all about the intervals
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
The phrasal element of linear tone arrangement disrupts any sense of absolute harmony in the chordal sense. Ending a chord progression on the arpeggio form of the root chord doesn't register to the listener with the same finality that holding down the whole chord does. There is a "front and back" side to an arpeggio which a chord doesn't have, even if there is no strongly indicated melody.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
- KVRian
- 1084 posts since 12 Sep, 2008 from Your basement
I think this actually articulates what's so infuriating to me about an overabundance of "vertical units tethered together by passing tones" type of orientation.jancivil wrote: There is nothing innate per se to harmony, to say that 'harmony exists where there are tones in a row', is incorrrect.
The vertical intervals are themselves inside a context and intervals in motion (whether melodic or simultaneous) have tonal function.
When you look at the little augmented fourth example, the vertical and horizontal use within context function very identically. I think you have to put it into a linear context (no, this is not a contradiction...putting a vertical item into a linear pattern) in order to understand tonal function.
Basically it's comparison. A functional cadence has to have a "before" and an "after" to show dissonance and resolution. This unfolds in time and in context (order of events).
The interesting thing to me is that, in the CONTEXT of a phrase in A major, an E major chord can be considered tonally dissonant! When I look at at V-I cadence, the simultaneous combination of E G# and B is consonant within itself....but the G# wants to resolve to A dissonant tonally because it is compared to the note A.
But having set the phrase into motion, thus providing the tonal context, intervals will function tonally regardless of whether they are heard together or in a series.
Hmm... this theory needs more work. Maybe one more Rock*Star...
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Ok, an augmented fourth to me, is NEUTRAL. Any interval, per its own quality or character, has no selfhood until something in time happens, or as you said, there's Comparison with, other stuff.
EG: C to F#. Now, I am Well Aware of the ramifications of such a phenomenon in the 16th to 19th c. literature type of context. But, on its own, it's just some stuff, phenomena.
It can go (ascending): C F# B F F# A#... Where are we now? String those dudes together in a line, don't even trip on time, just make 'em equal duration... So what's the next chord? I think there is no necessary next chord or necessary chord at all. I have detached that interval from the consideration of, 'godamn, gotta resolve that sucker to G major or at least something which resembles it...' I think that to say it's automatically a harmony with x implications, is style-dependent utterly. IF you have classical music and harmonic functionality on the membrane, and you're pervaded by that, you're going to lean on that pipe. If you're gonna be always hitting that particular pipe, that's what you're hooked on, that's what you'll think. It's not actually *true*, however.
Jimi Hendrix, Purple Haze. E Bb, E Bb. What happens next? An F typa chord? Ah, no. Not_at_all. He didn't give a shit about that, or was just blissfully ignorant of that law, ya know?
I tend to agree that time is the big factor here... but, any way you strike it, notes in a row is just some stuff until it isn't, which means we're, or we've, given context.
Tonal context, if you mean in the context of other tones also, sure. The idea that music *is* tonal is, interesting. I don't like the word atonal, I think it has little to no meaning in music. But, I found since I began to function in some different ways as opposed someone deep in the world of classical music, I found it, 'tonality' an unnecessarily limiting idea of what to do. That isn't to say that limiting isn't the thing to do, but I am The Decider of that...
I find 'lines' can do all sorts of interesting things if they are allowed to be themselves, as opposed to 'this event of notes in a line goes mainly with that harmony and must point to this chord/harmonic event, because of x factor'.
EG: C to F#. Now, I am Well Aware of the ramifications of such a phenomenon in the 16th to 19th c. literature type of context. But, on its own, it's just some stuff, phenomena.
It can go (ascending): C F# B F F# A#... Where are we now? String those dudes together in a line, don't even trip on time, just make 'em equal duration... So what's the next chord? I think there is no necessary next chord or necessary chord at all. I have detached that interval from the consideration of, 'godamn, gotta resolve that sucker to G major or at least something which resembles it...' I think that to say it's automatically a harmony with x implications, is style-dependent utterly. IF you have classical music and harmonic functionality on the membrane, and you're pervaded by that, you're going to lean on that pipe. If you're gonna be always hitting that particular pipe, that's what you're hooked on, that's what you'll think. It's not actually *true*, however.
Jimi Hendrix, Purple Haze. E Bb, E Bb. What happens next? An F typa chord? Ah, no. Not_at_all. He didn't give a shit about that, or was just blissfully ignorant of that law, ya know?
I tend to agree that time is the big factor here... but, any way you strike it, notes in a row is just some stuff until it isn't, which means we're, or we've, given context.
Tonal context, if you mean in the context of other tones also, sure. The idea that music *is* tonal is, interesting. I don't like the word atonal, I think it has little to no meaning in music. But, I found since I began to function in some different ways as opposed someone deep in the world of classical music, I found it, 'tonality' an unnecessarily limiting idea of what to do. That isn't to say that limiting isn't the thing to do, but I am The Decider of that...
I find 'lines' can do all sorts of interesting things if they are allowed to be themselves, as opposed to 'this event of notes in a line goes mainly with that harmony and must point to this chord/harmonic event, because of x factor'.
-
Aroused by JarJar Aroused by JarJar https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=191505
- KVRian
- 1048 posts since 16 Oct, 2008
Still don't have time, and the thing with the "rights" agency is probably going to get worse (most people's jaws would be shocked silly if they were aware of how things really work, especially where I live).
Anyway, about "texture": I am wary of this expression, because I think that it indicates an approach that it is principally geared toward handy (for theorists) reduction, or over-reduction, of what goes on in actual music. That is, thinking in notes instead of the actual sounds. I also "reduce" things to, say, "spectrum", but as a thing. No thing is "the" thing, and "notes" is most certainly NOT "the" thing for most music.
Textures can result from things, and textures can "be" the main ingredient. You can't do a Schenkerian analysis of vaguely tuned ambient noises for example.
Anyway, about "texture": I am wary of this expression, because I think that it indicates an approach that it is principally geared toward handy (for theorists) reduction, or over-reduction, of what goes on in actual music. That is, thinking in notes instead of the actual sounds. I also "reduce" things to, say, "spectrum", but as a thing. No thing is "the" thing, and "notes" is most certainly NOT "the" thing for most music.
Textures can result from things, and textures can "be" the main ingredient. You can't do a Schenkerian analysis of vaguely tuned ambient noises for example.