About classication of chord progressions

[Vilen]

RecentlyI took attention on the classication of chord progressions in
the internet-book of T.Sutcliffe (http://www.harmony.org.uk/ ):
"Dynamic harmony in tonal music is made up almost exclusively of three
of the six possible types of root progression. These will be referred
to as the three strong chord progressions and will be labeled: alpha,
beta and gamma (α, β and γ) progressions, as follows:
α - root progression by rising 4th (or falling 5th)
( e.g. V - I, I - IV etc.)
β - root progression by falling 3rd (or rising 6th)
( e.g. I - VI, VI - IV etc. )
γ - root progression by rising 2nd (or falling 7th)
(e.g. I - II, IV - V etc. )
The reversals of these progressions: α', β' and γ' are weak and are
generally (but not completely) avoided in dynamic harmony in common
practice tonal music. "
The author means under the dynamic harmony the harmony in main part
of music work exclusive its initial one.
Here is striking asymmetry of rising and falling intervals mentioned
in the quotation above .
It seems to me that I found some explanation. It is based on
suppositions that function of chords consist in creating of beautiful
sound and preparation of next melody notes. The preparation consists
in creating of harmonics which pitches coincide with harmonics of next
notes. These coincidences determine ties between sounds in different
time intervals and thus the smoothness of music. Then it is necessary
to take in attention that traces of previous harmonics fade to time
when new ones rise. Therefore is important in order of stronger ties
that harmonics from previous moment were initial possibly strong. For
example by transfer V-I (melody G4-C4) second harmonic of G4 coincide
with third harmonic of C4. The situation would be inversed by transfer
I-V. As second harmonic is in majority cases stronger as third then
ties in case of V-I are stronger and accordingly this progression may
be considered as more strong.
The case of progression VI-I don't conforms with this expanation and
by considering of real examples I found that in these cases melody
notes priory belong to tonic chord. The progression I- VI-IV consist
from seventh chords (for example in C-major scale): C-E-G-B, A-C-E-G,
F-A-C-E. Here is apparent central position of tonic C in this
progression and priority using notes of I chord in it . So the
progression I- VI-IV is harmonization variant of melody composed from
notes of tonic chord ( at least in some cases).
By the way, it is pertinent to recall the Mozart's saying: "Melody is
the very essence of music.When I think of a good melodist I think of a
fine race horse. A contrapuntist is only a post-horse."

Yuri Vilenkin

[Alain Naigeon]

"Vilen" <***@online.de> a ecrit dans le message de news:
5ea6070b-28b2-4cdb-9308-***@d14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

RecentlyI took attention on the classication of chord progressions in
the internet-book of T.Sutcliffe (http://www.harmony.org.uk/ ):
"Dynamic harmony in tonal music is made up almost exclusively of three
of the six possible types of root progression. These will be referred
to as the three strong chord progressions and will be labeled: alpha,
beta and gamma (á, â and ã) progressions, as follows:
á - root progression by rising 4th (or falling 5th)
( e.g. V - I, I - IV etc.)
â - root progression by falling 3rd (or rising 6th)
( e.g. I - VI, VI - IV etc. )
ã - root progression by rising 2nd (or falling 7th)
(e.g. I - II, IV - V etc. )
The reversals of these progressions: á', â' and ã' are weak and are
generally (but not completely) avoided in dynamic harmony in common
practice tonal music. "

I'm quite sure there are chaconne (bass) motives which are made of
descending seconds, something like I-VIIb-VIb-V.
The author could argue that it is still a descending fourth, however this
is neglecting the fact that, in this bass, every note is an harmonic one.
--
Francais *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - ***@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon




---
Antivirus avast! : message Sortant sain.
Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 110701-2, 01/07/2011
Analyse le : 02/07/2011 00:27:40
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Alain Naigeon]

Post by Alain Naigeon
I'm quite sure there are chaconne (bass) motives which are made of
descending seconds, something like I-VIIb-VIb-V.
The author could argue that it is still a descending fourth, however this
is neglecting the fact that, in this bass, every note is an harmonic one.

I shoud have added that these basses can be found in periods of time
already involved in the tonal framework.
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - ***@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon





---
Antivirus avast! : message Sortant sain.
Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 110701-2, 01/07/2011
Analyse le : 02/07/2011 00:43:30
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

[LJS]

Post by Vilen
RecentlyI took attention on the classication of chord progressions in
"Dynamic harmony in tonal music is made up almost exclusively of three
of the six possible types of root progression. These will be referred
to as the three strong chord progressions and will be labeled: alpha,
á - root progression by rising 4th (or falling 5th)
( e.g. V - I, I - IV etc.)
â - root progression by falling 3rd (or rising 6th)
( e.g. I - VI, VI - IV etc. )
ã - root progression by rising 2nd (or falling 7th)
(e.g. I - II, IV - V etc. )
The reversals of these progressions: á', â' and ã' are weak and are
generally (but not completely) avoided in dynamic harmony in common
practice tonal music. "

I am glad that you are looking for a theory book, but I would suggest
that you keep looking. There are many to choose from. If this were a
test to evaluate the learning of theory, it would score very high on
organization and presentation for a young college student. In theory,
there would be more work needed before the student could progress
beyond the first year (of a two year study) of functional harmony and
related melody and the elements present in the Common Practice Period,
and the ability to discuss the music on an advanced music appreciation
level would be high, but as a theorist, it would fall drastically
short.

Post by Vilen
The author means under the dynamic harmony  the harmony in main part
of music work exclusive its initial one.
Here is striking  asymmetry of rising and falling intervals mentioned
in the quotation above .
It seems to me that I found some explanation. It is based on
suppositions that  function of chords consist in creating of beautiful
sound and preparation of next melody notes. The preparation consists
in creating of harmonics which pitches coincide with harmonics of next
notes. These coincidences determine ties between sounds in different
time intervals and thus the smoothness of music. Then it is necessary
to take in attention that traces of previous harmonics fade to time
when new ones rise. Therefore is important in order of stronger ties
that harmonics from previous moment were initial  possibly strong. For
example by transfer V-I (melody G4-C4) second harmonic of G4 coincide
with third harmonic of C4. The situation would be inversed by transfer
I-V. As  second harmonic is in majority cases stronger as third then
ties in case of V-I  are stronger and accordingly this progression may
be considered as more strong.
The case of progression VI-I don't conforms  with this expanation  and
by considering of real examples  I found that in these cases melody
notes priory belong to tonic chord. The progression I- VI-IV consist
from seventh chords (for example in C-major scale): C-E-G-B, A-C-E-G,
F-A-C-E. Here is apparent central position of tonic C in this
progression and  priority using notes of I chord in it . So the
progression I- VI-IV is  harmonization variant of melody composed from
notes of tonic chord ( at least in some cases).

All of this is really a partial understanding of very elementary
elements of music theory. Concepts are mentioned, but do you really
understand what you are saying and how it applies to music in any kind
of concrete manner? If you do, please give an example. All you have
done is describe the primary chords and notice that they come from the
scale of the key and that the harmony is made up of notes from this
scale in stacks of thirds and that for some reason (not explained) you
isolate them into a Cmaj7, Am7 and Fmaj7 chord as an example to form a
I-vi-IV progression. Well, of course if you move the root in thirds
with 4 note chords, there will be three common tones but what is your
point!

You and T. Sutcliff, are "describing" the music and not "analyzing" it
in any significant manner. Critics describe music theory, theorists
actually analyze it.

Other than learning the importance of the observations of elementary
theory, the book falls short. The organization is a start, but there
needs to be more than the overall descriptions of the music. His
theory could be the start of an analysis as it does describe some of
the elements of music, but not enough for a through analysis and I
don't see anyplace that he analyzes his data, he only describes it.

Post by Vilen
By the way, it is pertinent to recall the Mozart's saying:  "Melody is
the very essence of music.When I think of a good melodist I think of a
fine race horse. A contrapuntist is only a post-horse."
Yuri Vilenkin

This is of course only music appreciation. Mozart is not known for his
contrapuntal achievements. In addition to his genius, he was a very
commercial writer and contrapuntalism was not selling so well in his
time. He also considered himself somewhat of a wit and I am sure that
this was only to dispel his lack of contrapuntal writings when asked.
He was, of course very capable of writing counterpoint, he just didn't
do it as a basic style.

In the Schumann "analysis", see if you can do a better job on the
notation and then what is happening in mes. 11-12. As it stands, there
is room for improvement on discussing those measures. You should be
able to tell what I am asking about if you understand the basics of
musical analysis. And I am not talking about the nomenclature. I know
he is mislabeling the F# A C E chord as a diminished 7th chord. That
is not the problem I am talking about. We all know it is a half
diminished chord and the function of the two can be quite different.
(he later refers to it as diminished in his analysis/description but
does not bother to clear that up! (that is strange, but I hope it is
just a typo or omission error and not a matter of knowledge)

He describes these measures the same as the previous ones and I think
that you should be able to do better than that. If you want to learn,
you should take this as an assignment. It will bring up a lot of
things that is missing in Sutcliff's concept of theory.

LJS

[Vilen]

Post by LJS

Post by Vilen
RecentlyI took attention on the classication of chord progressions in
"Dynamic harmony in tonal music is made up almost exclusively of three
of the six possible types of root progression. These will be referred
to as the three strong chord progressions and will be labeled: alpha,
á - root progression by rising 4th (or falling 5th)
( e.g. V - I, I - IV etc.)
â - root progression by falling 3rd (or rising 6th)
( e.g. I - VI, VI - IV etc. )
ã - root progression by rising 2nd (or falling 7th)
(e.g. I - II, IV - V etc. )
The reversals of these progressions: á', â' and ã' are weak and are
generally (but not completely) avoided in dynamic harmony in common
practice tonal music. "

I am glad that you are looking for a theory book, but I would suggest
that you keep looking. There are many to choose from. If this were a
test to evaluate the learning of theory, it would score very high on
organization and presentation for a young college student. In theory,
there would be more work needed before the student could progress
beyond the first year (of a two year study) of functional harmony and
related melody and the elements present in the Common Practice Period,
and the ability to discuss the music on an advanced music appreciation
level would be high, but as a theorist, it would fall drastically
short.

Post by Vilen
The author means under the dynamic harmony  the harmony in main part
of music work exclusive its initial one.
Here is striking  asymmetry of rising and falling intervals mentioned
in the quotation above .
It seems to me that I found some explanation. It is based on
suppositions that  function of chords consist in creating of beautiful
sound and preparation of next melody notes. The preparation consists
in creating of harmonics which pitches coincide with harmonics of next
notes. These coincidences determine ties between sounds in different
time intervals and thus the smoothness of music. Then it is necessary
to take in attention that traces of previous harmonics fade to time
when new ones rise. Therefore is important in order of stronger ties
that harmonics from previous moment were initial  possibly strong. For
example by transfer V-I (melody G4-C4) second harmonic of G4 coincide
with third harmonic of C4. The situation would be inversed by transfer
I-V. As  second harmonic is in majority cases stronger as third then
ties in case of V-I  are stronger and accordingly this progression may
be considered as more strong.
The case of progression VI-I don't conforms  with this expanation  and
by considering of real examples  I found that in these cases melody
notes priory belong to tonic chord. The progression I- VI-IV consist
from seventh chords (for example in C-major scale): C-E-G-B, A-C-E-G,
F-A-C-E. Here is apparent central position of tonic C in this
progression and  priority using notes of I chord in it . So the
progression I- VI-IV is  harmonization variant of melody composed from
notes of tonic chord ( at least in some cases).

All of this is really a partial understanding of very elementary
elements of music theory. Concepts are mentioned, but do you really
understand what you are saying and how it applies to music in any kind
of concrete manner? If you do, please give an example. All you have
done is describe the primary chords and notice that they come from the
scale of the key and that the harmony is made up of notes from this
scale in stacks of thirds and that for some reason (not explained) you
isolate them into a Cmaj7, Am7 and Fmaj7 chord as an example to form a
I-vi-IV progression. Well, of course if you move the root in thirds
with 4 note chords, there will be three common tones but what is your
point!
You and T. Sutcliff, are "describing" the music and not "analyzing" it
in any significant manner. Critics describe music theory, theorists
actually analyze it.
Other than learning the importance of the observations of elementary
theory, the book falls short. The organization is a start, but there
needs to be more than the overall descriptions of the music. His
theory could be the start of an analysis as it does describe some of
the elements of music, but not enough for a through analysis and I
don't see anyplace that he analyzes his data, he only describes it.

Post by Vilen
By the way, it is pertinent to recall the Mozart's saying:  "Melody is
the very essence of music.When I think of a good melodist I think of a
fine race horse. A contrapuntist is only a post-horse."
Yuri Vilenkin

This is of course only music appreciation. Mozart is not known for his
contrapuntal achievements. In addition to his genius, he was a very
commercial writer and contrapuntalism was not selling so well in his
time. He also considered himself somewhat of a wit and I am sure that
this was only to dispel his lack of contrapuntal writings when asked.
He was, of course very capable of writing counterpoint, he just didn't
do it as a basic style.
In the Schumann "analysis", see if you can do a better job on the
notation and then what is happening in mes. 11-12. As it stands, there
is room for improvement on discussing those measures. You should be
able to tell what I am asking about if you understand the basics of
musical analysis. And I am not talking about the nomenclature. I know
he is mislabeling the F# A C E chord as a diminished 7th chord. That
is not the problem I am talking about. We all know it is a half
diminished chord and the function of the two can be quite different.
(he later refers to it as diminished in his analysis/description but
does not bother to clear that up! (that is strange, but I hope it is
just a typo or omission error and not a matter of knowledge)
He describes these measures the same as the previous ones and I think
that you should be able to do better than that. If you want to learn,
you should take this as an assignment. It will bring up a lot of
things that is missing in Sutcliff's concept of theory.
LJS- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Dear LJS , there are many rather clever men who doubts in existing
music theories. Whom must someone belive? H.Riemann ,who heard
undertones, which he needs for his function theory (as well his
predecessor Rameau for fundamental bass) , and who considered
notes as representatives of triads. He is author of modern music
theory according majority of textbooks (all in Germany). H.Schenker,
who considered Riemann's theory as rubbish and who is popular in USA
and almost unknown in German music science. There is theory of
P.Westergaard, who made atempt of " elimination of "harmony" as a
conceptually independent element of musical structure".
I don't think that that T.Suucliffe internet-books means essential
progress but it may content interesting observations ( by
classification of progressions).
Before function theory was developed theory of stufen(steps, degrees).
To my regret I didn't find in English the Wikipedia article "Stufen
theorie" (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stufentheorie_(Harmonik)).But
important that it contents notes from Mozart's " Magic Flute" with
indication of chords and functions and contents the funny,
shisophrenic conclusion that theory of stufen and function theory
together can expain all work's parts. The work is written nominally in
Bb-major key. Here is melody notes from this segment as I have written
them down: F-C-D-A-Bb-Bb-C-D-Eb-Bb-F-D-Eb-C-D-Eb-D-Eb-G-G-G-Eb-D-C-C-
Bb-D-Bb. Here is remarcable only one case of using note A and it is
possible to consider these notes as belonging to C minor with one
exeption A instead A flat. Besides:
- the melody begins from long notes G and C,which are massive
presented in the further melody notes too;
-in last 2 bars is apparent passage melody notes from long notes G
to long notes C. Thus the supposition rises that the melody is
written in C minor.
In this connection the quation from Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/C_minor) :
"In the Baroque period, music in C minor was usually written with a
two-flat key signature, and some modern editions of that repertoire
retain that convention."
The note A is massive presented in non melody notes and they may be
considered as belonging to Bb tonality. By the way, this notion didn't
exist in Mozart's time.

Yuri Vilenkin

[LJS]

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS

Post by Vilen
RecentlyI took attention on the classication of chord progressions in
"Dynamic harmony in tonal music is made up almost exclusively of three
of the six possible types of root progression. These will be referred
to as the three strong chord progressions and will be labeled: alpha,
á - root progression by rising 4th (or falling 5th)
( e.g. V - I, I - IV etc.)
â - root progression by falling 3rd (or rising 6th)
( e.g. I - VI, VI - IV etc. )
ã - root progression by rising 2nd (or falling 7th)
(e.g. I - II, IV - V etc. )
The reversals of these progressions: á', â' and ã' are weak and are
generally (but not completely) avoided in dynamic harmony in common
practice tonal music. "

I am glad that you are looking for a theory book, but I would suggest
that you keep looking. There are many to choose from. If this were a
test to evaluate the learning of theory, it would score very high on
organization and presentation for a young college student. In theory,
there would be more work needed before the student could progress
beyond the first year (of a two year study) of functional harmony and
related melody and the elements present in the Common Practice Period,
and the ability to discuss the music on an advanced music appreciation
level would be high, but as a theorist, it would fall drastically
short.

Post by Vilen
The author means under the dynamic harmony  the harmony in main part
of music work exclusive its initial one.
Here is striking  asymmetry of rising and falling intervals mentioned
in the quotation above .
It seems to me that I found some explanation. It is based on
suppositions that  function of chords consist in creating of beautiful
sound and preparation of next melody notes. The preparation consists
in creating of harmonics which pitches coincide with harmonics of next
notes. These coincidences determine ties between sounds in different
time intervals and thus the smoothness of music. Then it is necessary
to take in attention that traces of previous harmonics fade to time
when new ones rise. Therefore is important in order of stronger ties
that harmonics from previous moment were initial  possibly strong. For
example by transfer V-I (melody G4-C4) second harmonic of G4 coincide
with third harmonic of C4. The situation would be inversed by transfer
I-V. As  second harmonic is in majority cases stronger as third then
ties in case of V-I  are stronger and accordingly this progression may
be considered as more strong.
The case of progression VI-I don't conforms  with this expanation  and
by considering of real examples  I found that in these cases melody
notes priory belong to tonic chord. The progression I- VI-IV consist
from seventh chords (for example in C-major scale): C-E-G-B, A-C-E-G,
F-A-C-E. Here is apparent central position of tonic C in this
progression and  priority using notes of I chord in it . So the
progression I- VI-IV is  harmonization variant of melody composed from
notes of tonic chord ( at least in some cases).

All of this is really a partial understanding of very elementary
elements of music theory. Concepts are mentioned, but do you really
understand what you are saying and how it applies to music in any kind
of concrete manner? If you do, please give an example. All you have
done is describe the primary chords and notice that they come from the
scale of the key and that the harmony is made up of notes from this
scale in stacks of thirds and that for some reason (not explained) you
isolate them into a Cmaj7, Am7 and Fmaj7 chord as an example to form a
I-vi-IV progression. Well, of course if you move the root in thirds
with 4 note chords, there will be three common tones but what is your
point!
You and T. Sutcliff, are "describing" the music and not "analyzing" it
in any significant manner. Critics describe music theory, theorists
actually analyze it.
Other than learning the importance of the observations of elementary
theory, the book falls short. The organization is a start, but there
needs to be more than the overall descriptions of the music. His
theory could be the start of an analysis as it does describe some of
the elements of music, but not enough for a through analysis and I
don't see anyplace that he analyzes his data, he only describes it.

Post by Vilen
By the way, it is pertinent to recall the Mozart's saying:  "Melody is
the very essence of music.When I think of a good melodist I think of a
fine race horse. A contrapuntist is only a post-horse."
Yuri Vilenkin

This is of course only music appreciation. Mozart is not known for his
contrapuntal achievements. In addition to his genius, he was a very
commercial writer and contrapuntalism was not selling so well in his
time. He also considered himself somewhat of a wit and I am sure that
this was only to dispel his lack of contrapuntal writings when asked.
He was, of course very capable of writing counterpoint, he just didn't
do it as a basic style.
In the Schumann "analysis", see if you can do a better job on the
notation and then what is happening in mes. 11-12. As it stands, there
is room for improvement on discussing those measures. You should be
able to tell what I am asking about if you understand the basics of
musical analysis. And I am not talking about the nomenclature. I know
he is mislabeling the F# A C E chord as a diminished 7th chord. That
is not the problem I am talking about. We all know it is a half
diminished chord and the function of the two can be quite different.
(he later refers to it as diminished in his analysis/description but
does not bother to clear that up! (that is strange, but I hope it is
just a typo or omission error and not a matter of knowledge)
He describes these measures the same as the previous ones and I think
that you should be able to do better than that. If you want to learn,
you should take this as an assignment. It will bring up a lot of
things that is missing in Sutcliff's concept of theory.
LJS- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Dear LJS , there are many rather clever men who doubts in existing
music theories. Whom must  someone  belive? H.Riemann ,who heard
undertones, which he needs for his  function theory (as well his
predecessor Rameau for fundamental bass) , and  who considered
notes  as  representatives of triads. He is author of modern music
theory according majority of  textbooks (all in Germany). H.Schenker,
who considered  Riemann's theory as rubbish and  who is popular in USA
and almost  unknown in German music science. There is theory of
P.Westergaard, who made atempt of " elimination of "harmony" as a
conceptually independent element of musical structure".
I don't think that that T.Suucliffe internet-books means essential
progress but it may content interesting observations ( by
classification of  progressions).

Yes, it poses interesting questions to the beginner. The point I made
is that this is really nothing new, nothing extraordinary, nothing of
particular value, just a very incomplete way of looking at music and
not done very well. In short, it really has nothing to say that has
not been said many times before in much more clear and pragmatic
ways.

Post by Vilen
Before function theory was developed theory of stufen(steps, degrees).
To my regret  I didn't find in English the Wikipedia article "Stufen
theorie" (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stufentheorie_(Harmonik)).But
important that it contents notes from Mozart's " Magic Flute" with
indication of chords and functions and contents the funny,
shisophrenic conclusion that theory of stufen  and function theory
together can expain all work's parts.

Give an example please! Explain what you are saying. It sounds as if
you are talking about something you read. Give us the second level of
understanding by explaining what you are trying to say in your own
words. Then you will be at the high school level of understanding of
theory. Then get into the analysis and the application of what you are
talking about and you will be entering college as a freshman. I am not
saying that there is bad information you your book of choice as well
as other theorists that have made a specialty out of some of the
exceptions. I am only saying that what you are saying so far, is just
not that deep or earth shattering! Its really just some basic stuff
one knows after doing a few real analysis of theory.



The work is written nominally in

Post by Vilen
Bb-major key. Here is melody notes from this segment as I have written
them down: F-C-D-A-Bb-Bb-C-D-Eb-Bb-F-D-Eb-C-D-Eb-D-Eb-G-G-G-Eb-D-C-C-
Bb-D-Bb. Here is remarcable only one case of using note A and it is
possible to consider these notes as belonging to C minor with one
-  the melody begins from long notes G and C,which are massive
presented in the further melody notes too;
-in last 2 bars is apparent passage melody notes from  long notes G
to  long  notes C. Thus  the supposition rises that the melody is
written in C minor.
In this connection the quation from Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/
"In the Baroque period, music in C minor was usually written with a
two-flat key signature, and some modern editions of that repertoire
retain that convention."
The note A is massive presented in non melody notes and  they may be
considered as belonging to Bb tonality. By the way, this notion didn't
exist in Mozart's time.
Yuri Vilenkin

I don't know what you are tying to say here but you are not really
saying anything. It looks like an incoherent bunch of copy and pastes
that might be describing something in a very unclear manner.

All this simply to say that you could not come up with an analysis of
the two measures that I asked you do comment on?

You instead decide to change the subject with some more diversion
rather than to put those two measures into and analysis in YOUR OWN
WORDS! Its not a difficult assignment. Analyze those two measures. In
case you forgot, mes. 11 and 12 in the Schumann "analysis", see if you
can do a better job on the explanation of what is happening in these
two measures. Sutcliff didn't do so well on these measures. What are
your thoughts? This is pretty basic stuff so lets see how you analyze
these two measures. What can you say about them? Or will you come up
with another diversion or some other excuse for bugging out of this
assignment? It really should take less time than to look up diversion
in Wiki. Just show us what you have learned and then we can know the
language that you will understand when we try to tell you something.

LJS

[Vilen]

On 8 Jul., 05:59, LJS <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear LJS,
You preach always. Your demands to me haven't sense in the context of
my previous post. If You categorically diagnose and give instructions
You must posses corresponding authority. Who are You? I don't know.

Yuri

[LJS]

Post by Vilen
Dear LJS,
You preach always. Your demands to me haven't  sense in the context of
my previous post. If  You categorically diagnose and give instructions
You must posses corresponding authority. Who are You?  I don't know.
 Yuri

I am the one that is calling you on your posts about theory. So far,
elementary 1st year stuff presented as "new and improved" theory! Cut
and paste, theory by Wiki, music appreciation statements taken out of
context to "prove" your revelations! This is what we have seen so
far.

I ask you to analyze two simple measures and you can not. Now you are
using faulty logic and another diversion to avoid showing that you
have any understanding of anything other than cutting and pasting
quotes that "sort of" apply to this and "almost" apply to that. BUT,
when it comes to using anything that you are trying to "teach" us poor
mortals, you "bug out"!

I am not preaching, I am putting your "observations" into context.
Only someone that doesn't understand things in general would call this
preaching. For one thing, I would have to be trying to tell you what
you should do or believe. We all gave up on that a long time ago as
you ignored all that anyone that knows anything left posting to this
group tried to tell you something.

So you are the one doing the preaching. I (we) just call you on your
statements from time to time to keep anyone listening from accepting
what you are saying at face value. You have not earned that status as
yet. You need to show some evidence of your "conclusions" being of
value in order to earn that respect. You can start by analyzing those
two measures, which, by the way, is still the subject that you are
avoiding. I think you have your chronology mixed up as this post
should have come before your diversionary tactic of your last post.

Until you show something besides "copy and paste" sound bites, you
don't have any credibility. You are a "legend in your own mind" until
you get off your own self proclaimed pedistal and defend what you say.
You have yet to do this in any post. When ever asked a question, you
always divert to another "observation".

So to answer your question, I am the one that is asking you do defend
your statements. Why won't you answer them? Go back through the
archives. Every one else has presented plenty enough documentation to
justify our opinions and will defend they when questioned. You don't
get a free ride. You are the unproven one and you keep on proving that
to be true with each and every diversion! So put up or shut up. Its
really that simple. Can't you find anything worthwhile about those two
measures?

If you always post affirming your view to be a contribution to theory
yet you never, yes NEVER, defend your positions, who is it that seems
to be doing the preaching? I have asked you questions about what you
are preaching. You don't answer except to call ME a preacher! ROTFL

LJS

[DonMack]

"Vilen" wrote in message news:5ea6070b-28b2-4cdb-9308-***@d14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

-----

What you are describing is rather natural and is an extension of voice
leading. Our ears hear the overtones and any common overtones will help
smooth over the progression.

But realize this is a very weak effect and generally does substantiate any
objective claims about musical aesthetics. Root movement, inversion, motivic
development, style, etc are all more important. Even the most whacky
melodies and harmonies can work in the right context.


Root movements down a 5th seem the strongest probably because of the large
leap and the extreme consonant relationship due to the overtone series. They
can quickly signify a tonic because of this.

Root movements down a 4th are ok but seem a bit backwards. They are the
mirror images of root movements down a 5th and they help lead away from the
tonic/root in the overtone series.

Root movements down a 3rd can be tricky because of the overlap. When moving
down a 3rd it is easier to hear it has a new chord but when we move up, that
is for root movements down a 6th, it sounds more like the previous chord
since we have 2 common tones and the root can still be heard in our minds.

Root movements down a 2nd have no common tones, for triads at least, and can
sound a big abrupt. It's used often enough in modern music and in cpp but it
is just as tonal as other root movements.

One does not need to look past the 3rd pitch in the overtone series to see
why the diatonic root movements are classified as they are. It should be
rather obvious.

When we start to add more tones to the triads or use contradictory
voicings/sonorities then we might have to look further down the overtone
series. The problem with this approach is that there are generally much more
obvious explanations as to why something does what it does. In some cases
there will never be an good explanation.

It is also not difficult to take a bad progression and change some aspect to
make it good without changing the overall harmony. It could be a simple
change in sonority/voice leading, a change in dynamics, some motivic
connection, etc. All of these cases will have the same analysis using your
"method" but are clearly different.

There are many levels of consonance besides overtone series relationships.
You cannot use one alone to describe music appropriately. If you want to
purely describe a harmonic consonance of melodies and harmonies then you are
on the right track. Just realize that your descriptions could end up being
totally worthless in describing what sounds "good" and what doesn't.

[Vilen]

Post by DonMack
What you are describing is rather natural and is an extension of voice
leading. Our ears hear the overtones and any common overtones will help
smooth over the progression.

Voice is melody. Common melody is somewhat smooth thank to sinusoidal
components of its notes (commonly overtone series). How A may be
extension of B for which A is basis?

Post by DonMack
But realize this is a very weak effect and generally does substantiate any
objective claims about musical aesthetics. Root movement, inversion, motivic
development, style, etc are all more important. Even the most whacky
melodies and harmonies can work in the right context.

These assertions are extreme general and in addition unfounded. The
"etcetera" and "are all more important" do them quite curious. I think
that root movement and inversion must be considered together, by it
the inversion is manipulation with overtone series . The motive
development is part of melody which is .....

Post by DonMack
Root movements down a 5th seem the strongest probably because of the large
leap and the extreme consonant relationship due to the overtone series. They
can quickly signify a tonic because of this.

It doesn't consent ( due to..) with previous assertions. And if the
leap isn't to tonic?


Yuri Vilenkin

[Nonna Vilenkina]

Post by DonMack
What you are describing is rather natural and is an extension of voice
leading. Our ears hear the overtones and any common overtones will help
smooth over the progression.
Voice is melody. Common melody is somewhat smooth thank to sinusoidal
components of its notes (commonly overtone series). How A may be
extension of B for which A is basis?

More correct and especially logic is to say that coincidences of
harmonics in melody notes may be unsufficient as for some melody
intervals they might be provided by possibly weak harmonics (depending
from music instruments). Therefore voice leading (or use of chords) is
method to provide these ties for any set of note's harmonics.

Yuri Vilenkin

[LJS]

Post by DonMack
What you are describing is rather natural and is an extension of voice
leading. Our ears hear the overtones and any common overtones will help
smooth over the progression.
Voice is melody. Common melody is somewhat smooth thank to sinusoidal
components of its notes (commonly overtone series). How A may be
extension of B for which A is basis?

More correct and  especially logic is  to say that coincidences of
harmonics in melody notes may be unsufficient as for some melody
intervals they might be provided by possibly weak harmonics (depending
from music instruments). Therefore voice leading (or use of chords) is
method to provide these ties for  any  set of note's harmonics.
Yuri Vilenkin

And you are certain that they are not the same thing? And maybe
possibly even more?

First off, "Voice is melody."? What a strange nonsequitor to throw in
there!

If you really research all the fringe approaches to melodic theory you
may find that each fringe viewpoint is another way of accounting for
the same thing. After you add all the things up, if you did your
lessons well, you will understand that neither of the approache tells
the complete story of writing a good melody. The harmonic of each
note, the charts that you posted with the root movements a few posts
ago, Schenker's ideas, this and that all are a part of the picture and
none are the complete picture. But they all seem to be very strongly
related to one element that seems to pop up in all of the "bit and
piece" approaches to theory. Part writing seems to be the common
denominator. Part writing and the rules of consonance and dissonance
combined will take care of just about all of the melodies as a good
foundation for analysis. Then, if you happen to have a citation of a
fringe theorists that covers that particular example, you can use that
as a basis for explaining that particular example. If you never heard
of the fringe theorists, then you wil simpy anayze it on your own,
hopefully in a language that works for both the music and the
anaysis.

These descriptive approaches that you seem to find (or spin them that
way) will work for certain styles of writing. For most other things,
they not very well suited. These things are all small contributions to
addressing certain exceptions or to better expain some styles of
writing, but you are taking the backdoor approach. The music is
usually written first. Then if it is worthwile, someone will analyze
it. When you analyze it, if you start off with the most common and
universal approach of part writing and consonance and dissonance your
job is generally done. If that doesn't quite tell the story in a
composition, then you go to an alternateve explanation of how it is
different. You seem to want to find the "magic theory" that will
analyze the music for you.

Learn the basics. (I suggest Fuch's as a starting point) Then analyze
music and see how to create an analysis. Then if you need more, use
one of the fringe approaches that might fit. In other words, "You are
trying to put all sorts of pegs into one hole." Learn the basics and
you will see what we are talking about. Everything you have ever said
in this group is included in the basic theories that are used by all
that study music. All these discoveries are simply things considered
interesting facts that really don't mean very much until you really
have a basic understanding of the unversal conventions of music.

You need to do some basic "grunt work" of anayzing to learn how may
levels of each element really evident in the music. Its more than the
CPP music itself that is important. It is the depth of thought and how
all of these little sub theories fit together to explain what a
composer wrote down on paper and gave to musicians to play.

[Vilen]

Post by LJS
Learn the basics. (I suggest Fuch's as a starting point)

Concerning J.J.Fuchs. Here 2 rules of his counterpoint:
"Avoid having any two parts move in the same direction by skip.
Attempt to have as much contrary motion as possible."
How can one explain these rules from standpoint of tonality. As it is
known great CPP composers learned Fuchs's book "Gradus ad Parnassum
" (1725) and notion of tonality was invented later (1840) by analysis
of their works.

Yuri Vilenkin

[Alain Naigeon]

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
Learn the basics. (I suggest Fuch's as a starting point)

"Avoid having any two parts move in the same direction by skip.
Attempt to have as much contrary motion as possible."
How can one explain these rules from standpoint of tonality. As it is
known great CPP composers learned Fuchs's book "Gradus ad Parnassum
" (1725) and notion of tonality was invented later (1840) by analysis
of their works.

Tonality doesn't mean good voice leading is obsolete.
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - ***@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon




---
Antivirus avast! : message Sortant sain.
Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 110716-0, 16/07/2011
Analyse le : 16/07/2011 18:40:15
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

[DonMack]

Post by LJS
Learn the basics. (I suggest Fuch's as a starting point)

Concerning J.J.Fuchs. Here 2 rules of his counterpoint:
"Avoid having any two parts move in the same direction by skip.
Attempt to have as much contrary motion as possible."
How can one explain these rules from standpoint of tonality. As it is
known great CPP composers learned Fuchs's book "Gradus ad Parnassum
" (1725) and notion of tonality was invented later (1840) by analysis
of their works.
------

It is in complete agreement.

When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear. When two
voices move by leap in the same direction there motion can be obscured
precisely because of tonality. That is, one tone may overlap to a much
larger degree with the harmonic series of the other. Since both are moving
in the same direction it may be hard to distinguish a tone from an overtone
of the other. When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct.

[Vilen]

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear. When two
voices move by leap in the same direction there motion can be obscured
precisely because of tonality. That is, one tone may overlap to a much
arger degree with the harmonic series of the other. Since both are moving
in the same direction it may be hard to distinguish a tone from an overtone
of the other. When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct.

The thought about overlapping is interesting. The movement in one
direction isn't recommended by Fux rules as well as parallel movement
(oblique and contrary movement are recommended). The overlapping is
determined by interval between notes, which is apparently altered by
recommended type of motion faster. Hence follows that fast alternation
of ovelapping may be useful.

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear.

I think that only one voice must be felt. The big leaps are somewhat
difficult for perception in melody voice and must be followed by
inverse movement. If two voices make leaps in one direction the
difficulties by inverse movement in the same direction are added.

Post by DonMack
Since both are moving in the same direction it may be hard
to distinguish a tone from an overtone of the other.

I think that melody may be distorted.

Post by DonMack
When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct of the other.

I doubt that this is important by melody dominated homophony.

Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

[DonMack]

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear. When two
voices move by leap in the same direction there motion can be obscured
precisely because of tonality. That is, one tone may overlap to a much
arger degree with the harmonic series of the other. Since both are moving
in the same direction it may be hard to distinguish a tone from an overtone
of the other. When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct.

The thought about overlapping is interesting. The movement in one
direction isn't recommended by Fux rules as well as parallel movement
(oblique and contrary movement are recommended). The overlapping is
determined by interval between notes, which is apparently altered by
recommended type of motion faster. Hence follows that fast alternation
of ovelapping may be useful.

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear.

I think that only one voice must be felt. The big leaps are somewhat
difficult for perception in melody voice and must be followed by
inverse movement. If two voices make leaps in one direction the
difficulties by inverse movement in the same direction are added.

Post by DonMack
Since both are moving in the same direction it may be hard
to distinguish a tone from an overtone of the other.

I think that melody may be distorted.

Post by DonMack
When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct of the other.

I doubt that this is important by melody dominated homophony.
----------------------------

I believe you think that there is some mathematically precise way to
determine what is the best choice for a melody using the overtone series.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is not the case. The psychological
factor is just as important if not more so. A melody may be obscured
"tonally" but revealed motivically. It may break all the "tonal" rules but
because works because it does so exactly because that is what is called for.

Consonance alone is boring and it is not enough alone to make good music.
The masters were masters of dissonance and not consonance, at least in their
cultural styles. Anyone can perfect consonance as it is just a matter of
playing unison intervals or perhaps octaves. Knowing when to use dissonance
and how to resolve it cannot be explained well by any theory that focuses
solely on the overtone series. Psychological factors play too much of a role
and will always provide contradictions in such a theory. This is not to say
such a theory is absolutely useless but simply it is not enough to create
great music.

Overtone series based theories, as far as I know, are exclusively local, in
time, theories. They do not take into account both past and future musical
events that make clear things it obscures. Essentially these theories only
explain how a note resolves into the next note but not how that note
resolves(or fits) in the piece. For example, a single note can through these
theories off and give wrong analysis. Such theories end up being more
confusing than useful.

[LJS]

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear. When two
voices move by leap in the same direction there motion can be obscured
precisely because of tonality. That is, one tone may overlap to a much
arger degree with the harmonic series of the other. Since both are moving
in the same direction it may be hard to distinguish a tone from an overtone
of the other. When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct.

The thought about  overlapping is interesting. The movement in one
direction isn't recommended by Fux rules  as well as parallel movement
(oblique and contrary movement are recommended). The overlapping is
determined by interval between  notes, which is apparently altered by
recommended type of motion faster. Hence follows that fast alternation
of ovelapping may be useful.

Post by DonMack
When two voices move in contrary motion they are easier to hear.

I think that only one voice must be felt. The big leaps are somewhat
difficult for perception in melody voice and must be followed by
inverse movement. If two voices make leaps in one direction the
difficulties by  inverse movement in the same direction are added.

Post by DonMack
Since both are moving in the same direction it may be hard
to distinguish a tone from an overtone  of the other.

I think that melody may be distorted.

Post by DonMack
When they move in contrary motion there is no doubt since that
alones mean they are distinct of the other.

I doubt that this is important by melody dominated homophony.
----------------------------
I believe you think that there is some mathematically precise way to
determine what is the best choice for a melody using the overtone series.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is not the case.  The psychological
factor is just as important if not more so. A melody may be obscured
"tonally" but revealed motivically.  It may break all the "tonal" rules but
because works because it does so exactly because that is what is called for.

Thank you, this is what we have been trying to explain to YV but he
seems to know better.

Consonance alone is boring and it is not enough alone to make good music.
The masters were masters of dissonance and not consonance, at least in their
cultural styles. Anyone can perfect consonance as it is just a matter of
playing unison intervals or perhaps octaves. Knowing when to use dissonance
and how to resolve it cannot be explained well by any theory that focuses
solely on the overtone series. Psychological factors play too much of a role
and will always provide contradictions in such a theory. This is not to say
such a theory is absolutely useless but simply it is not enough to create
great music.

Again, not the way I would say it, but same same.

Overtone series based theories, as far as I know, are exclusively local, in
time, theories. They do not take into account both past and future musical
events that make clear things it obscures. Essentially these theories only
explain how a note resolves into the next note but not how that note
resolves(or fits) in the piece. For example, a single note can through these
theories off and give wrong analysis. Such theories end up being more
confusing than useful.

And this is one of the reasons that I recommend the Fux GAP for study
and the importance of understanding the concept of what is behind his
voice leading concepts based up on the relationship of predefined
rules of consonance and dissonance.

Fux uses the predefined consonance and dissonance rules of the early
contrapuntal music he defines in is GAP.

IF you update the C/D rules to a more modern consonance and dissonance
frame work, all of his principles work very well no matter what the
time period of the music and will work equally well with atonal music
as well as tonal music.

for instance, defined consonance and dissonance can be moved to
include consonance of something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones
as consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance and his rules of
motion of the counterpoint can work just as well in that context.

Even without that rather extreme context, atonal music can add the 4th
and even intervals included in 3, 4 or 5 (or more) tones as
consonants built from perfect 4ths as consonant tones and the other
tones being dissonant. His "rules" will still work with the quartal
harmony's rules of consonance and dissonance.

This is not usually obvious to the undergraduate student. It requires
the ability to think and understand at least the first 4 levels of
thought to apply this application of the principles and to be truly
understood, one should be able to understand the full six levels.
(Levels are defined by Bloom's Taxonomy) Once the Fux principles are
understood, they can be used for any contrapuntal writings from any
age.

Right now with YV, we seem to be stuck on the first two levels of
Knowledge and Comprehension. This translates to remembering the
definition and we are working on the comprehension of being able to
explain the definitions in your own words. When the student gets to
the levels of Application and Analysis, then we can continue to
Speculation and Evaluation. But the steps are taking a long time in
this thread. Thank you for your observations. You seem to have an
understanding of the Fux principles. I wonder if you have ever had the
chance to look at the principles of Fux in the manner that I have
described?

LJS

[Tom K.]

"LJS" wrote in message news:b9822db8-6f69-40b1-a9f1-***@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...


for instance, defined consonance and dissonance can be moved to
include consonance of something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones
as consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance and his rules of
motion of the counterpoint can work just as well in that context.
LJS

You have confused me here.

Do you mean defining a select 6 tones as each being an individual consonant?
Because this is impossible as a tone is neither consonant nor dissonant
unless sounded with one or more additional tones.

Or do you mean that a particular 6 pc set with all tones sounding together
would be defined as consonant and the complementary 6 pc set (also sounding
together) as dissonant? If so, I'm hard pressed to think of any pair of
hexachords which would be heard this way. Perhaps you could provide an
example.

And it seems to me that the whole concept of "defining
consonance/dissonance" is a bit shaky unless you are working with a well
established pitch system with plenty of literature.

Tom

[LJS]

Post by LJS
for instance, defined consonance and dissonance can be moved to
include consonance of something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones
as consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance and his rules of
motion of the counterpoint can work just as well in that context.
LJS
You have confused me here.
Do you mean defining a select 6 tones as each being an individual consonant?
Because this is impossible as a tone is neither consonant nor dissonant
unless sounded with one or more additional tones.

I am talking about a set of tones that are considered consonant in an
atonal setting (more specifically I am using 12-tone serial, but it
doesn't have to be) and the tone set creates a perceived or
theoretical consonant harmonic structure and any additional tones
would be the dissonant entities. (a general answer that I hope my next
set of thoughts will clear up) Now to the rest of your question.


Well, I was hesitant to use that particular example after I re read
it, because that was the more obtuse example and very speculative in
nature although I think I there are some examples that that gave me
the idea back in my graduate days. But first some background and then
back to this example.

It is quite obvious that Fux's approach to counterpoint will work in
the early music through the Baroque period as the C/D is practically
the same.

The CPP is still very similar but includes a bit of a loosening on
some of the dissonances with regard to some counter melodies around
the V7 chord.

Then again, as the Romantic period added more complex chordal
structures, the intervals in these chords become more consonant in
this expanded functional context. i.e. within the context of a V9
chord, the 9th is more consonant to the chord and would not have to
resolve but would be considered consonant to that functional chord and
that chord could be complete or implied so it is not any stretch to
have (in C maj) a consonant chord of B F A and tones in this
combination would be considered dissonant in the contrapuntal context
of this functional setting, when tone was not in the G B D F A set,
it would resolve according to the Fux principles to a consonant of the
next event in the contrapuntal setting. (I think I have explained more
or less what I mean, if not, let me know.) This is a bit outside the
normal box and here is where it goes if you continue to use this idea
to speculate on possible ways to craft good counterpoint.

If one can sort of follow things to this point, and see the connection
of using a non tonic chordal structure (complete or implied) as
consonant, then the rest is easy to understand, if not subscribed to.

The next step would be quartal harmony. If one can accept the Fux
rules in a chordal setting in traditional functional harmony, why not
in a less traditional setting. A quartal chord of four notes built on
C would be D G C F. If this chord is considered Consonant, then this
tone set are the new definition of consonance. So here, another tone
set might be F# B E A and this would be another tone set that wold be
considered consonant. and if these two tone sets were joined in a
composition, the implied scale would provide enough materials to
accept the new quartal consonances and the principles of Fux can be
applied in this new context.

The only difference it his series of examples and the original Fux
principles is that the music that Fux used in his GAP used a C.F. and
the consonance was all decided from this one note (sometimes the bass
but could be the tenor or even soprano.) and as we shift to the
expanded use of Fux, the focus becomes the root of the chord for the
constant that measures the consonance and dissonance and eventually
progresses to the tone set itself of the implied harmony. i.e. we
started with the C.F. we progressed to the Bass note and then we moved
to the harmony as the constant that defines what is consonant and what
is dissonant.

This brings us to the second part of your question.

Post by LJS
Or do you mean that a particular 6 pc set with all tones sounding together
would be defined as consonant and the complementary 6 pc set (also sounding
together) as dissonant? If so, I'm hard pressed to think of any pair of
hexachords which would be heard this way.

A while back, in this group, we talked about a 12 tone violin concerto
I think by Webern. I don't have time to look it up now, but I think
you know the one I mean.

In this piece, there seems to be three distinct sections of the tone
row that create three separate tone sets used as a harmonic element in
some instances and he divides it into two 6 note sets in other
circumstances. In this piece, there is various ways that the tones are
grouped according to what was happening at the time.

In serial music, the shift of dissonance is extreme. Very little is
what the pre Baroque composers would consider consonance, but in the
12 tone setting, in the Webern, I saw sets of 4 notes that seemed to
be used in a "consonant" setting. In these cases the intermingling of
the sets provide opportunity for the same principles of Fux to be used
to guide the use of this atonal concept of C/D in the instances that
the composer would want to create counterpoint.


Perhaps you could provide an

Post by LJS
example.

Has composers actually did it to the letter of the law as the examples
that I am talking about? Frankly, I don't know. I had some sketches
that I worked on in a limited setting for study of this idea, but
sadly I did them by hand and they were lost in Katrina.

I got this whole idea while I was analyzing H.W. Henze and his
symphony # 5 or #3, the one that was not the "Jazz" symphony.
Unfortunately, all this work was lost decades ago when I took a break
from grad school and it disappeared before I could submit it for my
program. (No use crying over spilt milk!) In this piece, I remember
some instances where I am pretty sure that he gave me this idea
although I certainly can not give you any specifics to back this up.

It could have been Arnold Schoenberg - Theme and Variations Op.43 that
gave me the idea. I analyzed this on my own after we played it in
collage during my undergraduate years. As I remember, this was a 12
tone piece with some strong tonal sections but with a definite
difference from the CPP!. (This was all back in the 60s so I could
have some details wrong in these examples.

But, more so than the quartal application of Fux, the more 12 tone
serialistic application is the extreme use of the principles I am
talking about.

Post by LJS
And it seems to me that the whole concept of "defining
consonance/dissonance" is a bit shaky unless you are working with a well
established pitch system with plenty of literature.

Well, that certainly would make it easier. And if there were more
contrapuntal pieces using quartal harmony, there might be that as you
describe. What you describe is also something that is hard to find in
serial music as it has never really caught on in the realm of public
acceptance. Mostly, I think, because of its very loose concept of C/D
as compared by the ever popular CPP application of C/D.

Since this part of your question is about music more in this less
accepted genre of music, it is not fair to look for an abundance of
examples to set this well established pitch system and there is not
really plenty of literature to use either, so this extreme example of
the use of Fux can not stand up to these more traditional requirements
for music more related to the CPP and before. In retrospect, for
clarity of what I was saying, I should have given more of the quartal
harmony example. BUT, then we would not be having this potentially
interesting and enjoyable discussion of what I consider this extreme
example of how Fux and his principles can be very useful to a
composer writing in even this extreme setting of atonality that is
based in some of the earliest days of our Western Music Culture.

Instead, I would think that one might take the approach of using the
understanding of Fux principles (another rather limited set of people
that even know of Fux, most music students don't even bother!) to
actually help establish the consonance and dissonance by seeing how
his same basic rules can be used as a means of creating music in his
extremely far removed context of the original dialectic conversations
of Fux and Aloysius.

The other thing that I would like to point out is the context in which
I present this concept. I am not presenting it as a means of analyzing
existing works. Here I am using the concept of analysis and the
conclusions of Fux as a guide or as an extension of Fux that can be
applied by the composer to find new ways to compose music in new and
original ways but with the ties to the past through the application of
the ancient voice leading into much more contemporary and extreme
musical settings.

In other words, I am using analysis of the Fux dialectic description
of how to write counterpoint as a means of having rules to guide
composition for composing in various contexts and not for the literal
analysis of pieces already written.

I am not saying that there is or isn't this application of Fux in the
literature already written. If it were, there would be the literature
and the examples to show. I am presenting some ideas of how the
analysis of Fux can be used as a composition tool that will produce
music in a coherent and defined manner. Fux provided the analysis. I
am presenting an application of this analysis in a different setting.
I am basing this on a thread that can be seen to a certain point and
then becomes speculative based upon things done in the past applied to
music of the future. Has it been done as yet? I don't know. Can it be
used as a guide to composition? I say yes. I will be happy to explore
it with you if you would like to take this to the 5th and 6th levels
of Bloom's Taxonomy and see what we come up with. I would also
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this approach and see how it
holds up to the scrutiny of a learned and experienced professor of
music theory as yourself.

I hope that you can appreciate this use of analysis instead of the
normal approach of using music theory for compositional guidelines
rather than to just understand what has already been written. I have
always considered analysis as both a pure search for what is happening
in the music, and also as a means to understand what the composer did
to produce a certain effect so that these analyses can be used to
formulate tools to create compositional components that will give the
music depth and reasoning as well as artistic integrity. I hope we can
continue to explore this concept of using Fux in the more modern
settings.

LJS

[Tom K.]

Post by LJS
for instance, defined consonance and dissonance can be moved to
include consonance of something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones
as consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance and his rules of
motion of the counterpoint can work just as well in that context.
LJS
You have confused me here.
Do you mean defining a select 6 tones as each being an individual consonant?
Because this is impossible as a tone is neither consonant nor dissonant
unless sounded with one or more additional tones.

(LJS) I am talking about a set of tones that are considered consonant in an
atonal setting (more specifically I am using 12-tone serial, but it
doesn't have to be) and the tone set creates a perceived or
theoretical consonant harmonic structure and any additional tones
would be the dissonant entities.

(Tom) Still not clear - especially "consonant in an atonal setting"
Since (in music) Consonance = Stability, Dissonance = Instability, the
absence of a pitch center would seem to make these concepts irrelevant.
(see Schoenberg's remarks on the "Emancipation of the dissonance"). The
theoretical instability in 12-tone theory is only the drive to complete the
row statement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by LJS
(Tom)
Or do you mean that a particular 6 pc set with all tones sounding together
would be defined as consonant and the complementary 6 pc set (also sounding
together) as dissonant? If so, I'm hard pressed to think of any pair of
hexachords which would be heard this way.

(LJS) A while back, in this group, we talked about a 12 tone violin
concerto
I think by Webern. I don't have time to look it up now, but I think
you know the one I mean.

(Tom) Webern never wrote a Violin Concerto - perhaps you are thinking of the
Alban Berg work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(LJS) In this piece, there seems to be three distinct sections of the tone
row that create three separate tone sets used as a harmonic element in
some instances and he divides it into two 6 note sets in other
circumstances. In this piece, there is various ways that the tones are
grouped according to what was happening at the time.

(Tom) Not quite. This was Berg's row:
G Bb D F# A C E G# B C# D# F

He constructed it so that every trichord using notes 1~9 is a Triad, and
notes 9~12 comprise the first 4 tones of a Lydian (or whole-tone) scale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(LJS) In serial music, the shift of dissonance is extreme.

(Tom) I don't know what you mean by this. Dissonance (see definition above)
is normally irrelevant in a serial piece. The pitch movement is toward row
completion, not from an unstable structure to a stable one. And although
the Berg Concerto uses the row as a thematic force, it is not atonal -
being mostly centric around G and Bb (in parts, perhaps even tonal in G
Minor - Bb major).

If you are simply trying to say that music using a tone row (probably
somewhat loosely) may be pitch-centric and therefore contain
consonance/dissonance relationships, Berg proved this nearly 80 years ago,
but these exceptional examples are not atonal.

So if you want to answer my original question and provide the particular
pitches for your "something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones as
consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance", I'd be interested. And
please, no more lengthy meanderings on Fux, I'm asking about your statement
on (atonal) consonance/dissonance, not counterpoint.

Tom

[LJS]

Post by Tom K.
(LJS) I am talking about a set of tones that are considered consonant in an
atonal setting (more specifically I am using 12-tone serial, but it
doesn't have to be) and the tone set creates a perceived or
theoretical consonant harmonic structure and any additional tones
would be the dissonant entities.
(Tom) Still not clear - especially "consonant in an atonal setting"
Since (in music) Consonance = Stability, Dissonance = Instability, the
absence of a pitch center would seem to make these concepts irrelevant.
(see Schoenberg's remarks on the "Emancipation of the dissonance"). The
theoretical instability in 12-tone theory is only the drive to complete the
row statement.

ljs- Keep in mind that I am not talking about music theory from a
perspective of analyzing the piece. I am starting with the Fux
analysis of the early counterpoint and using the concepts of his
thinking and applying them and speculating on ways to apply his
principles to a more modern setting.

Constance/Stability and Dissonance/instability does not have to be
relevant to a pitch center. It usually is, and certainly is in a CPP
setting, but going to the extreme of 12t-serial, the goal is to nave
no pitch center. If it was C/S and D/I were absolutely linked to pitch
center then neither would be able to exist in 12t-serial music. If
consonance is dependent upon a pitch center, how could there be
consonance in 12t-serial? From that perspective, all of 12t-serial is
dissonant and unstable. We can however consider stable to be consonant
or consonant to be stable.

Thus, if we want to establish the a tone set using Fux principles,
this would coincide with the existing concept of "tonal" by Fux to be
equivalent to stability in the 12t-serial setting. To my observation,
without tonality, the tone sets used in a harmonic manner in 12t music
can be considered somewhat dissonant, more dissonant, or the most
dissonant of the ones used in that setting, in other words, somewhat
stable, less stable, or the most unstable. It would be a relative
scale that wold be adjusted to the various sets that are being used at
that particular time.

Post by Tom K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Tom K.
(Tom)
Or do you mean that a particular 6 pc set with all tones sounding together
would be defined as consonant and the complementary 6 pc set (also sounding
together) as dissonant? If so, I'm hard pressed to think of any pair of
hexachords which would be heard this way.

(LJS) A while back, in this group, we talked about a 12 tone violin
concerto
I think by Webern. I don't have time to look it up now, but I think
you know the one I mean.
(Tom) Webern never wrote a Violin Concerto - perhaps you are thinking of the
Alban Berg work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(LJS) In this piece, there seems to be three distinct sections of the tone
row that create three separate tone sets used as a harmonic element in
some instances and he divides it into two 6 note sets in other
circumstances. In this piece, there is various ways that the tones are
grouped according to what was happening at the time.
G Bb D F# A C E G# B C# D# F
He constructed it so that every trichord using notes 1~9 is a Triad, and
notes 9~12 comprise the first 4 tones of a Lydian (or whole-tone) scale.

ljs, thanks for the correction, I knew it was one of the disciples and
that he divided them into smaller groups (this damn final stages of
getting my house approved for occupancy is driving me nuts!!!)

The point of the example is that (and if not in this piece, in a
theoretical piece) the "trichords" would produce a harmonic sonority
that would have a certain degree of C/D and the more consonant one
would be considered the most stable and to go back to Fux, this would
make it the more "tonic" or consonant one one of the group.

I do find this interesting and it is a very good question. I ask that
you remember that this is an extreme example of the application of Fux
to 12t-serial and there are other problems with this extreme that
might require a "leap" over some of the changes that would be made in
the quartal harmonic setting that would be more closely related to
tonality or modality. There will be other "leaps" when we get to the
two point counterpoint and overlapping as described by Fux, but I
think that it can still hold up.

When doing Fux's exercises, if you extend the melodies longer between
cadences than his examples, you will likely find passages that could
be considered non-tonal in a pan-diatonic manner if only for short
periods of time. Without the use of altered tones, or musica ficta,
the resulting counter point could be often be considered to be in any
of a number of modes. Without a strong cadence in the composition, we
can find many different temporary centers if we just let the music run
its course until a cadence is reached.

Post by Tom K.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(LJS) In serial music, the shift of dissonance is extreme.
(Tom) I don't know what you mean by this. Dissonance (see definition above)
is normally irrelevant in a serial piece. The pitch movement is toward row
completion, not from an unstable structure to a stable one. And although
the Berg Concerto uses the row as a thematic force, it is not atonal -
being mostly centric around G and Bb (in parts, perhaps even tonal in G
Minor - Bb major).

Yes, but remember, I am only using the Berg as an example of creating
tone sets from the row to be used as harmonic sonorities to give us a
point of reference. That sonority can be major, minor, or atonal. IF a
section is in G, than that wold create a more easily recognized tone
set that suggested the G as a tonic and that set would be the "tonal"
base or the "stable"part of that section and the tones from another
sonority built on other parts of the row wold be the unstable or
dissonant aspects in that setting and this clash wold be the tones
that needed to be resolved.

Post by Tom K.
If you are simply trying to say that music using a tone row (probably
somewhat loosely) may be pitch-centric and therefore contain
consonance/dissonance relationships, Berg proved this nearly 80 years ago,
but these exceptional examples are not atonal.

That is not what I am trying to say. I think we are still not in the
context at all about what I am trying to say and I am beginning to see
why. As I mentioned earlier, this is the really extreme example of
using Fux as a compositional tool for more modern settings. Thre are a
lot of skips required to go from Fux to Berg. It might be necessary to
use the intermediate step of something like tone sets being drawn from
quartal harmonic music to see how to handle the type of questions that
you are asking. (very good questions, by the way, and I think that I
can account for them if we go through the steps of evolution that
happened between Fux and Berg.

My question to you would be, (for purposes of discussion) Can you see
the use of Fux in music through the Romantic Period? If you can, I
would like to try this again with out the large leap of context from
Romantic to Serial. I would like to go through this being used in the
a quartal setting that may or may not have an atonal base. I think
that I could do better to explain how I see using the tones sets as a
basis of reference from a fixed set of C/D rules as in Fux to a more
loose set of tones. I think I might be able to explain where I think
we are not connecting better and will be able to give real examples
that can be explained more easily.

Post by Tom K.
So if you want to answer my original question and provide the particular
pitches for your "something like a tone set of say 6 unique tones as
consonant, and the other 6 tones as dissonance", I'd be interested. And
please, no more lengthy meanderings on Fux, I'm asking about your statement
on (atonal) consonance/dissonance, not counterpoint.
Tom

Well, my statement is really about counterpoint, and the C/D is
important to understand. I did not isolate that as the main focus of
your question, I apologize.

I don't know if I can give a good definition of this in the 12t
setting that wold be understandable at this time. I will try with the
quartal context to see if I can explain it that way first and if I
can, then we can proceed. If not, I will do more work on it.



Take two quartal sonorities. A =A D G C F and B = F Bb Eb Ab Db.
Both are of equal dissonance and consonance of course as they are the
same "chord" transposed. But I will be using the A as the given or
"cantus firmus". The B will be the "resultant" melody.

A also = the F pentatonic chord. B also = the Db pentatonic scale
( and all of the enclosed pentatons)

Any tone in A would assume that it was part of the A set and any tone
in B would assume to be part of the B set. Thus when a tone from the
set of A is in the melody and the counter melody is also in A you can
go static and go to another tone in A with the melody movement, OR you
can go to any tone in B to create the dissonance (except the common
tone in this instance of F.) and then the counter melody will resolve
this dissonance by going to a note in the B tone set. and then this
consonance can move the following note to note and switching or not
switching dependent upon the desire to be active or static in the
harmony.

This would be the application of one species. Start on say the common
tone of F on both voices ( called 1 and 2 ) and then work the
pattern.

1&2 begins on the common tone of F. (could be any two notes one from
each set (A or B).


Then 1 can move to either another tone in A making a static move, or 1
can move to a B note creating the dissonance.


Then 2 will follow suit. with the same options. Where ever 1 goes,
the choices will be the same. Either to go to a static note in the
same set or to an active note in the other set.

Then 1 will respond in kind and the process continues with the same
choices until it comes to a cadence. One would presume in the A set
(the implied tonality in this case, but in a different set of tones,
there may be other options for cadence notes depending on the
intention of the composer.

This process is the best way that I know to explain the concept as it
relates to your question. If this makes sense to you as a workable
process that the composer can follow, then you should be able to see
the application if it was in a more serial technique.

Any 12 tone set can be split into two groups of 6. You might want to
start on any tones in the two sets. OR you might want to start on the
O note and then 1 would go to either an active tone from the B set
(the last 6 tones of the row, or to the A set (the first 6 tones of
the row. Then 2 would follow the same rules as above with the two
pentatonic scales and then 1 to create the same species as in the
above example.

You see, what I am saying is that the analysis of Fux created
procedures that ruled the counterpoint of the day according to the
accepted tools of the day. I am saying that we can take these
procedures and create different rules (of consonance/dissonance) and
still do the process in these different contexts. I

I am not presenting an analysis tool, I am using Fux's analysis to
create a composition tool or process that uses the tone sets as if
they were the definition of C/D. The actual sounding traditional (and
true definition ) def, of C/D would still be a choice to be made by
the composer as he crafted his rows or his quartal tone sets or
quintal tone sets or tertian or what ever tone sets and the composer
also has control over traditional C/D by his choice of tones from the
other set of tones.

So the compositional plan uses Fux to guide the movement of the voices
with the direction and the choice of tones that are "C/D" but the
choices of the tones from the other set or the same set in combination
with the choices of the same from the other set, allows a wide range
of true Consonance and Dissonance while the Process is still a result
of a process that was defined by Fux in is GaP.

I hope that this answers your question. I did some improvising here on
my piano with the two voices using the Quartal Example. I really don't
have the time to actually try to put together a composition, at
present, but when my house if finished and if the SS checks come in on
time and with good value, and I can get get back to working and still
have time, (actualy it should work that way) I will try to put
something together as an example but my contribution with this is not
really intended to be a composition. My contribution is intended to be
a way to use a process in a different context that will allow anyone
to follow it and come up with something that is organized and
multilevel and the variations are so great that the possibilities
provide the opportunity for anyone to have their own unique sound
using this same process that we learned with Fux.

This is about as much as I think I can explain the overall concept
without some questions as to the process itself but I really only hope
that you understand what I am saying. Its difficult to answer your
question directly as there is not one single answer that I know to
address it. The tones in the rows MAY be serieal and they MAY be half
serial and even tonal in the other, or any combination of any elements
that the composer chooses to group together and he "redefines them as
consonant" and he "redefines the other to be dissonant". The
terminology is not literal. The terminology is only important so that
one can follow the rules of Fux with ease. The resultant piece can
actually be Pacific Island static and consonant and tonal. OR it can
be very dissonant and completely atonal. I am presenting a process and
not a composition. The process will work only as well as the creative
composer can manipulate the process to create what he wants it to
sound like. The nice thing is that he has a process to give him rules
and direction just as if he was writing a fugue or a canon or what
ever.

Let me know if you understand what I am saying and if so we can talk
about its value, merit or usability. If not and you are still
interested, I can answer questions.

Hey, thanks for the reply. I hope that it is interesting enough for
you to pursue it a bit more, you are helping me to bring in the
abstract ideas into a more concrete process that Is starting to
formulate in my head. Tell me what you understand and what you think.

LJS

[Tom K.]

"LJS" wrote in message news:3aff2c9f-9b4e-4f1e-96a6-***@z14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


Constance/Stability and Dissonance/instability does not have to be
relevant to a pitch center. It usually is, and certainly is in a CPP
setting, but going to the extreme of 12t-serial, the goal is to nave
no pitch center. If it was C/S and D/I were absolutely linked to pitch
center then neither would be able to exist in 12t-serial music. If
consonance is dependent upon a pitch center, how could there be
consonance in 12t-serial? From that perspective, all of 12t-serial is
dissonant and unstable.
LJS

LJ, I have reduced your 17kb post to the above paragraph as it is the only
real response to my question.

Since you are adopting the position that consonance/dissonance may apply to
music with no pitch center, we will have to end the discussion. I remain
convinced that C/D is irrelevant in music without pitch centers so while
much 12-tone music was often described as "dissonant", this was simply an
expression of distaste for sonorities which do not "please" the CPP ear and
has little to do with the real C/D musical issues of movement toward a pitch
goal. And yes, there is no consonance in (for example) mature (atonal)
Webern pieces, but neither is there dissonance. Instead, the organizational
methods rely on exposure of the chromatic whole/equal distribution of 12
pcs, registral and rhythmic patterns, motivic manipulation and (of course)
counterpoint - especially canon.

Just so I am clear (I am not addressing post-tonal, quartal or other centric
music) - to my ear, atonal music is neither consonant nor dissonant.

Tom

[LJS]

Post by LJS
Constance/Stability and Dissonance/instability does not have to be
relevant to a pitch center. It usually is, and certainly is in a CPP
setting, but going to the extreme of 12t-serial, the goal is to nave
no pitch center. If it was C/S and D/I were absolutely linked to pitch
center then neither would be able to exist in 12t-serial music. If
consonance is dependent upon a pitch center, how could there be
consonance in 12t-serial? From that perspective, all of 12t-serial is
dissonant and unstable.
LJS
LJ, I have reduced your 17kb post to the above paragraph as it is the only
real response to my question.
Since you are adopting the position that consonance/dissonance may apply to
music with no pitch center, we will have to end the discussion.  I remain
convinced that C/D is irrelevant in music without pitch centers so while
much 12-tone music was often described as "dissonant", this was simply an
expression of distaste for sonorities which do not "please" the CPP ear and
has little to do with the real C/D musical issues of movement toward a pitch
goal.  And yes, there is no consonance in (for example) mature (atonal)
Webern pieces, but neither is there dissonance.  Instead, the organizational
methods rely on exposure of the chromatic whole/equal distribution of 12
pcs, registral and rhythmic patterns, motivic manipulation and (of course)
counterpoint - especially canon.
Just so I am clear (I am not addressing post-tonal, quartal or other centric
music) - to my ear, atonal music is neither consonant nor dissonant.
Tom

Well, OK. Maybe in the future you will understand that I am talking in
an entirely different context and speculating with analysis as a guide
to composition and that the traditional definitions are altered to fit
the new circumstances. OR maybe I will find a better way to explain
what I am proposing. Thanks for the attempt.

Some of the misunderstanding is in my court as I thought you
understood that I am not talking about a tool for analysis, but rather
a way of using analysis as a tool for composition and that in this
case it negates that view of C/D as the premise redefines the C/D to
something else. If you can't speculate on that, then of course you can
not see it in the manner a am applying the Fux principles.

Maybe when I have time to write a good example of the concept you will
understand what I am saying. Thanks for the effort. I get the
impression that you found it difficult to address the the whole
because you disagree with the redefinition. I appreciate the attempt.

LJS

[Vilen]

Post by DonMack
I believe you think that there is some mathematically precise way to
determine what is the best choice for a melody using the overtone series

It isn't right. And this "best choice" don't interest me. I compare
notes with molecules from which the musical matter is built. For this
goal they must have somewhat "atom" structure and this atoms are
regular (controlled) frequency components, which ones permit to have
coincident frequency components in notes with different fundamental
frequencies and thus to provide smoothness of single melody. The
structure described with overtone series was very long time only
available structure of regular components. It is only roughly
compatible with natural ET scale and in general is blunt instrument
for creating of desirable dissonances and coincidences. The
possibilities of this structure is limited but can be enlarged by
skillful use of chords . The analysis of structures of frequency
components in existing music works is apparently necessary for
successful use of the computer based note structures.

Post by DonMack
A melody may be obscured
"tonally" but revealed motivically. It may break all the "tonal" rules but
because works because it does so exactly because that is what is called for.

I like to think that tonality is doubtful notion.
There are comtemporary researches (http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/patel/
Tierney_Russo_Patel_ASA_2008.pdf ) which shows that central (average)
pitch around which other pithes are arranged is characteristic for
all human speech, music and even bird song. I suppose that tonality
is diffraction of this fact through overtone series(OS) theories.

Post by DonMack
Consonance alone is boring and it is not enough alone to make good music.
The masters were masters of dissonance and not consonance

I think so as well. The division on consonances and dissonances is
conditional. The OS theories designate some chords consonant an some
dissonant and use these notions in their constructions. For example
in functional theory major and mior triads are considered as ideal
consonances unless they both include essential physical
dissonances.

Post by DonMack
Overtone series based theories, as far as I know, are exclusively local, in
time, theories. They do not take into account both past and future musical
events that make clear things it obscures. Essentially these theories only
explain how a note resolves into the next note but not how that note
resolves(or fits) in the piece. For example, a single note can through these
theories off and give wrong analysis. Such theories end up being more
confusing than useful.

OS can't be base of exhaustive music theory as they don't correspond
human perception of music. The Helmholtz's model of perception ( piano
in the ear) is refuted by contemporary science. Opinion that OS are
characteristic for music perception took root as music instruments may
be considered as means to create music space. I.e. they forms their
limited music space. Analogous by undeveloped transport means the
earth seems to be flat (view from satellit refutes it at once).

Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

[LJS]

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
Learn the basics. (I suggest Fuch's as a starting point)

By the way, my error, I worked for a conductor who's name was Fuch.
The dialectic style author is J. J. Fux.

Post by Vilen
"Avoid having any two parts move in the same direction by skip.
 Attempt to have as much contrary motion as possible."

Yes, two of the rules explained to his student. Can't remember his
name right now.

Post by Vilen
How can one  explain these rules from standpoint of tonality.

Why would one want to. They are two different things.

Post by Vilen
As it is
known great CPP composers learned Fuchs's book "Gradus ad Parnassum

You know, soome of them might have and I am sure most all of them
learned of him when they were students but Fux was not really the main
focus of the CPP. Fux wrote his work in the Baroque period and I
believe even maybe a bit later than that but the music he wrote about
was the music several centuries prior to the Baroque period which was
the basic point that led to the split from the contrapuntal and
melodic approach to harmony and started to develop the notion of
functional harmony as another means of creating musical feeling and
thought by the use of the underlying harmony that is independent of
the philosophy of true music being all melody and a resultant harmony
being the only style that was considered music.

Of course, the "rules of Fux" are still the basis of the harmony, so I
really don't understand what the big fight was about. The good
harmonic textures that they wound up using were the very ones that
were prominent in the contrapuntal musica ficta that follows all the
Fux rules in their formation. When the CPPers wrote harmony, they
still used the voicings and the connecting notes of the Renaissance
counterpoint and then when strict Fux principles were followed, the
functional harmony was created. (maybe you are confusing functional
harmony as tonality. They are very closely reated, but they are two
entirely different things.)

Post by Vilen
" (1725) and notion of tonality was invented later (1840) by analysis
of their works.

This I will just assume to be some kind of huge typo and you must have
meant something entirely opposed to what you have said. The notion of
tonality was around for many centuries before the music that Fux
taught about in GAP, and in fact you can go back to the Ancient Greeks
and find tonaity. Tonality was not new to anyone in the CPP and no one
had to anayze the music to discover the notion of tonality. It was
really a sort of BFD through out the entire history of Western Music
Culture.

[Vilen]

Post by LJS
Fux wrote his work in the Baroque period and I
believe even maybe a bit later than that but the music he wrote about
was the music several centuries prior to the Baroque period which was
the basic point that led to the split from the contrapuntal and
melodic approach to harmony and started to develop the notion of
functional harmony as another means of creating musical feeling and
thought by the use of the underlying harmony that is independent of
the philosophy of true music being all melody and a resultant harmony
being the only style that was considered music.

It is very vague. It was understood that there was no sense to make
several independent, sapid melodies if only one of them is felt. The
function of chords to create these melodies was excluded and two
functions are remained: creating of suitable sound during existence of
melody notes and suitable smoothness of sound during whole music
work. The H.Riemann's functional harmony is only method for this
task. In any case great composers didn't appear in Germany since his
theory established.

Post by LJS
When the CPPers wrote harmony, they
still used the voicings and the connecting notes of the Renaissance
counterpoint and then when strict Fux principles were followed, the
functional harmony was created.

As I know the common view is that H.Riemann was follower of Rameau not
Fux (Fuchs)

Post by LJS
The notion of
tonality was around for many centuries before the music that Fux
taught about in GAP, and in fact you can go back to the Ancient Greeks
and find tonaity. Tonality was not new to anyone in the CPP and no one
had to anayze the music to discover the notion of tonality. It was
really a sort of BFD through out the entire history of Western Music
Culture.

What is Your definition of tonality?


Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

[Tom K.]

"Vilen" wrote in message news:4301f689-c640-44c8-b80c-***@f35g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

What is Your definition of tonality?

Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

There has been so much debate on this point that one would hope that posters
would define the term in front as "you can't tell the players without a
scorecard" (sorry for the US Baseball reference, Yuri).

If by "Tonality", one refers to the familiar CPP system involving a
hierarchic relationship of the 12 pitch-classes to one center along with
functional, triadic based harmony, then "CPP Tonality" might be preferred
for clarity.

And perhaps a term such as "Expanded Tonality" more properly describes much
late Romantic and Jazz/Pop music which clearly has it's roots in CPP
Tonality.

But if by "Tonality", one means simply one pitch center (or perhaps more
than one, but fewer than twelve), then I would argue that "Pitch
Centricity", or even simply "Centric" as proposed by Ben Boretz some 40
years ago, would be a better way to express it. Naturally this includes
modality, both before and after CPP, as well as much of the post 1900
non-serial "classical" music and much so called "non-Western" music.

Tom

[LJS]

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
Fux wrote his work in the Baroque period and I
believe even maybe a bit later than that but the music he wrote about
was the music several centuries prior to the Baroque period which was
the basic point that led to the split from the contrapuntal and
melodic approach to harmony and started to develop the notion of
functional harmony as another means of creating musical feeling and
thought by the use of the underlying harmony that is independent of
the philosophy of true music being all melody and a resultant harmony
being the only style that was considered music.

It is very vague. It was understood that there was no sense to make
several independent, sapid melodies if only one of them is felt.

What melodies are you talking about? Are you saying that you do not
feel the melodies because there are more than one at the same time?
That would be tantamount to saying that the whole contrapuntal genre
is wasted because one can only understand one artistic melody at the
same time. You are not making any sense.

Post by Vilen
The
function of chords  to create these melodies was excluded and two
functions are remained: creating of suitable sound during existence of
melody notes and  suitable smoothness of sound during whole music
work.

What music are you talking about. These general statements can be said
of just about anything. Again, try to make some sense.


The  H.Riemann's functional harmony is only  method for this

Post by Vilen
task. In any case  great composers didn't appear in Germany since his
theory established.

I believe that Riemann wrote his textbooks on harmony in the late 19th
century. That would exclude Bach and all his contemporaries and all
previous composers from the group of great composers. I think you may
be missing something.

It also seems as though you may have to change your posts to reflect
that you are talking about Functional Harmony which is one, and only
one small part of tonality in general. As I have said, Functional
Harmony is related to tonality, but is a different thing. Its hard to
discuss anything with anyone that can not understand this difference.

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
When the CPPers wrote harmony, they
still used the voicings and the connecting notes of the Renaissance
counterpoint and then when strict Fux principles were followed, the
functional harmony was created.

As I know the common view is that H.Riemann was follower of Rameau not
Fux (Fuchs)

I don't think you know much at all about Fux. You still seem to think
that he is something that he is not. I mentioned him to you as his
teachings clearly use tonality and set the foundation for functional
harmony over the basic tonality that was used in the Renaissance and
before. If Riemann didn't understand Fux, he certainly knew of the
music that Fux was describing. Fux was not writing about current
practice, he explained the evolution of counterpoint using a dialectic
style of presentation used by Plato. You are really making less and
less sense as you continue to speak. Do you have any idea of what you
are saying? You are not making any real coherent thoughts that I can
follow. Sounds like all copy and past Knowledge and Comprehension
level thought but not understood by the person doing the copying and
pasting.

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
The notion of
tonality was around for many centuries before the music that Fux
taught about in GAP, and in fact you can go back to the Ancient Greeks
and find tonaity. Tonality was not new to anyone in the CPP and no one
had to anayze the music to discover the notion of tonality. It was
really a sort of BFD through out the entire history of Western Music
Culture.

What is Your definition of tonality?

You seem to know when it was invented and not present in music until
the CPP so you tell me what you mean and why you think so. You are
making the statements, you back them up. I have spoon fed you enough.
Its your turn to explain your statements.

LJS

[Vilen]

Post by LJS
I have spoon fed you enough.

It is right and enough for me as well.
For ever and ever.

Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

[LJS]

Post by Vilen

Post by LJS
I have spoon fed you enough.

It is right and enough for me as well.
For ever and ever.
Best regards
Yuri Vilenkin

Well, I see that you can't explain anything that you copy and paste.
You have yet to explain any question that anyone has brought up. You
just ignore any question of any of your statements.