Artificial Triads

I think they are referring to diminished and augmented triads. Perhaps it is just me not connecting much with the concept of "artificial," which I see in opposition to "natural"... but what is truly natural?... exactly

Secondary dominants are being discussed, and in addition to the augmented and artificial diminished ones, there is also the minor one

For example, among the artificial augmented triads, there can be the III degree of the minor mode

Is there a bibliography on the subject? It escapes me quite a bit

I feel the need to emphasize one thing... years ago, on "another forum," people fought tooth and nail over a similar topic (namely the difference between natural chords and artificial chords and all the consequences of this terminology). From my point of view, there are useful terminologies and useless terminologies, and there are also terminologies that grasp the problem and terminologies that do not. Distinguishing chords into natural and artificial, in my opinion, serves very little...

I saw on Baron online that the definition of artificial sevenths is quite comprehensive: artificial or secondary seventh chords are all seventh chords not built on the dominant, i.e., those that do not contain the leading tone (obligatory ascending resolution) and the subdominant-seventh (obligatory descending resolution). Zanettovich, whom I have at home, gives a more specific definition, saying that the dominant seventh is a "natural" seventh because it contains the sounds of the harmonic series sequence and, in the same way, defines the dominant ninth chord not as a chord with an extra third, but as the chord that adds the other sound of the harmonic series (though he later adjusts his stance by saying that even the ninth chord with a minor ninth is considered natural...). In this way, the leading-tone seventh chord is included among "natural" tetrads, because it is considered a ninth chord lacking the fundamental (which, as was recently said, is a product of functionalist theory).

Now, if there is a field where the distinction between natural and artificial chords should be expanded, it is precisely that of tetrads. But, as seems obvious to me, this distinction does not hold up and serves no purpose. Who cares if the dominant seventh follows the harmonics and the minor seventh does not? What does it mean to me, that the minor seventh is against nature and commits a sin? That the resolving tensions are weaker? It would be absurd: a dominant seventh chord, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT FOLLOWS THE HARMONICS, is more "stable"; if it were tuned according to natural intonation, the dissonance between its fundamental and the seventh would be minimal and, therefore, it would have less need for resolution. On the contrary, an artificial seventh on the fourth degree, the major seventh, by virtue of the leading-tone tension, screams for resolution before God! So, what use is it to me to know what is natural and what is "artificial"?

If the argument does not hold for tetrads, let's imagine it for triads! What is the criterion for distinguishing between natural and artificial? The only triad that "follows" the harmonic series sequence is the major triad... from what I have understood, the criterion should be that of sounds foreign to the tonality. Now, this is in most cases a "syntactic" criterion, not a morphological one. That is, if I take a diminished triad and say "if it has sounds foreign to the tonality then it is an artificial triad," in reality, I am not talking about the chord itself but about the context in which it is placed. And indeed, if that triad is the second degree of a minor key or the seventh of a major key, I shouldn't be able to consider it an artificial triad... the same goes for the augmented triad and the same for secondary dominants. Strictly speaking, the only "common" use triad that could be considered artificial in this sense should be the Italian augmented sixth, which is found only as a triad on the seventh degree of a Neapolitan scale. And then, all "unconventional" triadic polyphonies, such as clusters, chords built on other scales, quartal chords, and so on... but these, to be precise, should not be called triads.

In conclusion, if a triad is artificial not in a morphological sense but in a syntactic sense, then it would make much more sense (in my opinion) to simply call it foreign. A foreign triad because it is formed by sounds foreign to those of that tonality. In this way, we would not only be talking about secondary dominants, but we could also consider a simple major tonic triad placed at the conclusion of a piece in a minor key as foreign; it would be more useful for understanding the system of tonality or the concept of tonicization...

Marzapane wrote:

Is there a bibliography on the subject? It escapes me quite a bit.

Aside from Thallo's rich contribution, Schoenberg's harmony manual...

Aside from Thallo's rich contribution, Schoenberg's harmony manual

http://books.google.it/books?id=9AjoH8jNLfYC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=triade+artificiale&source=bl&ots=D--ysvSpu9&sig=9oXj76biE7u594L6MpnRlEamOX4&hl=it&sa=X&ei=8aAwUKLKH4_MtAbW24HADg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=triade%20artificiale&f=false

Thank you all, a very challenging topic for me