[Smt-talk] The Ubiquitous Triad
Nicolas Meeùs
nicolas.meeus at scarlet.be
Fri Jul 18 14:29:36 PDT 2014
It seems to me too easy and futile to render "the tonal triad"
responsible of so many confusions.
Western (or Occidental, or European, as you like) music or its musicians
decided, about a thousand years ago, to base the musical game on an
opposition between consonance and dissonance. Many other musics made
other choices, e.g. oppositions of rhythms, or of timbres, etc. But
consonance/dissonance was 'our' choice (you may belong to another
tradition, but I don't think Stephen does).
Now, basing the musical game on consonance/dissonance entails defining
these terms. This took time, several categorizations have been tried,
and several justifications; these would deserve a discussion here, but
as this isn't the question raised by Stephen, I'll refrain entering it
now. Our forefathers came to a general agreement on the intervals that
could be considered consonances and those considered dissonances. Once
again, I won't discuss now their conscious or unconscious reasons. We
all know the result: unison, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and octave are
consonances, seconds and sevenths dissonances, and augmented
fourths/diminished fifths somehow between the two.
The logical consequences are simple, even if not immediately evident:
-- The maximum number of pitch classes all 'consonant' between
themselves is three.
-- Granting the principle of inversion, they all and exclusively form
"triads" (properly speaking, those that Stephen calls "tonal triads").
-- All other combinations of intervals include 'dissonances' and
therefore do not form "triads" properly speaking. (One argument for
saying this is that in most definitions of "chords", dissonant
combinations of three notes imply some other, absent note. This boils
down to the theory of piled up thirds, but again this is not the
question raised by Stephen: he should perhaps begin realize that his
question is not the good one...).
-- "Tonality" by no means is implied in this, so that the notion of
"tonal" triad is irrelevant.
Neo-Riemannian Tonnetze (which describe triads) invite us to consider
other possible combinations. I think to remember that Rick Cohn shew
that the richest Tonnetz is that of which the coordinates are arranged
in fifths and thirds.
All this evidences specific properties of triads, and explains why they
have played such a prominent role in our music for the last thousand
years. Triads by no means are a norm for ANY music. They certainly were
a norm for our music for these last centuries, especially (but not
exclusively) in its tonal period, and I see no problem in acknowledging
that. Musical analysis, that I know, never claimed to state how music
should be. It does try to show how the music analyzed has been: our
Western (etc.) music has been triadic for many centuries, and I see no
problem in this.
Nicolas Meeùs
Professeur émérite
Université Paris-Sorbonne
Le 18/07/2014 18:56, Stephen Soderberg a écrit :
> Just posted some thoughts on justifications for the tonal triad meant
> to lead into the final post in the thread "Desperately Seeking
> Relevance: Music Theory Today"
>
> "The Ubiquitous Triad"
> <http://essaysandendnotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/desperately-seeking-relevance-music_18.html>
>
> Stephen Soderberg
> Keswick, VA
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140718/d2e96965/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list