Difference Between Suspension And Appoggiatura

The differences exist and there are many:

1) the suspension is a harmonic event, the appoggiatura is a melodic event;

2) the suspension "strictly speaking" occurs between tied notes, the appoggiatura does not;

3) the suspension exists only if the resolution of a dissonance is delayed; the appoggiatura, on the other hand, has no connection to the degree of consonance-dissonance of the notes to which it refers. If you do something like IV - I 6-5 it is not a suspension, because there is no dissonance, but read melodically the 6-5 passage could be an appoggiatura.

You were very good Thallo, but I fear I haven't understood this:

thallo wrote:

3) delay only exists if the resolution of a dissonance is delayed; the appoggiatura, on the other hand, has no connection with the degree of consonance-dissonance of the notes to which it refers. If you do something like IV - I 6-5 it is not a delay, because there is no dissonance, but read melodically the 6-5 passage could be an appoggiatura.

If 6 were prepared, wouldn't it become a delay, no?

But even better, giving life to the chords in C+, "C E A" would be a VI6... no?

Organista94 wrote:

But even better, bringing the C+ chords to life, "C E A" would be a VI6... no?

re-reading I saw that, as usual, my chord notations are not clear... IV 135 - VI 46 - I 36. That VI 46 is an appoggiatura, if we can even call it that "also" in a harmonic sense. Precisely because the descent from A to G is not a resolution, since C E A is a consonant triad. But if that A is repeated, and if the values are consistent, you could still find yourself in the presence of a melodic appoggiatura.

I'm adding two more things that came to mind...

1) another difference between appoggiatura and suspension: the appoggiatura can also be ascending, whereas, strictly speaking, a suspension resolves only by descending (precisely because it is assumed to be a harmonic dissonance);

2) all these discussions only make sense in harmony, because in counterpoint there are some differences. The passage I was talking about before (IV on the upbeat - VI 4/6 on the strong beat - I 3/6) would be considered specifically a suspension in counterpoint, because the fourth on the strong beat would be a dissonance, which is not the case in harmony.

Thank you Thallo.

But hasn't the concept of consonance and dissonance changed over time? For example, the fourth is avoided in strict fugue precisely for this reason.

But later they explained to me that there aren't major problems... how does this fit into the discussion?

I am not a composer, so I reason primarily in a historical sense. Therefore, I am telling you that yes, without a doubt, the concept of dissonance and specifically individual intervals (harmonic and melodic) considered dissonant have changed immensely over time.

The fourth is an example. From what we know, in medieval polyphony (so I would say up until about the 1400s), repertoires coexist in which the fourth is considered a consonance (English faburden, different from faux bourdon) and repertoires in which it is considered a dissonance ("continental" polyphony). In true Renaissance polyphony, the fourth is definitively considered a dissonance, and conversely, the third—which was never present as a finalis in the Middle Ages—begins to appear as part of the final consonance along with the octave, unison, and fifth. In short, so-called harmonic sensitivity increases, namely the idea that major and minor triads are consonant "autonomous entities."

And it is with the total establishment of harmony (so around the 1600s...) that the fourth begins to become less dissonant; in first-inversion triads you have a fourth interval, but since the three notes are not considered independently, but as a single entity with different positions, then there is no need to prepare or resolve the dissonance. A need that also arises in harmony, however, in the case where you use a second inversion, but more by convention than anything else.

thallo wrote:

i am not a composer, so I reason primarily in a historical sense.

... since the composer cannot ignore history, in the end I see no difference whether one is a composer or something else

Oracle, anyone undertaking a composition course at a conservatory (and these are those I call composers in this case) generally distinguishes between "practical" harmony and "historical" harmony. And they study the former above all.

There are laudable exceptions, obviously, but in the conservatory there are no courses on the history of composition or the history of harmony. And I assure you that saying "the tonal system was born in the 1600s" is not enough to resolve the issue...

To be clear, with my distinction I am not accusing composers of anything and I am not acting as an arbiter of the subject, quite the contrary! But when someone asks me what a suspension is or, I don't know, how to treat dissonances, it makes sense in my opinion to make them understand that the issue can be approached both synchronically ("the suspension is... the dissonance is...") and diachronically ("suspension and dissonance were different things in different times").

thallo wrote:

in my opinion, it makes sense to make it understood that the issue can be approached both synchronically ("the delay is... the dissonance is...") and diachronically ("delay and dissonance were different things in different times")

To me, the diachronic one seems adequate; the rest is fantasy

agreed, Marziano, but I have never seen a composition course that starts with two-voice counterpoint and ends with harmony. Furthermore, to this day there are very few serious texts on the history of compositional techniques; making a historical argument regarding the concepts of dissonance, polyphony, and syntax is extremely complicated for anyone. Surely even in the things I have said there are tons of inaccuracies, also due to the fact that, regardless of how much good intention we may put into it, harmony today is taught synchronically rather than diachronically. Otherwise, as I was saying before, we would have all started with two-voice counterpoint, and it seems to me that no one has done so (obviously correct me if I am wrong)

I will not be a composer, but my organ teacher made me start with counterpoint

Organista94 wrote:

I will not be a composer, but my organ teacher had me start with counterpoint

organists are the musicians closest in training and mindset to musicologists.

But now I have doubts... if you started with counterpoint, why the question about suspensions and appoggiaturas? If there is a world where the difference between a suspension and an appoggiatura is clear, it is precisely two-voice counterpoint...

Even if it is fascinating to delve into assessments regarding dissonance/consonance (even better in a historical context), I find it simpler to refer to the notes of a chord and identify any notes foreign to it; jazz musicians would call them non-chord tones.

If a note is foreign, prepared, and resolved, it is a suspension ... the rest are appoggiaturas.