Are there natural laws of music?

[josejherring]

Sean,

Yes there are.

Cheers,

Jose

[rwayland]

Sean,

Yes there are.

Cheers,

Jose

Please summarize them.


Richard

[fictionmusic]

I'm not sure these rate as laws, so much as Pyscho-acoustic phenomena (I love that phrase) but there is a thing called the overtone series and looking at intervals as they occur within the series can lend a lot of insights as to why they are considered resolved or not.

For example the series has 16 partials. From C1 it would go like:

1st partial=C1
2nd partial=C2
3rd partial=G2
4th partial=C3
5th partial=E3
6th partial=G3
7th partial=Bb3
8th partial=C4
9th partial=D4
10th partial=E4
11th partial=F#4
12th partial=G4
13th partial=G#4 (or A)
14th partial=Bb4
15th partial=B4
16th partial=C5
c1 to c2 is an octave or 2:1 (ie partial 2 against 1)
c2 to g2 is a 5th or 3:2
g2 to c3 is a 4th or 4:3

In this way we find that the intervals of the 8va, 5th 4th are the lowest partials and therefore have the greatest "strength" or "fusion".

Following the same procedure you get the following intervals in order of occurance:
1. 8va, 5th, 4th, ma 6th, ma 3rd, (more harmonic than melodic)
2. m7th, m3rd, dim5, m6th, (both)
3. ma2nd, ma7th, m2nd. (more melodic than harmonic)

Further, partial numbers 456 spell out a major triad.
It is this reason why the major triad is so easily heard as a tonic sound and 5th and 4ths suggest a key.


If you follow the history of music you'll also see an ascension of partial numbers from monk chants with 4ths and 5ths and octaves as the initial harmony (all low partial numbers) up to modern jazz with chords like Cma7#11 (which has tons of upper partials).

[Ken-P]

>Are there natural laws of music?

No.
There are laws of physics of sounds.
There are theories of music.

Sorry, I'm just being picky....

[trentpmcd]

Since we use an equal tempered system our scale no longer follows the overtone series except for perfect 5ths and octaves…. Our system is now artificial.

[Styxx]

If so, then we are all under a rest for breaking them! ;)

[jesshmusic]

The problem with the overtone theory, is that any brass player can tell you that the upper overtones begin to get slightly out of tune.

Hindemith proposed another set of the order of consonances and dissonances.

Here in order from most consonant to most dissonant:

Unison
Octave
Fifth
Fourth
Major Sixth
Minor Sixth
Major Third
Minor Third
Major Seventh
Minor Seventh
Major Second
Minor Second
Tri-tone


This is where he gets his system of quartal harmony that actually can be quite pleasing to most people's ears.

Just another theory, but neither can be conclusively proven.

[tradivoro]

Music as we know it in western culture is a deductive process... After 100s of years of evolution, people basically have taken note of what works and what doesn't work, and what works becomes an established technique ... So, after all this time, we've developed a very complex system which has been found to work over time, but only through trial and error and experimentation, not through any "natural laws"... As has been mentioned, the only natural laws, are the laws of physics, and the overtone series...

[fictionmusic]

The problem with the overtone theory, is that any brass player can tell you that the upper overtones begin to get slightly out of tune.

Hindemith proposed another set of the order of consonances and dissonances.

.

True enough about the out of tune qualites, but nevertheless, it is the actual physical process of sound.

As far as Hindemith goes, he believed in the invertability of intervals so that ma3rd and m6th essentially occured at the same time, as too with the m3rd ma6th. Doing that ends up with ratios that seem to conflict with the concept of first occurance.
An ex: a ma6 interval is 5:3 whereas a m3 interval is 6:5. Because 6 and 3 are the same note he figures the intervals occur at the same time. They are however different frequencies. The actual occurance of a m3 is after a m7.

Like a lot of Hindemith's theory, it is spurious. When he is creating his chromatic scale based on acoustic roots being in the lower partials, a lot of times he foregos his own system just to get the note he wants.

His theory does have some neat aspects though: the fact he catagorizes chords as having (or not) the tri-tone is handy.

[fictionmusic]

jesshmusic says
"Here in order from most consonant to most dissonant (according to Hindemith):

Unison
Octave
Fifth
Fourth
Major Sixth
Minor Sixth
Major Third
Minor Third
Major Seventh
Minor Seventh
Major Second
Minor Second
Tri-tone"




I think the list is actually:
uni 8va, 5th 4th, ma3 m6, m3 ma6, ma2 m7, m2 ma7, TT

[josejherring]

>Are there natural laws of music?

No.
There are laws of physics of sounds.
There are theories of music.

Sorry, I'm just being picky....

Yes you are being picky, but I get your drift. I see what you're saying.

The overtone series not withstanding the alterations which are usually made up for by instruments that can adjust their tuning provides the basic laws of music and it's harmony and construction.

Rameau developed a theory of harmony based on the overtone series. Then believe it or not a composer named Vincent Persichetti simplified it even more.

Somebody here mentioned that music is a detuctive processes. Yes it is. Then somebody comes a long and finds a way to organize the practice and music takes a huge leap forward.

In studying Rameau and Persichetti's books I came up with some natural laws that are so broadly applicable that you can write any style of music and make it sound convincing.

It's so simple that people often dismiss it because people are looking for more complication. But like I mentioned earlier I'm not really interested in what my peers think because music itself has gone so far off that I've decided to strike it out on my own and develop something that actually makes sense.

Basically the overtone series as has been mentioned by others determines the relative dissonance and consonnace relationship and the relative stability of a chord, progression or melodic line. If you write music that doesn't pay attention to this you'll end up with music that sounds like you don't know what you're doing. Which is the complait of most audiences on contemporary music.

For instance let's say that you want to express something tranquill and serene. I hear a lot of "modern" composers using notes that are too disrelated to express this but then try to slow down the rhythm to get serene. It really only comes across to people as either creepy or they just don't get it.

It's really so simple that there's not much to really say about it. So now I just concentrate on what I'm trying to express and choose the appropriate intervals and chords based on that.

I'm sure people that are lost in all complexities will dispute me, but I always have on my side the fact that I work and get paid for music as a professional composer and I don't have time for obscure theories of music that don't work. I need things that work.

Why do I call this overtone series a law? Because if you violate it you'll get disaster. Any system of music that was errected in neglect of the overtone series sounds like total chaos. Just like if you jump off a building diregarding the laws of gravity you'll find yourself smashed all over the pavement. Write music disregarding how the notes fit together in the overtone series and you'll get similar results musically.

Using this you can write any music you want to and it will make sense. People will get it.

On a more personal note I'm a big fan of counterpoint too. But it's hard to call those laws because you can break them and still make good music.

And there are a few other laws, but I'm running out of time.

Cheers,


Jose

[tradivoro]

I'm sure people that are lost in all complexities will dispute me, but I always have on my side the fact that I work and get paid for music as a professional composer and I don't have time for obscure theories of music that don't work. I need things that work.

This reminds of when Gershwin went to take lessons from Ravel... Ravel asked Gershwin how much he made... Gershwin told him... After which Ravel said he wanted to take lessons with Gershwin... :)

[fictionmusic]

Quote:
I'm sure people that are lost in all complexities will dispute me, but I always have on my side the fact that I work and get paid for music as a professional composer and I don't have time for obscure theories of music that don't work. I need things that work.



I'm not quite sure who actually said that (I have gone through the postings and it doesn't seem to be there) but...
Knowing the overtone series is more than just being lost in complexities (not sure I like the sound of that "lost").

For instance, in writing for trombone (whose note choices are totally depandant on that series) you quickly realize what notes he can gliss between. Further it gives a good understanding of the natural harmonics and nodes of stringed instruments (which follow the series). French Horn glisses are totally dependant on the series.

There are also some other very practical considerations (but to illustrate it would take more getting lost in complexity), like deriving the acoustic root of intervals as well as chords. Making sure that your acoustic root is within "safe low limits" is virtually indispensible for big band arranging.

[josejherring]

Hey Fictionmusic,

I think that you missunderstood me. I'm on your side. The overtone series is king to writing music that makes sense.

That's what I'm saying. We're saying the same thing.

Cheers,

Jose

[jesshmusic]

It is interesting that every instument's normal range starts on the second partial. The trombones can hit what are called pedal tones, but I personally never liked doing it. These pedal tones are the first partial.

If you guys really want to see the power of the overtone, analyze Bolero. Dispite it's utter silliness (Ravel wrote it on a bet...legend has it), it is very easy to see Ravel using his orchestra like a Moog synth. He gives the Horn in F the melody at mf. Then he gives overtones to other instruments at piano. This creates an entirely new instrument.

[fictionmusic]

Hey Fictionmusic,

I think that you missunderstood me. I'm on your side. The overtone series is king to writing music that makes sense.

That's what I'm saying. We're saying the same thing.

Cheers,

Jose


Yah...I figured out where the quote came from and realized my error after reading your post. I didn't read the whole thing the first time. So....my apologies, next time I should read a bit better before I whip off a retort. Sorry.

[etLux]

As a young man, I had the great privilege of studying with one of the finest musicians ever created, Dr. David Barnett. A superb composer and incredible pianist, he was one of those fellows who could sight-read a full orchestral score, and play it flawlessly, first time through -- probably because he understood composition so well, he knew what would come next before he even saw it.

I asked him roughly the very same question.

David replied, "The fundamental laws of music are that it should make sense, and should satisfy the ear."

"What else," I asked. "Surely there's more to it than that?"

David thought for a moment, then said, "Ahem, well, it should be profitable, too, if you can somehow work that out..."

etLux
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

[fictionmusic]

It is interesting that every instument's normal range starts on the second partial. The trombones can hit what are called pedal tones, but I personally never liked doing it. These pedal tones are the first partial.

If you guys really want to see the power of the overtone, analyze Bolero. Dispite it's utter silliness (Ravel wrote it on a bet...legend has it), it is very easy to see Ravel using his orchestra like a Moog synth. He gives the Horn in F the melody at mf. Then he gives overtones to other instruments at piano. This creates an entirely new instrument.

I love the sound of 4 trombones hitting a pedal hard while the rest of the bigband whips around above, but other than that I kinda agree.

I have had great success with the series in a far more mundane way. About 15 years ago I wrote a whole bunch of drones for a music library. I had been scoring a series and the music consultant kept asking for music that either droned, or pulsed etc. so I took it upon myself to get a whole bunch ready in advance. As a plain old drone was too thin, I began to experiment layering up different sounds acting as partials. It was amazing how lush and rich and varied using differant combinations actually were. It was a great lesson (and money-maker, the irony of which was not lost on me).

Apparently in cathedral organs, to hit the lowest notes (without pedals) you have to hit the 2 highest semi-tones together and the real acoustic bass will play several octaves lower. I have never had my hands on one so I am not sure but I sure like the idea.

[SeanHannifin]

Sean,

Yes there are.

Cheers,

Jose
I wouldn't be so quick to say so. Yes, there are natural physical laws of music (with the sounds they make), but how can there be natural perceptional laws of music? If they did exist, music wouldn't be so subjective.

[Fabio]

I can't resist, it's so challenging!

Ok, I say my opinion:

what's natural? and what's a law? Both people that say yes and no are right!

If natural is the human brain, then music is natural anyway (because based on human perception and logical organization of the image of the world we receive by our senses).

If law is something forcing you, then music is not really forced by laws, but simply following a common base of perceptions and sense stimulation (the time, the intonation, the timbre, and the relation between different sounds heard simultaneously), but based on an infinite mix of cultural structures as someone has correctly told.

But both naturalist and culture-alist must remember that:
- the rythm is inside the life (motion and coordination is possible only with the rythm)
- every little child in the world sing the same basic melody when he jokes fooling friends
- every musical culture started everywhere in the world from the same basic interval structure (the whole tone and the 5th or 4th up and down, similar to the child lullaby, and originating every kind of pentatonic scale)

This simple list of events shows that a common "natural" musical instinct and perception exist for the whole humanity. The rest is culture.

[fictionmusic]

But both naturalist and culture-alist must remember that:

- every little child in the world sing the same basic melody when he jokes fooling friends
- every musical culture started everywhere in the world from the same basic interval structure (the whole tone and the 5th or 4th up and down, similar to the child lullaby, and originating every kind of pentatonic scale)

This simple list of events shows that a common "natural" musical instinct and perception exist for the whole humanity. The rest is culture.


Well said Fabio. In every culture the strength of the 8va 4th and 5th is evidenced. Even in East-Indian music, there is an acknowledgement of their strength.
If a person plays root 5th on a piano (or especially a gtr) you can hear an octave ringing away. These are physical facts and not open to interpertation.
They are considered strong intervals (and tonic ones at that) becuse of their inherant physical qualities.

As far as nyahh-nyahh (kid's teasing melody goes) I have noticed that too! I used to live in a very multi-cultraral neighbourhood and it seemed that no matter what the background, that minor 3rd mocking chant was universal in displaying scorn.

[imagegod]

There are fundamental, natural laws of existence. The more fundemental, the more central the law, the greater its ability to order Universal behavior. The limit case of all Universal laws includes Love...music (in its most powerful forms) is the passionate expression of Love.

These laws don't define Music, per se. Rather, they create the environment within which music can and is created.

This environment is necessarily tripartite in nature. ('Necessarily' because all things are fundamentally tripartite in nature). The basic tripartite nature of music (and in fact all Art) is form, movement and structure.

Creating Form: This is what we call 'talent'. Someone who has talent creates stable forms with an ease that is highly displaced from the mean (in a high functioning direction). Steve Allen (the no longer living talk show host) could write a song without much effort, at the drop of the hat. But most of these songs had neither great movement nor structure.

Movement: This is what we call 'beauty'. Beautiful music moves us, inspires us, motivates us. Beautiful music is the opposite of stasis/static forms. Furthermore, there is a relationship between great artistic movement and great intelligence. That is, great intelligence allows individuals to move from problems to solutions with great (relative) speed. Composers with great (musical) intelligence move from (artistic) problems to (artistic) solutions at great (relative) speed. They also create music that (in and of itself) moves from (artistic) problems to (artistic) solutions at great (relative) speed. That is, the piece itself moves rapidly from one solution to the next.

Structure: This is the big one. And without going into a long discussion, very few composers create great 'structure'. Simply put, musical structure is the invisible, virtual, overarching 'image' of a piece. Script writers talk about the 'arc' of a dramatic piece: this is Structure. The greater the arc, the more powerful the structure.

Beethoven created structure in the overarching 'image' of the 9th. Bach created structure in many of his works. Its also possible to create melodic structure; see Debussy. On the other hand, melodies per se aren't necessarily 'structural/powerful'. Melodic forms have been created by many composers of popular music. (See Paul McCartney/Springsteen etc.)

Finally, if every action has a reaction has a resultant, then the equal and opposite action/reaction of Form and Motion results in Structure as the synthesis of all musical form/motion. This synthesis affords great composers the opportunity to create relatively stable, relatively useful, relatively powerful music.

I could go on, but generally speaking, wisdom tends to go over like a lead balloon.

[josejherring]

Law-- "a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions".

The law is that anything vibrating at a single pitch has accompanying it a series of overtone pitches that vibrate at predictable intervals above it. The condition being that it has to vibrate in Earth's atmosphere. I'm not making any predictions for anywhere else. ;)

The practice of this law became know as harmony. But, functional harmony as we Know it today isn't the only thing that can come from this law. Thank god.

Cheers,

Jose

[dermod]

In talking about the natural laws of physics, don't exclude the jokers in the pack, the ear and the brain. Both are also subject to natural laws. And yet...I have to say, the tonic and the fifth have never struck me as having much musical affinity outside now too rigid tonic-dominant based western harmonic theory and practice. And even less so its inversion, the fourth. As a violin player, I would say it is a thoroughly ugly interval when double stopping, and not to be lingered upon. On the other hand, the third and the sixth are extremely consonant and attractive intervals. So consonant they are susceptible to overuse. In considering 'natural laws' in a music context, I would say, as has been mentioned above, that there are only two basic types of interval, consonance and dissonnance. The drone note is often extremely important to give meaning to the other notes in primitive music. Obviously, just as important in music development is rhythm. Our perceptions or norm and not-norm basically comes down to having two legs and two arms of the same length. Equal beats are the fundamentals. Off beats are the attention grabbing variations. Except of course some jazz pieces where the off-beat is so laboured, it becomes the down beat.