On May 22, 4:56 pm, "Mike A" <MikeA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:r0pb3495qfh7b9pb2feabensg4hmmno1ka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT), LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > >I know that this thread is hard to read and keep your sanity, but
this
> > >has been addressed before in this thread. Due to many reasons, not
the
> > >least of which are the conventions of functional harmony and the
> > >practices of the older contrapuntal style, and possibly the fact that
> > >the structure of this chord taken by itself suggests that the virtual
> > >Fundamental of the chord is the bass or lowest note and the 4th above
> > >it wants to resolve down to the 3rd to put things in harmony with the
> > >Harmonic Series. This is true for the 6th as well. In the case of the
> > >more stable root position chord, this resolution is not necessary as
> > >the tones are already in order with the fundamental of its lowest
> > >note.
>
> > >This is difficult for some to understand because of the fact that
they
> > >both occur in the harmonic series. The difference is the way the ear
> > >perceives the relation****p of these three tones. In the 6/4 chord,
the
> > >ear can easily perceive the virtual root as C in a G C E structure.
We
> > >automatically arrange the tones to a tertian form because of our
> > >training and the conventions of CPP music. BUT, and it is a big BUT,
> > >the ear does not rearrange the tones in the same manner when dealing
> > >with the harmonic series. In this case, the ear goes to the lowest
> > >note and assumes that this is the bass note. In the case of the root
> > >position chord, this does not create a problem. The root and the
> > >fundamental is heard as the same thing and our ear aligns it by
> > >assuming that there is a fundamental two octaves below the C root and
> > >then the harmonic series is in harmony.
>
> > >In the 2nd inversion or the 6/4 chord, this is not the case and here
> > >is where many become confused when trying to talk about what our ear
> > >does naturally. The lowest note in the C maj in 2nd inversion is NOT
> > >the root, but instead is the 5th of the chord. In order to align this
> > >structure with the HARNONIC SERIES, our ear assumes that the lowest
> > >note is the 4th partial of the Harmonic series as it is the easiest
> > >place for these notes to fit into the series. Thus the C major chord
> > >is not in sync with the Harmonic Series. With the G as the
> > >fundamental, the very strong presence of the 4th above it must
resolve
> > >to the B and the E will typically resolve to the D. This is a very
> > >strong tendency as this all occurs in the relatively lower parts of
> > >the HS. It is ALMOST what Joey was trying to say, but it has nothing
> > >to do with the order of the partials (the C is WAY up in the G
> > >Harmonic series and so is the E unless you think that the 7th partial
> > >is a sharp E instead of a flat F, but that is another discussion!)
>
> > >The best way to understand this is that the LOWEST note of the tones
> > >played is the strongest as it relates to the Harmonic Series and thus
> > >will become the FUNDAMENTAL that will affect that structure from
this
> > >perspective. If the lowest note is also the root, there is not the
> > >tension that is there when it is not.
>
> > >One may ask then, "What about the 1st inversion chord? How does this
> > >fit in?" Well, this is more difficult to explain. Here we would have
> > >the E as the fundamental and none of the tones appear in the lower
> > >parts of the HS except for the E! (This might be one of the reasons
> > >that hardly anyone talks about this chord in this context! ;-) It is
> > >however, related to the minor triad in that it has a minor third
built
> > >into the structure and then there is a 4th above this note. Some may
> > >hear that this C note has a tendency to want to rest by moving to the
> > >B below it and thus becoming a minor triad. I don't know if this is
> > >the reason, but it can be heard in this manner and one can see how
> > >this 1st inversion chord is related to E min. And herein lies the
> > >problem with trying to explain how this inversion fits into this
> > >discussion. In order to look at how the ear hears this inversion in
> > >this context one has to open another discussion and first decide on
> > >how the minor chord relates to the HS and I am not ready to take the
> > >time to try to explain that at the present.
>
> > >I will, however, point out that the 1st inversion voicing is not
> > >generally used as a functional structure in the same manner as a Root
> > >position chord or a 6/4 chord. A very large amount of usage of the
1st
> > >inversion chord is as a result of a passing tone in the bass and it
> > >not functionally significant. It also occurs when the bass line
> > >arpeggios up or down the chord or if there is a change of open or
> > >closed voicing. Again not functionally significant. It is also used
in
> > >some cases, especially in the later stages of functional harmony as
an
> > >ending to a phrase or section as a tonic chord, but in this case it
is
> > >also referred to as a 'feminine ending' thus suggesting that it is
> > >something other than the normal function of the Tonic chord. Thus,
the
> > >1st inversion chord is not used in the same manner that the root
> > >position and the 6/4 position of the chords HAVE been used and
> > >perceived by the ears of the composers for many centuries of music
> > >history.
>
> > >NOW, I do not aver that this is the ONLY reason that can account for
> > >the use of these chords. But it will certainly explain a lot of
> > >things. The most im****tant function in harmony is the Dominant and
the
> > >Tonic. It seems that this is why the particular relation****p of the
> > >root and 2nd inversion are the ones that the composers living more
> > >closely to the more simple structures of music and harmony chose to
> > >center on these three very strong factors involving these chords.
i.e.
> > >the TONIC, the DOMINANT, and the CADENTIAL 6/4 chord (which is a
> > >mixture of the two)
>
> > >I hope that this sheds some light on your inquiry.
>
> > Read this carefully, Mike, for this IS the answer to your question.
>
> > Schoenberg and Hindemith both characterized what LJS is saying here as
the
> > struggle for dominance between the lowest tone (and thus, it's
overtone
> > series) and the triad arrived at through spelling.
>
> > Danny
>
> In other words, if I'm understanding this correctly:
>
> The mind's ear is torn between the perceived "C-ness" of the
> second-inversion major triad on the one hand (which is a learned,
culturally
> derived, perception), and the triad's perceived "G-ness" on the other
hand
> (which derives from psycho-acoustics). Morever, within the perceived
> "G-ness" of the chord, there is a perceived need for resolution (4 > 3),
> further increasing the felt sense of tension in the triad.
>
> Is that right?
Pretty much. I would only say that I am not sure about the "learned
culturally derived perception". This may or may not be learned. I
think that is a subject for speculation. I can see a connection with
the Overtone Series that would indicate that this is not learned
culturally, but may actually be innate as well. But like I said, this
minor distinction is really not that im****tant for this relation****p.
So yes. you seem to have the idea now. The "perceived need for
resolution" would lead to the use of the tonic chord to be used in
this inversion for what became known as the Cadential 6/4 chord as
well as for the primary and more basic need for the earlier
contrapuntal practice to require that the 4th resolves to the 3rd
melodically in their works.
LJS
|
