A New Theory of Harmony? – Isocords & Palindromes

I think Hansen should refer to this post for more insight on music 'unification'. I happened upon this thought process after reading about 6 chapters of Bruno Nettl.

Which of Nettl's books do you refer to in your "reading about 6 chapters of Bruno Nettl"?

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/post-modernism-questions-should-answered-22447-4.html#post326178

The second to last paragraph illustrates what I mean by 'unification'.

Your 'unification' idea makes me wondering whether I'm not on the way of doing something like this 'unification' with the "symmetry theory of sound"? At least, regarding your Postmodernism in music in a nutshell, I'm sort of a 'post-modernist' in my kind of theorizing (or 'armchair reasoning', if you like).

The idea has already been more or less explored by Jonathan Harvey for at least the last 25 years...

EDIT: ..Except taken way further than just the ludicrously basic premise (for a whole new compositional theory) stated in post number 1.

The idea has already been more or less explored by Jonathan Harvey for at least the last 25 years...

A brief note for an article or something like that would be very much appreciated.

EDIT: ..Except taken way further than just the ludicrously basic premise (for a whole new compositional theory) stated in post number 1.

By the way, "the ludicrously basic premise" is – as far as I remember – not "for a whole new compositional theory" but only for a comprehensive point of view of building chords, different from the traditional way of tertian layering of intervals.

Which of Nettl's books do you refer to in your "reading about 6 chapters of Bruno Nettl"?

The Study of Ethnomusicology is what I've been reading. He makes some excellent points about 'heroes' in music like Mozart. More on that in a moment.

Your 'unification' idea makes me wondering whether I'm not on the way of doing something like this 'unification' with the "symmetry theory of sound"? At least, regarding your Postmodernism in music in a nutshell, I'm sort of a 'post-modernist' in my kind of theorizing (or 'armchair reasoning', if you like).

I don't think you're far enough removed from the singular influence of Classicism to elaborate on the world of music with your theory. You should refer to Nettl's view on Music Universals. He points to three universal truths about music based on the study of anthropology, sociology, and music cultures across the globe. It's a relatively recent field that branches off more from anthropology than musicology, but it provides greater scope for you to more completely branch out and away from your singular tonal influences to explore more styles of music.

Take Shakuhachi Flute music of the Japanese musical culture. There are distinctive qualities of that music you won't necessarily find in Western Classical canon, because much of it, by some musicologist's standards, sounds too 'primitive' to be worthy of study in that tradition. Good thing Stravinsky came along, right? But even still, he only vaguely touches primitivism in the way you potentially could with your insight into interval symmetry.

And you're still so obsessed with vertical elements of music. There are at least four other dimensions you haven't even begun to tap into, including timbre, melody, rhythm, and form. Furthermore, what does symmetry imply about 12-tone serialism that balances the use of all twelve tones in a work of music? You're not far enough removed from your influences. You need to be listening to more works outside of this comfort zone you've created for yourself. Get ITunes and start looking for some contemporary/world music that will pull you out of this 'prescriptive' approach you've been manufacturing.

You really could have something great, but you have to be willing to explore your theory from more than just one vantage point if you really want it to help other composers and the music community in general.

A brief note for an article or something like that would be very much appreciated.

By the way, "the ludicrously basic premise" is – as far as I remember – not "for a whole new compositional theory" but only for a comprehensive point of view of building chords, different from the traditional way of tertian layering of intervals.

I can guide you to the book 'In Quest of Spirit' by Harvey himself. I could also share my own research and analysis but i'm not going to right now. So yeah, check out what he says about his own compositional methods in that book. Essentially it's what you have talked about and taken some stages further, and with the addition of central pitch axis' (though not as a necessary part of the equation).

As for the second point, well 'for a whole new theory of harmony', then.

Basically, it would become a fascinating aspect of this thread if we could come up with definitive precursors of a comprehensive theory of symmetric chord building, be it by some 'universals of music' by Bruno Nettl or by ideas by Jonathan Harvey already explored in his own compositional work.

@ Antiatonality:

Nettl's Study of Ethnomusicology seems to be a very detailed book as it is, after its first publication in 1983, an expanded and revised second edition (2005). What kind of (three) universal truths about music do you see, AA, in Nettl's book? IMHO, vertical sound building wouldn't count for that, but horizontal melody/rhythm progression would do. Or should we now, after a long period of music history and associated research in musicology, and in ethnomusicology in particular, include multi-voiced sound building as a universal of music?

@ Nathaniel Near:

Jonathan Harvey's 'In Quest of Spirit: Thoughts on Music' is another case. This book of about hundred pages has even a chapter reprinted under Google Books, i.e. "2. The Role of Ambiguity". If you, NN, could guide me a bit so see where he deals with the topic of chord building? Or even better, if you could talk a bit about your own research and analysis, this would be great for me to reflect on.

Seems to become a promising road to go.

It's somewhere near the end of the book, he addresses his own compositional technique which can be related to a specific song from his Song Offerings, but by extension many other pieces. I don't have my own analysis of his work on this computer right now so you'll have to wait till around about next Sunday.

Essentially, himself and George Benjamin wanted to move away from the bass so often governing the harmony by creating harmony through stacked singular intervals or sometimes duos of intervals, sometimes independently or in conjunction with a central pitch axis. Either way, systems of great symmetry were built. If you are patient then I can provide you also with an extensive article on George Benjamin's music (I can only obtain this when logged into the university computers, of which I won't see again till next Sunday and I will have to print it off and then scan it) as well as some of my analysis, both of which I would probably issue to you privately. Seeing as you are interested, I'm willing to go to that great effort, though you will have to be patient.

Later.

@ Antiatonality:

Nettl's Study of Ethnomusicology seems to be a very detailed book as it is, after its first publication in 1983, an expanded and revised second edition (2005). What kind of (three) universal truths about music do you see, AA, in Nettl's book? IMHO, vertical sound building wouldn't count for that, but horizontal melody/rhythm progression would do. Or should we now, after a long period of music history and associated research in musicology, and in ethnomusicology in particular, include multi-voiced sound building as a universal of music?

I don't know which publication you've read. I've been reading the revised second edition. If you've read that edition (honestly don't know if he included it in his first publication, can't imagine it's NOT in the original version), then you might have read the chapter on universals (it's chapter four, five, or six, I can't remember). He specifically discusses what most Ethnomusicologists could probably agree are 'universal' to all musics from all cultures in addition to creating a context for discussing 'universals' in music. Go back and review that chapter more carefully.

And no, vertical sound building could not be included as a universal of music. It still, STILL occurs in less than .01% of all music that has been studied from culture to culture. The Western canon doesn't even concern us with vertical sound building nearly as much now as it traditionally did. You can't seriously think vertical sound building should apply to all music, can you? If so, I'll probably have to :headwall:

Just save me from a headache and don't answer that last question.

And no, vertical sound building could not be included as a universal of music. It still, STILL occurs in less than .01% of all music that has been studied from culture to culture. The Western canon doesn't even concern us with vertical sound building nearly as much now as it traditionally did. You can't seriously think vertical sound building should apply to all music, can you? If so, I'll probably have to :headwall:

Just save me from a headache and don't answer that last question.

That's interesting. But I'm not sure what you mean with vertical sound building exactly. I mean, "verticality" can as well be organizing sounds that play together at the same time ... and that exists just about everywhere. Honestly I think the whole vertical vs horizontal bit is a lot more theoretical than it is practical, unless we're talking about monodies.

You get vertical formations no matter which culture it is so long as there's more than one sound happening, and you get horizontal organization no matter what's going on vertically because music is time-based. So really, it depends on how you analyze it and what you're considering vertical and horizontal and I think it's not a well enough defined thing to build statistics around honestly.

That's interesting. But I'm not sure what you mean with vertical sound building exactly. I mean, "verticality" can as well be organizing sounds that play together at the same time ... and that exists just about everywhere. Honestly I think the whole vertical vs horizontal bit is a lot more theoretical than it is practical, unless we're talking about monodies.

You get vertical formations no matter which culture it is so long as there's more than one sound happening, and you get horizontal organization no matter what's going on vertically because music is time-based. So really, it depends on how you analyze it and what you're considering vertical and horizontal and I think it's not a well enough defined thing to build statistics around honestly.

I take 'vertical sound building' to mean writing music vertically as opposed to horizontally/linearly. It may be that music is created vertically with longer germinations of linear material (i.e. layering two 'lines' of music over one another), but it just appears to me that at the more specific level of these instances, the creative act first occurs with a single line. That sound can be layered doesn't make it so in all cases and therefore could not be considered a universal characteristic of world music.

However, an example might be that in almost all cases (with particular exceptions being made to 20th Century 'Avant-garde', whatever it may be), musical lines end with a descending figure. The most common of these is the linear 3,2,1 descending by whole steps or higher. It is characteristic of virtually all music styles from the cultures that Ethnomusicologists have studied and have found that this occurs.

Really, it's all very general, and Nettl even prefaces these 'universals' in music as appearing to occur in most music from different cultural delineations, not all music of most cultures. I'm glad he makes that distinction as well, because it's necessary to point out that just because it's universal 'to many different cultures' doesn't make it universal 'to all the music of that culture'.