On May 22, 5:35 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mike A 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?
>
> That's what they would like you to believe, but it does not hold up
> under scrutiny.
Ha! that is funny. What else are "they" up to? Are "they" out to get
you as well! And SCRUTINY!! lol Lets look at the first statement
below.
> The acoustical root of G C E is C, period.
Under scrutiny, who has said that this was not true!
> But there are musical contexts and styles where the same chord may be
> used as an embellishment of a G chord.
>
> The notes G C E *are not found* in the OTS of G.
> They *are found* in the OTS of C.
Under scrutiny, this is exactly what was said in my statement. The
reason for the tension is that the notes C and E are not in the
OVERTONE SERIES of G. Under scrutiny, one can see this by simply
reading the post!
> Therefore C is experienced as the root of the chord.
With careful scrutiny, one will see that I have said that. BUT under
further SCRUTINY, one will see that the post is about the FUNDAMENTAL
of G as causing the dissonance and not that the ROOT of C is causing
the dissonance. Under even more scrutiny one will see that this all
has nothing to do with the question.
> Without this effect there would be no talk of inversions at all in music
> theory. C E G, E G C and G C E would always be seen as 3 separate
> chords. Obviously then, since so many musicians treat them as the same
> chord there must be some reason for this.
Scrutiny will show that in this post, Joey has not mentioned any
"effect" to be referenced here!
>
> The problem is that so few music texts bring the OTS into it at all when
> defining what a "root" actually is. Most definitions of "root" are wishy
> washy hogwash. Don't buy into it.
Scrutiny will also show that this statement points out Joey's basic
misunderstanding of what has been said. The first statement is true in
that few (or NONE!) of the music texts bring the OTS into the
definition of ROOT because the FUNDAMENTAL and the ROOT are NOT THE
SAME THING! They are the same only in some cases! The OTS should not
be in a definition of root any more than the the price of tea in China
should be included. They are simply not the same thing!
The second statement! The definitions of root may seem to be hogwash
to Joey, but I have no real problem understanding them. Do you? You
arrange the tones in a tertian manner and the root is the lowest one.
That pretty much covers it. There are special cases where this may be
ambiguous and these are addressed in more detailed situations, but
this ROOT is pretty simple. The Harmonic Series is an entirely
different concept. It is a fact of physics that has been around since
there has been elements vibrating in air (to use general terms). It
has been around since before music, before man, before animal life. It
is a force of nature.
As such, it is a force that has affected music from the beginning of
time. Why isn't it addressed in theory texts very much in this
context? Because in everyday use, it doesn't matter WHY the Cadential
6/4 chord works the way it does. It only matters that it IS used that
way and we are interested in HOW to use it, NOT WHY it works that way.
And there is historical precedent that tells us a lot more about WHY
the interval of the 4th is dissonant. The earlier music, "the
contrapuntal period, considered it as dissonant" and that is enough
reason to satisfy most people. In order to write CPP music, it is not
necessary to know WHY the 6/4 chord is what it is, it is only
necessary to know HOW to use it.
The question, however, was what are the physical acoustical reasons
that this is the case. And this was a good question. I gave one
explanation. I stated that there are others. Joey has demonstrated
that he doesn't understand what I have said and is rambling on and on
about ROOTS and doesn't have a clue as to what my post has said. He is
so confused that he states "Don't buy into it." I have no idea what
he is talking about. He argues the definition of root and ignores the
Harmonic series of the lowest note. What does "Don't buy into it."
refer to? I don't know.
I presented an accurate accounting of why the 6/4 chord is dissonant.
It involves the conflict of two factors that are present in this
chord. Believe it or Not!
LJS
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
