this website has a theory of music that seems to have quantum uncertainty in it. They say (if i understand correctly) that a chord can exist in multiple potentialities at once.
The main idea is that the fundamental chord is a tetrad (4 notes), not a
triad (3 notes). Any triad can be a part of multiple tetrads. The other axiom is that chords only move by fifth (up or down).
Any impressions from a logic standpoint (dogmatic, fundamentally flawed, untestable, etc) or otherwise? Wasn’t sure how many musicians were here but WTH
I don’t get it. A tonic chord resolves to a dominant chord? I think not. I’ll admit I don’t understand what they’re trying to say, but it seems like a convoluted way of explaining something which we already have a perfectly serviceable theory for.
How we hear a musical interval is a function of how many divisions there are in the frequency between the two notes of the interval. So intervals will sound more dissonant in the following order: octave, fifth, fourth, major third, minor third, major second, minor second, etc. After that, it probably has a lot to do with tradition and expectation. In medieval times, the perfect fifth was considered the proper “resting place” for the tonality, but now it is the major triad. The physics of music didn’t change - only our learned expectation of what music is supposed to sound like. I’m suspicious of theories that claim to be able to explain every single element of tonality “scientifically”.
Seriously. Where to start? It took me a few minutes to work out where I was supposed to be clicking to find the ‘next’ page.
Anyway. On to the introduction. “Music has always been composed solely by intuition and cultural habit.”. Whoooooah, let’s stop right there. If the very first sentence is so naively wrong, I’m going to struggle to take the rest seriously. But I’ll try.
Moving on to the ‘preface 1’. “Traditionally, the term Music has often been used to represent most things related to Music.” No shit, Sherlock. Ploughing on:
“But scores are not music as they are notations that only produce music when performed (or a performance re-played). Similarily, composing and improvising (not music) are arts of organizing sound and/or motion in time.” The first sentence kinda makes sense, although it’s as revelatory as a typical undergraduate essay. In the second, I can’t work out what is meant by the parenthetical interjection.
And so it goes on.
OK, so maybe I’m distracting myself by faults I’m finding in the presentation rather than the substance. But from what I can see, it’s somebody who believes their ‘generative’ approach is creating revelatory observations. What they’re actually doing is exactly what traditional music theory does, which is observe and describe. But either in ignorance or in spite of a millennium of work done by others, they’re coming out with some bizarre concepts.
Such as ‘chrominicism’, which appears to be a reasoning for the difference between Pythogorean ratios and the intervals necessary to go right around the circle of fifths. But it’s arse-about-face, taking the existence of key relationships as a starting-point rather than an end product. Musicological Intelligent Design, perhaps?
I haven’t got anywhere near these ‘tetrads’ yet, but I’m losing my desire to read on!
I’m with Gorillaman. This dude has invented a new vocabulary or modified the meaning of old words to make nonsense. Very little in his pages that I browsed thru relates to anything in standard music terminology.
Melo-rhythmic Box?
Habanera Melo-rhythm?
Ternary footsies?
Rcode?
One-cell chord progressions?
Window Parameter?
MOTRIX?
Trunk Tuning?
Long Branch Tuning?
In short, it’s bullshit. Throwing “quantum” in front of any random word doesn’t make it science.
Some of the pages make me feel like it’s one big whoooosh. This, for example.
Four Strong Modes - Some of these modes are well known, others are not - We hope you will enjoy them all.
Either this is a very elaborate hoax or parody or something, or we’re trashing somebody’s life’s work. ‘Copyright 1971-2006 01 COMMUNICATIONS INC’. What interests me about that in particular is the suggestion that they didn’t start off by making this website, but presumably they’ve published printed material of some kind?
Hmmmmm…under the picture of Einstein is the quotation ‘Nature prefers simple ratios’. Of course, the assumption is that the two are connected. But put the phrase into Google, in quote marks, and the only results are or are related to the site in question.
Aha, I think this might be a crucial page for dismissing them as a bunch of fruitcakes.
That was my interpretation of the ‘chord shadowing’ section http://musicnovatory.com/library/hypermedia/musnov/meloharmtransform.html (scroll 2/3 down page), don’t believe they actually used the word. I meant quantum in the sense of ‘occupying multiple states at once’, there is probably a better word for that concept.
I agree the page is very crankish, esoteric, bashable, etc. Obviously I found some interest in the page or I wouldn’t have posted it. :o
The thing is, by the time they get that far down the page, they’ve created so many ill-defined terms, I’ve honestly got no idea what specific situations are being described. Does ‘dominant’ still mean dominant? If so, what the hell is a ‘counter-dominant’? ‘The TONIC (C6) and the ANTE-2 (Am7) possess the same notes’ - where’d this sixth come from? Throwing in spare notes certainly allows an ambiguity to arise which can be described as ‘occupying multiple states at once’!
dominant = any 7th chord (tritone resolves inward) G7-C in C major or
minor 6th chord (tritone resolves outward) Dmin6-Am in A minor
The tonic 6th chord (C6) is the one that naturally moves to the dominant (G)
The ante-2 (Am7) naturally moves to the ante-3 (Dm)
Generally speaking, 7th chords move DOWN a 5th while 6th chords move UP a 5th, and any other chord motion involves this ‘quantum’ metamorphosis
I’m sorry it’s definitely overstuffed with terminology that would shield an immediate appraisal. But beyond the layers and layers of fluffy bs and mass confusion there seems to be some substance that I can hear happening in action. I’d be happy to try and answer any questions (I managed to basically learn this theory SOMEHOW ) u might have, if anyone would even have interest after the ‘lukewarm’ reactions thus received. I must admit some of the replies were funny as hell.
Currently the theory is in its 3rd generation of ‘disciples’ so that’s perhaps much of the perceived lunacy could be attributed to that. It was originated by the blind organist Conrad Letendre in early 20th century. I see many parallels with Pythagoras and his school which led to some craziness as well.
The whole thing about it being a ‘generative’ system seems to be some reactionary belief that traditional music theory is fundamentally biased or flawed, with a tinge of plain old anti-intellectualism. It certainly is true that there are limitations in traditional theory in the narrowest sense, when it comes to describing non-European traditions, including jazz and blues harmonies, for instance. But that’s where theories based on those musics step in.
As Muiscat said, there doesn’t seem to be anything underneath all this convoluted terminology which isn’t already fully explained in any decent harmony & counterpoint textbook.
And I just don’t get this thing about C6 naturally moving to G, and Am7 to Dm. C6 is just an inversion of Am7, is it not? If it’s dependant on context, then fine, but the context needs to be described, otherwise it’s just ambiguity. Of course, ambiguity can be a deliberate musical decision by a composer (c.f. the opening of The Creation, the Tristan chord), but I don’t see any reason to call it quantum anything.
And anybody who describes anything as ‘naturally’ moving from one place to another immediately gets my back up, anyway.
) u might have, if anyone would even have interest after the ‘lukewarm’ reactions thus received. I must admit some of the replies were funny as hell.