diatonic functionality

[jancivil]

It is false just as many times as it is true.

applies to all of these assertions.

Each pitch wants to resolve naturally, and by naturally we mean based on the inherent characteristics associated with tonality and the overtone series.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense.

this is my whole objection, this is just a lot of lingo. here is some language in an effort to justify the thesis: 'the overtone series'. WHAT? what tendency does anything in a diatonic scale have ie, what does it need to do as an overtone? That really is nonsense. The overtone series just is. This implies that any tone with enough energy to generate harmonics demands the diatonic paradigm.

there has been a thrust since forever to enforce hegemony of this whole kind of thing; functional harmony/tonality, the diatonic paradigm, as natural and right.
these are things which reside inside a convention. it is not going to have this overarching meaning, this is reaching for something.

I'm just really glad I don't fall into this sort of trap creating music, restricted by needs that aren't necessary!

[sammy24]

I have no preconceived notions either when I listen or try to create music. I just listen. Music cannot be studied in books or by talking or writing about it. Music must be studied by actual involvement with music, whether that be listening, playing, singing, or at least thinking music in your head.

That being said, studying music can help direct your ear to pay attention to certain things or in certain ways. Once you understand something, now you're ready to go start learning it by actual musical involvement. In that regard, music differs from many other subjects.

[sammy24]

As far as the overtone series is concerned, I was just stating something that has been said in many musical texts, including Harmony and Voiceleading (Aldwell and Schachter), Tonal Harmony (Kostka) as well as Ligon (Jazz theory Resources). I didn't make this up. I happen to agree though that the universal relationship of 5 to 1 (in melody or harmony) seems to have its basis in the overtone series.

I agree completely, there are all kinds of theories based on the overtone series which take it too far. But as far ss 5 to 1, and the fact that the major triad are the lowest overtones, these connections between tonal music and the overtone series seem just too compelling to be coincidence, but that's just me.

Anyway, it does not matter why we hear tones in a certain way. It just matters how we hear them. So disregard if you will any connection to the overtone series.

[sammy24]

to Jumping Jack:

you explain V7 based on dissonance, but what about V? It clearly wants to go to I, but contains absolutely zero dissonance. M3, P5, and m3, as far as I can tell. In fact, the intervals within a V chord are identical to that of a I chord. So why does the V want to go to I, but I does not want to go to V?

Furthermore, a V chord obviously has the same tones as the I chord built on its root - G in the key of C has the same notes as G in the key of G, as a I chord. So how does dissonance and intervals explain why G in the key of C demands resolution to the ear, but G in the key of G does not?

I have an answer btw... tonality. You yourself agreed to this concept as far as the leading tone, and was it a maybe (?) regarding 4. Well, that's what we're talking about.
We're just arguing about the other tones. I'm merely saying that each of those also have a unique sound to them, albeit maybe a bit more subtle.

Anyway, personally I found that ear training based on this method is able to accelerate the musical learning process to a great degree. Honestly, even if the whole thing were wrong, it wouldn't even matter, because the ear training methods have proven their success, and not just with me but with thousands of others. If I told you (with evidence of prior success) that if once a day you eat strawberry banana yogurt with the back of a fork while jumping on a trampoline, that in a year's time you will be 100 times better musician than you are now, wouldn't you do it? Even if you're not sure why it works, I mean who cares?

[JumpingJackFlash]

But as far ss 5 to 1, and the fact that the major triad are the lowest overtones, these connections between tonal music and the overtone series seem just too compelling to be coincidence, but that's just me.

It's worth pointing out that the science of the overtone series was not properly discovered until after the 5-1 motion at cadences became common. And if there really was such a link between tonality and the overtone series, then it would have to work for minor keys too, since there is just as much CPP music in minor keys as major.

But the whole idea of the overtone series completely falls apart with minor keys, because the minor third does not appear until the 19th of the series, and this partial cannot be distinguished by the human ear.

Another problem as well is that in equal temperament, the major third is noticeably out of tune from the "pure" sound of the overtone series. It also depends on the instrument involved.

The truth is that real music largely developed in spite of the overtone series, not because of it.
But it never ceases to amaze me how some people regard it (and Pythagorous) as some kind of holy grail that is solely responsible for all music!

...I have an answer btw... tonality.

Absolutely. Tonality, based on functional harmony. The harmony is important, the actual notes much less so.
(Expectations based on cultural norms also has an influence).

If I told you (with evidence of prior success) that if once a day you eat strawberry banana yogurt with the back of a fork while jumping on a trampoline, that in a year's time you will be 100 times better musician than you are now, wouldn't you do it?

Absolutely not, for the same reason I don't believe all the adverts that tell me I can look 20 years younger just by applying a particular moisturising cream (even though 80% of those surveyed allegedly agreed), or my teeth can be much whiter using a particular toothpaste, or drinking a yoghurt drink will lower my cholesterol...

But as I said earlier, if it works for you great.
But it's incredibly misleading and unhelpful for newbies (such as the OP), who would be much better off studying other areas of harmony, voice leading and so on.

[sammy24]

Yes, some theories regarding the overtone series try to explain how all the music we make is based on it or conforms to it. That is taking it way too far.

People have always made music just based on what they think sounds good.

But -- the theories that make some sense don't try to literally explain music based on the overtone series. They maintain that the overtone series, being a natural part of every tone we hear, plays a role in terms of how we perceive and hear music.

For instance, gravity probably plays a role in terms of how we perceive up and down. Similarly, the fact that the overtone series has a fundamental and all the overtones are higher in frequency, may explain why we hear music bottom up. Meaning, the root has much more importance harmonically, and effects how all higher tones are perceived, and not the other way around. A C in the bass with a D above sounds quite different than a D in the bass with a C above.

So there may be some truth to that. it's hard to prove, but kinda makes sense.

Now, take minor for example. We create music that we think sounds good. perhaps the reason certain things sound good has to do with how it contradicts the overtone series. We are human; we like tension and contradictions.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, when one plays a low C, the 5th partial is strong enough that it can be heard. When you then play an Eb against this, there is a clash between the Eb and the quiet but still audible E. This clash may actually account for much or all of the tension we associate with minor.

So it's not about "explaining" music based on the overtone series, per se. It's just, the overtone series may play a role in how we naturally perceive music, tonality, and the very contradictions may be what we find pleasing sometimes.

Honestly I'm not a proponent of carrying these theories too far or spending much time on them. They're theories, and a bit interesting, but don't really make you a better musician. I'm just trying to explain how I understand them.

[JumpingJackFlash]

They maintain that the overtone series, being a natural part of every tone we hear, plays a role in terms of how we perceive and hear music.... perhaps the reason certain things sound good has to do with how it contradicts the overtone series.

So you're saying that some things sound good because they correspond to the overtone series, and other things sound good because they contradict it?

That's an incredibly weak theory; the kind of mumbo-jumbo that people come up with to justify something they have already decided is true.

I'm not saying the overtone series plays no role whatsoever in music, but most people vastly overate its significance (as born out in in real music rather than abstract theory).

when one plays a low C, the 5th partial is strong enough that it can be heard.

This is not true on all instruments and in all environments.

[sammy24]

Tonality has been around since long before any systems of harmonic progression were created. People have been creating melodies that are in a key for a very, very long time. I myself know some traditional melodies that are almost 1,000 years old, way before systems of harmonic progression, and they are completely tonal -- one note is more stable than the others.

In fact, harmony itself came about through melodic lines, and eventually we organized the sounds into harmonic systems.

Tonality does not need harmony or multiple lines; if you sing a simple song like Happy Birthday, by yourself and without harmony, you perceive the fifth note as tonic, not the first note, just based on the rhythm,and 5 going to 1 in the melody. No functional chords necessary.

In fact, even if someone was trying to transcribe Happy Birthday, if it starts on the note G, and they thought it's in the key of G (which is incorrect because it would be in the key of C), and they notate it in G, it will still sound when you play it like it's in C. Just because the key signature says G doesn't mean it will sound like G.

Please check out Bert Ligon's excellent book Jazz Theory Resources (Part One) which I mentioned a couple times. He elaborates on this in Chapter 3.

But it's not just something you read in a book. I mean, the fact is that we can hear an unaccompanied melody and perceive one note as tonic. That means one tone is more stable than the others; that's the definition of tonality. If one note is more stable than the others, then obviously all those other tones, to greater or lesser degree, sound less stable. So even 2, 5, and 6, sound a bit unstable compared to 1. If they sounded just as stable as 1, how on earth would you know that 1 is 1 in the first place? And the answer cannot be, because the key signature says so, or because the music says so (Symphony in Eb), because this stuff is audible. Many, many people, can identify the tonic just by listening to the music. You don't write music and then hear it, you hear it and then write it. Just like language, you think of the words and their meaning first, then you write it down on paper. Although I know some people who maybe skip the thinking before they write part. : )

Modal music doesn't really have true harmonic progressions in the sense we're discussing in the major/minor system, and yet, it is still tonal. The whole sound of a mode is based on hearing one note as more stable than the others. If you can't tell which note is tonic, then you're not hearing the mode properly. If a mode is all white notes, which mode is it, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian? It depends which note sounds the most stable in the context of the music. Then all the other tones are perceived based on this.

The entire concept of color tones in modes (or character tones, basically certain tones that sort of define the mode and give it its sound) is this idea that scale degrees have their own character based on tonality, without harmonic progressions, just melody alone. For instance, 6 in Dorian, #4 in Lydian, b2 in Phrygian, etc.

The traditional names of scale degrees, tonic, subdominant, etc., are not just for the chords built on them. The scale degrees themselves are named these special names, because of their functions within the tonality. That's 7 is only called leading tone in major or harmonic/melodic minor but otherwise subtonic, for instance.

[sammy24]

listen, if global warming people can have it both ways (explain cold and hot), so can I. : )

No the point is, we play whatever sounds good. Some things are aggressive, tense, like phrygian, locrian. Some are sweet, like major. It could be that notes that contradict the overtone series give the music that aggressiveness or tension, and lack thereof makes it sound more vanilla. Anyway, it's a theory, take it or leave it. (I think I know which one you will do : ) )


One more point, the fact that the first 7 partials correspond to the triad, which also happens to be the most basic harmonic sound, is no small coincidence. Many theorists say that this is why the triad is so acoustically perfect, since it closely mimics the overtone series. Yes, different tunings will alter the sound slightly, but the point can still be true. To me, this one is too compelling to ignore. In other words, the overtone series would seem to play a role in terms of how we hear combinations of tones. Clusters and quartal sound different, modern, etc. compared to the more vanilla triads.

Whatever, it's not very productive to discuss the validity of these theories more than we have, I think. I'd rather go listen to some Wayne Shorter.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Tonality has been around since long before any systems of harmonic progression were created. People have been creating melodies that are in a key for a very, very long time. I myself know some traditional melodies that are almost 1,000 years old, way before systems of harmonic progression, and they are completely tonal -- one note is more stable than the others. ...

Modal music doesn't really have true harmonic progressions in the sense we're discussing in the major/minor system, and yet, it is still tonal.

This is not true. Modal and tonal music are different things. They both have a centre, but it is established in different ways. In tonality, the centre - the "tonic" is generally established through functional harmony.

It's no coincidence that the development of tonality and the development of harmony occurred at roughly the same time. They are inter-related and go hand in hand (though it is possible to have one without the other).

There is also such a thing as implied harmony.
And as I said, culture plays a large part. We in the West often "hear" harmonically even when there is just a melody, because that's the way we have been conditioned.

Being in C major is more than just sticking to the white notes. You need something to function as tonic and dominant otherwise it can't truly be said to be tonal (meaning in a key). Individual notes can sometimes do this in certain contexts, but certainly not always. This is what I have been saying.

I'll write more later when I have more time.

[jancivil]

The truth is that real music largely developed in spite of the overtone series, not because of it.

I would probably restrict myself as far as a statement, 'real' music. But I would suggest Sammy get an instrument, a virtual instrument tuned to the overtone series and find out just how tonally it behaves in reality, in and of itself.

[jancivil]

Tonality does not need harmony or multiple lines; if you sing a simple song like Happy Birthday, by yourself and without harmony, you perceive the fifth note as tonic, not the first note, just based on the rhythm,and 5 going to 1 in the melody. No functional chords necessary.

you're talking such bollocks, really. That tune resides utterly in the convention of tonal music and is absolutely not independent of the conventions, the primary chord changes are implied by the tune because it's that kind of totally conventional thing.

I notice these are circular arguments you're making now...

[jancivil]

Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, when one plays a low C, the 5th partial is strong enough that it can be heard. When you then play an Eb against this, there is a clash between the Eb and the quiet but still audible E. This clash may actually account for much or all of the tension we associate with minor.

if there's enough energy in a fundamental and there is some basis acoustically for enough resonance, yes. I think that is a sound idea right there. But if you want the third partial, 'perfect fifth' to have tension per se, you are really barking up a tree that isn't going to support you. The implication will be that every major chord needs to resolve to itself, an absurdity. The overtone series just does not have necessary linear implications for a given way of thinking, through itself. This is conventional and cultural.

It's good that you say you don't want to take it too far, but it looks like you already are inclined to.

consider the choices having to do with the ^7 (& the #4) in this music:



what if the ^7 is the fifth partial of the P5th? Where's the theory now? But the line has a structure qua the line. Quite unlike Happy Birthday which is tied to Major, harmonically in its thought.

He isn't taking 7 to 8 really at all. It will be uncharacteristic. It will be more satisfactory if you're that entrained to it, surely. But if you know this raag, not at all, it has another meaningful gesture involving other tones it's going to. ^7-5. It's very strong in itself, you can just dwell.

[boobai]

Early Indian Heptatonic Scales and Recent Diatonic Theory:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/745908?seq=1

[sammy24]

if you want the third partial, 'perfect fifth' to have tension per se

Tonality means that one tone is more stable than all of the others. Anybody care to disagree?

Tonality is not a reality, it is human perception. Sometimes two people can hear the same music and perceive the tonality differently. It is not an absolute thing. It is similar to looking at a painting and deciding which way is up and which way is down. Our brains make this kind of judgment with everything we look at. Similarly, everything we listen to, our brains automatically try to latch on to one tone as a basis, and everything else is heard in relation to that tone.

This is the concept of relative pitch at its most basic. I dunno what else to say. The ideas I have expressed here are not only echoed in every major classical and jazz and music education book I have read, but are also quite easy to hear.

Now, if one tone is the most stable, then it follows that every other tone is not as stable. If another tone was just as stable, then we wouldn't be able to perceive which of them was tonic. Or they would both sound like tonic.

So 5 is not as stable as 1. If it was, ending a composition with 5 in the bass would sound final. Which it doesn't.

Often, the antecedent phrase of a melody will end in 5, suggesting that it is not quite finished. Then the consequent phrase ends in 1.

Seriously, people? Is 5 as final sounding as 1?

Final-sounding is the same exact thing as "stability".