when tones? when harmonics intervals? and when chords?

[jancivil]

You couldn't have picked a better example than Webern to make the opposite of the point you want. Show me the thinking, do your analysis that leads to that 'chord'. You're just making an assertion and then sticking to it, isn't it. I don't have to agree with that sentence by Straus, and I showed you that the other scholar takes that with a grain of salt, as part of an introduction for those new to this type of material.

[jancivil]

nm

[stringtapper]

It isn't? It isn't there because of Webern's thinking in terms of the row. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Show me the chordal thinking, then. It now appears that you deem any sonority that lines up in time to be 'a chord'. I don't think that is at all useful in looking at this area of music.

Are you looking at the actual music?

The sonority that Straus calls a "chord" in the first full measure of "Wie bin it froh!" is A-G#-C#-C all sounded together in the duration of a quarter note (sorry, I said a half note in my previous post). That's what I mean by it not being a product of contrapuntal motion.

The notes simply being derived from the row is not an example of coincidental verticality due to contrapuntal motion, and if you think so, then I will return your insult and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Schoenberg was always very clear about the role of the row and that it should not be considered as a melody in and of itself.

[stringtapper]

I also found this:
<Joseph Straus provides a serial analysis of the basic row for the first song from op. 25, “Wie bin ich froh”.5 The source of this analysis is an introductory text for post-tonal studies. His conclusions are pedagogically based and meant to illustrate a point about organization to the novice; they do not necessarily reflect his complete or professional opinion of op. 25. That said, his analysis shows how Webern organized the interval content and points out that it is dominated by (014) trichords transposed by a perfect-fourth; however, he does not discuss the ramifications this has for “Wie bin ich froh.”6 "There is no way of knowing, in advance, which intervals or groups of intervals will turn out to be important in organizing this, or any, post-tonal work." 7 In contrast to Straus’s views, my study provides an alternative solution to the organization of the row [...]
(citing 7: Straus, Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 23. "Straus’s point is that students new to the Post-Tonal repertoire should approach the music without presupposition.")>

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675 ... thesis.pdf ('Previous Scholarship' pg. 4)

I got a chance to take a look at this.

This is by a colleague of mine. Same school.

What you're not realizing is that Taylor is saying he finds an alternative to Straus's "there is no way of knowing" statement. Not a great reference to support your claim. I also happen to know that his research and analysis is based in some of the research of one of our professors here who is interested in finding structures within post-tonal works that are essentially remnants of tonal organization. That's what Taylor's thesis is ultimately about.

[stringtapper]

The fact is that in Schoenberg's conception of the 12-tone method (and by extension—as his pupil—Webern's) was that it should be a new model for the generation of musical material, much in the same way the Tonic triad is seen as the generator harmony and voice leading in Schnkerian theories of tonal music.

The sequential aspect of the 12-tone row should not be confused as necessarily being a melodic construct.

[jancivil]

It isn't? It isn't there because of Webern's thinking in terms of the row. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Show me the chordal thinking, then. It now appears that you deem any sonority that lines up in time to be 'a chord'. I don't think that is at all useful in looking at this area of music.

Are you looking at the actual music?

The sonority that Straus calls a "chord" in the first full measure of "Wie bin it froh!" is A-G#-C#-C all sounded together in the duration of a quarter note (sorry, I said a half note in my previous post). That's what I mean by it not being a product of contrapuntal motion.

I'm looking at the music and at Straus' work on it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187 ... op._25.pdf

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187 ... enberg.pdf

So your argument really is that because the tones line up in time, Straus' '4-note chord' is the end of it? If you look at the analysis by Straus, you find talk about the line. There is no talk of it otherwise. Whether or not we are going to go into 'contrapuntal' or not, it ought to be very clear that all of the material is derived from consideration of the horizontal, not chordal thinking. Sorry, that all the notes are hit at the same time and are of same duration does nothing for me for a definition of chord. We have gone into chords built (STACKED) with 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 2nds. You-name-it. What is this A C C# G#, then? Where did that actually come from? Here's what Straus' analysis looks like.

[stringtapper]

I cited the Straus in order to prove that the term is used in publications by highly reputable scholars in the field of music theory.

And proving that was in order to support my argument that chords are not just tertian in nature, something you earlier conceded, right?

[jancivil]

Straus' analysis shows how Webern organized the interval content and points out that it is dominated by (014) trichords transposed by a perfect-fourth; however, he does not discuss the ramifications this has for “Wie bin ich froh.”6 "There is no way of knowing, in advance, which intervals or groups of intervals will turn out to be important in organizing this, or any, post-tonal work." 7 In contrast to Straus’s views, my study provides an alternative solution to the organization of the row [...]
(citing 7: Straus, Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 23. "Straus’s point is that students new to the Post-Tonal repertoire should approach the music without presupposition.")>

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675 ... thesis.pdf ('Previous Scholarship' pg. 4)

I got a chance to take a look at this.

This is by a colleague of mine. Same school.

What you're not realizing is that Taylor is saying he finds an alternative to Straus's "there is no way of knowing" statement. Not a great reference to support your claim. I also happen to know that his research and analysis is based in some of the research of one of our professors here who is interested in finding structures within post-tonal works that are essentially remnants of tonal organization. That's what Taylor's thesis is ultimately about.

No, that is totally not what I did there. I DO NOT rely on Taylor let alone agreement with his thesis to show you what STRAUS SAID. That's absurd. YOU relied on the authority of Straus, and I do believe that should we accept that statement, asserting here was the intent of a chord is very much problematic. Regardless of his 'remnants of tonal organization', Taylor indicates that Straus is dealing with it straight, in terms of the organization of the row .

[jancivil]

I cited the Straus in order to prove that the term is used in publications by highly reputable scholars in the field of music theory.

And proving that was in order to support my argument that chords are not just tertian in nature, something you earlier conceded, right?

Well, I think it was used because he wants to bring people in that only ever dealt with 'chords' and the like. I did not "concede" that chords can be other than tertial. I never said otherwise. It appears your whole argument for that sonority is a chord turns out to be they line up in time exactly.

Then, appeal to authority. Not fallacious appeal, I'll recognize Straus; but your authority appears to believe there is no way to predict the particular aggregations, or not the usual way in any case. So, for the third time, how exactly is this a chord: by thirds, seconds, fourths, fifths? What is the analysis, how does Webern get there. Straus appears to agree with most scholars, he does so through some type of manipulation of the row. Which is linear thinking and NOT stacking a chord. I do_not agree at all that every sonority that happens to align in time needs be a "chord". That, chords, is not how I think most of the time. I feel quite confident to say that looking for chords in Webern will be a total waste of time.

[stringtapper]

Well, I think it was used because he wants to bring people in that only ever dealt with 'chords' and the like. I did not "concede" that chords can be other than tertial. I never said otherwise. It appears your whole argument for that sonority is a chord turns out to be they line up in time exactly.

No seriously, the only thing I was pointing out was that the word was used for something other than what fmr claims is the only definition of a chord. It was just an example I had close at hand. There are more examples.

Hindemith would be one example, his theory contains non-tertian chords.

I think ultimately this becomes a linguistic issue. We're talking about what people call certain things.

[jancivil]

The sequential aspect of the 12-tone row should not be confused as necessarily being a melodic construct.

I realize that. It could be textural. The placement could be pretty much down to its rhythmic import. It could be a purely formal thing like his palindromes, there are all sorts of ideas it could have to do with. But I am not confused. I am saying something pretty much universally accepted, that the thinking in Webern is linear. If you have a firm belief it's 'harmonic' and functional, his thought is "So I'll need this A major-minor/major 7th/no fifth here", you can show that. To me, you're engaging in sophistry at this point.

[jancivil]

Well, I think it was used because he wants to bring people in that only ever dealt with 'chords' and the like. I did not "concede" that chords can be other than tertial. I never said otherwise. It appears your whole argument for that sonority is a chord turns out to be they line up in time exactly.

No seriously, the only thing I was pointing out was that the word was used for something other than what fmr claims is the only definition of a chord. It was just an example I had close at hand. There are more examples.

Hindemith would be one example, his theory contains non-tertian chords.

I think ultimately this becomes a linguistic issue. We're talking about what people call certain things.

I can only go by what you said. I think this particular lingo is not apt for Webern. In my own music, there are things all over that just can't be chords in any meaningful way. So there is a context here (incl., I think the reliance on 'chords' is, lack of a better word, hegemonic.). You seem to be confusing me with fmr, I never argued chords must be tertial. I feel sure that Webern was not building chords, that the vertical consideration was something else.

[stringtapper]

Well, I think it was used because he wants to bring people in that only ever dealt with 'chords' and the like. I did not "concede" that chords can be other than tertial. I never said otherwise. It appears your whole argument for that sonority is a chord turns out to be they line up in time exactly.

No seriously, the only thing I was pointing out was that the word was used for something other than what fmr claims is the only definition of a chord. It was just an example I had close at hand. There are more examples.

Hindemith would be one example, his theory contains non-tertian chords.

I think ultimately this becomes a linguistic issue. We're talking about what people call certain things.

I can only go by what you said. I think this particular lingo is not apt for Webern. In my own music, there are things all over that just can't be chords in any meaningful way. So there is a context here (incl., I think the reliance on 'chords' is, lack of a better word, hegemonic.). You seem to be confusing me with fmr, I never argued chords must be tertial. I feel sure that Webern was not building chords, that the vertical consideration was something else.

But again, you're arguing the merits of Straus using the term, when all I was ever doing was pointing out that he did. I was supporting the fact that non-tertian and even atonal sonorities have been and are often called "chords."

And no, I know who you are and I know you're not arguing fmr's point.

[jancivil]

No. I most certainly am not arguing the merits of Straus' use. I am arguing the merits of that use at all. I looked at Straus because I was dumbstruck to see it. I am saying that the word 'chord' is not good for looking at Webern, regardless of what Straus was doing with it (I infer that Straus was using familiar language deliberately.). It occurs to me that Straus doesn't agree really with Straus (and 'chord'). The choice of Webern for the point rather indicates the argument that chords are not omnipresent and necessary, to my view. EDIT: I find Straus saying 'there's no way to know in advance' useful (in that he's about to talk about something which may be new to the class, 'organization of the row is where it's at'). I would think that's not very contentious.

[jancivil]

As to non-tertial sonorities being chords, here's a great example. Satie 'le fils des étoiles', Prelude Act I.


I'll tell you why I consider these chords: when I went to adapt it (and the reason for it is these chords, very McCoy Tyner, only ca. 1890s) for my own purpose, creating lines/parts worked as per the chords, as though chord changes in jazz.