all about the intervals

[mattie]

the chord is accually not so interesting.
isn't the melody that stays in one's head?

The chord should only exist out of 3 or 4 melody's,
having intervals between eachother.

Mixed with a bit off polyrhythm.

And off you go?

[Ogg Vorbis]

I am in your church, brother! Preach it!

http://mathemusicality.wordpress.com/

[JumpingJackFlash]

the chord is accually not so interesting.
isn't the melody that stays in one's head?

Maybe, but one of the key things behind a good melody is the implied harmony. You see, many melodies have a harmonic structure that can be felt even if it has no chords to go with it. You may not be consciously aware of it, but it's often there. Harmony and melody complement each other; two sides of one coin.

In any case, it does of course depend on the style of music. In certain music, the melody is of prime importance, in others it is the harmony - or at least the harmonic framework. J.S. Bach for example couldn't really write a "tuneful" melody but he was the absolute master of harmony, and he's still one of the most famous composers there is.

Personally speaking, I would much rather listen to a mediocre melody that's been harmonised well, then an excellent melody that's been harmonised poorly (or not at all). The latter gets boring very quickly.

[jancivil]

I think either/or thinking 'chords vs melody', or insisting on maxims such as 'gets boring', like per se an unadorned excellent melody *is* boring (kind of making me wonder if you've actually <heard> an excellent melody ever), aren't really the most thoughtful ways to go with musical considerations...

[jcrisman]

the chord is accually not so interesting.
isn't the melody that stays in one's head?

The chord should only exist out of 3 or 4 melody's,
having intervals between eachother.

Mixed with a bit off polyrhythm.

And off you go?

??

Perhaps you need to learn/hear some new chords and chord progressions? *shrugs*

[Ogg Vorbis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_West ... nal_theory

[Aroused by JarJar]

You're looking at counterpoint and, taken to an extreme, heterophony.

There are different musicians and different audiences, so it is not possible to say which approach (melody "vs" harmony) is "better", even if there were a distinct division between the approaches. And there is no distinct division- we kind of "window" sound, hearing backwards and forwards over time (otherwise you could just wander off key at will and noone would know, for one thing. And, there is a lot more harmony in monophonic melody than might be apparent at first thought- not just the harmony in our minds, but the physical harmony of sustained tones, note how tons of allegedly "monophonic" music of the East has drones and metallic tones that kind of sustain in a blur.

The Westergaard theory has a big flaw, at least from what's presented at the link. That is, it is true that Western harmony did evolve from contrapuntal lines, this is well documented, but harmony achieved its own, and downright independent, status later. For example, you could theoretically have killer lines and excellent counterpoint from a rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic standpoint out of tonal context, but the laws of physics and psychoacoustics are going to kick in whether you like or not if you want to have tonal harmonies going. The verbot against a fourth in the bass (6/4) except in places where you intentionally want to make the tonality ambiguous is not in and of itself a contrapuntal thing, it is a contrapuntal "rule" that came from tonal harmonic considerations.

In balls-to-the wall improvised contrapuntal singing for example, you can get all kinds of things that violate Western tonality, many parallel fifths and so on.

I'm a counterpoint person myself, maybe to extremes- maybe once a year I think in chord progressions . But that's personal- whatever works for you.

Try it and hear what happens.

[Ogg Vorbis]

You're looking at counterpoint and, taken to an extreme, heterophony.

Actually, herophony, like polyphony and homophony and monophony describe texture. What does texture have to do with either melodies or "harmony?'

And, there is a lot more harmony in monophonic melody than might be apparent at first thought- not just the harmony in our minds, but the physical harmony of sustained tones, note how tons of allegedly "monophonic" music of the East has drones and metallic tones that kind of sustain in a blur.

Not sure what the connection is between texture and melody...

The Westergaard theory has a big flaw, at least from what's presented at the link. That is, it is true that Western harmony did evolve from contrapuntal lines, this is well documented,

By whom? If you read the PERIOD documents, letters and treatises that the masters wrote and read (incuding Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, etc.) nothing is mentioned about harmony in the Rameauan sense. Rameau, was totally and completely unique (and largely ignored until the 20th century) in his description of triads in root movements ("chord progressions.")

In balls-to-the wall improvised contrapuntal singing for example, you can get all kinds of things that violate Western tonality, many parallel fifths and so on.

Do you mean "polyphony" when you use the word "contrapuntal"?

But that's personal- whatever works for you.

Try it and hear what happens.

Absolutely agree! We have reached a wonderful tonal cadence in perfect consonance.

I don't have an agenda to re-write everyone's conception of music in their minds. But an open mind and to question everything we think we know can be very illuminating and instructive sometimes.

I promise to try always to have an open mind too.

[Aroused by JarJar]

You're looking at counterpoint and, taken to an extreme, heterophony.

Actually, herophony, like polyphony and homophony and monophony describe texture. What does texture have to do with either melodies or "harmony?'

This is not correct. Textures arise from these things, textures is not what they "are".

And, there is a lot more harmony in monophonic melody than might be apparent at first thought- not just the harmony in our minds, but the physical harmony of sustained tones, note how tons of allegedly "monophonic" music of the East has drones and metallic tones that kind of sustain in a blur.

Not sure what the connection is between texture and melody...

???

The Westergaard theory has a big flaw, at least from what's presented at the link. That is, it is true that Western harmony did evolve from contrapuntal lines, this is well documented,

By whom? If you read the PERIOD documents, letters and treatises that the masters wrote and read (incuding Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, etc.) nothing is mentioned about harmony in the Rameauan sense. Rameau, was totally and completely unique (and largely ignored until the 20th century) in his description of triads in root movements ("chord progressions.")

How about reading period documents and understanding them? Haven't you gone through Fux? (Mozart did). That's punctus contra punctus- you can go back to parallel organum, then through Fux, Palestrina, then through the composers you mention, on through Jeppeson, through the 19th century, and you'll see that it is just as I describe. Monophony, parallel organum, counterpoint, functional harmony, and so on to harmony as structure, atonality, the works.

In balls-to-the wall improvised contrapuntal singing for example, you can get all kinds of things that violate Western tonality, many parallel fifths and so on.

Do you mean "polyphony" when you use the word "contrapuntal"?

No, by "contrapuntal" I mean "contrapuntal", punctus contra punctus (cf., original post). Counterpoint can be tonal, atonal, and everything in between- I'm talking about what the original poster was talking about, melodic lines, and where the vertical is deliberately or accidentally brought about by them, rather than vice versa. Otherwise I would have used "voice leading".

But that's personal- whatever works for you.

Try it and hear what happens.

Absolutely agree! We have reached a wonderful tonal cadence in perfect consonance.

I don't have an agenda to re-write everyone's conception of music in their minds. But an open mind and to question everything we think we know can be very illuminating and instructive sometimes.

I promise to try always to have an open mind too.

Well that's a good thing.

[Ogg Vorbis]

This is not correct. Textures arise from these things, textures is not what they "are".

According to your argument, the more melodic activity that is occuring, then the more "melodic" or "harmonic" it is.

Which has more harmony, a Bach Fugue or a Puccini aria? Kind of a meaningless question, isn't it?

How about reading period documents and understanding them? Haven't you gone through Fux? (Mozart did). That's punctus contra punctus- you can go back to parallel organum, then through Fux, Palestrina, then through the composers you mention, on through Jeppeson, through the 19th century, and you'll see that it is just as I describe. Monophony, parallel organum, counterpoint, functional harmony, and so on to harmony as structure, atonality, the works.

I'd love for you to show me where in the PERIOD literature, it talks about harmonic progressions? I'd love for you to show me in any of Mozart's letters or Haydn's or in any of the period treatises THAT THE COMPOSERS ACTUALLY STUDIED that point to the triadic harmony in root postions and inversions.

You can't can you?

Westergaard, whom you've already dismissed based on one incomplete article in Wikidpedia has the advantage in that his approach to "harmony" can be more historically corroborated. Rameau's theories, although brilliant and revolutionary, were not widely used until the musical education went from being an apprenticeship to the universities.

Let me ask you something. If you could step into a time machine and speak perfect period German and you walked up to Haydn after a gig and said, "I love how you used that first inversion of the tonic chord followed by a sub-dominant triad in your sonata," do you think he would have the foggiest idea of what you were talking about?

[Aroused by JarJar]

This is not correct. Textures arise from these things, textures is not what they "are".

According to your argument, the more melodic activity that is occuring, then the more "melodic" or "harmonic" it is.

Which has more harmony, a Bach Fugue or a Puccini aria? Kind of a meaningless question, isn't it?

How about reading period documents and understanding them? Haven't you gone through Fux? (Mozart did). That's punctus contra punctus- you can go back to parallel organum, then through Fux, Palestrina, then through the composers you mention, on through Jeppeson, through the 19th century, and you'll see that it is just as I describe. Monophony, parallel organum, counterpoint, functional harmony, and so on to harmony as structure, atonality, the works.

I'd love for you to show me where in the PERIOD literature, it talks about harmonic progressions? I'd love for you to show me in any of Mozart's letters or Haydn's or in any of the period treatises THAT THE COMPOSERS ACTUALLY STUDIED that point to the triadic harmony in root postions and inversions.

You can't can you?

Westergaard, whom you've already dismissed based on one incomplete article in Wikidpedia has the advantage in that his approach to "harmony" can be more historically corroborated. Rameau's theories, although brilliant and revolutionary, were not widely used until the musical education went from being an apprenticeship to the universities.

Let me ask you something. If you could step into a time machine and speak perfect period German and you walked up to Haydn after a gig and said, "I love how you used that first inversion of the tonic chord followed by a sub-dominant triad in your sonata," do you think he would have the foggiest idea of what you were talking about?

Do you even read what I write????!?!?! In the period literature, it does NOT talk about harmonic progressions! WTF are you going on about? I said, tonal harmony evolved from counterpoint, not the other way around! Harmony became a thing of its own LATER.

Humorously enough, your lack of reading skill has you barking at me exactly what I barked at a music professor twenty years ago, except that I used Bach as the example of a musician who wouldn't understand his jazzhole fixation of harmonic progression as "music".

It's QED that harmonic (vertical) considerations were always part of counterpoint, and became ever more so, to the point where the vertical became a thing of its own. You can't say it is/was absolutely one or the other, at any point in history, though it's heavily weighted one way or the other in
different times and places.

[Ogg Vorbis]

It's QED that harmonic (vertical) considerations were always part of counterpoint, and became ever more so, to the point where the vertical became a thing of its own.

Listen to me.... this statement that you just made above is false. Your premise is false. But forget me and my reading comprehension...Just show me in the literature and the treatises that backs up what you say. It's really so simple.

[Aroused by JarJar]

It's QED that harmonic (vertical) considerations were always part of counterpoint, and became ever more so, to the point where the vertical became a thing of its own.

Listen to me.... this statement that you just made above is false. Your premise is false. But forget me and my reading comprehension...Just show me in the literature and the treatises that backs up what you say. It's really so simple.

Judging by your previous launching of misguided missles, I think maybe that you are confusing harmonic (vertical) considerations with "chord progressions".

I already showed you where, in the literature, harmonic (vertical) considerations are already happening. Parallel organum- if parallel perfect intervals are not harmonic (vertical) considerations, I don't know what is . And Fux, text of Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven and many others- are you telling me that you have not gone through Gradus ad Parnassum, in which the harmonic (vertical) considerations already take place in the first species? Are you going to tell me that a requisite M6 preceding the final is not a harmonic (vertical) consideration?

[Ogg Vorbis]

I already showed you where, in the literature, harmonic (vertical) considerations are already happening. Parallel organum- if parallel perfect intervals are not harmonic (vertical) considerations, I don't know what is . And Fux, text of Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven and many others- are you telling me that you have not gone through Gradus ad Parnassum, in which the harmonic (vertical) considerations already take place in the first species? Are you going to tell me that a requisite M6 preceding the final is not a harmonic (vertical) consideration?

I've dedicated myself rather studiously to Fux's counterpoint. What you are calling "vertical considerations" are intervals between voices. There are a couple of considerations when looking at the intervals between voices and it boils down to consonance and dissonance.

If you recall, Aloysius stated that the beginning and ending intervals must form a perfect consonance between the CF and the voice in counterpoint. Other consonances are formed when there is a step OR a skip in the voice but dissonances are handled by preparation and resolution rather specifically.

Adding 3 voices to a CF produces greater texture obviously, but the guidelines of intervals between the voices are still adhered to.

So that's what I remember from Fux...consonance and dissonance. I don't recall Aloysius ever instructing Josephus to look at a vertical event as an entity unto itself.

In fact, going through the various species, if you describe the texture you could call it "homophony" since it's very 1:1 or 2:1, etc. even in four voices.

In "florid" counterpoint in all added voices except the CF, the texture is more polyphonic (many people mistakenly refer to this as "contrapuntal") but the basic handling of the consonance and dissonance between all the intervals does not change regardless of the texture.

For this reason I take exception to the idea that somehow the evolution from multi-voice Palestrinian polyphony in the late Rennaissance to the more homophonic Italian opera influence in the late Baroque produced a mindset that allows vertical units or events to come into special consideration.

Now Rameau DID invent a totally original approach to music in the late Baroque. But this was NOT a codification of the thinking of the period. It was a unique and original way of looking at these consonant and dissonant intervals.

Figured bass is sometimes used to "prove" that the vertical entities (chords) were given high consideration. But there again, all you have is a bassline with a short-hand of the intervals of the voices overhead. You can see the voiceleading orientation of figured bass more easily than you can see the "rise of the chord."

What I am trying to do is to see that our post-hoc application of chord theory might be one way of looking at things, but there's not a lot of support for the idea that COMPOSERS looked at it this way.

To sum up, I can look at the most homophonic of Haydn's work - say a string quarted where the Vc, Vla and 2nd Vn is going "chunk-chunk-chunk-chunk" on one note each and the first Vn is singing away some melody - and see that there's nothing that Fux's counterpoint DOESN'T explain.

Forgive me that I mistook what you said. I am going back to what you posted which was, "That is, it is true that Western harmony did evolve from contrapuntal lines, this is well documented, but harmony achieved its own, and downright independent, status later."

As I said, I don't happen to agree with that and I don't find anything in what the composers learned or what they said to support that. Rameau said that, but there is not much evidence to support that Rameau was codifying something in the "atmosphere."

I really do think that Rameau was embraced widely, but not until the 20th century when universities took over from the age-old tradition of apprenticeships (like Josephus and Aloysius) when suddenly, "vertical considerations in their own right" started to look like a really nice way to train a musician in the musical language in four years rather than twelve.

Now that we have this "verticalized" view, it's hard to jump outside of it and see history in any other way. It seems like the self-evident truth. It really looks like there was all this polyphony which seemed to regard vertical events as "less important" and then things evolved toward a more "vertical unit" based orientation. But I don't think that there's inherent truth in that. It only appears that way because that's the lense that we've been given to look at things through.

[Aroused by JarJar]

I already showed you where, in the literature, harmonic (vertical) considerations are already happening. Parallel organum- if parallel perfect intervals are not harmonic (vertical) considerations, I don't know what is . And Fux, text of Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven and many others- are you telling me that you have not gone through Gradus ad Parnassum, in which the harmonic (vertical) considerations already take place in the first species? Are you going to tell me that a requisite M6 preceding the final is not a harmonic (vertical) consideration?

I've dedicated myself rather studiously to Fux's counterpoint. What you are calling "vertical considerations" are intervals between voices. There are a couple of considerations when looking at the intervals between voices and it boils down to consonance and dissonance.

If you recall, Aloysius stated that the beginning and ending intervals must form a perfect consonance between the CF and the voice in counterpoint. Other consonances are formed when there is a step OR a skip in the voice but dissonances are handled by preparation and resolution rather specifically.

Adding 3 voices to a CF produces greater texture obviously, but the guidelines of intervals between the voices are still adhered to.

So that's what I remember from Fux...consonance and dissonance. I don't recall Aloysius ever instructing Josephus to look at a vertical event as an entity unto itself.

In fact, going through the various species, if you describe the texture you could call it "homophony" since it's very 1:1 or 2:1, etc. even in four voices.

In "florid" counterpoint in all added voices except the CF, the texture is more polyphonic (many people mistakenly refer to this as "contrapuntal") but the basic handling of the consonance and dissonance between all the intervals does not change regardless of the texture.

For this reason I take exception to the idea that somehow the evolution from multi-voice Palestrinian polyphony in the late Rennaissance to the more homophonic Italian opera influence in the late Baroque produced a mindset that allows vertical units or events to come into special consideration.

Now Rameau DID invent a totally original approach to music in the late Baroque. But this was NOT a codification of the thinking of the period. It was a unique and original way of looking at these consonant and dissonant intervals.

Figured bass is sometimes used to "prove" that the vertical entities (chords) were given high consideration. But there again, all you have is a bassline with a short-hand of the intervals of the voices overhead. You can see the voiceleading orientation of figured bass more easily than you can see the "rise of the chord."

What I am trying to do is to see that our post-hoc application of chord theory might be one way of looking at things, but there's not a lot of support for the idea that COMPOSERS looked at it this way.

To sum up, I can look at the most homophonic of Haydn's work - say a string quarted where the Vc, Vla and 2nd Vn is going "chunk-chunk-chunk-chunk" on one note each and the first Vn is singing away some melody - and see that there's nothing that Fux's counterpoint DOESN'T explain.

Forgive me that I mistook what you said. I am going back to what you posted which was, "That is, it is true that Western harmony did evolve from contrapuntal lines, this is well documented, but harmony achieved its own, and downright independent, status later."

As I said, I don't happen to agree with that and I don't find anything in what the composers learned or what they said to support that. Rameau said that, but there is not much evidence to support that Rameau was codifying something in the "atmosphere."

I really do think that Rameau was embraced widely, but not until the 20th century when universities took over from the age-old tradition of apprenticeships (like Josephus and Aloysius) when suddenly, "vertical considerations in their own right" started to look like a really nice way to train a musician in the musical language in four years rather than twelve.

Now that we have this "verticalized" view, it's hard to jump outside of it and see history in any other way. It seems like the self-evident truth. It really looks like there was all this polyphony which seemed to regard vertical events as "less important" and then things evolved toward a more "vertical unit" based orientation. But I don't think that there's inherent truth in that. It only appears that way because that's the lense that we've been given to look at things through.

Now this is awesome, but I'll have to get back later because I'm too busy- I make my living making what might not incorrectly be called anti-Rameau music, as well as promoting music of "otherness", and right now I've got kind of a legal battle with government mafia (no I won't make my musicians give money to Madonna to play their own damn author's music in public , thanks). So, back ASAP.