonant chord progressions. Melody is
important in tonal music too, and there the Rothenberg
stuff comes into play.

> I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like
> these varieties of music completely contradict them.

Any examples in particular?

-Carl

Hey Igs,

There are a whole slew of ways to create a tonal center - of varying
degrees of "rest". There is an excellent book,

Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice by Vincent
Persichetti that summarizes all of these. Despite being from 1961 I
found to book to be good and relevant and I think can explain, in a
broad way - what you are asking.

To speak directly to your observation of Jazz - Wagner was extremely
chromatic - but still considered tonal. Debussy "broke" all kinds of
common practice rules and still sounds tonal. Both are extensions of
common practice.

From my personal view - tonality is caused by a combination of harmony
*and* melody. The mechanism lies in the interplay of both.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> And before this gets dismissed as being irrelevant to tuning (since it's anchored in common practice), I'm asking about it because I think understanding the mechanisms that create a sense of tonal theory would be vastly beneficial in developing more serious microtonal *music* theory. Could be there's a perceptual mechanism at work that transcends recognizable common-practice music.
>
> -Igs
>

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a little itch I've been wanting scratched: why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic as heck, does not sound atonal? And even in the classical tradition, tonal music can employ chromatic harmony, which (contrary to what one might expect) often strengthens the sense of tonal center, rather than weakening it. Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS) structure. It appears to me that the presence of a tonal center does not depend on simple 7-10-note scales, generator chains, propriety, or any suchlike properties, but something all together more sophisticated (though I'll be darned if I can surmise *what*). I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like these varieties of music completely contradict them.
>
> Any thoughts on how heavily-chromatic music manages to maintain a sense of tonal center?

Because you don't actually need a scale to create a sense of tonality.
A scale is simply a useful abstraction that makes it easier to do so.
There are chord progressions where the "background scale" changes for
every single chord, and yet it still resolves to I at the end of the
day. In cases like this it doesn't make sense to pretend that there is
a single, unified scale that everything fits into, because there
isn't.

You could, if you wanted to, say that "the tonal scale" is
meantone[12] or 12-equal or something, but why the OCD need to delimit
it to begin with? Even if you come up with some convoluted 12+ note
"master scale" that contains every possible note that a chord progression
has, there are an infinitude of notes that don't belong to the scale that
could become a part of the system if you just go ahead and play them.
And if you play them, you'll still be able to create a tonal center if
you want.

I think that tonality has more to do with consonance and dissonance,
tension and release, etc, and that consonance is caused by conformity
to a harmonic series, and dissonance is caused by a diversion from it.

-Mike

> why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic as heck, does not sound atonal?

Why would chromatic=atonal?

John

Thanks, Chris, I'll see if I can find that book in the local libraries. I'm currently taking guitar lessons again to finally learn how to read and play classical music, and since going back to college isn't an option, self-education is how it's gotta be. Sounds like this book could be really helpful.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Igs,
>
> There are a whole slew of ways to create a tonal center - of varying
> degrees of "rest". There is an excellent book,
>
> Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice by Vincent
> Persichetti that summarizes all of these. Despite being from 1961 I
> found to book to be good and relevant and I think can explain, in a
> broad way - what you are asking.
>
>
> To speak directly to your observation of Jazz - Wagner was extremely
> chromatic - but still considered tonal. Debussy "broke" all kinds of
> common practice rules and still sounds tonal. Both are extensions of
> common practice.
>
> From my personal view - tonality is caused by a combination of harmony
> *and* melody. The mechanism lies in the interplay of both.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM, cityoftheasleep
> <igliashon@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > And before this gets dismissed as being irrelevant to tuning (since it's anchored in common practice), I'm asking about it because I think understanding the mechanisms that create a sense of tonal theory would be vastly beneficial in developing more serious microtonal *music* theory. Could be there's a perceptual mechanism at work that transcends recognizable common-practice music.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
>

If not at the library you can buy it on Amazon for $32 clams or so.
That is where I got it from.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:11 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks, Chris, I'll see if I can find that book in the local libraries. I'm currently taking guitar lessons again to finally learn how to read and play classical music, and since going back to college isn't an option, self-education is how it's gotta be. Sounds like this book could be really helpful.
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Igs,
> >
> > There are a whole slew of ways to create a tonal center - of varying
> > degrees of "rest". There is an excellent book,
> >
> > Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice by Vincent
> > Persichetti that summarizes all of these. Despite being from 1961 I
> > found to book to be good and relevant and I think can explain, in a
> > broad way - what you are asking.
> >
> >

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Chris, I'll see if I can find that book in the local libraries. I'm currently taking guitar lessons again to finally learn how to read and play classical music, and since going back to college isn't an option, self-education is how it's gotta be. Sounds like this book could be really helpful.

Persichetti has an interesting and original approach; worth reading.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> Because it uses consonant chords, in progressions connected
> by 5ths, or one or more common tones?

I don't know if that's a valid generalization of how jazz music works.

> > Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes
> > off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief
> > flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS)
> > structure.
>
> Isn't it a brief flirtation with the aeolian mode of the
> same scale?

You mean the ionian mode?

> > It appears to me that the presence of a tonal center does
> > not depend on simple 7-10-note scales, generator chains,
> > propriety, or any suchlike properties, but something all
> > together more sophisticated
>
> I'd say the core of it is much less sophisticated -- the
> central role of consonant chord progressions. Melody is
> important in tonal music too, and there the Rothenberg
> stuff comes into play.

But what defines "consonant" chord progressions outside of a scale?

> > I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like
> > these varieties of music completely contradict them.
>
> Any examples in particular?

Well, consider the chord progression on the wikipedia page for "secondary dominants" that goes I-V7/ii-ii-V7/iii-iii-V7/IV-IV-V7/V-V-V7/vi-vi (which you could then finish out with, I dunno, IV-V-I, or cut it off before V/vi at the V and return to I). This chord progression still maintains a sense of C major as the tonal center, but adds a whole lot of notes outside the C major scale--and even passes through C7 as the V7/IV without "resolving" to it. How does this progression NOT lose its sense of tonal center?

-Igs

Igs>"But what defines "consonant" chord progressions outside of a scale?"

An educated guess:
A) New chords must contain mostly notes within a scale (as mentioned before IE
"one or more common tones", only I highly suspect it's something more like
having 70%+ of tones in common)
B) New chords must (perhaps more obviously) be consonant in and of themselves

Carl> Because it uses consonant chords, in progressions connected by 5ths

...Assuming the scale itself contains many 5th intervals, progressions of
5ths would be more likely to satisfy condition A IE it's one way to help ensure
condition A) is met.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> > Because it uses consonant chords, in progressions connected
> > by 5ths, or one or more common tones?
>
> I don't know if that's a valid generalization of how jazz music works.

I couldn't help but notice that my explanation, which comes from my
being a professional jazz musician as well as having just spent 4
years studying it in school, got no response from you. Do you have no
response to it? Is the idea that scale analysis doesn't determine
tonal center that much of a stretch for you?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>

> Well, consider the chord progression on the wikipedia page for "secondary dominants" that goes I-V7/ii-ii-V7/iii-iii-V7/IV-IV-V7/V-V-V7/vi-vi (which you could then finish out with, I dunno, IV-V-I, or cut it off before V/vi at the V and return to I). This chord progression still maintains a sense of C major as the tonal center, but adds a whole lot of notes outside the C major scale--and even passes through C7 as the V7/IV without "resolving" to it. How does this progression NOT lose its sense of tonal center?

It reinforces I, ii, ii, IV, V and VI successively, and so emphatically underlines the diatonic scale.

Igs have you considered the chord progression for I am a Walrus?

Every chord is a major chord built on the a minor scale. So b flat/ a sharp is the only note not used out of 12edo (excepting possible secondary melodies). 7ths resolve backwards. A major is clearly the tonic. E major is breifly tonicized in the middle section. The piece starts with a b major chord. And of course the end is an interlocking of endless descending and ascending diationic lines.

Clearly excedingly chromatic, but very tonal and listenable.

Chris
*

And I still haven't gotten a response to my question as to why any use of the chromatic scale should imply atonality in the first place, or any loss in clarity of tonal center. I see no reason, for example, the progression

CMaj7 (C Ionian)
AbMaj7 (Ab Ionian)
EbMaj7 (Eb Ionian)
BbMaj7 (Bb Lydian)
Cmaj7 (C Ionian)

should not still be audibly centered around C Ionian, "despite" the fact that it uses notes contained in the chromatic scale. The chromatic scale is just the next MOS scale above the diatonic, with three fifths extended below Fa and above Ti providing larger melodic AND harmonic gamut.

In 12-edo I think we associate the chromatic scale with atonality because there is only one step size for any generic interval, and so there is no way to orient one's self if given an ascending chromatic scale or randomly generated chromatic music. But that does not mean that it does not have two *perceptual step sizes* that, when given musical context, are very recognizable and provide a sense of tonal center when moving around in chromatic contexts.

John M

But this ignores two facts:
1: it IS possible to create atonal music with the chromatic scale; see Schonberg et al. So the chromatic scale being the "next MOS" is no explanation for the tonalness of chromatic chord progressions.
2: it is ALSO possible to tonicize various notes of the diatonic scale, and the configuration of the scale itself says nothing about where the tonic will be; see the Aeolian or "relative minor" of the Ionian scale.

The point is that with the chromatic scale (and subsets thereof), it is possible to make both tonal and atonal chord progressions, but there is something going on with the relationships between successive notes that creates (or destroys) tonality, not simply the shape of the scale. What is not immediately obvious is why some chromatic chord progressions should sound tonal, while others should not.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Moriarty" <JlMoriart@...> wrote:
>
> And I still haven't gotten a response to my question as to why any use of the chromatic scale should imply atonality in the first place, or any loss in clarity of tonal center. I see no reason, for example, the progression
>
> CMaj7 (C Ionian)
> AbMaj7 (Ab Ionian)
> EbMaj7 (Eb Ionian)
> BbMaj7 (Bb Lydian)
> Cmaj7 (C Ionian)
>
> should not still be audibly centered around C Ionian, "despite" the fact that it uses notes contained in the chromatic scale. The chromatic scale is just the next MOS scale above the diatonic, with three fifths extended below Fa and above Ti providing larger melodic AND harmonic gamut.
>
> In 12-edo I think we associate the chromatic scale with atonality because there is only one step size for any generic interval, and so there is no way to orient one's self if given an ascending chromatic scale or randomly generated chromatic music. But that does not mean that it does not have two *perceptual step sizes* that, when given musical context, are very recognizable and provide a sense of tonal center when moving around in chromatic contexts.
>
> John M
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Igs have you considered the chord progression for I am a Walrus?
>
> Every chord is a major chord built on the a minor scale. So b flat/ a sharp is the only note not used out of 12edo (excepting possible secondary melodies). 7ths resolve backwards. A major is clearly the tonic. E major is breifly tonicized in the middle section. The piece starts with a b major chord. And of course the end is an interlocking of endless descending and ascending diationic lines.
>
> Clearly excedingly chromatic, but very tonal and listenable.

Yes, exactly my point--and my question is, "how is tonality maintained"? Is there any sort of a "general unified theory of tonality" that can determine whether sequences of harmonies will suggest a tonal center?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> Because you don't actually need a scale to create a sense of tonality.

Well, obviously--that is what I have observed, and what has led me to ask these questions! Tonality comes from something else, but I don't understand *what*. I always thought that it came from scales, but clearly it doesn't!

> A scale is simply a useful abstraction that makes it easier to do so.
> There are chord progressions where the "background scale" changes for
> every single chord, and yet it still resolves to I at the end of the
> day. In cases like this it doesn't make sense to pretend that there is
> a single, unified scale that everything fits into, because there
> isn't.

Right. That was the first thing I learned when jamming on bass with a jazz trio in college--I had to extrapolate a different scale out of every chord on the sheet.

> You could, if you wanted to, say that "the tonal scale" is
> meantone[12] or 12-equal or something, but why the OCD need to delimit
> it to begin with? Even if you come up with some convoluted 12+ note
> "master scale" that contains every possible note that a chord progression
> has, there are an infinitude of notes that don't belong to the scale that
> could become a part of the system if you just go ahead and play them.
> And if you play them, you'll still be able to create a tonal center if
> you want.

And that is what boggles me. Given that atonal music does exist, and that the "set of notes" itself does not determine whether music is atonal or tonal...what DOES determine whether the music is tonal or not? What perceptual mechanism or formal structure is at work in the phenomenon of tonality?

> I think that tonality has more to do with consonance and dissonance,
> tension and release, etc, and that consonance is caused by conformity
> to a harmonic series, and dissonance is caused by a diversion from it.

But look at Chris's example of "I Am the Walrus"--all the chords are major, right? So no chord in isolation is any more consonant or dissonant than any other. And hell, you don't even need chords to create or destroy tonality. Melodic phrases can sound tonal or not, so I think consonance/dissonance and the harmonic series have nothing to do with it.

-Igs

"cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> And that is what boggles me. Given that atonal music
> does exist, and that the "set of notes" itself does not
> determine whether music is atonal or tonal...what DOES
> determine whether the music is tonal or not? What
> perceptual mechanism or formal structure is at work in
> the phenomenon of tonality?

Read Krumhansl.

> But look at Chris's example of "I Am the Walrus"--all the
> chords are major, right? So no chord in isolation is any
> more consonant or dissonant than any other. And hell,
> you don't even need chords to create or destroy
> tonality. Melodic phrases can sound tonal or not, so I
> think consonance/dissonance and the harmonic series have
> nothing to do with it.

Actually, one of my pet theories is that musicologists tend
to overrate the importance of harmony to atonality. They
say "Ah, this music is very dissonant, and people don't
like it!" and conclude that the dissonance makes it
unpopular. But they ignore the melodies being all over the
place. In fact, the average listener doesn't care about
harmony nearly as much as musicologists do.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
In fact, the average listener doesn't care about
> harmony nearly as much as musicologists do.

True, but they prefer something more intelligible. Tweaking serial music so that the chords make sense in 11-limit terms makes a striking difference.

Igs wrote:

>> Because it uses consonant chords, in progressions connected
>> by 5ths, or one or more common tones?
>
> I don't know if that's a valid generalization of how jazz
> music works.

I still think it is. :)

> > > Even a minor-key authentic cadence of V-i temporarily shakes
> > > off the TsTTsTT structure of the Aeolian mode, a brief
> > > flirtation with a more chromatic (and decidedly non-MOS)
> > > structure.
> >
> > Isn't it a brief flirtation with the aeolian mode of the
> > same scale?
>
> You mean the ionian mode?

Nope, ionian has a big I, aeolian a little i.

> > I'd say the core of it is much less sophisticated -- the
> > central role of consonant chord progressions. Melody is
> > important in tonal music too, and there the Rothenberg
> > stuff comes into play.
>
> But what defines "consonant" chord progressions outside
> of a scale?

Sorry, I meant concordant. I have a way of measuring
progression 'strength' by the way:

http://lumma.org/music/theory/ProgressionStrength.txt

> > > I'm no expert on Rothenberg's theories, but it seems like
> > > these varieties of music completely contradict them.
> >
> > Any examples in particular?
>
> Well, consider the chord progression on the wikipedia page
> for "secondary dominants" that goes
> I-V7/ii-ii-V7/iii-iii-V7/IV-IV-V7/V-V-V7/vi-vi
> (which you could then finish out with, I dunno, IV-V-I,
> or cut it off before V/vi at the V and return to I).
> This chord progression still maintains a sense of C major
> as the tonal center, but adds a whole lot of notes outside
> the C major scale--and even passes through C7 as the V7/IV
> without "resolving" to it. How does this progression
> NOT lose its sense of tonal center?

I'm not sure... all those V7s probably help. At any
rate, I don't see how it contradicts anything of
Rothenberg's.

-Carl

"Chroma" means "color". It's a truism that chromatic music usually sounds tonal, if we insist on "chromatic" meaning what it traditionally, and most sensibly, means.

Chromatic tones are colorings of an underlying shape, traditionally a tonal, usually specifically diatonic, shape. The typical original purpose of the coloring was to highlight tonality. The very origin of chromatic tones in Western music is tied to emphasizing tonality- a leading tone in a minor mode is an example of a chromatic alteration which strengthens a tonal center.

When the chroma multiply to the point at which they overpower the underlying structure, or become structural, taking on a life of their own, then we are looking at the source of the famous questions about tonality, atonality, pantonality, etc., of a century ago.

When the chroma took on a life of their own, they were, very reasonably, no longer called chroma, but "tones", later "pitch classes", etc.

So, I don't think the original question poses much of a mystery at all.

There are strong parallels in the visual arts, parallels with a remarkably similar timeline to music. We can make comparisons with line, drawing, representation ("tonality") and color (chroma, of course).

I think the real question you're driving at, Igliashon, is a real stinker: what, actually, is "tonality"? "Tonality" is something we take for granted as understood, but I for one have never heard a satisfactory definition, and I guess that you haven't either.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> But this ignores two facts:
> 1: it IS possible to create atonal music with the chromatic scale; see Schonberg et al. So the chromatic scale being the "next MOS" is no explanation for the tonalness of chromatic chord progressions.
> 2: it is ALSO possible to tonicize various notes of the diatonic scale, and the configuration of the scale itself says nothing about where the tonic will be; see the Aeolian or "relative minor" of the Ionian scale.
>
> The point is that with the chromatic scale (and subsets thereof), it is possible to make both tonal and atonal chord progressions, but there is something going on with the relationships between successive notes that creates (or destroys) tonality, not simply the shape of the scale. What is not immediately obvious is why some chromatic chord progressions should sound tonal, while others should not.
>
> -Igs
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Moriarty" <JlMoriart@> wrote:
> >
> > And I still haven't gotten a response to my question as to why any use of the chromatic scale should imply atonality in the first place, or any loss in clarity of tonal center. I see no reason, for example, the progression
> >
> > CMaj7 (C Ionian)
> > AbMaj7 (Ab Ionian)
> > EbMaj7 (Eb Ionian)
> > BbMaj7 (Bb Lydian)
> > Cmaj7 (C Ionian)
> >
> > should not still be audibly centered around C Ionian, "despite" the fact that it uses notes contained in the chromatic scale. The chromatic scale is just the next MOS scale above the diatonic, with three fifths extended below Fa and above Ti providing larger melodic AND harmonic gamut.
> >
> > In 12-edo I think we associate the chromatic scale with atonality because there is only one step size for any generic interval, and so there is no way to orient one's self if given an ascending chromatic scale or randomly generated chromatic music. But that does not mean that it does not have two *perceptual step sizes* that, when given musical context, are very recognizable and provide a sense of tonal center when moving around in chromatic contexts.
> >
> > John M
> >
>

Oh- before anyone goes off half-cocked to scoff at the idea of
questioning the very validity of word and concept "tonality", consider
this: the term did not appear until two decades after the death of
Mozart, and took some decades to become common. So- it became a standard
term and concept at the very time that which it purports to describe was
heavily mutating, even being "destroyed" in the ears of many.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> "Chroma" means "color". It's a truism that chromatic music usually
sounds tonal, if we insist on "chromatic" meaning what it traditionally,
and most sensibly, means.
>
> Chromatic tones are colorings of an underlying shape, traditionally a
tonal, usually specifically diatonic, shape. The typical original
purpose of the coloring was to highlight tonality. The very origin of
chromatic tones in Western music is tied to emphasizing tonality- a
leading tone in a minor mode is an example of a chromatic alteration
which strengthens a tonal center.
>
> When the chroma multiply to the point at which they overpower the
underlying structure, or become structural, taking on a life of their
own, then we are looking at the source of the famous questions about
tonality, atonality, pantonality, etc., of a century ago.
>
> When the chroma took on a life of their own, they were, very
reasonably, no longer called chroma, but "tones", later "pitch classes",
etc.
>
> So, I don't think the original question poses much of a mystery at
all.
>
> There are strong parallels in the visual arts, parallels with a
remarkably similar timeline to music. We can make comparisons with line,
drawing, representation ("tonality") and color (chroma, of course).
>
> I think the real question you're driving at, Igliashon, is a real
stinker: what, actually, is "tonality"? "Tonality" is something we take
for granted as understood, but I for one have never heard a satisfactory
definition, and I guess that you haven't either.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@> wrote:
> >
> > But this ignores two facts:
> > 1: it IS possible to create atonal music with the chromatic scale;
see Schonberg et al. So the chromatic scale being the "next MOS" is no
explanation for the tonalness of chromatic chord progressions.
> > 2: it is ALSO possible to tonicize various notes of the diatonic
scale, and the configuration of the scale itself says nothing about
where the tonic will be; see the Aeolian or "relative minor" of the
Ionian scale.
> >
> > The point is that with the chromatic scale (and subsets thereof), it
is possible to make both tonal and atonal chord progressions, but there
is something going on with the relationships between successive notes
that creates (or destroys) tonality, not simply the shape of the scale.
What is not immediately obvious is why some chromatic chord progressions
should sound tonal, while others should not.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Moriarty" <JlMoriart@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And I still haven't gotten a response to my question as to why any
use of the chromatic scale should imply atonality in the first place, or
any loss in clarity of tonal center. I see no reason, for example, the
progression
> > >
> > > CMaj7 (C Ionian)
> > > AbMaj7 (Ab Ionian)
> > > EbMaj7 (Eb Ionian)
> > > BbMaj7 (Bb Lydian)
> > > Cmaj7 (C Ionian)
> > >
> > > should not still be audibly centered around C Ionian, "despite"
the fact that it uses notes contained in the chromatic scale. The
chromatic scale is just the next MOS scale above the diatonic, with
three fifths extended below Fa and above Ti providing larger melodic AND
harmonic gamut.
> > >
> > > In 12-edo I think we associate the chromatic scale with atonality
because there is only one step size for any generic interval, and so
there is no way to orient one's self if given an ascending chromatic
scale or randomly generated chromatic music. But that does not mean that
it does not have two *perceptual step sizes* that, when given musical
context, are very recognizable and provide a sense of tonal center when
moving around in chromatic contexts.
> > >
> > > John M
> > >
> >
>

No offense - but I think looking for a theory for everything is not the way
to go.

Music involves emotion and emotion is to varying degrees irrational and
subjective. This is in part what keeps good composers unique. This is also
what I think is tapped when composers "find their own voice" musically.

Music theory involves, for the most part, explaining what has already
happened. The subject is like archeology. I say this with the distinction
that people who invent frameworks (Schoenberg, Partch, Scriabin) and work
within or around these frameworks use these methods to develop their voice.
Note that even if you plan out every twittle and dot it does not guarantee
anyone but you wishes to listen to it.

If you sit down at the piano and learn to play I am the Walrus I think how
it works will be fairly apparent. My take on this piece is that the almost
exclusive use of major chords translates to a Debussian parallelism - the
root of a major chord is very re-enforced so in effect you have one thick
melodic line in A minor-ish... Major chords all over and the song is
certainly not happy. I'm not sure if mode mixture applies here or not.

Wasn't there a discussion a few weeks back about happy minor songs and sad
major songs?

Chris

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:21 AM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, chrisvaisvil@...
> wrote:
> >
> > Igs have you considered the chord progression for I am a Walrus?
> >
> > Every chord is a major chord built on the a minor scale. So b flat/ a
> sharp is the only note not used out of 12edo (excepting possible secondary
> melodies). 7ths resolve backwards. A major is clearly the tonic. E major is
> breifly tonicized in the middle section. The piece starts with a b major
> chord. And of course the end is an interlocking of endless descending and
> ascending diationic lines.
> >
> > Clearly excedingly chromatic, but very tonal and listenable.
>
> Yes, exactly my point--and my question is, "how is tonality maintained"? Is
> there any sort of a "general unified theory of tonality" that can determine
> whether sequences of harmonies will suggest a tonal center?
>
> -Igs
>
>
>

Indeed - I think true atonal music barely exists - if at all.

In my mind degree of tonality is a continuum. Atonality is a boundary
condition - as well as perfect tonality is a boundry condition which would
be one note one time only.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM, John Moriarty <JlMoriart@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > why is it that lots of jazz music, despite being chromatic as heck, does
> not sound atonal?
>
> Why would chromatic=atonal?
>
> John
>
>
>

The answer, from me, is that it doesn't. The composer implies
atonality or tonality - to varying degrees - when using the chromatic
scale.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:10 PM, John Moriarty <JlMoriart@...> wrote:

And I still haven't gotten a response to my question as to why any
use of the chromatic scale should imply atonality in the first place,
or any loss in clarity of tonal center.

Igs>"But look at Chris's example of "I Am the Walrus"--all the chords are major,
right? So no chord in isolation is any more consonant or dissonant than any
other."
Right, so "consonant harmony" alone really does not seem to explain how we
process this song emotionally.

Chris>"the root of a major chord is very re-enforced so in effect you have one
thick melodic line in A minor-ish... Major chords all over and the song is
certainly not happy."

It seems, at some point, the actual pattern of in the notes of the roots of
chords (which is minor) has more impact on the feeling than the interval
structure of the chords (which is major).

I agree with Cameron (as I understand him), that the definition of tonality
is vague Tonality, of what exactly? For example, tonality of a G major chord
(implying G as the root tone) or a G major chord in a C-major scale (implying C
as the root tone) or D# in a Debussy-style piece where melodies follow C D D# F
G A A#, implying a C minor and not a D major scale? Or part of a song has focus
on 7 notes switching focus to 5 notes and then switching to focus on 7 notes
with 2 of the notes having changed?

It seems the ironic real constant in "tonality" is there IS not single
root! Usually you really have two even in standard diatonic scale: a tonic and
a dominant...and you can, say, make the dominant the new tonic and then shift
the dominant somewhere else (perhaps not even as the 5th from the new tonic).
Referencing the term "tonality" seems to vastly oversimplify things. As long as
you make such "modulation" changes bit by bit...it seems the ear and mind has no
problem keeping up.

As for a unified theory, one goal I can think of is a way to test how quickly
the average listener can process things like modulation/changes before the
listener starts to lose track (using tricks like keeping the roots of each chord
within a scale ALA "I Am the Walrus"). This would take lots of compositional
examples and listeners to prove but...would anyone like to make an effort to
test this?

Chris>"Indeed - I think true atonal music barely exists - if at all."
Here's a test: try to make a piece like "I Am the Walrus"...but purposefully
use chords that point to roots not in or related to the melody. IE while making
melodies in the scale C D E F G A B...use chords C minor, D diminished, etc.
(but not any major chords...unless they have a root tone not in the C-major
scale) This way there is virtually no consistent pattern in the implied roots.

My hunch is that there is a-tonallity...but it's not based on this IMVHO
highly oversimplified idea that there must be a single tonic (which seems even
weirder when you consider the whole relative minor relationship implying a
"second tonic" in the exact same scale). I am guessing its not due to lack of a
single tonal center but, rather, that either the many tonal centers implied do
not follow a regular pattern or that there is not even one tonal center implied.
To make it more clear, the situation with no chords used implying a root could
be "a-tonally" while having many chords implying seeming random root tones would
be "dis-tonallity", diatonic scales would be "tonality" or "bi-tonality" if both
major and relative minor are stressed, and things like "I Am Walrus" would be
"multi-tonality".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure... all those V7s probably help. At any
> rate, I don't see how it contradicts anything of
> Rothenberg's.

Wasn't one of the central tenets of Rothenberg's theories that listeners can't make sense of scales larger than a certain number of notes, and that scales beyond that threshold lose their sense of tonality because of this?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> I think the real question you're driving at, Igliashon, is a real stinker: what, actually, is
> "tonality"? "Tonality" is something we take for granted as understood, but I for one have
> never heard a satisfactory definition, and I guess that you haven't either.

Well, yes. This is what I'm driving at. I mean, where I'm coming from is that I've spent the last several years examining various MOS scales in various equal divisions of the octave, looking for viable "competitors" to diatonic tonality, based on this Rothenbergian idea that tonality means fixed 5-10 note scales. Somehow I managed to completely ignore the fact that when I play in 12-tET, I almost NEVER stick to a diatonic scale, and when I do, it sounds cheezy as hell, and yet what I play always pulls me to specific tonal centers. The real kicker came when I realized that, as you say, chromatic music can actually sound *more* tonal than pure diatonic music. At that point I realized that "diatonic tonality" in 12-tET is just a myth, nothing more, a special case of a more general tonality that I have not seen very well described.

-Igs

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:30 AM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Well, obviously--that is what I have observed, and what has led me to ask these questions! Tonality comes from something else, but I don't understand *what*. I always thought that it came from scales, but clearly it doesn't!

If you play an E drone, and play an E locrian scale on top of it, I
guarantee you that the "E" will sound like the emphasized note (or
"tonic" as we say in the hood), but the whole thing will take on the
color of locrian. For an established scholarly reference proving this
concept, I shall refer you to Primus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6ygP-Fuzg

I think I also posted this link a while ago, but the point still
stands: by emphasizing the E, it becomes the tonic, no matter what
scale you put on top of it. Go to a piano and play an E in the bass.
Make it octaves, actually, and play it in an eighth note pattern. Now
go play a bunch of jumbled up crap on top of it. Feel free to grab the
nearest 5 year old and tell them you need them to help you play the
piano, and then have them play random notes on top of it. You will
notice that the whole piece clearly revolves around E, since it's this
constant, emphasized note.

Now do the same thing but move to Bb in the bass for a while. If you
stay on Bb long enough, you'll forget about E. If you move back to E,
suddenly that's the tonic again.

So the question really is, then, for common practice harmony, why can
you leave the drone behind, go to completely different chords, and
still have things "resolve" back to I? What causes the "resolution" at
all? How does the concept of a "resolution" work? I have some ideas,
and they're related to my ideas about minorness. But, let's at least
make sure we're on the same page about this first.

> And that is what boggles me. Given that atonal music does exist, and that the "set of notes" itself does not determine whether music is atonal or tonal...what DOES determine whether the music is tonal or not? What perceptual mechanism or formal structure is at work in the phenomenon of tonality?

I'll see your question and raise you another one: in this little
musical snippet I've made

http://www.mikebattagliamusic.com/music/ModalResolutions.mp3

Why does no clear tonal center emerge, despite the fact that every
chord is pretty consonant sounding?

> But look at Chris's example of "I Am the Walrus"--all the chords are major, right? So no chord in isolation is any more consonant or dissonant than any other. And hell, you don't even need chords to create or destroy tonality. Melodic phrases can sound tonal or not, so I think consonance/dissonance and the harmonic series have nothing to do with it.

If you play the notes C-E-G in isolation - all of the "chords" are 1/1, right?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > I think the real question you're driving at, Igliashon, is a real stinker: what, actually, is
> > "tonality"? "Tonality" is something we take for granted as understood, but I for one have
> > never heard a satisfactory definition, and I guess that you haven't either.
>
> Well, yes. This is what I'm driving at. I mean, where I'm coming from is that I've spent the last several years examining various MOS scales in various equal divisions of the octave, looking for viable "competitors" to diatonic tonality, based on this Rothenbergian idea that tonality means fixed 5-10 note scales. Somehow I managed to completely ignore the fact that when I play in 12-tET, I almost NEVER stick to a diatonic scale, and when I do, it sounds cheezy as hell, and yet what I play always pulls me to specific tonal centers. The real kicker came when I realized that, as you say, chromatic music can actually sound *more* tonal than pure diatonic music. At that point I realized that "diatonic tonality" in 12-tET is just a myth, nothing more, a special case of a more general tonality that I have not seen very well described.

I think that there might be two definitions of "scale" between which there should be differentiation:
1. A combination of intervals used for playing melody. (Small enough in number and regular enough in step sizes to be regular)
2. A set of pitch classes that serve as a framework in which multiple instances of the previous definition reside.

These separate definitions allow for one's playing notes from the entire chromatic scale in an adventurous chord progression. For each root, however, melody is most likely constructed from a diatonic scale containing each root.
The chromatic scale houses seven diatonic scales, and when you play chromatically in 12-edo, I'll bet you stick (for the most part) to diatonic modes relative to the current root. Am I wrong?

John

Igs wrote:

> > I'm not sure... all those V7s probably help. At any
> > rate, I don't see how it contradicts anything of
> > Rothenberg's.
>
> Wasn't one of the central tenets of Rothenberg's theories
> that listeners can't make sense of scales larger than a
> certain number of notes,

No, that was suggested by Miller, and it is one of my
central tenets.

> and that scales beyond that threshold lose their sense of
> tonality because of this?

Neither Miller nor I said this part.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> No, that was suggested by Miller, and it is one of my
> central tenets.

Man, just when I thought I had Rothenberg figured out. I thought his work was all about how human memory is finite and we construct reference frames based on patterns of stimuli, and in order to parse musical stimuli, we have to relate them to a reference frame? In chromatic music, aren't multiple diatonic reference-frames colliding?

> > and that scales beyond that threshold lose their sense of
> > tonality because of this?
>
> Neither Miller nor I said this part.

Well, if a large scale is unintelligible, how can it be used tonally?

-Igs

Igs wrote:

> Man, just when I thought I had Rothenberg figured out.
> I thought his work was all about how human memory is finite
> and we construct reference frames based on patterns of
> stimuli, and in order to parse musical stimuli, we have to
> relate them to a reference frame?

Yes, that's accurate.

> In chromatic music, aren't multiple diatonic reference-
> frames colliding?

I dunno.

> > > and that scales beyond that threshold lose their sense of
> > > tonality because of this?
> >
> > Neither Miller nor I said this part.
>
> Well, if a large scale is unintelligible, how can it be used
> tonally?

Tonality could be many things, but Gene and I think
it's mostly about chords. Graham thinks it may be more
to do with melody, but there he seems to be talking
about randomness, even in a proper scale.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> > > > and that scales beyond that threshold lose their sense of
> > > > tonality because of this?
> > >
> > > Neither Miller nor I said this part.
> >
> > Well, if a large scale is unintelligible, how can it be used
> > tonally?
>
> Tonality could be many things, but Gene and I think
> it's mostly about chords. Graham thinks it may be more
> to do with melody, but there he seems to be talking
> about randomness, even in a proper scale.

Alright, well, let's hear it then: how do chords (and specifically, chord progressions) establish tonality?

Also, as Mike has pointed out, in jazz it's often the case that the scale changes with every chord change, and these chords often change rather quickly. From a Rothenbergian sense, that should imply that the reference frame is constantly in flux, which should be constantly frustrating the mind's ability to locate stimuli within the reference frame...yet this is clearly NOT what happens. Chord progressions are actually scale progressions, in a sense, and looking at it only as harmony or only as melody doesn't seem right to me.

-Igs

Igs said " Alright, well, let's hear it then: how do chords (and specifically, chord progressions) establish tonality?"

Does this not delve into psychoacoustics why you say how?

That's like asking how gravity works. Is it a gravitron particle? Is it a warping of timespace? Do you know how? We have theories but the last I heard no gravity waves detected yet.

However you can say that gravity follows very specific rules.

We can also say certain chord progressions establsh tonality - at least for most listeners. With these progressions we can deduce tendicies that often work.

Chris

*

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Alright, well, let's hear it then: how do chords (and specifically, chord progressions) establish tonality?

OK, here's another question, one in which I think you (we) will find
another clue. In 19-tet, V resolves much more strongly to I if the
major third over the V is sharpened by 1\19. This means that the V
chord would be G-Cb-D instead of G-B-D, and hence the ti-do motion
will be by a chromatic semitone instead of a diatonic semitone.

It also means that the motion will be closer to the 70 cent interval.
Aside from any "de-priming" hypothesis about how this might function
when used in harmony, it's been known for quite a while that a melodic
motion by this interval is really effective.

So why is this?

> Also, as Mike has pointed out, in jazz it's often the case that the scale changes with every chord change, and these chords often change rather quickly. From a Rothenbergian sense, that should imply that the reference frame is constantly in flux, which should be constantly frustrating the mind's ability to locate stimuli within the reference frame...yet this is clearly NOT what happens. Chord progressions are actually scale progressions, in a sense, and looking at it only as harmony or only as melody doesn't seem right to me.

Some people say that it's because the chords emphasize some underlying
diatonic scale in a roundabout way. I have my doubts, symbolized in
the chord progression Dm7 -> Dbmaj7 -> Cmaj7.

-Mike

Igs wrote:

> Alright, well, let's hear it then: how do chords (and
> specifically, chord progressions) establish tonality?

First we have to agree what tonality is, and even then
I don't claim to know the answer. My basic thought is that
we're naturally equipped (for speech recognition) to follow
overtones over a fundamental. Tonality will be something
to do with that, like, the whole piece of music evokes
relationships to a single fundamental (let's call it
the tonic) and some of those relationships may be treated
as temporary or local tonics themselves, so that the
procedure is hierarchical.

So the whole piece of music is sort of a hierarchical chord
spread out over time... that means concordant chords with
roots lying in concordant relations.

While I agree with Graham about melody's importance in what
average people like, and its importance in what average
people dislike about serial-atonal music, I think it's
equally clear that bare chord progressions with little or
no melody could be considered pieces of tonal music.

-Carl

On 30 October 2010 01:23, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Tonality could be many things, but Gene and I think
> it's mostly about chords.  Graham thinks it may be more
> to do with melody, but there he seems to be talking
> about randomness, even in a proper scale.

Well, I was more talking about atonality than tonality. By atonality
I mean the specific style of Schoenberg and is circle in a certain
part of the early 20th Century. You can summarize it in a set of
rules, which you can probably find on the web, but I'll try and
remember them:

1) Avoid major and minor chords, horizontally or vertically.
2) Don't use too many notes from the same diatonic scale together, and
if you use notes from the same scale avoid that scale subsequently.
3) Avoid repetition of notes, or octave equivalents, within a short
time scale. (Sometimes relaxed to allow the same note to repeat
without interruption.)
4) Avoid melodies that span less than an octave.

(1) is clearly a harmonic rule, and the main one I think those
educated in tonality place too much emphasis on. There's plenty of
popular music that uses dissonant chords.

(2) is primarily a melodic rule, and a lot of people won't like it.
But then, you can get away with highly chromatic music, so simple
scales aren't everything.

We get to real problems with (3). People like repetition. Take it
away, and they'll find the melodies difficult to grasp. But this gets
missed when our hypothetical theorists talk about consonance and keys.
The twelve tone method is supposed to bring back repetition, but it
isn't in a form the overwhelming majority of listeners can grasp.

And then rule (4) is obviously melodic poison, especially when you
apply it to short motifs. It makes the tunes sound very strange to
pretty much everybody. I also don't see why you have to do this when
you avoid tonality, but it's something the atonalists did. It's
something you can get used to but it presents a surface very different
from the tonal one.

Now, I'm not more an expert on tonality than atonality, but since you
call me on it I'll explain. If we're talking about the very complex
system that arose in the late 18th century, then yes, chords are
important to that. But the average listener doesn't understand a lot
of these rules. And the average listener won't be aware of them in
the way an experienced musician in the field will. Also the concept
of "chords" is itself a fluid one. You can define them as notes being
played at the same time, but then theorists will take a naked melody
and analyze it in terms of the implied chords. Then they'll simplify
the notes that are actually being played at the same time to allow for
some notes being outside the chord. So chords become, to a large
extent, a tool for theorists to encode the rules of tonality, and
label them "harmony".

The concept of chords is one of the great inventions of European
theory. It's also a concept that doesn't arise in, or apply to,
musics from other cultures. In many cases, tunes are written in such
a way that they can easily be harmonized, and even make sense in terms
of chord progressions. This can be explained by the use of diatonic
scales and tonics and so on. But it isn't always like that. The
rules that seem to apply across cultures are: repeat notes, use small
(but not too small) melodic steps, and establish conventions that
listeners can follow. There are researchers looking at how this last
rule applies to tonality, which isn't simple, and Krumhansl summarizes
their work.

When you have chords, there is a general preference for consonance.
There's a tendency for international folk music to be harmonized in a
very sugary way. People must like it. I think it does go across
cultures. But it isn't an important part of music for many people.
I'll even say that the more important harmony is, the more tendency
there is to move away from simple consonance and towards something
more interesting. You can see this in the great 19th Century
romantics, and also in jazz.

Graham

Graham wrote;

>> 3) Avoid repetition of notes, or octave equivalents, within a
>> short time scale.
[snip]
> We get to real problems with (3). People like repetition.
> Take it away, and they'll find the melodies difficult to grasp.
> But this gets missed when our hypothetical theorists talk about
> consonance and keys.

Yes, this is what I meant by "randomness". It seems you're
saying that people dislike this feature of atonal music more
than the lack of tonality, and I tend to agree.

> I also don't see why you have to do this when you avoid
> tonality, but it's something the atonalists did.

Yes, precisely.

> The concept of chords is one of the great inventions of European
> theory. It's also a concept that doesn't arise in, or apply to,
> musics from other cultures.

Neither does tonality.

What do you make of my counterexample of a bare chord
progression with no particular melody? Wouldn't it still
be "tonal music"?

-Carl

On 30 October 2010 12:48, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Graham wrote;

>> The concept of chords is one of the great inventions of European
>> theory.  It's also a concept that doesn't arise in, or apply to,
>> musics from other cultures.
>
> Neither does tonality.

Depending on what you mean by "tonality". Sometimes, in arguments
about atonality, it becomes "what people like".

> What do you make of my counterexample of a bare chord
> progression with no particular melody?  Wouldn't it still
> be "tonal music"?

Could be, it all depends on the definitions. It will be heard
tonally. But it's entirely atypical of tonal music.

Graham

Graham wrote:

> Depending on what you mean by "tonality". Sometimes, in
> arguments about atonality, it becomes "what people like".

I think of it in terms of 'what changed' between Renaissance
polyphony and Baroque & Classical polyphony. Like, synonymous
with "functional harmony" (though I don't think the "functions"
are quite so dependent on the diatonic scale as usually implied
in the lit, and view that as a convenience / failure to
generalize owing to the monopoly status of the diatonic scale).

Oh, here's something I wrote to a friend last year:

>> Here's my piano reduction:
>> http://lumma.org/temp/ComeSirrahJack.pdf
>>
>> It's kind of right on the border between modal and tonal music.
>> It's mostly tonal, but the use of both DM and Dmin, and
>> AM and Amin here sounds a bit odd to our ears. Also the
>> downward fifths in the bass at the top is a bit weird.
>>
>> It's interesting to me whether they were doing it 'on purpose',
>> or whether they just hadn't quite figured it out yet. IOW,
>> whether they would have used a more tonal style had they known
>> about it, or whether this constituted a style of its own, and
>> the more modern way of doing things would have been heard as
>> 'wrong' to them. I tend to suspect the former. I suppose
>> a third option is that they already had the more tonal style
>> and the higher-end madrigal composers like Weelkes were doing
>> it intentionally to be clever. What do you think?

-Carl

Carl,

I don't know if such a thing exists. It seems to me that whenever you
change a chord you have a melody formed. I'm sure as you know melody
is not exclusively in the highest voice. This is something my guitar
teacher pointed out to me - that what I was playing had in fact many
melodies despite the fact the piece wasn't explicitly polyphonic. I
think all you can do is have a good or bad melody in the voices when
changing chords. If you have some physical example I've yet to run
into it this morning.

Chris

============
What do you make of my counterexample of a bare chord
progression with no particular melody? Wouldn't it still
be "tonal music"?

-Carl

Chris wrote:

>> What do you make of my counterexample of a bare chord
>> progression with no particular melody? Wouldn't it still
>> be "tonal music"?
>
> I don't know if such a thing exists. It seems to me that
> whenever you change a chord you have a melody formed.

This can be minimized by awkward voice leading, using
the same timbre with simultaneous attacks, and perhaps
even resorting to Shepard tones. Of course it is always
possible to hear one or more melodies, the question is:
Does the tonality decrease as we obscure the melody?

-Carl

This is an example of how far behind I am.

The only place I can see where a melody would be sufficiently obscured
in the context of this discussion is in the genre of "drone".
However, when you approach drone you also enhance tonality because you
approach playing a single note only for a long time.
Repetition and sustaining a note are two methods of establishing
tonality. In the case of drone all one has to do is to analyze the
simultaneous notes heard sustained and declare which is the strongest
in establishing a tonal center.

Chris

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >> What do you make of my counterexample of a bare chord
> >> progression with no particular melody? Wouldn't it still
> >> be "tonal music"?
> >
> > I don't know if such a thing exists. It seems to me that
> > whenever you change a chord you have a melody formed.
>
> This can be minimized by awkward voice leading, using
> the same timbre with simultaneous attacks, and perhaps
> even resorting to Shepard tones. Of course it is always
> possible to hear one or more melodies, the question is:
> Does the tonality decrease as we obscure the melody?
>
> -Carl
>