# Down with 3-note chords



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2020)

I am sick of 3-note chords. Please discuss.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 17, 2020)

Depends which three notes.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jun 17, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I am sick of 3-note chords. Please discuss.


You could double the tonic and really make it boring. Grieg was master at simple chords (not counting his piano music). Gorgeous.


----------



## jonathanparham (Jun 17, 2020)

looking for things to do? lol


----------



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2020)

nolotrippen said:


> You could double the tonic and really make it boring. Grieg was master at simple chords (not counting his piano music). Gorgeous.



fair enough, but Grieg lived some time ago and we already have a lot of "that stuff."


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

I don't get it, I use 3-note chords all the time. Well, plus tons of other techniques as well, but I don't understand your disdain for 3-note chords. For me, it's about what works and what doesn't.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 17, 2020)

curious about that actually - may I assume you mean simple diatonic three note chords (major, minor, augmented and diminished)? If so then I guess that makes sense, after a while they can get a bit stale, even if you invert them or try different voicings.

As a guitar player I think of three note chords differently - which three notes? If I add a ninth do I remove the third, and if I do does it hold together? What if I remove the fifth? And so on. It is not uncommon for a guitarist, while accompanying, to simplify chords not by removing the "extra" notes but by removing the basic ones.

Tell us more please...


----------



## Michel Simons (Jun 17, 2020)

Wait a minute, are there chords with more than three notes??


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

Michel Simons said:


> Wait a minute, are there chords with more than three notes??



LOLOLOLOL gd one


----------



## Rob (Jun 17, 2020)

I would say, let's use all the harmonic palette, from unison to twelve-notes chords... they are colors, and each one has its own feeling and use. Well, maybe twelve is too much


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 17, 2020)

Does it count if I stack one three-note chord on top of another?


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Jun 17, 2020)

Have you tried stacking various whole and half tones?


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

Depends on which perspective are you coming from. Simple triads from classical music, or harmonic manipulation from jazz?


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Does it count if I stack one three-note chord on top of another?



From a jazz perspective, that's one cool technique! The 2 chords will have to be from different scales as possible, though.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jun 17, 2020)

I'm sick of 4/4 time. Everything should be in 13/7 time, with a 95% swing.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 17, 2020)

Does this include 3 note 8ve Chords?


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

Tim_Wells said:


> I'm sick of 4/4 time. Everything should be in 13/7 time, with a 95% swing.



I'll up ya one. I'm sick of time signatures. Period.


----------



## patrick76 (Jun 17, 2020)

I know, right? Two notes are more than enough.


----------



## patrick76 (Jun 17, 2020)

Also, should I have written "is" or "are" in my previous statement? Do I consider "Two" a single unit and go with "is", or do I choose "are" because of "notes" being plural? Hmm. My brain is not firing on all cylinders.


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

patrick76 said:


> I know, right? Two notes are more than enough.



2 note chords are not the only winners in trying to seem 'minimal' or 'ambiguous', but thanks for trying. 

When Hansy boy was working on Thin Red Line, his producer or director (can't remember which lol) kept telling him to use perfect 5ths (2 notes), to be "ambiguous". Hansy boy then went back and went minor 3rd, major 3rd, major 3rd, minor 3rd.....they were all 3rds. (also 2 notes). He could have added 5ths with the melody line on top of the 2 note chords, which he did. Guess what? Hans won the battle.


----------



## GNP (Jun 17, 2020)

ka00 said:


> There was a time I listened only to music like this because I grew tired of the same old same old:
> 
> 
> 
> But now I embrace the inherent beauty of simplicity and don’t overthink it. If a chord sounds good with two notes, that’s all I’ll use.




Or, you could use custom-made textures. Nothing's more ambiguous than melodic-based content than something that's just...you know....not melodic at all.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2020)

hmm [frowns] methinks some mockery transpires...

What I'm getting at grew out of a need to write something "epic" that isn't so corny and sentimental that it makes me want to hide, wear a mask, and never see anyone again.

...wait a minute....


----------



## Technostica (Jun 17, 2020)

No one needs more than 3 chords, the truth and a black leather jacket. 
I don't give a damn how many notes the chords have. 
Bloody hippies.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2020)

Technostica said:


> No one needs more than 3 chords, the truth and a black leather jacket.



pack of smokes?


----------



## Rodney Money (Jun 17, 2020)

If your melody is beautiful enough no one will care about the chords (as long as they “work.”)


----------



## JJP (Jun 17, 2020)

@JohnG I was just dealing with this! I find adding a 9th to a triad voiced next to the root or the third and somewhere in the middle of the voicing is almost always a good move. Maybe only voice it in the horns if it's an orchestral work as well. 6ths can often work in the same way. 

That's been one of my little tricks. Done well, it doesn't really change the sound that much, but just enough to give you some complexity and additional interest. Or as some people say, it "makes it more 'emotional'".


----------



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2020)

yep. a flat 6th, or a major 2nd in a minor triad, or sus and M7.

All that stuff adds crunch. I was writing until late last night and woke up -- hated it. So I put in all the angles and now it sounds cool.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> yep. a flat 6th, or a major 2nd in a minor triad, or sus and M7.
> 
> All that stuff adds crunch. I was writing until late last night and woke up -- hated it. So I put in all the angles and now it sounds cool.



Why soooo compound in construction? Compound thinking is for sissies...  I say get rid of triadic structure and head for the open seas....oh unless you're getting paid for the dots, obviously.


----------



## CT (Jun 18, 2020)

Up with three-part polyphony.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> Why soooo compound in construction? Compound thinking is for sissies...  I say get rid of triadic structure and head for the open seas....oh unless you're getting paid for the dots, obviously.


Or unless you want people to listen to it.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

well @mikeh-375 and @SupremeFist , it's a little of both. Lucky enough to be working and kind of prefer to write so the audience will enjoy it. Maybe push just a little on the experiments though; makes it more fun and less of a retread.


----------



## bosone (Jun 18, 2020)

play some metal. two-notes chords are more than enough.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2020)

...this thread has the potential to go pretty deep concerning originality, exploration, a sense of artistic adventure and invention.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 18, 2020)

Altered/extended chords that don't spell out the base triad are also cool. You can do that in three notes or even two.


----------



## Uiroo (Jun 18, 2020)

I didn't know chords are still a thing since the rise of epic percussion.

Your orchestrator should worry about that stuff when you send him the taiko-sketch.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> ...this thread has the potential to go pretty deep concerning originality, exploration, a sense of artistic adventure and invention.



A philosophical exchange on, say, the balance between art and commerce?

Maybe it was in the early 1800s when Lord Byron popularised the notion of the "lonely artist"; that the artist's duty owes solely to himself (or his muse), and that composing (or painting, or writing) for an audience hopelessly taints the work? I'm not a historian, but up until around that time I don't think this was a widely held idea. In fact, I think most would have been surprised at the vision of an artist laboring in obscurity purely for himself, scorning praise or an audience (or a payday).

I do like to write for an audience, but I also think that one has to like what one is doing, even if it's not the unadulterated expression of the self alone. Put another way, I don't put material out there unless I personally enjoy it. I've also found that my own favourites seem more likely strike a chord (!) with audiences. By contrast, when I've turned my hand to a style I disdain, my results are rubbish.

Like many / most of us, I was initially drawn to music by pieces written for an audience, even if an audience of one: some bishop somewhere, or Prince Esterhazy or Archduke Franz of Austria. I don't see what's wrong with that and I certainly write as a means of communicating with others, not just for myself.

I like to imagine people watching something I've scored and enjoying the experience -- probably not focused on the music, but just having a good time.


----------



## Joe_D (Jun 18, 2020)

Being a jazz guy who often uses six or more notes in a chord, the simple triad can be a breath of fresh air. As Jazz great Pat Metheny said:



> I never had any fear of triads. A lot of jazz guys, if there’s not at least four notes happening, they’re going to stick one in there. For me, triads were always a viable option. I think when people talk about Midwestern blah-blah-blah, a lot of that is just simplicity. I’ve always loved to play simple. As much as I like playing things that are very dense and complicated now, underneath all that is this thing where I just love playing real simple things.


from Ted Panken interview with Pat Metheny


----------



## re-peat (Jun 18, 2020)

To me, the meaning, aesthetic quality and suitability of a chord — or chord type — can’t be judged by looking at that chord in isolation. Chords only give all they have to give when surrounded on all sides by other musical elements: other chords, timbres, melody, rhythm, dynamics, structure, conflict, resolution, … A simple, unadorned major chord — root, third and fifth — can be a thing of musical perfection if it occurs in the right place. Then it has a beauty that far exceeds that of a ‘clever’ chord in the wrong place.

As with most things in music, basic diatonic chords will forever remain totally satisfying solutions, in my opinion anyway, if you have the knowledge — and by ‘knowledge’ I mean a combination of talent, skill, taste and intuition — to use them when they ought to be used, and not use them when the music asks for something else. I believe that such knowledge, enabling one to make the right choices (which isn't necessarily the same as the most technically accomplished ones), is as much a part of a composing as writing a tune, mounting a musical form or doing whatever else it is that people do before they call a composition finished.

_


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

fair enough @re-peat 

I'm just tired of the same old stuff, used in the same old way -- i.e. to ape someone else's once-successful but now tired approach.


----------



## Studio E (Jun 18, 2020)

Careful now, this is a slippery slope. First you move to 4-note chords, then 5! Where does it end?!?! What will it take to satisfy you after you are just pounding-out 12-note clusters? This is probably the path that
Most serial killers start down. 3-note, 4-note, .....7-note.......kill a drifter....etc etc.


----------



## LamaRose (Jun 18, 2020)

Three-part polyphonic is a lot different than block chording everything...


Mike T said:


> Up with three-part polyphony.



THIS! Three-part polyphonic is a lot different than block chording everything... you have constant movement/weaving.

And in reality, three-note chords gives one a lot more harmonic space to start adding harmonic melody/complexity.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I am sick of 3-note chords. Please discuss.



A good composer can use triads and make them sound good. Of course it depends on which 3 notes, but even a C-major chord, with the right timbres, the right orchestration, the right dynamics and the right voiceleading can sound effective depending upon context. 

But I too, as most composers probably do, get tired of certain harmonies or harmonic progressions because they become so familiar (isn't there a saying "familiarity breeds contempt")?

I notice my reaction to sound changes--day by day, even hour by hour, depending upon my mood, what I ate, whether I got enough good sleep and/or exercise. Being alive is a process, and constant change is part of that process, which is why how we hear music can vary so much. 

When I hear music that bores me it's often not what materials the composer is employing, but rather how the composer is using those materials. In the classical music world in the 1950s and 60s, originality was elevated to God-like status. But authenticity and sincerity are of equal value in my opinion, which is why a simple folk song sung beautifully and artfully by a skilled singer can move people emotionally.

Without trying to sound too abstract, there's a mystery to why music can have a deep emotional and intellectual effect on us and why it does not. I remember a quote about Mozart's music that has always stuck with me: "music so simple a child can enjoy it and so sophisticated the most learned musician can appreciate it". That seems like the highest compliment one could ever receive...

Jerry


----------



## visiblenoise (Jun 18, 2020)

One of my favorite sounds on heavily distorted guitar is a triad that goes 3rd-root-5th


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Does it count if I stack one three-note chord on top of another?



That's a polychord. Two ways to see that, for example, C-E-G Bflat-Dflat-F# can be seen as a C7 -9#11 or a polychord, F# major on top of C-major. 

A little more complex is an an Emajor on top of a Cminor, a double chromatic mediant.


----------



## Akarin (Jun 18, 2020)

It all depends on the scene. Sometimes 3 note chords will be exactly what's needed to not distract a viewer from the action, sometimes it won't be enough to support the visuals. Context is everything.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

Akarin said:


> It all depends on the scene. Sometimes 3 note chords will be exactly what's needed to not distract a viewer from the action, sometimes it won't be enough to support the visuals. Context is everything.



True, but that's assuming the music is for soundtracks. Soundtrack composition is a different game than composition that is not an accompaniment to other media...


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

You know, Jerry, some here have a pretty substantial background in music of all kinds, from concert to otherwise. Writing, as you did, "A good composer can use triads and make them sound good" is condescending and honestly ridiculous, along with some of the other pieties you've debouched. 

If you took 30 seconds to listen to the music of some here I think it would be evident that we don't need "Freshman Composition 101" homilies. The title of the thread is a joke.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> You know, Jerry, some here have a pretty substantial background in music of all kinds, from concert to otherwise. Writing, as you did, "A good composer can use triads and make them sound good" is condescending and honestly ridiculous, along with some of the other pieties you've debouched.
> 
> If you took 30 seconds to listen to the music of some here I think it would be evident that we don't need "Freshman Composition 101" homilies. The title of the thread is a joke.



I think you're seeking conflict John, but I'm not. I didn't imply that people around here are not good composers. There's a very large range of people here, from professional composers to beginners. I am speaking from my experience, I hear a lot of good music that is triadic-based. If you took offense to what I said, I think you should look at why. A good composer can use triads effectively. Why would that make you defensive? I don't get it. And if you post your music on the Member Composition Forum as I do, I would probably be listening to it, or at least try. but I don't see you posting there. I listen to other's work even though I don't always comment, just as people listen to my pieces but do not necessarily comment.

What I wrote on my original post was not condescending at all! My quote about Mozart's music was sincere. Why does that bother you so much that you'd want to start a conflict? If your original posting was meant as a joke, I didn't get it as a joke, and from reading all the other comments I am not sure others took it as a joke. I thought you were in a serious and pondering mood and I took it with sincerity.

I can't control your reaction to my words, but I suspect you'd find fault with them no matter what they were. Otherwise you'd address each issue I brought up with a fair rebuttal, which wasn't done...


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

jsg said:


> I don't get it.



No, you obviously don't.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

Do


mikeh-375 said:


> ...this thread has the potential to go pretty deep concerning originality, exploration, a sense of artistic adventure and invention.



I'm not sure John is up for deep discussions about originality or exploration. I tried that and it made him defensive. How are you Mike?


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> No, you obviously don't.



No, I get the discussion, and I read all the comments before posting. I saw that some thought you were making a joke and some didn't. Since you refuse to refute specific points I have to conclude you're not willing or able to address any particular thing I mentioned, but just interested in making jokes. So next time I have a joke I'll be sure to share it with you and save the more philosophical discussions with those that can handle them without feeling attacked when they're not being attacked...


----------



## Uiroo (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> You know, Jerry, some here have a pretty substantial background in music of all kinds, from concert to otherwise. Writing, as you did, "A good composer can use triads and make them sound good" is condescending and honestly ridiculous, along with some of the other pieties you've debouched.
> 
> If you took 30 seconds to listen to the music of some here I think it would be evident that we don't need "Freshman Composition 101" homilies. The title of the thread is a joke.


I don't get what caused your sudden change in behaviour, you asked people to discuss so some people do. It would be decent not to insult them. 

There are also a lot of rookies in this forum, I personally learned a lot when I joined this place by reading posts like jsg's.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jun 18, 2020)

And next weeks topic is:

"To make atonal music, all I do is smear whipped cream all over my piano keyboard and borrow next door's cat....Discuss"


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

Michael Antrum said:


> And next weeks topic is:
> 
> "To make atonal music, all I do is smear whipped cream all over my piano keyboard and borrow next door's cat....Discuss"




Ouch! My ears hurt! Meow! Meow! Ouch! That chord is causing mental instability!!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 18, 2020)

The title is a bit of a joking troll as I know that John bloody well knows how to use many kinds of chords with 3 or more notes. Just the question alone is not specific enough as there are plenty of ways with three notes to make all sorts of diatonic and non diatonic voicings that would not be considered the same as root position three note triads. And even never having heard Johns material I am very confident he is doing more then that.

so not entirely sure of the purpose of the thread other then to jest or perhaps others of lessor skill may enjoy the topic which is arguably loosy goosy in terms of the thread objective.

but none the less I am pretty comfortable with the Berklee approach which is mostly 4 voice chords (even if one voice might be implied). You have the basic chord qualities and then you have borrowed non-diatonic chords which add to the harmonic language backbone of the work.

then you have so called “tension” notes which add color without necessarily destroying the harmonic function of the chord. That’s your 9 11 13 add notes which if only voiced with three notes mean some more of the fundamental chord notes may be implied also.

how you voice the chord with those add notes can add varying levels of “tension” which is part of the color language of the work.

im pretty sure John is well versed in all of the above and if not joking, then he’s searching to go beyond that. So we can start talking about quartels, upper structure triads, and on and on; all different ways people have come up with to explore outside the typical diatonic or semi-diatonic (with borrowed chords) harmonic language. Ultimately I feel most of those chords can be gotten to without for example using quartels to get there. It’s just a different means of discovery. Pretty much every conceivable “tonal music” chord can be explained or justified by using the old boring Berklee approach. We get happy accidents by exploring alternative paths of thinking.

Of course you know where this is leading? Spuds what’s his name is going to appear from the dead and explain to us all that the next level is EIS but we have to pay to find out how.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Jun 18, 2020)

I haven't discovered 3 note chords yet. Still playing dyads. I like to process my dyads through USB 1.0 for that sweet vintage tone.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> The title is a bit of a joking troll as I know that John bloody well knows how to use many kinds of chords with 3 or more notes. Just the question alone is not specific enough as there are plenty of ways with three notes to make all sorts of diatonic and non diatonic voicings that would not be considered the same as root position three note triads. And even never having heard Johns material I am very confident he is doing more then that.
> 
> so not entirely sure of the purpose of the thread other then to jest or perhaps others of lessor skill may enjoy the topic which is arguably loosy goosy in terms of the thread objective.
> 
> ...




The opening movement of my 9th Symphony for Virtual Instruments uses double chromatic mediant polychords in the divisi violas with f-minor on top and A-major on the the bottom of the 2 triads. This creates the right amount of tension I was going for in this passage. For me, harmonic complexity or harmonic simplicity are not ends in themselves but means to achieve expression, it's always about context, context, context.


----------



## JJP (Jun 18, 2020)

Well, since we are all getting a bit ludicrously technical...

The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never compose rhythmic tritones; rather, endeavour to sense your iconically-triadic oppositions. All composers should contextualise a variety of intricacies, and (if this integrates traditional novelties), proceed to re-bar statically until the best result is achieved. My approach to sound is predicated upon arranging the connection between the 'theoretical-narrative' and radical expression-pitch-sets. Combining choreographies, phenomena and perceptions (as well as diversely interpreting imitations), my overall aesthetic is that of the 'culturally-apparent' school of choreographic tritones. In short, the aerophone must never modulate the orchestration. The conflict is the single most important element in any visual composition, and my own work seeks to explore (and compose) this in the context of 'novelty-tonality-experiences'.

If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 18, 2020)

also relevant:









Tuba Player In John Williams Orchestra Loves Giving Little Toot When Something Dramatic Happens


The Onion brings you all of the latest news, stories, photos, videos and more from America's finest news source.




entertainment.theonion.com


----------



## Lawson. (Jun 18, 2020)

JJP said:


> Well, since we are all getting a bit ludicrously technical...
> 
> The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never compose rhythmic tritones; rather, endeavour to sense your iconically-triadic oppositions. All composers should contextualise a variety of intricacies, and (if this integrates traditional novelties), proceed to re-bar statically until the best result is achieved. My approach to sound is predicated upon arranging the connection between the 'theoretical-narrative' and radical expression-pitch-sets. Combining choreographies, phenomena and perceptions (as well as diversely interpreting imitations), my overall aesthetic is that of the 'culturally-apparent' school of choreographic tritones. In short, the aerophone must never modulate the orchestration. The conflict is the single most important element in any visual composition, and my own work seeks to explore (and compose) this in the context of 'novelty-tonality-experiences'.
> 
> If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.



Except in rare cases (for example, when you are re-opposing a particularly 20th-century set of reverberations), contemporary composers of 'gesture-music' should avoid the use of orchestrations. In simple terms, inverting polychord-noises (in addition to denying consonant improvisations) is one of my most radical approaches to pseudo-provocative composition. This composition dismisses all sorts of chorales, before studying somewhat temporally, and finishing with an extremely triadic series of 'spacing-elements' (as I like to call them). It is of paramount importance that semitonal, ultra-percussive transformation-clusters must never be allowed to become polyphonic, or coherently complex. Any composer who cannot grasp the notion of 'abstract Classical-tetrachord-analyses', or who creates microtonally instead of generating similarly, is of little worth. My most personal octave always features strongly in any of my symbolic compositions.


----------



## CT (Jun 18, 2020)

I love 20th-century sets of reverberations.


----------



## patrick76 (Jun 18, 2020)

JJP said:


> Well, since we are all getting a bit ludicrously technical...
> 
> The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never compose rhythmic tritones; rather, endeavour to sense your iconically-triadic oppositions. All composers should contextualise a variety of intricacies, and (if this integrates traditional novelties), proceed to re-bar statically until the best result is achieved. My approach to sound is predicated upon arranging the connection between the 'theoretical-narrative' and radical expression-pitch-sets. Combining choreographies, phenomena and perceptions (as well as diversely interpreting imitations), my overall aesthetic is that of the 'culturally-apparent' school of choreographic tritones. In short, the aerophone must never modulate the orchestration. The conflict is the single most important element in any visual composition, and my own work seeks to explore (and compose) this in the context of 'novelty-tonality-experiences'.
> 
> If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.


That's very good. The only thing in my estimation that is missing is the word "Juxtaposition". In my university days, it was the most overused buzz word in all of my music classes.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JJP said:


> Well, since we are all getting a bit ludicrously technical...
> 
> The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never compose rhythmic tritones; rather, endeavour to sense your iconically-triadic oppositions. All composers should contextualise a variety of intricacies, and (if this integrates traditional novelties), proceed to re-bar statically until the best result is achieved. My approach to sound is predicated upon arranging the connection between the 'theoretical-narrative' and radical expression-pitch-sets. Combining choreographies, phenomena and perceptions (as well as diversely interpreting imitations), my overall aesthetic is that of the 'culturally-apparent' school of choreographic tritones. In short, the aerophone must never modulate the orchestration. The conflict is the single most important element in any visual composition, and my own work seeks to explore (and compose) this in the context of 'novelty-tonality-experiences'.
> 
> If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.


What are "rhythmic tritones"?


----------



## ka00 (Jun 18, 2020)

jsg said:


> What are "rhythmic tritones"?



My music theory is limited, but I believe Rick Astley used rhythmic tritones in the bridge section of Never Gonna Give You Up.


----------



## JJP (Jun 18, 2020)

They are rhythms of a tri-partate nature when evaluated obliquely versus their underlying tonality pulse.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 18, 2020)

JJP said:


> They are rhythms of a tri-partate nature when evaluated obliquely versus their underlying tonality pulse.



Yes that's good enough as a layman definition, without getting into the complexities of nonstatic arrays of polytonal-contrapuntal pitch-class intervals.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JJP said:


> They are rhythms of a tri-partate nature when evaluated obliquely versus their underlying tonality pulse.



How about sharing a musical example in addition to a verbal description?


----------



## NoamL (Jun 18, 2020)

jsg said:


> How about sharing a musical example in addition to a verbal description?


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jun 18, 2020)

I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to chime in:

More often than not, when I am listening to a gorgeous piece of music and want to dive into a specific section (thinking there must be this genius of extension chords and thick harmony) I am surprised to see it nothing but simple triads, well placed with the right timbres and movement.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2020)

....rhythmic tritones? Good grief, I prefer my simple C major triad after that...


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> ....rhythmic tritones? Good grief, I prefer my simple C major triad after that...



Notation like that will get you a job in the academy!!


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> No, you obviously don't.



Maybe next time you can create some humor without adding the passive-aggression...


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2020)

JohnG said:


> A philosophical exchange on, say, the balance between art and commerce?
> 
> .....................I do like to write for an audience, but I also think that one has to like what one is doing, even if it's not the unadulterated expression of the self alone. Put another way, I don't put material out there unless I personally enjoy it. I've also found that my own favourites seem more likely strike a chord (!) with audiences. By contrast, when I've turned my hand to a style I disdain, my results are rubbish.
> 
> Like many / most of us, I was initially drawn to music by pieces written for an audience, even if an audience of one: some bishop somewhere, or Prince Esterhazy or Archduke Franz of Austria. I don't see what's wrong with that and I certainly write as a means of communicating with others, not just for myself.................................



It's to be expected that if you have disdain for a style of composing, the musical results will not be satisfactory though right John?
There is for sure, a balance to be aimed for between the art, the artifice and the listener, one the composer has to decide upon, given the circumstances and aims of his work. But clearly, individuality and acceptance are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite, admiration for work created with flair, facility and conviction will always be given.

Given how the ubiquity of the simple triad dictates composing in certain genres and having done almost 30 years composing with nothing more than a handful of chords myself for dosh, I can easily extrapolate a sentiment in the thread's title that I for one get (and I wont be the only one I'll bet). I personally found it artistically demoralising at times, to be restricted to a tightly defined and limited way of composing. TBH (and, please guys, I'm not bragging in any way), the reason I found it ultimately demoralising was because I wasn't pushing myself and only utilising a small fraction of what I'd managed to achieve and learn in music and I wonder if you are feeling similar sentiments yourself John. Mind you, I'm not complaining about my time under the clock at all and have no regrets about it.

Accepting individuality if one has it and exploiting it (perhaps tempered just a little -the judgement call one has to make), is also a way out of the creative demise. As well as being good and nourishing for the inner self, I say if you've got it, use it (I'm not addressing you per se John). Doing so just might get your head above the sea of democratic composing voices courtesy of the DAW....

No guarantees for success within media can be given for vertical waywardness and any vertical risks taken are the sole responsibility of the composer....and no, I can't lend you any dosh...err...money because you lost the gig.


----------



## jsg (Jun 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> It's to be expected that if you have disdain for a style of composing, the musical results will not be satisfactory though right John?
> There is a balance to be achieved between the art, the artifice and the listener, one the composer has to decide upon, given the circumstances and aims of his work, but obviously individuality and acceptance are not mutually exclusive as we all know, admiration for work created with flair, facility and conviction will always be prized.
> Given how the ubiquity of the triad dictates composing in certain genres and having done almost 30 years composing with nothing more than a handful of chords myself for dosh, I get the sentiment of the thread's title.
> Of course individuality is also the way out of the demise and I say if you've got it, use it as it might get your head above the sea of democratic composing but it must be done with conviction imv.



Exactly my thoughts. I've often wondered why, since each one of us is a unique individual, why some composer's individuality comes through clearly in their music, and some, no matter how skilled or how much professional experience they have, just lack a "voice". Bob Dylan uses triads, but he has a voice. Jerry Goldsmith used triads, but he had a voice, I could always hear Goldsmith's voice in his scores. I think that's the difference between voice and craft. Maybe the person who doesn't have a voice isn't lacking craft, maybe they're lacking passion, conviction, confidence, who knows? Nothing pisses off the frustrated artist who lacks a voice more than the artist who has found his own and no worldly success can make up for that lack...maybe you've either got it or you don't. Was it Schoenberg who said "talent does what it can, genius does what it must"?

Mike, what is "dosh"?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2020)

jsg said:


> Mike, what is "dosh"?



....spondoolicks......


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 19, 2020)

jsg said:


> Exactly my thoughts. I've often wondered why, since each one of us is a unique individual, why some composer's individuality comes through clearly in their music, and some, no matter how skilled or how much professional experience they have, just lack a "voice". Bob Dylan uses triads, but he has a voice. Jerry Goldsmith used triads, but he had a voice, I could always hear Goldsmith's voice in his scores. I think that's the difference between voice and craft. Maybe the person who doesn't have a voice isn't lacking craft, maybe they're lacking passion, conviction, confidence, who knows? Nothing pisses off the frustrated artist who lacks a voice more than the artist who has found his own and no worldly success can make up for that lack...maybe you either got it or you don't. Was it Schoenberg who said "talent does what it can, genius does what it must"?
> 
> Mike, what is "dosh"?




Perhaps the 'voice' is be more easily discerned in the linear progress, the themes and developments, the rise and fall, the climaxes and so on, rather than what is after all, a common stock of harmony.


----------



## Uiroo (Jun 19, 2020)

JJP said:


> If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.


Ah that's beautiful. 
I imagine a frustrated professor just copy pasting these out of student essays...


----------



## MartinH. (Jun 19, 2020)

JJP said:


> Well, since we are all getting a bit ludicrously technical...
> 
> The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never compose rhythmic tritones; rather, endeavour to sense your iconically-triadic oppositions. All composers should contextualise a variety of intricacies, and (if this integrates traditional novelties), proceed to re-bar statically until the best result is achieved. My approach to sound is predicated upon arranging the connection between the 'theoretical-narrative' and radical expression-pitch-sets. Combining choreographies, phenomena and perceptions (as well as diversely interpreting imitations), my overall aesthetic is that of the 'culturally-apparent' school of choreographic tritones. In short, the aerophone must never modulate the orchestration. The conflict is the single most important element in any visual composition, and my own work seeks to explore (and compose) this in the context of 'novelty-tonality-experiences'.
> 
> If you're still reading, you may be interested to find more here.



For once I'm proud to say I didn't take the bait and skipped to the end while reading the second sentence, because I had a hunch where this came from. Well played, but you won't fool me today!


----------



## jsg (Jun 19, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> ....spondoolicks......



Got it! Not an American usage of slang for money..


----------



## jsg (Jun 19, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> Perhaps the 'voice' is be more easily discerned in the linear progress, the themes and developments, the rise and fall, the climaxes and so on, rather than what is after all, a common stock of harmony.




Yeah, I think you're right. If you took a cross section of composers when Mozart was alive in Vienna, you'd find each composer sharing the same general concepts of phrasing, harmonic progression, cadence; even the scales were pretty much limited to major and minor (and its variations) as was instrumentation in regard to the orchestra of that time. The difference in the music wasn't in the materials but in the usage, as you wrote above, in the thematic development and, as Beethoven achieved, in new (at that time) ideas about form and structure.

Yet today, if we took a cross section of composers, each of who is solidly trained, say in classical or jazz music, just in my city alone, (San Francisco) you'd find a multitude of different approaches to composition. Some would be working in equal temperament, some would not be. Some would be working with virtual instruments and sample libraries and some would be only working with acoustic instruments. Some would employ, for the most part, harmonies based on 3rds, others would have a much more expanded harmonic vocabulary. A musician living today has access to music, recordings and scores written recently, centuries ago and from nearly all parts of the world. This vast set of influences has been a great thing for all of us, and yet, as John G pointed out, trying to write in a style that isn't really authentic to your own experience often produces poor results. A composer has to be both emotionally and intellectually engaged with their materials to write honest music...


----------

