Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The "Science" of Chord Construction?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34

    The "Science" of Chord Construction?

    Lately I have been pouring over various "chord theory" lessons fruitlessly searching for any secrets or theories that might be hidden in their pages regarding the principles behind "nice/stable/pleasing/good" sounding chords. Ultimately, I acknowledge music is an art and there is always going to be some conjecture about what sounds "nice", but also consider that this sort of logic could be applied to melody even though musicians tend to use the same scales that have been repeated throughout history that are functionally the foundations of said melodies. For clarification: when I inquire about the construction of a chord I am referring to where the voices are placed next to each other; how the various voices jive with one another in an octave and beyond. Sometimes when I am hunting and pecking around the neck of my Taylor I'll stumble upon a real gem of a harmony but I can't quite justify into any kind of logic why it sounds so pleasing (besides of course that typically these sorts of chords tend to -but not always- be spaced in 3rds). Surely there exists a sort of devoted study to such things...can you all direct a brother to such a resource?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    651
    There are some mathematical frequency relationships between pitches and overtones/harmonics that probably factor into why intervals such as octaves, fifths, thirds etc. sound, well, "harmonious" together...overall though I think what sounds "nice/stable/pleasing/good" is a much more matter of culture rather than science.

  3. #3
    BMus (Hons), MA, PGCE JumpingJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    284
    You might want to research The Harmonic Series.

  4. #4
    Registered User Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Deep East Texas Piney Woods
    Posts
    3,131
    Keep this as reference material. http://www.smithfowler.org/music/Chord_Formulas.htm In the following charts R = root or the 1 note of the scale/chord.

    Code:
    Major Scale Box Pattern
    
    E|---7---|--R(8)-|-------|---2---| 1st string
    B|-------|---5---|-------|---6---|
    G|---2---|-------|---3---|---4---| 
    D|---6---|-------|---7---|--R(8)-|Next octave up
    A|---3---|---4---|-------|---5---|
    E|-------|---R---|-------|---2---| 6th string

    Basic Chords
    • Major Triad = R-3-5
    • Minor Triad = R-b3-5
    • Diminished Chord = R-b3-b5

    7th Chords
    • Maj7 = R-3-5-7
    • Minor 7 = R-b3-5-b7
    • Dominant 7 = R-3-5-b7
    • ½ diminished = R-b3-b5-b7
    • Full diminished = R-b3-b5-bb7

    Scales
    • Major Scale = R-2-3-4-5-6-7 Home base
    • Major Pentatonic = R-2-3-5-6 Leave out the 4 & 7
    • Natural Minor Scale = R-2-b3-4-5-b6-b7 Major scale with the 3, 6 & 7 flatted.
    • Minor Pentatonic = R-b3-4-5-b7 Leave out the 2 & 6.
    • Blues = R-b3-4-b5-5-b7 Minor pentatonic with the blue note b5 added.
    • Harmonic Minor Scale = R-2-b3-4-5-b6-7 Natural minor with a natural 7.
    • Melodic Minor Scale = R-2-b3-4-5-6-7 Major scale with a b3.
    Let the major scale be your home base then change a few notes and you have something different. No need to memorize a zillion patterns. Let the major scale pattern be your go to pattern - then adapt/adjust from there.



    I think your first thing to work on should be what chords get in each scale/key. If you learn how to stack 3rds you will understand chords and chord progressions better. It may be Jell-O right now, if you need help with stacking 3rds just ask. Here is the A scale stacked. Why did I pick the A scale? Wanted some sharps in the mix so you could see how they effect the chords.

    Code:
    Purpose of this paper is to call attention to the skip-a-note method
     of harmonizing a scale.   Take the scale then by skipping a note you build
     the chords for that scale.  Skip a note is an easy way to identify the notes
     within the chords of that scale.  From that you can then using the chord’s 
    spelling to name the chord, i.e. 3 = major, b3 = minor, 7 = maj7,
     b7 = dominant seventh or minor seventh, m7b5 = ½ diminished, b5 bb7 = 
    a full Diminished, etc.  From there you can identify that specific chord’s 
    function within the key, i.e. I-IV-V, etc.  This chart can be used as a study 
    of how chords are formed. 
    A Major Scale
    Note	Chord		Spelling	     Chord Name		Function
    A	A-C#-E-G#	R-3-5-7	     Amaj7		I	Tonic		
    B	B-D-F#-A	         R-b3-5-b7     Bm7	                   ii
    C#	C#-E-G#-B	R-b3-5-b7    C#m7			iii
    D	D-F#-A-C#	R-3-5-7	     Dmaj7		IV     Sub dominant
    E	E-G#-B-D	         R-3-5-b7     E7			V      Dominant
    F#	F#-A-C#-E	R-b3-5-b7    F#m7			iv
    G#	G#-B-D-F#	R-b3-b5-b7  G#m7b5		vii     ½ diminished
    
    Question -- Why is the B chord minor?  Were did that b3 come from?  Well 
    the B major scale has a D# and an A# in it's scale so when you ended up with 
    B-D-F#-A for the chord tones you flatted the 3rd and the 7th - and a 
    flatted 3rd and 7th gives a Bm7 chord -- Drum Roll!!  Get a clean sheet of paper and
    stack 3rds for the C scale.  Use the above as your Rosetta stone. Once you've 
    stacked one scale you can stack any scale.
    Good luck. Ask specific questions. Lot's of help here.
    Last edited by Malcolm; 03-25-2012 at 07:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Registered User Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Deep East Texas Piney Woods
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by zedrein View Post
    Lately I have been pouring over various "chord theory" lessons fruitlessly searching for any secrets or theories that might be hidden in their pages regarding the principles behind "nice/stable/pleasing/good" sounding chords. Ultimately, I acknowledge music is an art and there is always going to be some conjecture about what sounds "nice", but also consider that this sort of logic could be applied to melody even though musicians tend to use the same scales that have been repeated throughout history that are functionally the foundations of said melodies. For clarification: when I inquire about the construction of a chord I am referring to where the voices are placed next to each other; how the various voices jive with one another in an octave and beyond. Sometimes when I am hunting and pecking around the neck of my Taylor I'll stumble upon a real gem of a harmony but I can't quite justify into any kind of logic why it sounds so pleasing (besides of course that typically these sorts of chords tend to -but not always- be spaced in 3rds). Surely there exists a sort of devoted study to such things...can you all direct a brother to such a resource?
    Most of the following comes from http://www.musictheory.net/ I recommend you bookmark that site.

    Couple of things.
    Certain chords like to move to certain other chords. The following is a short study about chord progressions.

    I is a major chord. The tonic chord. It is the tonal center of the key, the name of the key the song is played in. The chord that the song wants to end on. When you use the I chord you resolve all tension you have built (tension is good) so -- are you ready to return to rest? If so I's the chord to use.

    ii is the minor super tonic. In a major key the ii is a sub-dominant chord that wants to move to a dominant chord. The ii-V7-I is the go to progression in jazz.

    iii is also a minor chord it likes to act as a lead somewhere chord. It normally drags the vi chord with it on the move.

    IV is a major chord. It is also a sub-dominant chord and wants to move to a dominant chord. It and the ii having the same task in life can substitute for each other.

    V is a major chord. It is also the dominant chord. When you add a b7 note to it as an extension it increase the tension in the chord and it becomes the dominant seventh chord, i.e. the climax chord, i.e. it wants to move to the tonic I chord right now.

    vi is a minor chord. It wants to move to a sub-dominant chord.

    viidim is the diminished chord. It is also a dominant chord and wants to move to the I tonic chord, however, it is not in a hurry like the V7 chord. Both being dominant chords they can substitute for each other. So if you want to resolve and return to the I tonic quickly use the V7, however if you would want to start a turn-a-round use the viidim, i.e. viidim, iii, vi, ii, V7, I for example. The viidim is a lead to somewhere chord.

    Notice I use upper case and lower case to identify my chords. ii, iii, vi for minor chords and I IV V for major chords. Some of us do that, other do not. and use things like bIII to indicate a minor chord. Your choice. One more thing -- Roman numbers (I-IV-V) for chords and Arabic numbers (1, 2, 3) for notes.

    Chords and melody. The melody line and the chord line should share some like notes for harmonization to take place. So it's a balancing act between the movement of I rest to tension IV to climax V7 to resolution and return to rest I, that the verse needs to make - so the story being told has a start, middle, climax, and ending. Continuing with the balancing act -- with out the melody line and the chord line sharing like notes you will never have harmonization, and that is kinda important (sounds good when it happens).

    That is why we change chords. The melody line has moved on to notes not found in the old chord so it's time to insert a chord that does have some harmonizing notes - or - insert a harmonizing note into the old chord, as an extension, sus, augment, etc. Inserting a harmonizing note instead of bringing in a new chord and disrupting the movement flow is desired. That IMO is why you see all the fancy chords...... and would start another discussion of when to use the 9 note or the 11 note, which you asked abut, but, I'm not going to get into that here.

    The Pentatonic scale will have three chord tones and two safe passing notes. That is why people tell you to look to the chord's pentatonic scale for your melody notes.

    Is there more? Sure, but, that is enough for now.

    Have fun.
    Last edited by Malcolm; 03-25-2012 at 10:50 PM.

  6. #6
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,922
    Quote Originally Posted by zedrein View Post
    Lately I have been pouring over various "chord theory" lessons fruitlessly searching for any secrets or theories that might be hidden in their pages regarding the principles behind "nice/stable/pleasing/good" sounding chords. Ultimately, I acknowledge music is an art and there is always going to be some conjecture about what sounds "nice", but also consider that this sort of logic could be applied to melody even though musicians tend to use the same scales that have been repeated throughout history that are functionally the foundations of said melodies. For clarification: when I inquire about the construction of a chord I am referring to where the voices are placed next to each other; how the various voices jive with one another in an octave and beyond. Sometimes when I am hunting and pecking around the neck of my Taylor I'll stumble upon a real gem of a harmony but I can't quite justify into any kind of logic why it sounds so pleasing (besides of course that typically these sorts of chords tend to -but not always- be spaced in 3rds). Surely there exists a sort of devoted study to such things...can you all direct a brother to such a resource?
    As Jumping Jack says, the harmonic series is the physical factor at the root of our perceptions of consonance and dissonance. (I won't explain that, as you can google it well enough )

    Notes that make consonant intervals have fundamental frequences which are in simple ratios (or very close to simple ratios). Eg:
    Octave = 2:1 ratio
    Perfect 5th = 3:2
    Perfect 4th = 4:3
    Major 3rd = 5:4
    Minor 3rd = 6:5
    The reason this makes the notes sound like they "belong" together is that they share some overtones (which is where the harmonic series comes in). The fewer overtones two pitches share, the more dissonant they will sound.

    The fly in the ointment (for a mathematician) is that our tuning system of "equal temperament" means that tuned notes are not in these exact ratios, but slightly "out of tune". (Only the octave is perfectly in tune.) However, it seems our ears have a certain tolerance, as long as the tuning is near enough.

    BTW, you can check these ratios on a guitar. If you measure fret distances compared to string length (nut to bridge) you'll find the following:
    12th fret (octave) = 1/2 string length
    7th fret (perfect 5th) = 2/3 string length
    5th fret (perfect 4th) = 3/4 string length
    4th fret (major 3rd) = 4/5 string length

    You can also check how "out of tune" the major 3rd is. If you make sure your string is in tune, then play the harmonic over the 4th fret, it will read as around 14 cents flat (even if your tuner doesn't register cents, the needle should slow flat). The 4th fret harmonic is an exact 1/5 of the string, equivalent to a "pure" major 3rd. But the tuner tells you it's wrong because it's set to equal temperament, which demands that a major 3rd be slightly sharp - in order for the octave to divide equally into 12.

    Equal temperament is just one of the "cultural amendments" we've made to nature over the centuries in order to be able to make the kind of music we want to make.
    As well as physics, your question also touches on culture, because sounds we find "pleasant" are down to their familiarity as much as any physical attributes. IOW, the music we like is dependent on the music we grew up listening to.
    And it's worth pointing out that dissonance is not necessarily "bad" - we are used to certain functional dissonances, which give contrast and meaning to music.

    But it's only in the west that we care about harmony at all, that we have a "theory" of it. Other cultures have no harmony, or very little, and care much more about melody, rhythm and timbre. Ie, they have diverged in different directions from the facts of the harmonic series, in order to produce the sounds they like. Some aspects of music are shared worldwide, but harnony is not one of them; it's pretty much unique to the west (ie classical Europe originally).
    It wouldn't therefore be true (btw) to say western music is more "advanced" than that of other culures. It only leads in the area of harmony and is actually a lot more undeveloped in terms of melody, rhythm and timbre than other cultures are.

    If you really want to study the basis of our chord system (why we use the chords we do), it's not physics and acoustics you should look at, but European music history: going back to the earliest system of putting notes together simultaneously - "organum" (generally 5ths and 4ths only) - through to counterpoint, and then SATB harmony, which developed around the Renaissance.
    Last edited by JonR; 03-26-2012 at 12:15 PM.

  7. #7
    Registered User ragasaraswati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    258
    Chord construction is a blend of intervals. Or combination of two notes.

    Apart from unisons and octaves that represent the same note, a thing that has been called "the miracle of music", there are 2 types of intervals. Those who have a root, or stronger note, and those who don't.

    1) Those who have a root, are subsequently divided into two groups. "Complete" intervals, whose root is the lower note and the "incomplete" intervals, whose root is the higher note or other note (e.g. M6 can suggest the IV as the root).

    a. Complete intervals: M2, m3, M3, P5, m7, M7

    b. Incomplete intervals: P4, m6, M6

    Inversions of complete intervals result in incomplete intervals and vice versa. And of course octave distance plays but a small role as the character remains the same.

    2) Rootless intervals. They are the only remaining two: m2 and Tritone. No tone of these intervals commands priority over the other and so they are ambiguous and free to interpretation.

    The consonance of the intervals follows the same order 1.a, 1.b and 2.

    If we're thinking outside of chord progressions and voice leading the above can help in constructing any chord close to the sound we're looking for. Also the positioning of dissonant intervals octaves apart softens their sound.
    Last edited by ragasaraswati; 03-30-2012 at 01:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    946
    I think this questions belongs here...at least as a practical example...
    Why is the interval of the tritone has a tendency to resolve to the root and 3rd of the tonic? How can it be explained via the harmonic series?

    BTW, when comparing two notes sharing some overtones, usually the frequencies of the shared overtones are not exactly the same. What's the range that allows us to consider them the same overtone?

  9. #9
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,922
    Quote Originally Posted by rbarata View Post
    I think this questions belongs here...at least as a practical example...
    Why is the interval of the tritone has a tendency to resolve to the root and 3rd of the tonic? How can it be explained via the harmonic series?
    It can't, fully. The simple answer is that we hear the tritone as dissonant: and the fact that other scale steps are a half-step away from each note - and those other two scale steps make a more consonant interval - means it has a strong tendency to move in that direction.
    The diminished 5th resolves inward to a major 3rd (B-F > C-E); and the augmented 4th goes outward to a minor 6th, which is perceived as an inverted M3 (F-B > E-C).

    The tritone is actually not too far away from a reasonably simple ratio, but you have to invoke a factor of 7. Ie, frequencies in the rato of 5:7 are quite close to a tritone in sound.

    In terms of the harmonic series a 5:7 interval represents the 5th and 7th harmonics of a virtual root note. Eg, an A of 110 Hz (guitar 5th string) has harmonics of 550 and 770 Hz. Those frequencies are close to an equal tempered C# (554, 9th fret top E) and G (784.0, 15th fret top E). So those two notes would represent an "in-tune" tritone.

    However, while 550 is 14 cents flat of 554 (not too bad), 770 is 31 cents flat of 784. So while we would hear 550 and 770 as "something like" a C#-G tritone - and they would sound very consonant with the low A root - I don't think that's how we perceive a tempered C#-G interval.
    Eg, in the context of an A7 chord, the tempered G is a lot closer to a pure 6:5 minor 3rd with E. The tempered E in that region is 659 Hz, and 6:5 with that is 791: 15 cents sharp of G. Still some way from exact, but closer than 32 cents, and within normal tolerances.

    Still, the question is open (IMO) whether (or how much) the 7th harmonic affects how we hear a dominant 7th chord. Certainly a 4:5:6:7 chord would seem (theoretically) to be more consonant than the closest harmonics if we ignore the 7th partial: 20:25:30:36. (Larger figures generally imply a morec complex sounding - ie more dissonant - harmony.)
    The lower 3 figures are the same ratio, 4:5:6; it's the last one that means they need to be multiplied up by 5. The equivalent to the last one would be 20:25:30:35 - so you can see that the "36" means that that minor 7th is somewhat sharp of the one represented by "35" - but closer to the ET equivalent.
    In terms of the tritone, the one in the second chord is 25:36 - rather more complex than 5:7.

    So the short answer is as I said to begin with: the math doesn't fully explain it! It suggests the tritone will be perceived as dissonant, and certainly more dissonant in its tempered form.
    But that ignores the fact that purer tritones were still regarded as horribly dissonant in the middle ages.

    IOW, culture (and increasing harmonic sophistication since medieval times) are more relevant than simple math!
    Quote Originally Posted by rbarata View Post
    BTW, when comparing two notes sharing some overtones, usually the frequencies of the shared overtones are not exactly the same. What's the range that allows us to consider them the same overtone?
    That's a good question.
    It seems - judging from the amount of tempering we find acceptable - that up to around 15 cents out seems to be OK. The discrepancy in the major 3rd - as explained - is 14 cents, and we "get away with" that as long as instrumental timbres are relatively clean. IOW, as long as the overtones in question are not too prominent.
    As any rock guitarist knows, once you add distortion to electric guitar, the major 3rd of a tuned chord starts to muddy up the sound; because the compression of the signal means all the overtones have become a lot more prominent, and that out-of-tune 5th harmonic of the root is starting to rub against octave harmonics of the 3rd. So we leave the 3rd out of the chord and make a "power chord", which immediately sounds stronger, purer and sustains better; because the harmonics of the 5th of the chord are only a negligible 2 cents out from the equivalent harmonics of the root.

    (BTW, it's easy to confuse harmonics with chord tones here. The 3rd harmonic of a root represents a perfect 5th interval - in fact a 12th, octave plus 5th - and vice versa: the 5th harmonic represents a major 3rd interval, in fact 2 octaves plus M3.)

    But as well as variations in instrumental timbre, tolerance can also vary between people. Some seem to have more sensitive ears than others. Eg, some guitarists (even on acoustic) find it hard to get the G and B strings sounding in tune. That's probably because they perceive those faint upper overtones (5th harmonic of G, 4th harmonic of B) clashing. The tuner says they're OK, the ears say they're not. (In fact the tuner will tell you the 5th harmonic is "out of tune", if you can get it to sound.)
    And yet if you tune them so your ears like the open strings, then other intervals will sound equally out of tune. Eg, if a B tuned 14 cents flat sounds OK with the G, it won't sound OK with the E. And if (instead) you tune the G 14 cents sharp, so that B, E and G work OK together, then fretted chords like C or E will sound out of tune.
    IOW, we simply have to learn to tolerate the tempered 3rd. (And most of us have no trouble with that.)

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    946
    So the short answer is as I said to begin with: the math doesn't fully explain it!
    Right! That's what I suspected. I calculated several ratios between fundamental and overtones of different intervals and the results pointed me to the opposite direction of what I was expecting for.

    As any rock guitarist knows, once you add distortion to electric guitar, the major 3rd of a tuned chord starts to muddy up the sound; because the compression of the signal means all the overtones have become a lot more prominent, and that out-of-tune 5th harmonic of the root is starting to rub against octave harmonics of the 3rd. So we leave the 3rd out of the chord and make a "power chord", which immediately sounds stronger, purer and sustains better; because the harmonics of the 5th of the chord are only a negligible 2 cents out from the equivalent harmonics of the root.
    That's a very good explanation about how the power chord came up. I never thought it that way (so scientifically, I mean).

    But as well as variations in instrumental timbre, tolerance can also vary between people. Some seem to have more sensitive ears than others. Eg, some guitarists (even on acoustic) find it hard to get the G and B strings sounding in tune. That's probably because they perceive those faint upper overtones (5th harmonic of G, 4th harmonic of B) clashing. The tuner says they're OK, the ears say they're not. (In fact the tuner will tell you the 5th harmonic is "out of tune", if you can get it to sound.)
    And yet if you tune them so your ears like the open strings, then other intervals will sound equally out of tune. Eg, if a B tuned 14 cents flat sounds OK with the G, it won't sound OK with the E. And if (instead) you tune the G 14 cents sharp, so that B, E and G work OK together, then fretted chords like C or E will sound out of tune.
    I always find a bit problematic tunning guitar strings from G to high E. I always find a compromise between the tunner and my ears. But I'm so used to dao it that way that is easy and fast (but if you ask me what is my technique, I would have to say "I don't know, I never thought about it".)

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1
    ogic could be applied to melody even though musicians tend to use the same scales that have been repeated throughout history that are functionally the foundations of said melodies. For clarification: when I inquire about the construction of a chord I am referring to where the voices are placed next to each other; how the various voices jive with one another in an octave and beyond. Sometimes when I am hunting and pecking around the neck of my Taylor I'll stumble upon a real gem of a harmony but I can't quite justify into any kind of logic why it sounds so pleasing (b





    ___________________________________________

    We are the pioneers in learnalanguage.com - japanese dumps and tutorials with exam pass guarantee. Download our latest test king ccie Babbel questions to pass real exam of mcitp training in Learnamericanenglishonline
    Last edited by smithjon; 03-02-2015 at 04:00 AM.

  12. #12
    Registered User Color of Music's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    417
    Sometimes "it just sounds good" is all the reasoning you need. You could go deeper, but what's the point - unless you're around a group of folks who can go that deep!

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    The reason this makes the notes sound like they "belong" together is that they share some overtones (which is where the harmonic series comes in). The fewer overtones two pitches share, the more dissonant they will sound.
    Careful here Jon:

    Two flutes (with few overtones) will sound no more dissonant that two Oboes (with many overtones).

    "Overtone Coincidence" has little to do with Consonance and Dissonance. If we look at it historically, the first harmony developed within the octave. You can't even hear the first overtone at less than an octave. So again, no sharing of overtones. A Middle C, with an E above, doesn't share any overtones until the E above the staff. Fairly inconsequential at that point. Besides, you can't really "hear" overtones in music as the pitches go by.

    For the "there's gotta be an explanation" people, Helmholz is the person to look at. Helmholz tried (AFAIK) to look at physical response to auditory stimulus, noting that the way the ear responded with things like 2nds and 7ths was different than the way it responded to 8ves and 5ths, etc. As I understand it, the basic premise is we are caused physical discomfort when two frequencies don't "mesh" in a way our ear's mechanics prefer. Now we're talking "discomfort" as in just a "feeling", not actual pain or anything, but "displeasure".

    Interestingly, "displeasure" of intervals certainly doesn't cause us not to use them - in fact, some styles delight in their use (masochistic listeners?).

    I'm not sold on it though as the mechanism of the ear could vary greatly from person to person, but at least he was trying to remove cultural bias from the equation.

    The words consonance and dissonance also evolved PRIOR to harmony. They were used to describe melodic distances. It appears that primarily, "it's hard to sing" had as much to do with C/D as any physical phenomenon. Granted, maybe it's easier to "3:2" one's windpipe to create 5th than it is to use the muscles to "756:218" it (made up ratio ;-). But heck, I can't nail an octave without a couple of warmup shots (that could be attempts or drinking).

    And, of course, we know that concepts of what is consonant or dissonant, and also when things were *treated* as consonance and dissonance varied over time. This kind of implies that there's no "absolute" consonance. Or, if there is, when making music, we don't care.

    Steve

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Here's a bit of chord science (well, maths) that doesn't rely on overtones...

    triads.jpg

    The diagram shows all the possible triads in 12tet, in order. The familiar triads of western harmony are clustered round the most maximally even, the Augmented (in Orange).
    Closest, and most common, are the Major and its inversions (in Green) and the Minor and its inversions (in Blue).
    Slightly further out are the Sus and its inversions (in Red) and the Diminished and its inversions (in Black).
    The rest of the possible triads are so uncommon in western music that they don't have commonly agreed names.

    The diagram can be projected into 3 dimensions to show 4 note chords. This shows the same distribution, the most common 4 note chords (Major 7, Minor 7, 7, 7b5 cluster around the most maximally even (the Diminished 7th).

    So, why do we find certain chords pleasing? Who knows? But it has something to do with an even spread of notes across the octave.

    ps. We seem to prefer chords that are close to even but not totally even. The Augmented triad and the Diminished 7th are less common than the Minors and Majors. This may have something to do with limited transposition.

  15. #15
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,922
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Careful here Jon:
    You know you're replying to a 3-year-old post of mine? (I realise you may be doing it for general info) .
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Two flutes (with few overtones) will sound no more dissonant that two Oboes (with many overtones).
    You mean no less dissonant? (Given the same interval, of course).
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    "Overtone Coincidence" has little to do with Consonance and Dissonance. If we look at it historically, the first harmony developed within the octave. You can't even hear the first overtone at less than an octave. So again, no sharing of overtones.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here.
    We hear the timbre of a note, therefore we are aware (at some level) of overtones.
    A C with a G a perfect 5th above it will share (at least) the overtone of a G an octave above that G (2x the G and 3x the C).
    You may be right that consonance (as we define it) doesn't depend on that, but there's definitely a shared overtone there - and many more higher (mostly in the realm of timbre, of course).

    I do see what you're saying with the flute/oboe comparison. A perfect 5th is consonant whatever instruments are playing it: as consonant for two oboes as for two flutes. (It's the timbre that differs, the quantity of upper overtones in the sound, regardless - in theory anyway - of whether any are shared between the two pitches.)
    But what is it that makes (say) a diminished 5th more dissonant (for either choice of instrument)? Simply cultural acclimatisation? I don't buy that. It has to be something to do with the harmonic series, surely? (I do realise there are other non-harmonic partials in musical sounds, which affect timbre at least; not everything is a simple multiple of the fundamental.)
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post

    A Middle C, with an E above, doesn't share any overtones until the E above the staff. Fairly inconsequential at that point.
    Why?
    Obviously all overtones begin at the octave, that doesn't mean they are "inconsequential". If they were, then an oboe would sound the same as a flute!
    IOW, we don't have to be able to hear and identify overtones consciously. We just hear them as part of the timbre (of the joint sound of the two pitches). That's enough. (It's why rock guitarists omit the 3rd of major chords when using distortion. They probably don't know or care about the overtones, they just know a power chord sounds more "pure", less "muddy" - and that's only because they are removing the clash between octaves of the 3rd and 5x overtones of the root(s).)

    I do see that there is an important distinction between timbre, and the issue of consonance/dissonance. I just think they must be connected in some way, over and above (or behind/beneath!) cultural choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    For the "there's gotta be an explanation" people, Helmholz is the person to look at. Helmholz tried (AFAIK) to look at physical response to auditory stimulus, noting that the way the ear responded with things like 2nds and 7ths was different than the way it responded to 8ves and 5ths, etc. As I understand it, the basic premise is we are caused physical discomfort when two frequencies don't "mesh" in a way our ear's mechanics prefer. Now we're talking "discomfort" as in just a "feeling", not actual pain or anything, but "displeasure".
    Right.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Interestingly, "displeasure" of intervals certainly doesn't cause us not to use them - in fact, some styles delight in their use (masochistic listeners?).
    Well, dissonance is like spice in food, or drama in a narrative. We want excitement and contrast, and that's what dissonance provides. Dissonance will (generally speaking) be experienced as more unpleasant the less it is resolved. IOW, we like to perceive conflict, but we also like to see it settled. We don't (culturally speaking) like loose ends left untied.
    Of course, culture evolves, which is why dissonance (the dissonances used traditionally in functional harmony) gets more and more acclimatised, and therefore less effective; we need a stronger and stronger "hit". But that's only in the context of music which gives those contrasts meaning. IOW, dissonance is only unpleasant in a context where we expect it to resolve and it doesn't.
    In a musical context where resolution is not part of the story (and there may be no narrative at all), dissonance can be experienced as interesting "colour"; we can learn to enjoy it the same way we can learn to enjoy spice in food. (And everyone's taste varies there, of course.)
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    I'm not sold on it though as the mechanism of the ear could vary greatly from person to person,
    It could, I guess, but why would it? The basic mechanism is something that has evolved, so would be shared between everyone, pretty much (barring rare mutations, or physical damage.)
    Naturally, even within one culture, there are varying personal musical tastes - due (perhaps entirely) to previous experience: music we have heard over our lives, and/or chosen to listen to for various reasons. One's person's exciting dissonance is another person's unbearable noise. I doubt that's down to differences in the mechanisms of the ear.
    But I doubt very much that such two people would disagree on a spectrum of "dissonance/noise", ie what was smoother or rougher.

Similar Threads

  1. Chord Tones vs. Scales in Improv.
    By Crossroads in forum Improvisation
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 01:42 PM
  2. Are there only sus2 chords?
    By ragasaraswati in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 01:11 PM
  3. Need arp superimposition crash course!
    By Revenant in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-27-2009, 11:09 PM
  4. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 08:57 PM
  5. Creating chords from the notes thats in your key
    By dwest2419 in forum Getting Started
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-20-2007, 12:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •