Harmony is actually a really fast rhythm

[elnn]

Harmony = very fast rhythm only if you'd consider a mahogany chair = mahogany table, or me ~= you, but in the exact same way as considering a sawtooth oscillator produce rhythm. Oscillation, by definition, is a rhythmical movement.
But harmony is a perceptual thing, ie it doesn't exist per se, the similar to a sound isn't produced by a falling tree until there's someone to hear it - until then it's air pressure oscillation; or a colour is not really a physical phenomenon - they're all perceptual constructs. Harmony requires a listener to be harmonic, until then it's just a potful of frequencies of air compression and rarefaction, interacting with each other in some way, without having any distinct properties or intrinsic value, when compared to properties of other waves. And because the existence of the phenomenon itself stems from the perception of a listener, its properties have to be considered from an order of magnitudes of that listener's realm of magnitudes to still have its connection to the concept itself. If you start going into different magnitudes, you start investigating not the concept, but our perception of the physical reality (of the said concept). These are not the same things.

Furthermore, musical rhythm is also a perceptual construct - we often omit the 'musical', but it's implication is very important BECAUSE of the relation to its perception. Oscillation is rhythm, but not a musical rhythm. So, no idea to which of the rhythms you tried to relate the said 'harmony' to.
Might as well relate the ~0.00001157407 Hz of the circadian rhythm to a musical rhythm or a sound, if you're not specific.

Thirdly - changing the frequency of a sound changes how we perceive it and its perceptual properties. A chord in ultrasound is not a chord. For this thing you tried to do here, you needed to change the sequencer time by the exact same amount as you changed the frequency, now you just changed it into rhythmic clicks (each triggered by the sequencer, of course it's f**king rhythm) of some low frequency, it has no relation to its previous harmonic (related to harmony, not the freq spectrum) properties, as it's just not the same sound anymore.

Fourthly - there was no harmony in that video at all, really - a random sequence of notes doesn't make it harmonic.
Make it a chord (in sine waves), and drag it out to audible click range and hold in without retriggering. Observe. It will get a tad bit closer to the question at hand than what you did there. But I'd recommend you don't not for the sake of this pseudo-epiphany.


Tl;dr might sound cool when you're at an [8] , but utter nonsense when you put your mind to it.

[vurt]

rhythym is a dancer
a source of passion, if you will. some folk can feel it in the air, perhaps even everywhere.

harmony was a girl i once knew.

[vurt]

oh, 9 is the most musical of numbers.

[GreenhouseMG]

rhythym is a dancer
a source of passion, if you will. some folk can feel it in the air, perhaps even everywhere.

i swear i heard it somewhere already... a long time ago...

[Sendy]

90's techno earworm activate!

[vurt]

[Hink]

Harmony = very fast rhythm only if you'd consider a mahogany chair = mahogany table, or me ~= you, but in the exact same way as considering a sawtooth oscillator produce rhythm. Oscillation, by definition, is a rhythmical movement.
But harmony is a perceptual thing, ie it doesn't exist per se, the similar to a sound isn't produced by a falling tree until there's someone to hear it - until then it's air pressure oscillation; or a colour is not really a physical phenomenon - they're all perceptual constructs. Harmony requires a listener to be harmonic, until then it's just a potful of frequencies of air compression and rarefaction, interacting with each other in some way, without having any distinct properties or intrinsic value, when compared to properties of other waves.

The "A" above middle "C" is 440hz, an octave above that is 880hz (see a pattern?)...it is not perceptual, it is about how the frequency of waves correspond to each other (frequency is the number of waves per unit time). There are very distinct properties in harmonies that must exist. Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor

[jancivil]

There are very distinct properties in harmonies that must exist. Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor

I think that in support of 'harmony is rhythm' is kind of special.

I think 'is' should mean 'is' and I don't think that works. It can be, if manipulated to be. Cf., Cowell. In itself, I think there isn't this meaning.

'Rhythm' is not as easily reduced as you went to do with 'harmony'. Which I don't really accept as *the* definition.

I think both terms must be (and usually are) involved with context and music-making (intent) rather than these blank objective 'meanings'. 'You can see "it" in any wave editor'; see what?

I prefer this kind of language: "In music, harmony is the use of simultaneous pitches (tones, notes), or chords."

Is a pulse 'rhythm' in itself? I don't like it, I think it's not useful at all. My answer to that is 'no'. "movement marked by the regulated succession of strong and weak elements, or of opposite or different conditions." is useful, meaningful.

[elnn]

Harmony = very fast rhythm only if you'd consider a mahogany chair = mahogany table, or me ~= you, but in the exact same way as considering a sawtooth oscillator produce rhythm. Oscillation, by definition, is a rhythmical movement.
But harmony is a perceptual thing, ie it doesn't exist per se, the similar to a sound isn't produced by a falling tree until there's someone to hear it - until then it's air pressure oscillation; or a colour is not really a physical phenomenon - they're all perceptual constructs. Harmony requires a listener to be harmonic, until then it's just a potful of frequencies of air compression and rarefaction, interacting with each other in some way, without having any distinct properties or intrinsic value, when compared to properties of other waves.

The "A" above middle "C" is 440hz, an octave above that is 880hz (see a pattern?)...it is not perceptual, it is about how the frequency of waves correspond to each other (frequency is the number of waves per unit time). There are very distinct properties in harmonies that must exist. Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor

I was pointing out to the fact, taking your example, for sounds of 440 Hz and 880 Hz to have a harmonic meaning, there has to be a perceptual element to that - otherwise you could call the 100kHz and 200kHz frequencies as 'an octave', which just wouldn't make any sense. And 441 and 880 would still be an octave, and one wouldn't be hard-pressed to call 443 and 880 Hz an octave, as well. Hell, even 444 and 880 Hz would qualify as an octave by most ears.
You don't 'see' harmony, you see how waves interact with each other - you can just as well observe, how seismic waves (another kind of longitudinal wave), but that wouldn't be an octave (even though the properties of the wave may be the same as those of an acoustic wave). Yet in hearing acoustic waves, those properties may be perceived as 'an octave higher' or a 'fifth lower' or whatever, but it is not an intrinsic quality or property of the wave, but a quality of how we perceive that wave. So harmony per se does not exist in the world, the same way a dandelion is not in itself yellow.

I loved your subtle tone of resentment, by the way, keep that up, I'm sure the people around you heartily enjoy the patronizing.

There are very distinct properties in harmonies that must exist. Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor

I think that in support of 'harmony is rhythm' is kind of special.

I think 'is' should mean 'is' and I don't think that works. It can be, if manipulated to be. Cf., Cowell. In itself, I think there isn't this meaning.

'Rhythm' is not as easily reduced as you went to do with 'harmony'. Which I don't really accept as *the* definition.

I think both terms must be (and usually are) involved with context and music-making (intent) rather than these blank objective 'meanings'. 'You can see "it" in any wave editor'; see what?

I prefer this kind of language: "In music, harmony is the use of simultaneous pitches (tones, notes), or chords."

Is a pulse 'rhythm' in itself? I don't like it, I think it's not useful at all. My answer to that is 'no'. "movement marked by the regulated succession of strong and weak elements, or of opposite or different conditions." is useful, meaningful.

I wholeheartedly agree. People sometimes tend not to make a distinction between glass and a window.

[Hink]

Harmony = very fast rhythm only if you'd consider a mahogany chair = mahogany table, or me ~= you, but in the exact same way as considering a sawtooth oscillator produce rhythm. Oscillation, by definition, is a rhythmical movement.
But harmony is a perceptual thing, ie it doesn't exist per se, the similar to a sound isn't produced by a falling tree until there's someone to hear it - until then it's air pressure oscillation; or a colour is not really a physical phenomenon - they're all perceptual constructs. Harmony requires a listener to be harmonic, until then it's just a potful of frequencies of air compression and rarefaction, interacting with each other in some way, without having any distinct properties or intrinsic value, when compared to properties of other waves.

The "A" above middle "C" is 440hz, an octave above that is 880hz (see a pattern?)...it is not perceptual, it is about how the frequency of waves correspond to each other (frequency is the number of waves per unit time). There are very distinct properties in harmonies that must exist. Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor

I was pointing out to the fact, taking your example, for sounds of 440 Hz and 880 Hz to have a harmonic meaning, there has to be a perceptual element to that - otherwise you could call the 100kHz and 200kHz frequencies as 'an octave', which just wouldn't make any sense. And 441 and 880 would still be an octave, and one wouldn't be hard-pressed to call 443 and 880 Hz an octave, as well. Hell, even 444 and 880 Hz would qualify as an octave by most ears.
You don't 'see' harmony, you see how waves interact with each other - you can just as well observe, how seismic waves (another kind of longitudinal wave), but that wouldn't be an octave (even though the properties of the wave may be the same as those of an acoustic wave). Yet in hearing acoustic waves, those properties may be perceived as 'an octave higher' or a 'fifth lower' or whatever, but it is not an intrinsic quality or property of the wave, but a quality of how we perceive that wave. So harmony per se does not exist in the world, the same way a dandelion is not in itself yellow.

I loved your subtle tone of resentment, by the way, keep that up, I'm sure the people around you heartily enjoy the patronizing.

I'm sorry you took offense to my disagreeing to your point, I dont totally agree with what you are saying but obviously anything I say from now on will be taken wrong so I I'll just say you shouldn't speak for the people around me. Bye

[jancivil]

It's the little things, John. >:shrug:< We provide a context in all we've done before here. You do that one a lot.
(Along with incredibly long rants about how people are here, a sub-forum that doesn't seem your forte much. Maybe you're not as golden as you think.)

"Harmony absolutely exists and you can see it in any wave editor" - well, bullshit, compounded by that gesture. At once a post comes across as off-base and condescending.

Don't do too much.

[jancivil]

If you look into the word 'harmony', dig into etymology, we find it's trying to do something other than talk about physics.

There is an area that elnn touches on by saying a dandelion isn't in itself 'yellow'. How is there 'yellow' outside of experience of it? It exists in the world as experienced and we call it something.

This is known as QUALIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

"The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that it is seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem."

This brings up the problems - The Knowledge Argument:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

[Painmooser]

umm well all music or sound for that matter are frequencies of vibration so changes in the speed of the sound will produce different pitches so i guess you can kind of say by creating different speed of a sound it creates a different pitch and hence ability to create harmony? Wouldn't really call this a theory

also light and even matter if you deep enough into physics...

its all vibrations of polarities of some sort.. the whole existence of something...

[VariKusBrainZ]

Yup existence is vibration.
Everything is based on oscillation and the intercation of oscillations.
Cycles are everywhere.
Hence the great Ohm

[AnalogGuy1]

That's right; time (rhythm) and frequency (harmony) are duals of each other mathematically, and it was quantitatively described in the early 1800's by Joseph Fourier. As pitch becomes sufficiently low, or the rhythm sufficiently fast, that "weirdness" some describe is precisely described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There's a problem in William Siebert's text "Signals and Systems" in which one derives the Uncertainty Principle by examining how a train of impulses in time (rhythm) are related to a train of impulses in frequency (harmony) by the Fourier Transform. Some heady stuff, down to the concept that you can never (in finite time anyway) have a single pure frequency.

Now, back to practicing music.