We have scales but why??

[SGWork]

Ask yourself why do we organise letters in an alphabet, or why do we bother to name collores?
Ans by the way look at scales vertically and you could end up with some very interesting chords!

Have a nice day

[jancivil]

There are cultures which use whole-tone scales, and in some Gamelan-music there exists for example a "tempered pentatonic" scale, where all intervalls are the same (they are too big seconds, and they don't base on numerical proportions, since they are not played on instruments with harmonic overtones)

The resonance of gamelan components varies; it is going to be quite different than western tuned percussion in the degree of resonance owing to the construction. But there is no such thing as no harmonic overtones, that is an oxymoron. The only thing that is a pure tone is a tuning fork.

In the modal music of the renaissance, a typical mixolydian cadence used IV-I; a typical phrygian cadence used II6-I

Absolutely not. there were not chord progressions in this music at all. this predates the thinking of 'chord progression' by centuries.

[jancivil]

...now don't you all feel silly, banging on and on for page after page after page about Pythagoras and consonance and equal Temperament and frequencies and such?

No really, don't mention it -

is this supposed to be facetious? you sound like a complete ass.

[jancivil]

Look, all I am really trying to get across is that good music can be written by people who are willing participants in the tradition that you are disparaging.

I was not 'disparaging it'. I just don't find it AS necessary or fundamental as certain people do.

Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
and he looked me straight in the eye
And you know what he said?

"Once upon a time, somebody say to me:
(This is the dog talkin' now)
'What is your conceptual continuity?'
"Well I told 'em right then", Fido said
"It should be easy to see
The crux of the biscuit
is the apostrophe"

Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
looked at the dog, and he said
Sort of staring in disbelief

"You can't say that!"
he said
"It doesn't, and you can't, I won't, and it don't;
it hasn't, it isn't, it even ain't, and it shouldn't -
it couldn't!"

He told him, "No, no, no"
I told him, "Yes, yes, yes"
I said, "I do it all the time -
Ain't this boogie a mess?"

[frederik D]

[quote="jancivil] But there is no such thing as no harmonic overtones, that is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Have to disagree. The term harmonic has a precise meaning - that of an integer (whole number) multiple of the fundamental frequency of a vibrating object. The term overtone is used to refer to any resonant frequency above the fundamental frequency - an overtone may or may not be a harmonic. Many of the instruments of the orchestra, those utilizing strings or air columns, produce the fundamental frequency and harmonics. Their overtones can be said to be harmonic. Other sound sources such as the membranes or other percussive sources may have resonant frequencies which are not whole number multiples of their fundamental frequencies. They are said to have non-harmonic overtones.
source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... otone.html

[egbert]

The only thing that is a pure tone is a tuning fork.

Any physical object vibrating has overtones. Even a .

[jancivil]

But there is no such thing as no harmonic overtones, that is an oxymoron.

Have to disagree. The term harmonic has a precise meaning - that of an integer (whole number) multiple of the fundamental frequency of a vibrating object. The term overtone is used to refer to any resonant frequency above the fundamental frequency - an overtone may or may not be a harmonic. Many of the instruments of the orchestra, those utilizing strings or air columns, produce the fundamental frequency and harmonics. Their overtones can be said to be harmonic. Other sound sources such as the membranes or other percussive sources may have resonant frequencies which are not whole number multiples of their fundamental frequencies. They are said to have non-harmonic overtones.
source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... otone.html

you're right of course. I read him wrong. He was talking about 'tempered pentatonic' where it's anything but and I reactively, stupidly leapt at him. My apologies.

[jancivil]

The only thing that is a pure tone is a tuning fork.

Any physical object vibrating has overtones. Even a .

that's interesting but it hardly demonstrates enough overtones to obviate 'it's a pure tone'. I deserve this though for stupidly gainsaying the non-harmonic thing without any thought.

[Arrested Developer]

There are cultures which use whole-tone scales, and in some Gamelan-music there exists for example a "tempered pentatonic" scale, where all intervalls are the same (they are too big seconds, and they don't base on numerical proportions, since they are not played on instruments with harmonic overtones)

The resonance of gamelan components varies; it is going to be quite different than western tuned percussion in the degree of resonance owing to the construction. But there is no such thing as no harmonic overtones, that is an oxymoron. The only thing that is a pure tone is a tuning fork.

Hi Jancivil,
I didn't spoke about the overtones of instruments, but of a scale used in Javanese music, called
Javanese slhidro

see e.g.:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~bhammel/theo ... efine.html

In the modal music of the renaissance, a typical mixolydian cadence used IV-I; a typical phrygian cadence used II6-I

Absolutely not. there were not chord progressions in this music at all. this predates the thinking of 'chord progression' by centuries.

You misunderstood this one, too.
You're right that there was not a thinking in terms of Riemann's concept of a "functional harmony" or chord progressions neither was there yet Rameau's concept of chords.
But in fact (and that's what I'm refering to) there was already a awareness of chords in the Renaissance, which you can see in the fact, that Orlando di Lasso and Palestrina (and others) used (in contrast to polyphonic parts) expanded homophonic parts in their motets.
Also, there were already very "fixed" formulas for the cadences which correspond to the ones i mentioned. While they were not formulated as "harmonic formulas", they were described from a contrapunctical point of view, where it was written what the bass does and which tones have to be used in other voices.
(but basically I agree that it's not good to speak in terms of functional harmony for this music

[Jesse J]

This how harmonies work:


The communication aspect of intervals however is beyond humanity. Sad whales whine below the ocean in minor and puppies do too. Cultural media history has a big impact on how we perceive scales too.

[jancivil]

In the modal music of the renaissance, a typical mixolydian cadence used IV-I; a typical phrygian cadence used II6-I

Absolutely not. there were not chord progressions in this music at all. this predates the thinking of 'chord progression' by centuries.

You misunderstood this one, too.
You're right that there was not a thinking in terms of Riemann's concept of a "functional harmony" or chord progressions neither was there yet Rameau's concept of chords.
But in fact (and that's what I'm refering to) there was already a awareness of chords in the Renaissance, which you can see in the fact, that Orlando di Lasso and Palestrina (and others) used (in contrast to polyphonic parts) expanded homophonic parts in their motets.
Also, there were already very "fixed" formulas for the cadences which correspond to the ones i mentioned. While they were not formulated as "harmonic formulas", they were described from a contrapunctical point of view, where it was written what the bass does and which tones have to be used in other voices.
(but basically I agree that it's not good to speak in terms of functional harmony for this music

No. I spoke wrongly in reaction to 'no harmonic overtones'. in clangorous percussion there are certainly non-harmonic overtones, which is suggested in what I actually wrote but I made a terrible error forgetting myself and what I know, stupidly following it with 'oxymoron'. You seem to be a bit of a skimmer with these posts ["tempered gamelan"?] and I was reacting badly.

I am in no way misunderstanding the other thing. There are not chords in the conception of these composers. Period, full stop. 'Expanded homophony' certainly does not amount to chords. Cadential formula in polyphonic writing does not amount to *chords*. No. You have actual chord changes there! IV-I for mixolydian?? (mixolydian in the practice merely means the first and final are G vis a vis C Ionian. There is no 'IV' implied by the word.) Don't push it, seriously.

I assure you there is no evidence for those figures at that time. This is your invention. 'Harmonies' is not a synonym for 'chords' in this way.

[Arrested Developer]

There are not chords in the conception of these composers. Period, full stop. 'Expanded homophony' certainly does not amount to chords. Cadential formula in polyphonic writing does not amount to *chords*. No. You have actual chord changes there! I assure you there is no evidence for those figures at that time. This is your invention. 'Harmonies' is not a synonym for 'chords' in this way.

No need to speak with periods & full stops.
Of course there is evidence for those figures, but the theoretical concepts of that time are not usual literature.
(normally you find these concepts mentioned in the writings of the theoricians of the baroque, like Christoph Bernhard, Mattheson and others who refer to some manuscripts)
Or you can take a composition like Palestrina's Canticum Canticorum and look at the cadences (and there are a lot of cadences in these 29 motets).
If you don't want to perceive the stereotypic formulas as "chords", of course you don't need to, since (as we both agree) this is a posterior theoretical abstraction. (Ernst Kurth also insisted very obstinately on this fact in the first part of his book "the linear counterpoint", and i really like Kurth's argumentation) But you can easily see the awakening awareness of "chords" e. g. in the use of the picardian third etc.

[fmr]

In the modal music of the renaissance, a typical mixolydian cadence used IV-I; a typical phrygian cadence used II6-I

Absolutely not. there were not chord progressions in this music at all. this predates the thinking of 'chord progression' by centuries.

You misunderstood this one, too.
You're right that there was not a thinking in terms of Riemann's concept of a "functional harmony" or chord progressions neither was there yet Rameau's concept of chords.
But in fact (and that's what I'm refering to) there was already a awareness of chords in the Renaissance, which you can see in the fact, that Orlando di Lasso and Palestrina (and others) used (in contrast to polyphonic parts) expanded homophonic parts in their motets.
Also, there were already very "fixed" formulas for the cadences which correspond to the ones i mentioned. While they were not formulated as "harmonic formulas", they were described from a contrapunctical point of view, where it was written what the bass does and which tones have to be used in other voices.
(but basically I agree that it's not good to speak in terms of functional harmony for this music

Music in the renaisaance was neither modal nor tonal. It was a transition period. The melodies lead the concept. Imitation was very much a rule (that's why imitating forms like caccia, ricercare, cannons, and late fugues, proliferated in those days.
Even non imitating forms, like the chanson, or the mass parts, have imitative parts, mainly in the beginning.
Cadences are seen as punctuation of the phrased (remember that text - what we now call very reductioning as lyrics - was the basis of the composition). These cadences started to raise the seventh degree, and that led to the appearing of the concept of the V-I chordal cadence, which would be the basis for the future "tonality", and the disappearing of the modes. And please stop saying phrygian and lydian. Nobody referred to the modes using those terms then, and it is still wrong to use those greek terms now. This has been based on wrong interpretation still in the middle ages, and it's amazing that people keep using those wrong names until now.
There were too, sometimes, obligato voices, like the cantus firmus (less and less, though). There were even forms where there were these obligato parts, which were repeating several times, and the whole composition was created based on those obligato parts. The Passacaglia and Chaconne were known examples, and the famous Canon of Pachelbel is, in fact a canonic passacaglia (which is even more notable, because he was forced by both the strict imitation and also to follow the obligato bass).
So, to sum it up:
1. When Lasso and Palestrina use "homophonic parts" in their motets, those are not chordal, in our terms. If you play the "chords" you will notice these are either very "simplistic" in our tonal terms, or even make little sense in terms of tonal progression, except in the cadences. Also, if you play the voices isolated, you'll see they make sense melodically.
2. Renaissance music is not purely modal, but isn't yet tonal. As always happens in History, things don't change suddenly, rather there is a more or less smooth and long transition period, and in the middle things are neither one nor the other.
3. Althoug there were "formulas" for the cadences (and these came from way back to Dufay), the alterations in the modes were not written at all. That's why in more conscious transcriptions, these accidents come written above and not before the notes, and even between parenthesis. We know these things were done because of written texts, not because of the music manuscripts, because there they were not written.

[Arrested Developer]

Nobody referred to the modes using those terms then, and it is still wrong to use those greek terms now. This has been based on wrong interpretation still in the middle ages, and it's amazing that people keep using those wrong names until now.

Mattheson already rants about these names...
But since you find these names e. g. in Glareans Dodekachordon (1547), where he suggests the names "ionian" and "aeolic" it's a pragmatic convention to use them.

If you play the "chords" you will notice these are either very "simplistic" in our tonal terms, or even make little sense in terms of tonal progression, except in the cadences. Also, if you play the voices isolated, you'll see they make sense melodically.

That's right. I very clearly refered to cadences.
But i don't know why it's so common to combine the word "chord" with "progression"??? That's probably the damage of Riemann's theory (or of Jazz-theory???)...
Anyhow, you will find homophonic parts in the music of Palestrina, di Lasso, where the isolated voices don't make a relevant sense melodically. In those parts you can clearly see that they loved the (in their time "modern") experience of hearing "harmonic chords" (also if they didn't called them by that name).

2. Renaissance music is not purely modal, but isn't yet tonal. As always happens in History, things don't change suddenly, rather there is a more or less smooth and long transition period, and in the middle things are neither one nor the other.

It's a ahistorical concept to think that there has ever been such a thing like "pure" modality outside of some stilistics of the 20th century.

We know these things were done because of written texts, not because of the music manuscripts, because there they were not written.

With "manuscripts" i was refering to "written texts".
In fact, some instructions about the use of alterations are very old, although they very formulated
rather in terms of the solmisation
("una nota supra la semper est canendum fa")

[JumpingJackFlash]

Music in the renaisaance was neither modal nor tonal. It was a transition period.

Yes, the period from around 1450-1650 was a gradual change from a "modal" to "tonal" thinking.

And please stop saying phrygian and lydian. Nobody referred to the modes using those terms then, and it is still wrong to use those greek terms now. This has been based on wrong interpretation still in the middle ages, and it's amazing that people keep using those wrong names until now.

The terms "Dorian", "Mixolydian" etc. were certainly used in medieval times. They appear in in the later Frankish treatises where they were borrowed from Boethius, who had adopted them from late Greek sources. You're right that the nomenclature of the modes was a misnomer, but that's the way it has been ever since.