diatonic functionality

[sammy24]

The other difference being that with scale degrees, often the tonic is not currently being heard, or wasn't heard right before, and possibly was never sounded at all. The listener in this case identifies the scale degrees by their interval from a tonic tone that they are hearing in their minds.

By "intervals" , on the other hand, we are either dealing with harmonic intervals, where both notes are sounded together, or melodic, in which case it is measured from the previous note. While Identifying a melodic interval may indeed require memory of the previous tone (as opposed to a harmonic interval where both tones exist right now in the present), this may not be quite the same as a conscious awareness of tonic as constant reference point (which isn't quite memory, it's more of a skill akin to knowing where 1 is, rhythmically).

[NKF]

I've only skimmed the posts since last time I was on here, apologies if I have taken anything out of context.



This is a bit misleading.
Something can't be both chromatic and diatonic, they are mutually exclusive.

I mentioned that most chromaticism up until roving harmony used by the very late romantics like Wagner, Mahler , is merely diatonic harmony from a temporary foreign key. Secondary dominants for example. The function is diatonic in mature but still provides a chromatic pitch in the home key.

The point I was trying to get across is that almost all chromaticism in tonal music, using tonality as musicologists tend to use it, stem from the use of diatonic paradigms in temporary foreign keys.

So diatonic and chromaticism are not quite exclusive. This is how chromaticism evolved. By using diatonic movement out of context.

[JumpingJackFlash]

When we hear a melody in the key of C, the interval from each tone to tonic is more important, musically, than the interval between every tone. Trying to hear each tone in relation to the tone before would require the person to keep changing their point of reference, which would be very similar to a momentary modulation

On the contrary. When people sing a melody with which they are not familiar, they don't generally work out each note in relation to the tonic (with a few exceptions), they usually work out the next note based on the previous one (which is generally much easier).

That doesn't mean they hear each note as a tonic, but they do use melodic intervals to guide them first and foremost. They also use harmonic intervals from whatever harmony is heard beneath them at the time. This is obviously even more important in a more atonal context where there might not be such a thing as a "tonic", or in music where the key is constantly changing.

So diatonic and chromaticism are not quite exclusive.

Well, something can be diatonic to one key and chromatic to another, but it can never be both chromatic and diatonic to the same key.

[sammy24]

I could not disagree more. I would almost say that thinking (or more accurately hearing and interpreting) this way misses the most fundamental point of "tonal music", even using the definition of major-minor harmony (and also other central tone-based music). Why do you think they called it tonal music?

Singing melodic intervals from a reference note is in essence the same as considering the reference note a new temporary tonic, because in order to use that note as a reference, you have to ignore the tonic and focus on the new reference note. The whole concept of tonic is that the tonic note is the ear's reference point. Hence, changing reference point is like changing tonic temporarily. The fact that intellectually one knows that a certain note is tonic doesn't make it so, if their ear is currently using a different note as their reference.

Tonic is tonic because it sounds like tonic, not because the composer says it's tonic, or because of the given key signature. It is subjective, actually, because theoretically one could hear an entire piece normally thought of as in the key of C, from a mental reference of any other note. Generally, though, most people seem to agree on which note is tonic, in music where it's clear. It is possible though that two people could hear a melody and each perceive it with a different tonic. And perhaps they would each choose a different key signature to notate that melody.

It is just like if I write a piece in triple meter, and notate it in quadruple, it's still in triple meter. It has just been written in a misleading way. Similaly, a piece in C could easily notated with a different key signature, but that would not change the musical composition itself, which does not exist on paper but is an abstract creation of art. Notation isn't music, in other words, it is a set of instructions from whch musicians can make music.

In jazz, there isn't enough time to be computing melodic intervals, the musician just has to instantly perceive the current tonic and improvise in reference to it.

Atonal music, by definition, has no overall reference note, so yes, the ear's reference point may keep changing, sometimes note by note, or every few notes, etc.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Singing melodic intervals from a reference note is in essence the same as considering the reference note a new temporary tonic, because in order to use that note as a reference, you have to ignore the tonic and focus on the new reference note. The whole concept of tonic is that the tonic note is the ear's reference point. Hence, changing reference point is like changing tonic temporarily.

It doesn't work that way.
The first thing you learn, both when singing and in basic ear training, is how to recognise intervals. How to sing and recognise major thirds, minor thirds, perfect fourths, major sixths... and so on.

There is no need to do this in reference to the tonic. In fact, doing so would add an unnecessary layer of complexity. A perfect fourth is always a perfect fourth, regardless of key. It always sounds the same. It doesn't matter if it's between tonic and subdominant, supertonic and dominant, dominant and tonic, or anything else. - Don't get me wrong, this information is certainly useful and important in some contexts, but it tends to come later, and isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you're trying to work out the melody of an unfamiliar song.

As jancivil said in an earlier post, most people tend to use tunes they are familiar with to help them with this process. Greensleves for minor third, Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star for Perfect Fifth, My Bonny Lies Over the Ocean for Major Sixth, The Simpsons theme for augmented fourth... and so on (to use just some examples).

[NKF]

So diatonic and chromaticism are not quite exclusive.

Well, something can be diatonic to one key and chromatic to another, but it can never be both chromatic and diatonic to the same key.

I merely made reference to this fact because someone mentioned the difficulty with chromaticism. I just found it poignant that almost all of it is diatonic movements they are quite familiar with out of context. Secondary dominants even to the most basic listener would sound quite simple. You could construct a progression using all chromatic pitches that don't really move the listener from the home key and involve very simple boring from other keys.

[sammy24]

When learning intervals from a previous tune, those intervals themselves are based somewhere within a tonality. My Bonnie, for instance, is 5-3, or dominant to mediant. When students learn major sixth way, (at least at first), they may need to transfer this interval to different scale degrees. So if a song goes 2-7, they would need to hear 5 as tonic, momentarily, as it would be in My Bonnie. Eventually, when they get good at the interval itself, all they really have done is learned the major sixth interval from 1-6.

Bert Ligon tells a humorous story where he visited an ear training class, and the teacher asked a student to sing a major sixth from a given note. And the student promptly sang the dominant of that note and then the mediant. In other words, they heard that note as tonic of My Bonnie or Take the A Train, or whatever song reference they obviously learned for major sixth. So the teacher said, wrong, next. And he was sitting there thinking, no, it's the teacher's fault, because the student was just doing what he was taught.

The Simpsons reference is actually better and more direct, because at least it starts from tonic.

It would be possible to learn intervals from song reference, but probably more helpful if the students learned a separate reference for every possibility, 1-6, 2-7. Then they wouldn't have to use My Bonnie except when it's actually 5-3.

When you learn to hear from tonic, you don't need to work out each melodic interval for an unfamiliar song, because the unfamiliar song becomes familiar right away, just by listening.

How did these students learn those familar reference tunes in the first place? Since they haven't learned melodic intervals, it suggests that people can naturally hear melodic intervals, at least subconsciously. Which I doubt. In other words, I maintain that these reference tunes themselves were learned autmatically by tonic, and only then are being used to learn melodic intervals.

[sammy24]

Besides, even though a P4 may "sound" like a P4 in any context, the overall perception will vary greatly whether the P4 was from 1-4, or whether it was, say, #4-7. Totally, totally different perception. Therefore, the particular melodic interval used is clearly only one ingredient. One hasn't "heard" the music until they are familiar with this element as well.

When a student learns by using reference melodies, or eventually the interval itself, (which is nothing more than a reference melody that goes "tonic-submediant" for M6) they can access the correct tone, but they're not comfortable singing it spontaneously yet. But accessing the correct tones helps them "learn" the tune until it becomes familiar, and then they don't have to think about it anymore. But what is actually happening is that after repeatng the melody a few times, the brain finally latches on to the central tone/ scale degrees, and that's when they can do it spontaneously, and the unfamiliar tune has become familiar.

The same thing can be (and usually is) accomplished through memory/pitch retention-- listen to the melody being sung or played, and just sing the pitches back, without measuring intervals or anything. Then repeat until it becomes "familiar"(translation: the ear latches on to the scale degrees in relation to a central reference tone). Most humans know many, many melodies, and yet have never gone to music school or possibly even heard of intervals, yet they still manage to learn music in a familiar way.

Or even better, simply practice ear training that improves and enhances our natural abilities to hear from a central tone, and soon you will just hear new tunes right away, the very first time, and know exactly what you've heard.

In order to play jazz or other improvisational music on a professional level, not only is this the most basic prerequisite, but the task involved is significantly more difficult --the musician must accurately pre-hear the notes in his head before he/she plays it, in a stream of consciousness that is not unlike the way we make conversation. Otherwise, they are simply striking notes on their instrument and then finding out what they sound like afterwards, which is not quite very professional indeed. They would require an uncanny amount of LUCK in order to pull that off successfully. This means you have to 1) accurately hear the notes the first time 2) do all this in your head before you actually play it, and 3), as opposed to just accurately hearing music someone else played, you have to actually create it on the spot. How in the world could somebody do all that? It's because they have it on a spontaneous level.

They are simply using the very same ability that allows a 3 year old to learn new melodies, just taken to a very high level. Show me please a good jazz musician who doesn't have an extremely well-developed ability to hear from a central tone. Why am I talking about jazz? Since jazz is improvisational music, and therefore by definition needs to be played by ear spontaneously, jazz is a good place to start for understanding how to hear music spontaneously. I have no doubt, however, that Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, and the rest of the crew were spontaneous musicians. Even though a composer can take months or years to produce a piece, successful composers usually have musical ideas flowing out of them like water from a faucet.

It's quite easy to understand why this fundamental musical principle is often overlooked; it is so natural to humans, and so automatic, that it is essentially just an explanation of how we hear music. Without it, we literally have nothing but one tone followed by another tone. The connections forged between tones, whch is what makes music music, are a result of this. Unless of course one has absolute pitch, which we aren't discussing. And even those people also have this ability as well.

So we overlook it, and it's possible to not even notice it's there (apparently). But it is there. And yes it may be an innate perception, but the ability. can be immensely improved through practice, whch is why it's worth knowing about. Until you can hear tonal music in context to tonic, you have not yet "heard" the music properly, and don't have it on a spontaneous level.

[jancivil]

When learning intervals from a previous tune, those intervals themselves are based somewhere within a tonality. My Bonnie, for instance, is 5-3, or dominant to mediant. When students learn major sixth way, (at least at first), they may need to transfer this interval to different scale degrees. So if a song goes 2-7, they would need to hear 5 as tonic, momentarily, as it would be in My Bonnie. Eventually, when they get good at the interval itself, all they really have done is learned the major sixth interval from 1-6.

the interval 'major sixth' has been identified in two positions in the diatonic major here. Both of which relate to the TONIC, per se, but in two different functions. The tonic is the tonic. The major sixth My Bon- fits the function 'I'. The other one fits the 'V' harmony. Saying 'hear the dominant as a momentary tonic' is confusing, obliterating meaning 'for the moment'.

changing reference point is like changing tonic temporarily. The fact that intellectually one knows that a certain note is tonic doesn't make it so, if their ear is currently using a different note as their reference.

I don't know how a tonic becomes not a tonic because of a certain level of complexity. You believe it does out of this lingo? This is amazing to me. It's nonsense. This would not work for me. I think this is not good for people or I wouldn't care, 'it works for you, great'. There is something defective about this idea. You are obliterating the meaning of tonic here. If the tonic hasn't changed, it hasn't changed. I'm not sure you realize what you just said

until you can hear tonally

does not gibe with 'forget the tonic, now [] is like a new tonic'. There are actually a number of contradictory statements here. Compare:

The listener in this case identifies the scale degrees by their interval from a tonic tone that they are hearing in their minds.

I think eg., '2-7' should be shown as fitting what it fits, musical reasoning in context, not confounded w. a 'momentary tonic'.

In jazz, there isn't enough time to be computing melodic intervals, the musician just has to instantly perceive the current tonic and improvise in reference to it.

In a music that, let's be concrete, a ii-V denotes a tonic, one really needs to relate the harmony to that goal to be quick on one's feet.

concretely: the goal of a moment ago has been met, minor i; now it is the new ii. the new tonic may be implicated by this: at this pace, two or three harmonies are dealt with in terms of one key/goal, a tonic in a meaningful sense. there is no time for <ii, V or bII, i> as three tonics. if you're dealing with concepts of extensions or that substitute dominant, less thinking is best.

[sammy24]

I kinda think you may have misunderstood some of what I was saying. Did you read the previous few posts, give and take with JJF? Either way, read on, and I will clarify.

I don't know how a tonic becomes not a tonic because of a certain level of complexity.

I'm not talking about music with complexity over here. If a melody goes 2-7, there is absolutely no change of tonic going on, it implies a V chord as you said before, which is as simple and diatonic as it gets. JJF was saying that a listener who is unfamiliar should learn to hear the sound of 2 going up to 7 through the use of a M6 melodic interval, which they originally learn from a reference song like My Bonnie. I was saying that they simply need to hear in their mind the current key, and will then immediately be able to sing 2 up to 7, because a good ear can just hear 2 from the key, and hear 7 from the key, and as a result a M6 will have been formed. They don't need to consciously think the size of the melodic interval to get from 2 to 7.

A major league outfielder trying to throw a runner out at home does not analyze and take their best guess at the distance between where they are standing and home plate ("looks about 317.7 feet away") and then try to throw the ball 317.7 feet. They simply identify the target of home plate, and throw to it, and by result, the distance is covered. If an outfielder with an amazingly accurate arm was asked to give his best guess at how many feet away he is from home plate at a given moment, he will almost certainly not guess accurately, probably 999 times out of 1000 (meaning unless he takes a lucky guess). Nevertheless, he can throw the ball straight into the catcher's glove from whatever distance he happens to be. Similarly, we don't need to calculate the musical distance in pitch, we just identify the target scale degree (by hearing it from a "key") and jump to it, and as a result the melodic interval is covered.

I was trying to explain the convoluted situation that would result if a student couldn't simply hear 2 and 7 (just by using their ear from the current key):

The student at this stage in his development only knows M6 from My Bonnie. OK, so he's currently singing 2, and he's trying to figure out how to get to 7. Using My Bonnie, he will have to pretend that the current note he is singing is the first note of My Bonnie. In My Bonnie, this first note is 5 of the key, not 2. So in order to successfully negotiate this simple interval, he must pretend (and hear) a momentary change of reference when none has occurred.

We're not talking about cases like secondary dominants, tonicization vs. modulation, etc., yes there are countless cases where there is still an overall tonic, and at the same time a momentary focus on a different note. That's not what I meant -- Here's the point: In the above simple case (actually, it couldn't get much simpler, could it?), who in their right mind should need to focus on a new reference point, even for a split second? That was all I meant.

Okay, now down the road the student continues practicing these melodic intervals more and more, in different contexts to a key, until presumably according to JJF's method they will eventually learn to judge a M6 without needing My Bonnie. I refuse to believe that the students are learning to judge musical distance without the aid of any reference. Without a reference, unless one had absolute pitch, we are not very good at judging distance. Certainly we couldn't do so in tune. What is happening is that they are still using some reference. (whatever it is, be it 1-6, 5-3).

Forget about any discussion regarding musical complexity from tonicization, modulation, and the like. That's not what I meant, at all. JJF was saying that melodic intervals are how we hear music, at its most basic level, and then eventually one may learn to hear using the key. I am saying that melodic intervals in the first place can only be learned because of our natural human ability to hear from a key. And that the original "familiar" reference tunes were themselves learned from a key, whether one is conscious of that or not. (The outfielder in the above example may think the way he is doing it is by judging distance. But if asked to throw 317.7 feet without a reference, he will fail every time, unless he gets super lucky. Yet with a reference, he can hit the catcher's glove.) The concept of central tone and key comes first, and melodic intervals come second. JJF is saying it's the other way around.

In my view, if a composition just stuck in one key for ten minutes, using simple diatonic harmony, I, ii, iii, IV, V, etc., the entire thing could just be heard from a single reference point. The idea that one would have to change reference point, no matter how temporary, for every single melodic interval is almost silly, and is missing the point. It is overcomplicated something simple.

I can't even say it's wrong, though. There's no right and wrong in music, per se. Imagine a poet writes something, and people overanalyze and completely misinterpret what he meant. Maybe that's a wrong interpretation, or maybe art exists as art in and of itself, separate from the creator. But being a human endeavor, I tend to think that the composer is assuming the listeners will comprehend his intentions, and that it makes sense for us to follow suit. Certainly a composer of a melody that remains completely diatonic to the Ab major scale does not expect his listeners to perceive momentary changes of reference on every melody note. If we just listen instead of overanalyze, we'd realize it's all simply in the key of Ab and leave it at that.

I can't even believe this is being discussed, much less argued about! The only reason I've spent so much time discussing this is because of the harm I believe it could cause to others to think in such a convoluted way that is missing the basic point of tonal music, and might therefore impede their musical development.

I'm absolutely with you on "less thinking is best". Music is mathematical enough that it can be studied, analyzed, overanalyzed, possibly without even hearing it at all. Then you meet a guy who has never studied music in his life, and can blow everyone out of the water with how well they play. IMO, that guy gets what it's all about. Certainly music can be studied to help teach the ear what to focus on and how to improve, but it's all ear. Music is the study of sound and silence, after all. But it is possible to get sidetracked with analyzing intervals, chords, counterpoint, harmony, etc. for years, on a mostly mathematical or intellectual level.

Let's say you have some music in the key of Db. If a person cannot perceive Db as the "key" by ear [I don't mean knowing it's actually Db through absolute pitch. I mean that they can't figure out what key the music they're listening to is in, in relation to the music], then when they assert that "this music is in the key of Db", they are doing so on a purely intellectual level (they know it's in Db because for example a)the composer told them so b) the music is entitled "Nocturne in Db) c) the key signature is 5 flats so they're assuming it's in the key of Db d) through analysis of the musical notation alone but without being able to hear it) -- on an ear level they don't hear it. I was simply pointing out that the concept of "key" and central tone isn't some intellectual idea, it is central (pun intended) to the perception of the music.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Im getting very bored by this thread now, so this might be my last post here.

When students learn major sixth way, (at least at first), they may need to transfer this interval to different scale degrees. So if a song goes 2-7, they would need to hear 5 as tonic, momentarily, as it would be in My Bonnie. Eventually, when they get good at the interval itself, all they really have done is learned the major sixth interval from 1-6.

No they don't. You're making things way too complicated.
At this stage, students do not need to know whether the interval is 2-7, 1-6, 5-3 or anything else. It doesn't matter yet. They don't need to relate everything to a central tonic, that is much too complicated. All they need to do is recognise the melodic interval of Major Sixth. That's it. They don't even need to know what key it's in at this point.

Bert Ligon tells a humorous story where he visited an ear training class, and the teacher asked a student to sing a major sixth from a given note. And the student promptly sang the dominant of that note and then the mediant.

That doesn't make sense. That isn't how students think. All they need to do is hear the given note, internalise it as the first syllable from "My Bonny" (or any other reference tune), and then sing the next syllable in relation to that.

It would be possible to learn intervals from song reference, but probably more helpful if the students learned a separate reference for every possibility, 1-6, 2-7.

Why bother learning umpteen different melodies for the same basic interval? - Again, you're just making this overly complicated.

When you learn to hear from tonic, you don't need to work out each melodic interval for an unfamiliar song, because the unfamiliar song becomes familiar right away, just by listening.

For experienced musicians perhaps, but this is working on a much higher level than basic ear training of the type that happens in a classroom.

Since they haven't learned melodic intervals, it suggests that people can naturally hear melodic intervals, at least subconsciously. Which I doubt.

Of course they can! - That's what relative pitch is. It's the basis of ear training, of singing and arguably of music in general.

Your notion that people can naturally hear tonal relationships is much more far fetched, especially as tonality is largely a cultural phenomena and only a very small percentage of music conforms to it (as discussed earlier).

Besides, even though a P4 may "sound" like a P4 in any context, the overall perception will vary greatly whether the P4 was from 1-4, or whether it was, say, #4-7. Totally, totally different perception. Therefore, the particular melodic interval used is clearly only one ingredient. One hasn't "heard" the music until they are familiar with this element as well.

That's true, but as I said, this comes long after the student has mastered basic ear training (including relative pitch).

Some musicians never reach this stage. They can't identify pitches in relation to a "tonic", nor do they necessarily need to be able to do so.

When a student learns by using reference melodies, or eventually the interval itself, (which is nothing more than a reference melody that goes "tonic-submediant" for M6)

No! - The "tonic-submediant" bit is irrelevant. It's simply a major sixth in and of itself.

Most humans know many, many melodies, and yet have never gone to music school or possibly even heard of intervals, yet they still manage to learn music in a familiar way.

And you really think that such people understand the tonal hierarchy? - Most of them wouldn't have a clue what a subdomiannt was! - They don't think that way. They don't need to think that way.

Let's use an example. Gather a random selection of musically uneducated people together in a circle. You go round the circle, and each person sings the next note of a basic melody such as Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.

How do they do it? - Do each of them think of what the tonic is and work out their note in reference to that? - Of course not! They just sing their note in reference to what the person before them sang. So, the fifth person along doesn't need to work out that his note is the submediant of the key (a concept which would likely be meaningless to him), he just sings one note above the previous one.

In order to play jazz or other improvisational music on a professional level...

Now you've jumped onto something completely different.
We're not talking about playing at a professional level here, we're talking about amateurs doing basic ear training.

It's quite easy to understand why this fundamental musical principle is often overlooked; it is so natural to humans, and so automatic, that it is essentially just an explanation of how we hear music. Without it, we literally have nothing but one tone followed by another tone. The connections forged between tones, whch is what makes music music, are a result of this.

Now you're repeating your earlier misconception that everyone is born with an innate sense of tonality, and that everyone hears music in the same way. This is not true. Our Western system of tonality is not universal or natural, and is a product of cultural conditioning.

Until you can hear tonal music in context to tonic, you have not yet "heard" the music properly

But only a very small amount of music is tonal (in the strictest sense discussed earlier).
How do people deal with music that doesn't follow the same conventions? - If all they did was base everything on the "tonic" (as you seem to think), what do they do when there is no tonic, or when the tonic keeps changing?

The other problem with your idea is that it would require completely different approaches to both major and minor keys, not to mention all the various modes and so on. 1-3 in major is not the same as 1-3 in minor for example.

If students were taught your way, even for a basic interval such as the minor third, they would have to be able to know 2-4, 3-5, 6-1 and 7-2 in major, as well as 1-3, 2-4, 4-6, 5-7, #6-1 and #7-2 of the natural minor. That's at least 10 different intervals already, and we haven't even started on the modes yet, or on the various chromatic possibilities! Surely you can see that this is much harder than simply learning what a minor third sounds like?

I am saying that melodic intervals in the first place can only be learned because of our natural human ability to hear from a key.

As I said above, this is not "natural", it is learnt.

The concept of central tone and key comes first, and melodic intervals come second. JJF is saying it's the other way around.

Ok then, please identify the "central tone" in this piece of music:

The idea that one would have to change reference point, no matter how temporary, for every single melodic interval is almost silly, and is missing the point. It is overcomplicated something simple.

Not at all.
Singing a note a tone away from another is generally a lot easier than going back to the tonic each time, and having to work out a big interval like a minor seventh from that.

I was simply pointing out that the concept of "key" and central tone isn't some intellectual idea, it is central (pun intended) to the perception of the music.

Only certain types of music.

[jancivil]

I kinda think you may have misunderstood some of what I was saying. Did you read...

I addressed specific statements with specificity. If there is a problem of understanding what has been typed out of a quick skimming, it lies with you. I too am bored now.

[jancivil]

I kinda think you may have misunderstood some of what I was saying. Did you read the previous few posts, give and take with JJF? Either way, read on, and I will clarify.

I don't know how a tonic becomes not a tonic because of a certain level of complexity.

I'm not talking about music with complexity over here.

Obviously, 'major sixth that outlines V rather than I' is a more complex idea than 'major sixth' itself. So you went for 'consider 2-7 via a momentary tonic [5]'. It's overcomplicated I think. I don't think there's any point to it.

You contradict yourself while you're trying to formulate this, and that makes it look a bit like you're trying to formulate it for the first time. To wit:

If a melody goes 2-7, there is absolutely no change of tonic going on, it implies a V chord as you said before, which is as simple and diatonic as it gets.

Why was it useful earlier in the thread to relate it to 'like a momentary tonic'? I see that you explained it, but that isn't what it looked like initially - "The fact that intellectually one knows that a certain note is tonic doesn't make it so, if their ear is currently using a different note as their reference." -
and that's not my fault. I think you rethought your statement. I think you can be brought around to the point, 'the tonic is the tonic qua 'tonic'', rather than that bit, which doesn't seem well examined. It's self-contradictory, you're trying to make 'tonality' primary in all our lives from conception but then 'tonic' is up in the air [momentarily!] unnecessarily. 'intellectually' is a red herring, you know? you look like you're ready to have an easily confusable ear as a basis and you have that dodgy language following it.

I have the gist of your fundamental premise in spite of that kind of contradiction. I disagree with it, and between JJF and myself I think a counterbalance has been provided.

As far as your premise of the natural ear, I do not hear like that. I actually developed my ear. I don't believe I'm a freak of nature.

[sammy24]

I too am bored now.

OMG I was bored a week ago, you're just getting bored now?