interval quality question

[jancivil]

as to no one has argued that aug second is not a 'dissonant interval'*, that's argument from ignorance. I'm actually pretty sure we're been there and done that, where several phenomena of the interval were noted; one was that vertically it's not really different in sound than a minor third, at the least in 12tET it's simply a spelling difference. Then, a main difference in spelling is the meaning of it in a scale; importantly, the harmonic minor scale (the harmonic aspect of minor is the reason there is minor as opposed to Aeolian or Dorian in the practice: it was the one thing agreed upon by every 'theorist', what to do with the sixth was the question). This shows that it's not necessarily any chromaticism. So it's not just an argument from ignorance, "I haven't seen the argument therefore I can be as conclusive as though there can be no argument", here, since we have argued it, it's a falsehood.

(*: "a dissonant interval" is not a worthy goal in definition. It's too broad, lacks context completely.) Your logic is poor and with the argumentative posture one wonders if you're engaging with us fully in good faith. And the thread has now become arguing about stuff.

[jancivil]

If you want to go with your apparently not very good but quite dogmatic course's approach, choose to trust that implicitly over what's offered to you here, do that, then.

Anything about interval 'quality' is context-bound. Once upon a time, one was forced to agree with the powers-that-be that landing on a Perfect fourth had to be a dissonance and resolved satisfactorily. A little bit later we find harmonies like a triad contain a Perfect fourth more or less happily.
Here, the contentiousness of 'augmented second' is bound to a moment in history. Not a hugely prevaient moment comparatively.
In more modern usage, a major seventh chord is received as a pleasant ending in a number of contexts. We're free to leave a minor second alone in say a minor add2 in jazz and even pop contexts.
If you have to obey someone and reiterate their definitions in a test, don't let us stop you from that. In a larger sense, this is kinda a waste of time IME.

[fmr]

A minor third can have many harmonical functions ...

Right, but NONE of those equals the function of an augmented second. Again, look at the harmonic minor. The interval between Ab and B (considering C minor) IS an augmented second, NOT a minor third, no matter what. If you are building a diminished seventh chord over B, it will have B and Ab. That interval is either a diminished seventh OR an augmented second, no matter what.

And yes, THAT diminished seventh/augmented second is, according the baroque definition, a dissonance.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

A minor third can have many harmonical functions ...

, but NONE of those equals the function of an augmented second. Again, look at the harmonic minor. The interval between Ab and B (considering C minor) IS an augmented second, NOT a minor third, no matter what. If you are building a diminished seventh chord over B, it will have B and Ab. That interval is either a diminished seventh OR an augmented second, no matter what.

And yes, THAT diminished seventh/augmented second is, according the baroque definition, a dissonance.

Not according to my training. Sonically the augmented major second from Ab to B is still a minor third considered as a dyad, and its upper tone B constitutes a major 7th with the tonic like any leadtone. Hence the dissonant character; that is for being a major seventh relative to tonic, not for being an augmented second relative to the natural minor scale when turning it into a harmonic one.

[jancivil]

Yeah, no that augmented second is not the dissonance of that harmony; pile one minor third onto the last and you have a tritone, do another and a diminished seventh harmony results as though making matters worse; is the minor third a dissonance for the "baroque" style per se? that would be quite illogical.

I don't think I agree with calling a linear interval dissonant anyway. A distinction from the minor third is made because of the linear use of the interval but you're going to call it dissonant because of a vertical construct containing it? That's doubly illogical, or triply because the implication it per se is these things when specific reasons are what's argued, not intrinsic dissonance.

I can't produce any historical documentation off the top of my head, but it seems like the aug second may well have been considered distasteful as music of the unwashed, essentially.

[shugs]

Well, I certainly know less Music Theory than 95% of the people here. And I do agree that an A2 sounds exactly like an m3 and are indistinguishable from one another if those are the ONLY two sounds you will here. One of my gripes about Music Theory ( vs Math Theory) is some of its apparent inconsistancies and lack of definitions. One might figure after hundreds of years of development that there would be a common definition of whether an interval is dissonant or not in the abstract. I gather from this discussion there is not.
To me , 'dissonance' is just a 'word', not necessarily desirable or undesirable. I am being taught that certain combinations of notes within a key are either dissonant or they are not. Not a real hard concept

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

One might figure after hundreds of years of development that there would be a common definition of whether an interval is dissonant or not in the abstract. I gather from this discussion there is not.

Only because you do not accept the definition, but want to stick to a half misunderstood, half fantasized one. Doubt that this strategy is legal in math theory. Do I really have to make a screenshot of my Gradus to make you believe it? I also gave you a wiki reference to an augmented major second. Is that a lie too? I also explained it logically according to the tempered 12 tone scale, but you cannot see any of that logic at all? Jan complies with me, while fmr suggests an exception in harmonic minor, which does not comply to the considerations of strict counterpoint either. Like Jan, I doubt whether you really are interested to know. Your resistance seems somewhat surreal to me. Who likes to answer questions if answers from years of study just are ignored to a beginner’s liking? You can at least ask for sources and quotes instead of just ignoring/refuting the answers on basis on a very vague textbook definition. That is no good term for any teacher. Thus, I am off. Good luck at the exam in counterpoint treating the augmented second/minor third as a dissonance.

Edit: Here is a link to Fux’ Gradus ad Parnassum. Check the notes from the middle of page 20 regarding consonances. Nothing else I can do for you now.
http://www.opus28.co.uk/Fux_Gradus.pdf

[shugs]

very much appreciated . I've printed out the first species pages.

[fmr]

I can't produce any historical documentation off the top of my head, but it seems like the aug second may well have been considered distasteful as music of the unwashed, essentially.

WHAT? Prelude in C Major from WTC - I Volume.

Bar 22 - Diminished 7th chord, with the root in the bass.
Bar 23 - Another diminished chord, this time with the 7th in the bass. The seventh forms an augmented second with the root, which is the first note in the treble clef.

These are just examples. I can give you a lot more, just from Bach alone.

[fmr]

A minor third can have many harmonical functions ...

, but NONE of those equals the function of an augmented second. Again, look at the harmonic minor. The interval between Ab and B (considering C minor) IS an augmented second, NOT a minor third, no matter what. If you are building a diminished seventh chord over B, it will have B and Ab. That interval is either a diminished seventh OR an augmented second, no matter what.

And yes, THAT diminished seventh/augmented second is, according the baroque definition, a dissonance.

Not according to my training. Sonically the augmented major second from Ab to B is still a minor third considered as a dyad, and its upper tone B constitutes a major 7th with the tonic like any leadtone. Hence the dissonant character; that is for being a major seventh relative to tonic, not for being an augmented second relative to the natural minor scale when turning it into a harmonic one.

How can an interval from A to B be a minor third? And how could the B be the seventh if it is the root of the chord? Major seventh of what?

Any leading tone "constitutes a major 7th with the tonic"... so what?

[fmr]

Yeah, no that augmented second is not the dissonance of that harmony; pile one minor third onto the last and you have a tritone, do another and a diminished seventh harmony results as though making matters worse; is the minor third a dissonance for the "baroque" style per se? that would be quite illogical.

Ab-B-D-F... A minor third isn't a dissonance, but an augmented second (or diminished seventh, or any seventh/second, for that matter, as well as diminished fifths, or augmented fourths) are.

A diminished seventh chord is a pile of minor thirds

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

How can an interval from A to B be a minor third?

Read the quote again. I wrote from Ab to B. Like in harmonic minor in C as we were talking about. You said c minor yourself as example. Read your own post.

And how could the B be the seventh if it is the root of the chord? Major seventh of what?

B is the augmented seventh in c minor harmonic. The lead tone.
And you do not build a chord on an augmented 7th in c minor harmonic. Here the lead tone is supposed to be the third of the dominent as in V-i.

You seem to have confused yourself. And no, an augmented major second equals a minor third and as a dyad this can never be a dissonant interval. It cannot be in chords either because given it is dissonant, it is because the interval constitutes a dissonance together with another, e.g. two minor thirds = tritonus.

Don’t try to safe your ass by taking this into semantic obscurance as you like to do as last resort. I do not fall for it, and Jan doesn’t either. So play for the audience but watch your attitude…mate.

[fmr]

How can an interval from A to B be a minor third?

Read the quote again. I wrote from Ab to B. Like in harmonic minor in C as we were talking about. You said c minor yourself as example. Read your own post.

I wrote that and I stand by it. And I repeat the question: How can an interval from A to B be a third?

B is the augmented seventh in c minor harmonic. The lead tone.
And you do not build a chord on an augmented 7th in c minor harmonic. [
quote=TribeOfHǫfuð post_id=8307542 time=1640787547 user_id=493660]

You seem to have confused yourself.

B is what? Augmented seventh?

Man, you have to revise your knowledge about intervals. B makes a major seventh over the tonic, as ANY LEADING TONE. Again, so what? (BTW, I think you meant "raised seventh degree", and not "augmented seventh")

And you do not build a chord on an augmented 7th in c minor harmonic.

No comments. Again, go check your interval theory, and harmony theory.

Here the lead tone is supposed to be the third of the dominent as in V-i.

The leading tone is supposed to be the leading tone. PERIOD.

If you build a chord over the dominant, it will be the third of the chord. If you build a chord OVER IT, it will be the root of the chord.

And if you think you don't build chords over the leading tone... Think again. Just take a look at the Bach Prelude I mentioned before.

And refrain from spreading erroneous and stupid assertions like "an augmented second equals a minor third". THEY DON'T, not in tonal music. A second is a second, a third is third. It doesn't matter if the two intervals are enharmonic, THEY ARE DIFFERENT, and have to be treated differently. That's the same reason why you sometimes see double sharps and double flats written, and not their enharmonic equivalents. It's not my fault if you didn't reach that part of the theory yet.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

B is what? Augmented seventh?

Yes. Since a natural minor contains a minor seventh by default, any raise of seventh degree to get a harmonc minor is an augmented minor 7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_seventh

Man, you have to revise your knowledge about intervals.

Man, you need classes and a brain transplant.

And you do not build a chord on an augmented 7th in c minor harmonic.

No comments. Again, go check your interval theory, and harmony theory.

I did, and I am right. Harmonic minor was made to allow for a V-i in minor. This is school book knowledge. The leading tone is hardly the root of a chord.

Here the lead tone is supposed to be the third of the dominent as in V-i.

The leading tone is supposed to to be the leading tone. PERIOD.

Yes, as a third in the dominant in a V-i cadance mainly but not solely. Check your soruces on harmonic minor…if you have any.

If you build a chord over the dominant, it will be the third of the chord. If you build a chord OVER IT, it will be the root of the chord.

You know what a dominant chord is. This is just more obscurance. This is fmr when he is losing the game, he goes obscure, strawman, red herring in an overdriven patronizing tone, which is supposed to convince us that we are idiots and he is right. He panics. I got it, Jan got it, and that is usually goood enough for us.

None of this rubbush is going to turn an augmented major second into a dissonant interval, give it up and let go.

[fmr]

B is what? Augmented seventh?

Yes. Since a natural minor contains a minor seventh by default, any raise of seventh degree to get a harmonc minor is an augmented minor 7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_seventh

Man, you have to revise your knowledge about intervals.

Man, you need classes and a brain transplant.

And you do not build a chord on an augmented 7th in c minor harmonic.

No comments. Again, go check your interval theory, and harmony theory.

I did, and I am right. Harmonic minor was made to allow for a V-i in minor. This is school book knowledge. The leading tone is hardly the root of a chord.

Here the lead tone is supposed to be the third of the dominent as in V-i.

The leading tone is supposed to to be the leading tone. PERIOD.

Yes, as a third in the dominant in a V-i cadance mainly but not solely. Check your soruces on harmonic minor…if you have any.

If you build a chord over the dominant, it will be the third of the chord. If you build a chord OVER IT, it will be the root of the chord.

You know what a dominant chord is. This is just more obscurance. This is fmr when he is losing the game, he goes obscure, strawman, red herring in an overdriven patronizing tone, which is supposed to convince us that we are idiots and he is right. He panics. I got it, Jan got it, and that is usually goood enough for us.

A bunch of BS. I don't have the time to answer that point by point. Again go revise your knowledge about harmony theory, and tonal music, and then come back. Again - take a look at the Bach Prelude (I think he knew something about this stuff).

The leading tone IS THE LEADING TONE. It didn't appear to be the third of anything, it appeared TO BE THE LEADING TONE. It is a (fundamental) degree in the minor mode. Without the leading tone, you don't have tonality.

BTW - There is no such things as "augmented major second". You either have diminished, minor, major and augmented intervals. An interval can't be simultaneously major AND augmented.