Why do tones/chords "want" to resolve somewhere ?

[m1469]

Okay.  I found a thread started by steve jones regarding modes, and I was very happy to have found that because I have had some similar (seeming) questions to what I understand some of the subjects in that thread to be covering.  However, anytime I have questions about theory, I inevitably wind up having multitudes of more questions than I originally thought I had, and I start feeling like I have to back track to find what my question is really about.

SO, with that having been said, I need to ask some more questions ... LOL.  First, let me link to the thread I was originally talking about :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,18451.msg198757.html#msg198757

I have a number of questions about some of the subjects brought up within that thread (and maybe I can get to them better in a bit), but I have found that I have, at this point, one basic underriding question/thought about theory and chord functions/tonality in general.

People often talk about tonalities and chords or tones "wanting" to go back to tonic or resolve in various ways (for example the 7th scale degree wanting to resolve to the tonic, or the dominant chord wanting to resolve to the tonic).  But, it seems to me that they only "want" to when we think they ought to or have been trained to think that way.  And so I ask, what is inherent within these chords/tones (or even within a tonal system) which makes anything truly "want" to resolve to anything ?  And, I mean, to somebody who has no training in these matters or is trained in other ways (like they grew up with Indian music engrained in their being).

Right now, I can't help but feel that there are just some "rules" or so being placed on sound ... or else, I am just not understanding as much as I could (well, okay, that is of course the case, I am just not sure how that fact functions in the context of this subject).

Okay, I may ask my other questions in the thread mentioned above.

Thanks !

[pianowolfi]

WHY ?  HOW ?  WHEN ?  WHERE ?  WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?  HOW ? WHEN ? WHERE ? WHO ?  HOW ? WHY ? WHEN ? WHEN ?  HOW ?  HOW ?? WHY Huh? WHY Huh WHY Huh? HOW Huh? WHEN Huh WHO Huh WHO Huh WHY Huh HOW Huh etc.

Oh wow that sounds actually urgent I hope I can help a bit 



I try to view this together with your own post in the thread about beauty and truth in music

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=27327.0;num_replies=0

There is some kind of inherent and untouchable value in things like color.  Nobody can change the fact that we have an array of color found within light, for example.  Mathematics is another analogy that came to mind for me when considering this subject.  The beauty of math, and to me there is unspeakable beauty within it, lay within its principles and its very foundation.  There is, to me, something very beautiful about the equation and answer of 2+2 = 4.  It is simple, yet relfective of the whole.

The truth you find in this 2+2=4 or in the array of coulours within light lays also in a dominant chord calling for a resolution to the tonic. Now we have different systems as well in math as in music. Usually in math we are calculating in the decimal system. But the same thing 2+2=4 written in duodecimal or hexadecimal system would look quite different. (perhaps another mathematically fitter forum member like op. 57 would be able to give an example )

 So in music we have also different systems, like the ancient chinese twelve tone scale, the 7 gregorian modes, the ancient greek 7 modes, the modern twelve tone scale, the serial system, Messiaen's modes, the impressionistic style where the chords lose their functionality and mean something totally different etc. etc.

In all of these systems there can appear something like a dominant seventh chord, but it's "function" or meaning or colour is always different. Now, does a "dominant 7th chord" get less worthy if it does *not* resolve to a tonic? I think it depends from which system we are thinking in. I think the effect of actually resolving a seventh chord in a Debussy piece the same way as in a Haydn sonata would be as irritating as ending a Haydn sonata with a deceptive cadence. We learn to think and listen in the different systems like we learn to think in different languages. Of course many of us have learned the "traditional" minor/major tonal system as their mother tongue. And in this system a dominant chord resolves with the same necessity in a certain way as a predicate follows a subject in a common sentence. But that doesn't mean the other systems have less truth or beauty within themselves. If somebody decides to write a poem that does not contain sentences with predicates this can be as well a fully worthy poem. There is something like a "message" or a core that has to be brought out and we are free to choose the means we need to do this.

As you said in the above mentioned thread

Yes, I believe that if there is not truth then it is not music.

We learn these different systems either from the beginning, as a child, or from education later in our lives.

Okay, so far. Now I claim that all these systems originate in the human nature, some even in the human organism. For instance I have once heard in a Eurythmy seminar that the relation between the radius and the ulna in our forearms has a similarity to the relation between minor and major third (As far as I remember this can be even proven mathematically) Which means, we are subconsciously percieving the relations within the skeleton, perhaps with our kinesthetic sense, and integrating them into our musical works.

 As far as the many different musical systems don't originate in the human organism they originate in the human perception of the world, the makrocosm. For instance I am sure that somebody could actually compose the Orion or another star constellation, even in many different systems and many different ways. Because there is a harmony in this constellation that we are able to perceive. There is a truth in the world that we have senses for. And, of course, we don't stop there. We create our own truth and our own new worlds with their own rules.

[Bob]

I think the brain is wired up to hear one pitch as the tonal center.  Everything gets pulled into that note like gravity.

From that one note, you end up with the other western notes through the simpler ratios, except for the tritone.  But if you want to hear another note easily from that tonal center, the easiest ones are the ones in the chromatic scale. 

I have heard about non-western regions using microtonal things, but I don't know much more about that.  I wonder what's really going on.  If someone heard something like a slightly out-of-tune 5th, wouldn't it be human nature to nudge it into an intune 5th?  If the hearing is so precise to split an octave into more than twelve pitches, couldn't they tell the out-of-tune 5th is nearly a true 5th?

As far as the scales, I could see getting used to any type of scale.  If you hear whole tone music all the time, then it sounds normal.  However, I do think there still is a general "emotion" associated with things.  A whole tone scale won't feel as grounded as a V-I in a major key. 

And with major and minor scales, aren't the ratio simpler for a major scale?  More basic.  Easier.  Easier to understand and then easier to hear?

I've wondered if the major and minor scales aren't really the same thing.  The root, fourth, and fifth tones are the same.  The second, third, sixth, seventh are either just raised or lowered, but are still nearly the same for function, the seventh step being different depending on the direction of the melody.

Although in blues the I IV V are dominant seventh chords but don't function that way.  I suppose things can be learned or unlearned.  But still, I would think those I7, IV7, and V7's wouldn't sound as stable.

So I go with the wiring of the brain and then something about the physics-energy of sound that determines where tones want to go.

[counterpoint]

Not the tones or chords want to resolve - but we want them to resolve.
It seems to be a sort of ressonance thing in the ear or in the brain. Notes resolve to octaves, fifths or thirds. These are the intervals with the most simple frequency relationships. Octave 1:2, perfect fifth 2:3, major third 4:5, minor third 5:6. Even our scales (major, minor, church modes) are based on fifth intervals: from almost every note of the scale you can play a fifth up or a fifth down, and that note is part of the same scale too. This can't be so just by accident.

[thalberg]

Did you know that if you arrive at the leading tone, and then proceed back down away from tonic, it's called "frustrating the leading tone?"

Isn't that hilarious?

There's one chord resolution where you have to frustrate the leading tone, though I forget which one.  I mentioned it in class once and people were laughing.