On May 22, 5:29 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Danny Schorr wrote:
> > 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
>
> That's totally dependent on how low the lowest note of the chord voicing
> is and what type of spacing there is between the lowest note and the
> notes directly above it.
>
> Any chord tone, if played low enough will sway the ear that it is the
> root of the chord. This is because low notes have more audible partials
> than higher notes have and also because the upper notes of the chord
> voicing can often be experienced as partials above the 13th partial.
>
> But with chords voiced in the midrange it is the OTS implied by the
> entire structure that dominates the feeling of root.
>
> So with
> G4 C5 E5, the root will be felt unequivocally to be C, not G.
>
> But with
> G1 C4 E4 the root might well be felt to be G with two upper partials
> sounding from the upper ranges of the OTS of G.
Joey, Joey, Joey,
Re read the part about the difference of the Root and the Fundamental
of the structure. You seem to be confusing these here. You are
answering as if I contradicted what you are saying here. You have
mixed up the terms. I had never said that the G was the ROOT of the
structure in either case and what you are describing in your BUT WITH
is not the ROOT, but is the FUNDAMENTAL.
>
> Also, if an interval formed by low notes notes has an acoustical root
> that is below the audible threshold, say 15 hz, then the ear will not
> hear the fundamental of that interval as being the root of the interval,
> and may well latch onto the lowest note of the interval as being its
> root even though it really isn't.
I am sorry if you can not perceive either the difference between the
ROOT and the FUNDAMENTAL. Maybe you can actually hear the difference
but your intellect won't let your ear guide you to understanding. In
the human intellect, even if the tone would be below the range of the
the ear's receptors, most people's brain would still allow the tones
to be perceived even though they may not be audible to the ear. (Not
to mention that Octave Transposition would rectify any problems of
this nature) Even though the EAR has limitations, we still perceive
vibrations and tones that are outside of our normal hearing. Some of
us are in tune with this more than others.
BUT you are still confused on a more basic level as evidenced by the
fact that you are still thinking ACOUSTICAL ROOT which is not the bone
of contention. EVERYONE can rearrange the thirds and determine the
root of the chord. If you actually read my post carefully you would
see that this is not in disagreement even with your perceptions! ROOT
and FUNDAMENTAL are two different things! They are the same only if
the chord is in ROOT position!
>
> And all this stuff is affected by the timbral character of the
> instrument(s) playing the intervals or chords in question.
> Also 12tet tuning diminishes the feeling of acoustical root because the
> ratios involved in 12tet intervals are actually quite complex rather
> than simple intervals like 3:2. Still, we seem to experience 12tet
> intervals, and composers have been able to successfully use them, pretty
> much like their pure overtone-series-based cousins.
No, Joey, they are not! The timbre is not a factor in this context at
all. And your statement concerning the 12-TET tuning and Pythagoras's
ratios are not a factor in this context either. If you look up the
dates, you will find that the OTS was around a bit before Pythagoras.
(Maybe they guided him to discover his ratios which are very low in
the OTS ?!?!) And then you go on and point out how their difference is
NOT a factor as composers have successfully used them
interchangeably!!
>
> So roots are actually something that is felt to be, and often can not be
> deduced by looking at a specific overtone series or an intervallic
> formula or not. Some chords have a pronounced root feeling. Many do not,
> or have at best an ambiguous feeling of root. Some chords have a feeling
> of the same root in any inversion. Some chords feel as if a different
> note is the root when the original chord is inverted. And there *are*
> reasons for this. The phenomenon of root feeling is most definitely
> intimately tied up with the OTS and not necessarily the OTS of the
> lowest note of the interval, or chord, in question.
You still are not addressing the statement, but rather are making up
things to disagree with adding unrelated (and dubious) information. I
think we all can generally determine the ROOT. Some of the factoids in
that paragraph are certainly correct. In general, the ones that you
state that ARE correct are all ideas that sup****t my post! And they
refute your past posts where you disagreed with the influence of the
OTS!
I used to feel special because you misunderstood most of what I say. I
now see more clearly that you also misunderstand what YOU say as well.
Please, Joey, READ THE POSTS before you answer!
LJS
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Missed the boat again Joey.
|
