source file: mills2.txt Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:05:40 -0800 Subject: Three views on the fourth From: Eric Lyon Brian Mclaren made some interesting observations in his attack on Milton Babbitt. Specifically, Brian pointed out Babbitt's rejection of the overtone series as a musical determinant. However he did not fully explain Babbitt's motivation for doing so. The reason is clear, Babbitt is arguing for an extremely contextual approach to interval syntax, and he is moreover interested in carrying forward Arnold Schoenberg's "emancipation of dissonance", or more specifically, the emancipation of dissonance from normative rules which require that a dissonance behave according to tonal function, namely that it must resolve to a consonance. Babbitt takes the extreme position that the function of intervals is always contextually defined, and therefore he must reject the overtone series which implies an a priori hierarchy of interval importance. This rejection is debatable as Mclaren has shown. An interesting point in Babbitt's rejection of the overtone series as musical determinant is his argument that the perfect fourth comes earlier in the series than thirds, and yet the fourth is treated as a dissonance in tonal music. Mclaren claims this is circular reasoning: the fourth is a dissonance because our theory says it is. If we accept Mclaren's view on the fourth, we must accept that it is a consonance relative to thirds by virtue of its relative ratio simplicity. But this really does limit our pleasure if we propose to look at some actual tonal music. By categorically rejecting the fourth as a dissonance, we can no longer hear 4-3 suspensions in tonal function, especially in their voice-leading function in the I(6/4) chord, often a moment of great tension in classical works. I think we are better served by making a distinction between contextual dissonance based on tonal (or other) function, and what I'll call Hindemith-Mclaren dissonance, based on the intervallic and overtone complexity of a given simultaneity. We really can have both; it doesn't have to be "my way or no way". If we flip to the last four bars of the first movement of JS Bach's Italian Concerto,we are presented with a big fat I(6/4) chord on the downbeat. Question: do you hear this simultaneity as a consonance or a dissonance? I can only speak for myself; I hear it as a flaming dissonance which Bach briefly savors by abruptly slowing the rhythm after 12 bars of steady 16th notes. proceeding to the next bar, I hear a partial but hesitant resolution, before a final confident drive to the tonic in the last two bars. If we take a closer look at the downbeat of the second of these four bars we see (and hear) something strange: owing to a double suspension the downbeat simultaneity consists of pitches C-D-E-F: a diatonic cluster. From the Hindemith-Mclaren perspective (and any other I can think of), this simultaneity is considerably more dissonant than the triad on the downbeat of the previous bar. Yet I hear it as a resolution, a relative consonance. In examining the two bars from a functional viewpoint, I hear the harmonic sequence I(6/4)-V(5/3)-(something a bit weird but basically) vi with a counterpuntal two voice outline F-E-F/C-C-D, or 4-3-3. This is basically an elegant working out of a deceptive cadence, driven by the contextual dissonance of the 4th in the I(6/4) chord. But there is also a delicious ambiguity between the contextual dissonance and the Hindemith-Mclaren dissonance of the two downbeats which we cannot fully appreciate if we insist on maintaining either Babbitt's total contextuality approach or Mclaren's overtone simplicity approach to the exclusion of the other. We have already seen how Babbitt reacts to an idea which challenges his somewhat closed musical world view: denial. How does Mclaren respond to a similar challenge? It is clear that one of the premises of Mclaren as an advocate for Xenharmonic music is that the primary relationship for evaluating and creating music is the set of ratios between pitch elements. This conception of music would be challenged by a music which incorporated considerable noise elements such that it is no longer practical to infer organization based on pitch ratios. This is precisely the case with the percussion and other music by John Cage. In fact, the prepared piano is a powerful, subversive attack on the notion of interval. We have the keyboard laid out for us, predictably measuring equal intervals and superimposing the structure of the diatonic scale with the distribution of white and black keys. And yet, what happens when we start to play the piano which Cage has prepared? Sometimes we get a tone. Sometimes we get a noise. The amplitudes are unpredictable. Sometimes a higher key on the piano makes a lower sounding pitch. Many of the spectra are inharmonic, highlighting the piano's membership in the percussion family. In short, the prepared piano is an intervention and a prank which forces us to revisit every assumption we may have about composing or playing music on a keyboard. That Cage uses this new instrument masterfully in the Three Dances for Two Prepared Pianos is a musical bonus. We have already seen how Mclaren reacts to Cage and his work, and therefore I conclude that despite Mclaren's attack on Babbitt, they both share one important quality: they are both musical bigots. My online Webster defines a bigot as: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices. As I have said before, we don't need to take a reductive either/or approach, especially in the arts. We can accept music which is based on Xenharmonic principles without rejecting music which is clearly not, appreciating each in its own context. It turns out that in the recording and computer age, many composers have created excellent works which are based on other organization principles than pitch ratio: Christopher Penrose, Maggie Payne, Bill Schottstaedt, Robert Constable, Paul Reller, Eric Lyon, Francois Bayle, Francis Dhomont, Paul Lansky, The Beatles with Revolution #9 and I Am the Walrus, Industrial music by Skinny Puppy, Laibach, Jim Thirwell, Nurse With Wound. And let's not forget the Japanese noise artists who are completely about noise organization: Merzbow, Hijokaidan, CCCC, The Incapacitants, Violent Onsen Geisha and many many other artists. So let's just relax a bit and enjoy the situation as we march forward into the next millennium with increasing musical diversity, and if we try hard enough, perhaps even a tolerance clause. Eric Lyon eric@iamas.ac.jp http://www.iamas.ac.jp/~eric Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:07 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA13668; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:09:20 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA13980 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id UAA04877; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:09:17 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:09:17 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu