QUESTION OF TONICS

I'm going by memory Thallo, but isn't it Schoenberg himself in his harmony manual who maintains that it is within the harmonics of a sound that the sound itself can become the dominant of the subdominant?

The first harmonics of a sound (assuming C) are:
C C G C E G Bb

Here is the dominant seventh of F

No?

you don't need Schoenberg to understand it, just look at the circle of fifths and music history, namely all the quadrillions of composers who in their lives modulated to the subdominant using a chord on the tonic. I even did it myself in complementary harmony, which is saying something...

The problem is treating acoustics as if it were a very, very simple little game. A dominant seventh C-E-G-Bb IS NOT a copy of the harmonic series of C, because the third harmonic G has a different frequency from tempered G! Same thing for E, but especially for Bb, which as a seventh harmonic is VEEEERY different from the Bb we are used to. And in fact, those first harmonics, if used as the sounds of a chord, form a CONSONANT chord. The septimal seventh 7/4, which is the name of the interval between C and Bb at the frequency of the seventh harmonic, is a consonant, stable interval; it would not need to be resolved. And this is where Schoenberg (in good faith, probably) makes the mistake: he uses acoustics by taking what he wants and leaving what is inconvenient (or unknown) to him. The dominant function, namely the intrinsic tension to resolve onto a "stronger" or more stable or more important chord, is A HUMAN INVENTION; it does not exist in acoustics.

Question maybe stupid, but then why do we play D major specifically with B natural to play F major?

Marziano wrote:

A question that might be stupid, but then why is there a Bb in C major to go to F major?

... the dominant seventh chord built on C is part of the key of F, and therefore has the Bb ... but a normal triad built on C does not have the Bb, so there is no mystical clue hidden among the notes of that chord by the goddess of music telling us that C tends toward F. In the tonal system, for essentially aesthetic reasons, modulations are made primarily through fifth-based affinity, and therefore CONSEQUENTLY from one key you can more likely modulate to the dominant or the subdominant.

For copyright respect reasons, I am forced to publish a small part of the chapter dedicated to the subject by the author George Russell in the text "Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization" 4th edition of 2001 on pages 6,7,8,9.

With the opening of this topic, I intended to submit for your competent attention the Author's thoughts regarding the subject of the topic,

also to reach a conclusion as to whether or not to share G. Russell's statement.

Due to copyright reasons, I am forced to attach only a small part of the chapter dedicated to the subject in G. Russell's text "Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization" on pages 6, 7, 8, 9. 5th edition from 2001.

I wish to know your expert opinion regarding the Author's statement.

Sorry for the mess, computers are not my strong suit, to see the image you have to move the bottom cursor to the right.

I believe it is better for jazz musicians to let their hands flow, in the sense that their best characteristic (and heaven forbid otherwise) is knowing how to play extemporaneously, great musical instinct at the service of taste... theory has never been their strong suit. Not to mention that we are talking about a theory written when musicians had not yet fully absorbed scientific discourse… one only needs to think of musicians like Xenakis.

Therefore, I am not perplexed in general; I consider it a historical fact… regarding tonality, I think much has been said in general throughout the history of music, and in the various courses that have been formed over time.... even with many dysfunctions.

The best thing is to draw from the repertoire, that of the great masters, who established the laws of art without them being written… how? Based on taste and musical instinct.

So we return to the best thing jazz musicians know how to do, with the added merit of being able to do it extemporaneously.

With sympathy

Why this silence surrounding G. Russell's assertion! It is a crucial assertion that leads to revising many things, if not everything, in the field of harmony, primarily by considering the lydian scale at the center of tonal organization instead of the ionian, with all the practical—and no longer just theoretical—consequences that this entails. I have opened this discussion with the precise intent of knowing your opinion because it is clear that G. Russell might also have been wrong.

As was being said, Russell is probably based on an acoustic law ... that actually says something else. Since acoustics is the scientific part of music, it is surely less debatable.

modale wrote:

It is a crucial statement that leads to revising many things, if not everything, in the field of harmony, primarily by considering the lydian scale at the center of tonal organization instead of the ionian, with all the practical rather than theoretical consequences that this entails.

What do you find so overwhelming about it?

What are the practical consequences?

for that matter, Russell, who is a theorist but certainly not the most important theorist of the '1900s, states without explaining and without much argumentation.

I repeat, the first problem is terminological. Speaking of tonics when referring to intervals is WRONG. If Russell then explains his language in the introduction, giving it a different or particular technical weight, we must refer back to that.

The second problem, if one can speak of a problem, is that the "attractive" force between the first degree and the fourth degree was not discovered by Russell; it is widely discussed by any theorist or teacher of the functionalist school, and applied by practically any composer from the '1600s onwards.

The third problem is the physical-acoustic one. Many teachers have perpetuated this vague idea of a connection between acoustic physics and harmonic rules. But just as when we spoke about mathematics, here the donkey trips when looking through a microscope and searching for true overall coherence. Which does not exist. The rules of the tonal system are rules coherent with the nature of sounds and with the nature of human perceptual systems, but nature and physiology are not their only bases. The concepts of function, of dominant, of tonic, of modulation, are all concepts invented by men, developed through art (not in theory), varied over time and, generally, theorized decades after the establishment of their practice. This is a normal process of "systematization" of reality, something very present in aesthetics. It means that first I use the C major scale for years, then I die, someone after me studies my works and says "ah, how beautiful, now I will call it the C major scale", and invents an all-encompassing model that they call the "tonal system".

answer for Frank.

In the Lydian scale, the II-V-I does not exist; that is, there is no primary dominant on the fifth degree that resolves to the tonic triad. Seeing Harmony merely as tonal Harmony is like looking at a landscape through a keyhole.

Ok Modale, if that's the case, the scale you indicated can also be a series... or do you know what set theory is? Well, for me, it can also just be a set of sounds.

For me, the issue is different; it only depends on how I want to treat the compositional material... for me, Russell is a drop in the ocean, in the sense that with the sounds of the Lydian scale, I do whatever I want (even II V I).

The point is that you haven't answered my questions:

- groundbreaking compared to Berg? Is the Violin Concerto for violin and orchestra present?

- practical consequences compared to what? To the harmonization of a melody without using a tonal technique of chord progression?

I don't understand... if the tonal system is the keyhole, then why do we have to talk about tonics??

TONICS ARE TONAL, tonal system means, effectively, a system based on tonics...

But for me, one can also talk about other things, eh. I mean, jazz harmony, non-tonal or post-tonal harmony have given birth to findings much more interesting than the attraction between tonic and subdominant... ... that's the point. We are talking about someone who says "damn, guys, did you know a sound can be tonic but also dominant?", which is a bit more banal than hot water...

From what I read, it seems to me that you believe the tonic of the perfect fourth interval does not exist and furthermore that a scale, for example C Ionian, has C and not F as its tonic? I read (G. Gramaglia - Jazz Harmony Theory - pages 25, 26) that the Ionian scale derives from the Lydian scale, so in the case of C Ionian, this would derive from F Lydian; perhaps this explains why, according to Russell, the true tonic of the C Ionian scale is F. What do you think? Please answer simply because I do not have a great culture in the field of harmony.

More than according to "us" ... according to the theory of tonal music which sees in every major or minor scale a tonic, a supertonic, a mediant/modal/characteristic, a subdominant, a dominant, a superdominant and a leading tone

I imagine you know scalar structures... what more is there to say?

Where do modern scales originate? Perhaps an answer can be found there.

Just to say, in ancient modes neither the major scale nor the minor scale exist, but rather Dorian (which over time became the basis of the minor), Lydian and Mixolydian (basis of the major), and Phrygian, which is practically a plagal minor (of A), the only one that inverts tonic-dominant relationships (the modal Phrygian cadence became the tonal suspended cadence; furthermore, between finalis and repercussio there is a fourth instead of a fifth). In the 1500s, Aeolian and Ionian also appeared, precursors to minor and major, although still far from the subsequent tonal conception.

Lydian is not widely used in Renaissance polyphony and is often replaced by transposed Ionian: perhaps the beginning of the complication lies there? On the other hand, Mixolydian is widely used, as are Dorian and Phrygian.

The progressive sensitization of cadences has, unfortunately, guillotined the modal system, reducing it to 2 large branches: major modes (modes, not mode) and minor modes. Thus, for more than 2 centuries, the tonic of C major was C, certainly not F, but surely F# is the most altered note of the 7 diatonic notes, given that it is the leading tone of the dominant and considering the role the latter plays in the scale.

Now, to claim that an interval has a tonic is an opinion that must be justified: I absolutely do not believe it is so, but I might change my mind in the face of accurate and heartfelt reasoning. Just like the fourth (C dominant of F), the major sixth might also suffer from the same principle; proof of this—proof perhaps is too much...—is that many, to memorize C-A, hum "Libiamo" (Verdi, La Traviata), which however has F major as its harmony (dominant-modal/mediant/characteristic and therefore it would be G-E in C major).

Question: is it possible that jazz harmony has some differences from classical harmony?

Fedez's discussion is interesting. Following the line of his recent remarks, I am convinced that most melodies establish hierarchical relationships between notes. That is to say, in plain (and ambiguous) words, many melodies imply certain (harmonic) functions. Relating this back to the issue of modes, we should remember that ancient modes (including almost everything in this definition) had degrees within them (finalis, repercussa, subfinalis etc.) BUT that their hierarchical value was melodic, not harmonic.

The theory of the tonal system is a bit ambiguous in this sense, because it varies the weight of melodic functions relative to the harmonic function. That is, a C in C major can be the tonic of a tonic chord, but it could also be the minor third of a superdominant chord. When a C in C major is the third of a superdominant chord, its MELODIC function as a tonic is, in a sense, subordinate to its HARMONIC function as the third of a minor chord. When singing in a choir, this is very noticeable because there are significant intonation adjustments based on the position of the note you are singing within the chord.

In a certain type of polyphony, in theory, all this does not happen. The finalis is always the finalis, because harmonies are "consequences" of the meeting of different melodic lines, and it is those lines that take priority.

Now, claiming that an interval has a tonic is an opinion that must be justified: I absolutely do not believe it to be so, but I might change my mind in the face of accurate and heartfelt reasoning. (Zedef)

Well, let's look for this reasoning together; I believe Russell is not speaking randomly by saying that in the C/F interval the tonic is F, and by saying that the C Ionian scale has two tonics: C and F. Forgive me if I insist, but I am convinced that the answer to this question is crucial for framing tonal organization. At the base of tonal organization, is there an Ionian or a Lydian scale?

In fact, many scales/chords in tonal harmony contain the augmented IV: Lydian augmented, Lydian dominant, whole tone, diminished octatonic scales, blues scale. It is simpler to think that, in reality, at the base of the tonal system there is a Lydian scale and not an Ionian scale that is almost always altered by the presence of an augmented fourth. Why conceive as the source of tonal organization a scale destined to be in a near-constant state of alteration!

Furthermore, the Lydian scale certainly has only one tonic, and I believe this is an indispensable requirement for a scale to be placed as the origin of tonal organization.

Thank you for your cooperation