A New Theory of Harmony? – Isocords & Palindromes

All in all... I only see some organized poly-tonality going on here. Just resolving to a chord both resolve to. I am gonna half to back up the others here... nothing particularly new.

However, this looks like a FINE way to write your music if you so choose. Nothing wrong with making up your own music theory and using it if it works. I do it with my added (Whitacre-ish) music. I just have my system that deviates from the norm. So do you, which makes your work more personal and individual.

ON the other hand, I wonder why you explain it to us? I mean, like I said, I have my system too... but I don't go blabbing about it. lolz. I tend to keep it to myself so that people don't LOOK for it when they see my music. For example... do you honestly believe the average listener is trying to find the harmonic progressions in music when they are listening? No, they want to immerse themselves in the music (I am speaking specifically to the non-analytical type... and even then, I don't want them to know my system).. it just takes away some of the magic of the music. IMHO.

Have fun!

But do you see how long-winded your description is? In contrast to this, my explanations given in the score are descriptively short and strictly substantial regarding the content of the music.

Your explanations only work if people already know what your theory is about while mine can be understood by anyone with a decent degree of musical theory. And, well, brevity isn't a virtue if things aren't clear.

Just as well, considering that for anyone to understand your analysis using your theory they have to also learn how that theory works and what it means (and how it relates to the theory that already exists), the overall thing is much longer than just describing stuff like I did. In fact, why would anyone bother?

Hansen: The bottom line is that the Isochord theory you're proposing does not bridge tonal and atonal writing, as you claim that it does from the beginning of the discussion. It substantially confuses those systems and tries to redefine established terminology. As I've already stated repeatedly, you're going the wrong direction with your efforts.

Now, I'm genuinely pleased with the music I'm hearing in these examples. This is material, as I understand it, that culminates the 'basic tenets' of your theory. Because you're going to fail in redefining theoretical principles concerning tonal- and atonal-based music, your best course of action is to more uniquely flesh out your theory by exploring the larger sound-scape available to you.

I already suggested more research into and application of the overtone series, and SSC suggested more experimentation with different tuning systems. These are just some of the options available for you to flesh out your theory. Otherwise, if you're unwilling to look at this theory with any kind of 'fresh' approach, I'm going to have to break it to you now that Isochord theory stops here. There's just no sense in making music more complicated with overlapping terminology and confusing the application of your theory to tonal and atonal music when the theory could potentially stand apart from both quite adequately once it's more thoroughly developed.

I admire your creativity and your enthusiasm. I would appreciate a little more openness to some of the suggestions we're making. After all, most of us wouldn't bother saying anything if we didn't think this had potential or we didn't want to help you. Unfortunately, you're taking a more defensive position right now that's completely unwarranted, as your theory is nowhere close to being defensible at this point. You have a lot more work to do, and we've done all we can to help you at this junction.

Take that for what it's worth, and good luck.

Thanx, AA, for your insightful comment. I'll go into further detail when I'm back (I'm out of home for 2 weeks or so).

Exercise, elaborate, experiment with isocords! And think about how an all-interval 12-tone row of isocords would look like.

A lot like Webern. Or Babbitt. Or even Schoenberg.

BTW, is it isocord or isochord?

A lot like Webern. Or Babbitt. Or even Schoenberg.

BTW, is it isocord or isochord?

his title says Isocord.

his title says Isocord.

Just thought I'd double check, since both have been used seemingly interchanably throughout the thread.

Exercise, elaborate, experiment with isocords! And think about how an all-interval 12-tone row of isocords would look like.

A lot like Webern. Or Babbitt. Or even Schoenberg.

Or possibly more like Fritz Heinrich Klein (1892-1977) or Herbert Eimert (1897-1972)?

BTW, is it isocord or isochord?

You may spell it either way. AntiAtonality writes "isochord" and I prefer "isocord". IMO, isocord is a generic term of the iso-interval structure of a symmetric chord which can be a concord (i.e. primes and octaves) or a discord (iso-intervals other than octaves and primes).

* * * * *

All in all... I only see some organized poly-tonality going on here. Just resolving to a chord both resolve to.

Yes, poly-tonality and bi-tonality

Well then, I will be eagerly waiting for this enlightenment.

Hansen: The bottom line is that the Isochord theory you're proposing does not bridge tonal and atonal writing, as you claim that it does from the beginning of the discussion. It substantially confuses those systems and tries to redefine established terminology. As I've already stated repeatedly, you're going the wrong direction with your efforts.

In the end, it will be my goal to show that isocord theory will "bridge tonal and atonal writing"

Right, "with a decent degree of musical theory" – either of conventional harmony theory (or theories) or of my theory. Isocord theory opens new ways of thinking in sounds and new ways of seeing how to build chords in a systematic, rule-based way (other than traditional theory tells).

This... is not... going to work.

Bridging 'Tonality' and 'Atonality' is like a school teacher trying to 'bridge' classic Shakespeare prose with popular song lyrics. Sure, it might make for a fun day for kids, but who honestly takes it seriously beyond the classroom?

If we operated in a different climate of philosophical discourse where the past held more significance for the present in art, I quite possibly would be singing a different tune. I'm hoping against hope that this is registering with you:

Your work as you are approaching it now in this artistic climate is not going to be fruitful. I don't see how you expect this to 'catch on' with the general 'art music' community. This approach does not work for these people.

- For more on this, just wait to hear what SSC has to say about it. I'm just trying to keep it real... this approach does not apply to the art world we live in presently.

That's a very interesting assumption which you pose here

Hate to break it to you but nothing you've done so far in terms of actual composition is even remotely revolutionary. Everything you've done was done by Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Messiaen, etc. a hundred years ago. At least edumicate yourself in the last hundred years of music before you start spouting out "revolutionary" theories.

Hate to break it to you but nothing you've done so far in terms of actual composition is even remotely revolutionary. Everything you've done was done by Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Messiaen, etc. a hundred years ago. At least edumicate yourself in the last hundred years of music before you start spouting out "revolutionary" theories.

"Edumicate"?

I never ever spoke of "revolutionary" theories. Calm down, please!

That's a very interesting assumption which you pose here

Oh noes, someone working on a system in the post-system world?

Someone having half-formed ideas and posting them?

Someone who, if he's to be believed, has a ton more experience with all the "big" names y'all are throwing out there?

None of that ever happens, here or anywhere.

Of course, there's no necessity to write this way. There's no necessity to write -- but we still do. I find it supremely fascinating that instead of poking holes in the theory, the most recent wave of criticism pokes holes in the rhetoric.

@Hansen - I'm looking at this, and I'm curious -- with broken isocords, ones missing notes -- can there be two simultaneous different isocords (so stacked thirds, a 4th gap, and stacked thirds) or is it only one isocord at one time (so stacked thirds, a 3rd gap, and then stacked thirds)?

___________________________

thee intarnett ees seareeus biznass

Oh noes, someone working on a system in the post-system world?

Someone having half-formed ideas and posting them?

Someone who, if he's to be believed, has a ton more experience with all the "big" names y'all are throwing out there?

None of that ever happens, here or anywhere.

You're missing the point. People aren't attacking him for have a system in a "post-system world" (which is news to me by the way). People are attacking him because he's trying to pass off practices that have been done and explored for over a hundred years as something new. Building chords off of equal intervals is nothing new. People have based pieces off of augmented and fully diminished triads and stacked fourths (look at Ives' The Cage for some revolutionary isocords) And granted, maybe some day he could turn this theory into something new and perhaps something even worth using. But that's not going to happen until he better acclimates himself with the last hundred years of music. Part of starting a new theory is having the responsibility to find out if it's already been done.

Wrong again. The very reason I say you're not going to get your expected results is because the general community isn't going to be very responsive. In effect, all the people on one end of the spectrum will say, "Yeah, well, it's not tonal" and people on the other end will say, "Rules? What rules? You're an idiot!"

That's pretty much what you should expect. Beyond that, if it catches on it will only be for its non-serious controversy.

Whatever I'll have to expect, it's not the general community which will count. Only a wide-ranging applicability of the theory will be of concern. And I'll keep to the point of exactly this

I bridge tonality and atonality on a daily basis. That concept is not revolutionary, in fact, it's quite current if not slightly outdated.

At least, it's a practicable concept for your daily work. But what if you do a false step on your ad-hoc bridge? Wouldn't you like to have a better perspective?

Say Hansen, you're from Hamburg right? It's a nice city and all (been there myself a bunch of times,) and they have a rather great musicology department at the HfMT which by now I'm sure you are aware of.

So, why not stop by and tell'em of your great revolutionary theory? Come back once you've done that, thanks!

Say Hansen, you're from Hamburg right? It's a nice city and all (been there myself a bunch of times,) and they have a rather great musicology department at the HfMT which by now I'm sure you are aware of.

So, why not stop by and tell'em of your great revolutionary theory? Come back once you've done that, thanks!

Well, I'm in good contact with'em, thanx!

(BTW, maybe we'll meet each other some time in HH?)

My actual problem

Now that's at least something to consider... Palindrome harmonicization. I'm sure it's probably been used before, but in the way you're describing it, it is much more interesting. I'm somewhat encouraged.

But this is not 'tonal' or 'atonal' in any real sense. This is a systematization of interval usage in a very strict form. This appeal to axiomatic theory is still quite limiting. You're dealing with limitations to structures based on the appeal to the 'isochord' (equidistant) structure. You need to overcome this for the theory to really take on a more palatable quality.

In effect, if Isochord theory were to at least be more flexible in application to other styles, it could be more worthwhile to study and use in composition. If, on the other hand, your theory doesn't take into account other styles of music that could bridge to the axiom, you've got a pretty restricted theory that seldom applies. Western classical music, in general, is a very tiny dot in a very large world of musical styles, speaking purely from an Ethno-musicological perspective.

There's no sense in recreating this restrictiveness in your theory. Just from how you approach it, this has been one of my biggest concerns. You're looking at that tiny dot as a Yin and a Yang (tonality/atonality) without accounting for the multitudes of musical styles, many of which have been sources of inspiration for much of the music in that tiny little dot.

Does that make sense?

Well, I'm in good contact with'em, thanx!

(BTW, maybe we'll meet each other some time in HH?)

And what do they say? And I'm maybe going to Hamburg again in November, but I'm not sure right now.

And what do they say? And I'm maybe going to Hamburg again in November, but I'm not sure right now.

Well, one thinks that YC is a good (battle-) field of experimentation.

Regarding your eventual visit in Hamburg, let's keep in contact. You may send me a PM, if you like.