Thread by @AntonPrince7

Today I would like to talk about something in music which is utterly laughable, but nonetheless of such an influence that we must take it seriously, although we would want to declare it ludicrous.
This is the influence of notation on music, especially on HARMONY.

In conventional harmony, there is an assortment of chords which are treated as “chance harmonies”, as sonorities which occur because of the voice leading or as appoggiaturas, and these are not classed with traditional chords—giving rise to the notion of “added-tone chords”.

Compare the following two harmonies; neither is traditionally classified amongst the consonances.
The first is a seventh chord, and therefore has a name and description in harmonic theory. The other is, at first glance, a c major triad with a d added above it.

Such chords as the latter are often relegated to the realm of chance harmonies; occurring, according to the theorists, usually as a byproduct of the voice leading—but wherever there are tones sounding together, there is, in fact, a chord.

That the visual representation of chords should have any influence on this classification might seem like a joke but unfortunately it is not.
Only the sounds that could be traced back to the image [of superimposed thirds] were incorporated into the system.

In this way, theory has hinged on musical notation to a great extent as a way to understand the music itself. Music for the eye more than for the ear, in the mind of theorists.

But these “chance harmonies” can even be quite easily explained in the tertian system, a ninth chord with omitted seventh could explain this harmony satisfactorily. Such harmonies are usually frowned upon, however, and viewed as “a special occurrence”.

Actually, however, the ninth chord is more immediate than the seventh chord; for the seventh is (as sixth overtone of the root) out of tune, easily apparent when sounding c and b together... The chord is acceptable only if we accept the b as the fourth overtone of g.

Yet there is no difference between the actual sounding of g and e (overtones of c!) and the actual sounding of d; which is also an overtone already present in the chord (namely as the second overtone of g)—and even already present in the sonority of the note c itself!

The seventh chord is accepted more eagerly by theorists because it consists of four stacked thirds, they consider it therefore easier to fit into their system than the ninth chord, which is to them more foreign because less simple visually, consisting of five superimposed thirds.

And thus it becomes apparent that triadic harmony has acquired its various standard classifications, of seventh chords, augmented and diminished triads and seventh chords not because of how they sound per se but mostly because of how they look...

...basically ignoring the actual sharpness and dissonance of some of these harmonies compared to “non-harmonic” events.

I hope you enjoyed this thread, allow me to close by quoting Schoenberg:
“There are no non-harmonic tones, for harmony means tones sounding together (Zusammenklang). Non-harmonic tones are merely those that the theorists could not fit into their system of harmony.”

@threadreaderapp unroll

This is #TheoryThursday by the way 😁😁😁
Inviting @Wagner2_0 to laugh at my incredibly frivolous counterpart to the far more solemn and worthy #WednesdayWagner.
Anybody else with interest in theoretical matters, feel free to comment, share etc.