I've been studying negative harmony and, up to now, I came to the same conclusion you came: it's just a theory. But it's not a theory based on reality.
As a music theory teacher, I left a long comment on the last video straightening some things out. Oddly enough, I think I ended up agreeing with this video in my comments there before I even watched this video. I like this video much better, as it seems WAY more informed. As a composer myself, I agree with Hindemith as well 100%.
if were going all physical then only the Major scale is the *Real* scale in terms of its corresponds to the harmonic series. so you can say most of music theory is emotionally based. to us a doubling of frequency sounds like the same tone ,but it could be just an artefact of the way humans perceive sound there is no guaranty that other animals don't perceive it completely diffrently ..
Great video, i've read the book and translate it to spanish. Its a shame to see so many videos with people talking about negative harmony that they havent read the book at all.. . Also, about undertone and overtones series, there are more postures to talk about but overall I think that neither of the two make complete sense of the Musical phenomena. Nevertheless, this book is very interesting for it gives a new perspective on how to think harmonic structures and is the first of its kind, that is to say that it a "theory" . I've been working on diferentes aplications of these ideas and I must say that the famous "negative harmony" chords sustitutions and the melody fliping is really lame (Also, never metioned on the book). But I do found that there are a lot more of other things that we can do with this ideas...
The video to which this is a follow-up was pretty sycophantic in its appreciation of what someone else said about negative harmony (not to mention being crammed full of errors). This follow-up feels like a 180-degree repudiation of negative harmony; again based on what somebody else says. I don't know why either video exists. This seems like the kind of "Hmm, I shouldn't have published that until I'd thought about it more" situation for which RUclips implemented the ability to delete videos. Incidentally, isn't there an irony, or fatal flaw, in coming on like a guru to assert that "It's ok if someone thinks differently from you"? What I hear is, "Here's the truth, and don't dare to think differently." It's self-evident that people think differently. It's self-evident that some people think that that's ok. Trying to express those things as your own law just gets you into a logical tangle. *If* what you actually meant was "leave me alone", then it's interesting that somebody publishes videos while wanting to be left alone. Again, a re-think seems in order.
I appreciate you taking the time to send your feedback. As I said at the end of the video I stated I agreed with Paul Hindemeth that the concept is just a theory. You feel like the video is "crammed full of errors," can you share with me some of them? It seems self-evident tht you have somehow managed to be offended by a music theory video, I'd love to understand the source of this angst. What specifically do you suggest I "re-think" in this video? Re-watch the section starting at 8:42 to see where I stand, in case you missed my summary.
@@YoPaulieMusic I don't think there's any need to invent or imagine offence or angst. You publish videos; people leave comments with their opinions. You can take 'em or leave 'em, just like we can take or leave your videos. You originally told me I'm confused, and then you edited it out, so possibly *you're* the one bringing emotion to the table (and possibly you know/feel it, hence your editing). But hey, let's just stick to the content of the videos and comments, and not escalate those things into something personal. Btw, I said that the video to which this is a follow-up is full of errors (not this one). That should be enough for an author to go identify and correct them. I don't feel like making a list of them.
@@stevencharleswhite7045 I removed the "confused" comment to soften the tone. Can you share with me the errors you found in the first video? There are a couple of minor errors to my knowledge that do nothing to change the impact of my message. "I don't feel like making a list of them" is a cop out, a sign of laziness. If you are interested in intellectual debate you would take the 30 seconds needed to point out what you disagree with. Not doing so just makes it seem like you are complaining just to complain. The original video is five years old and was created in response to the sudden surge in interest about negative harmony. The overwhelming majority of comments are positive and thankful. I post things like this to introduce concepts and help musical beginners learn a thing or two. It would be great if your participation was productive instead of negative. And to be clear, I think the concept of 'negative harmony' is musical rubbish. It's a gimmick, a math game, a hack to come up with alternative harmonies and melodies that aren't really my cup of tea. As we all know, the overtone series occurs in the real world of acoustical physics; "undertones" (the basis of negative theory) do not actually exist. Is this something we can agree on?
@@YoPaulieMusic I'm still processing the idea of negative harmony and undertones, so I'm not in a position to answer your last question there about what we can agree on. But here's why I'm still interested in, and not yet closed to, the idea of negative harmony. I've been composing a fun and lively tune in F major, in which there's a point where I go Am-[E note]-C, and then C-C#-C with the root of the C# chord emphasized and repeated in the melody (which to me sounds unexpected, and enjoyably dramatic). Then I thought, no, the C# is Db. The chord is bVI (which is another thing I need to research). And later I'm pivoting between Bb and Bbm (IV and iv), so that also involves that Db note. And at the end I *was* going F-Am-Dm-C7-F. A standard cadence, but I found (by chance) that if I used that same Bbm (iv) chord in place of the C7 (V7) then it still functioned as a cadence, but it was a more spicy and interesting option. I had already been playing a G note in the melody, incidentally. Then I heard about negative harmony, and saw that if you negate C7 in the key of F then you get a Bbm triad (plus that G note that was already in the melody). Exactly the substitution I'd found by chance. And negate F7 in the key of F, and three of the notes form Db. So the Db in my weird C-Db-C vamp corresponded with (three quarters of) a negated I7. I'm not saying that's what it *was*, just that it corresponded interestingly. Yes, I could explain the above in terms of chords borrowed from the parallel minor. And I don't know yet whether negative harmony is a musico-mathematical trick or happenstance, like a lot of the stuff you see in number theory. Or whether those examples above were just coincidence. But it seemed sufficiently interesting or compelling to look into negative harmony further. So I don't know. I'm a long way from concluding that it's rubbish, as you've done. As for undertones not existing, I'm not sure about that yet either. If you do a web search you'll find methods for producing undertones with instruments. Admittedly the methods seem artificial. But even if undertones don't exist, I don't think it matters. There are tons of ideas in math (for example) that aren't real (or don't exist) in the traditional sense, but they prove to be great tools to help people make and do amazing things.
@@stevencharleswhite7045 Ah yes... the magic of the bVI and minor vi. :) Not having the context of your actual music, I played the progression on the piano to give a listen... it sounds like the Db is more of a passing chord more than anything else. It could also be just the extension of the minor vi (Bb-). I too love the resolution that a minor vi provides, I think it is far more emotional than a standard V-I progression. But, from what I can surmise from your description above I don't think any of that has ties to negative harmony. I agree, there are lots of tools or mathematical concepts that can be applied to music to generate new ideas. A twelve tone row is just one example... it has nothing to do with the general understanding of traditional Western music theory, it is just a way to create something new. I'm all for finding new ways to create music and break out of existing compositional norms. Thanks for continuing the conversation, best of luck in your compositional adventures!
Hindemith seems to want an objective underpinning to his opinion that certain musical approaches are superior when in fact all such considerations concerning any art are subjective. Otherwise we would call it engineering. He says there is no evidence of such a force, but he assumes there is such a force that legitimizes his approach. "Repugnant to good sense" means "I don't like it, and my opinion means more than yours." Gravitation expressed in the overtone series is a learned aesthetic. Western tonality is all learned, not inherent. So we can describe it mathematically. It's still not inherent to human music. Other systems exist.
Great feedback, thanks Beena. I tend to agree with HIndemith because there is physical acoustical proof of the overtone series. There is no such thing for undertones. In my opinion undertones are an idea or theory, not a scientific, provable fact.
@@YoPaulieMusic What's missing is the link between the existing physical overtones and any intrinsic quality of a music theory based on them, or any neural basis that they are objectively meaningful because they exist in the acoustic environment. What we're assuming without any evidence is that the brain's machinery favors the overtones in some way. I get the argument from generalities, fine, but it's all assumptions, not evidence-based. Musicologists might think the brain works like that, but the neuroscience seems to suggest Western tonality has nothing to do with how the brain fundamentally processes music, even though it reflects natural phenomena. E.g., studies of infants presented consonant and dissonant (by Western definition) chords show the same responses in EEG studies. Differences only emerge with age and exposure to music. People who grow up in a tradition of non-Western music respond differently than Westerners when presented with (Western-defined) dissonance found in their familiar music. Western tonality isn't supported by perceptual brain science as distinct from random clashing notes until we learn to perceive them as clashing. I don't see how a subset of tonality can be seen as more meaningful than another because of its relation to nature when the relation of all Western tonality to human perception is non-preferred until learned. Once we take that away, we're just describing different, nifty, usable systems within Western tonality to describe the music we like, and maybe describing a different scaffold upon which to create more. Not superior, proven, or more valid, just different.
Thanks Jeferson. It's fun to talk about, to research and see how the concepts can apply to writing music or improvising. Anything on the internet that gets people talking about music theory is 100% fine with me. Music literacy is important.
Paul, do you know how can i get a copy of Ernst's book? I'm from Brazil, and I just couldn't find a pdf version of the book for sale or download. Thanks! Just subscribed to your channel.
The arguments presented in your video are answered in this article. Dá uma olhada: legacy.earlham.edu/~tobeyfo/musictheory/Book3/FFH3_CH1/1H%20Harmonic%20Polarity.html
Hi Atom-T. :) Nothing new to add, I wish this video would get as many visits as my "What Is Negative Harmony" video that has 111k views. Have not pursued any compositions using this concept, everything I have been writing is geared toward television use. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Paul Croteau Oh I’d question that. Seemingly so because its theory lies in the subharmonic series. And sub harmonics physically exist! If you take a tuning fork and hit it to get the sound of “A”, you’ll find the overtone series. But take that same tuning fork, hit it to produce an “A” and touch a piece of paper with it. You’ll find in that case that it’ll rebound off the piece of paper every 2nd, 3rd or 4th vibration and that is proof of the undertone series. You’ll here A an octave down, D and F.
@@williamcarrmusic Ah, I see what you are saying. Based on my understanding, what you describe are not 'undertones' as defined by negative harmony. They are the fundamental harmonics or sympathetic resonance of the note being resonated.
@@williamcarrmusic Undertones do not physically exist. All you're doing with that experiment is creating an instrument out of the piece of paper (i.e vibrating the paper) that produces a tone at a ratio consistent with however many times the tuning fork hits the paper. The less frequently it hits the paper, the lower the tone it will produce. The overtone series are set intervals that are present in every sound short of "pure" tones such as a sine tone (which is literally only produced electronically). In this sense, the paper is actually producing a low tone (which you can call a fundamental) and is creating very weak overtones from that fundamental above that tone. You can produce a low tone in whatever fashion you want, but they'll never produce subharmonics naturally. Side note: Humans hear variations within overtone prominence as timbre.
@@louisaruth interesting comment, but not accurate. Triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs. North exists in physics and can be pretty cen thanks to magnets. Negative undertones/harmonics do not exist.
@@YoPaulieMusic my comment is tongue in cheek i don't really understand what undertones are supposed to be or why they have to exist in order for negative harmony to count as a 'sound musical theory concept.' i also don't totally understand how overtones relate to music theory beyond it leading to comments like "if were going all physical then only the Major scale is the Real scale in terms of its corresponds to the harmonic series." this screams western bias to me, and definitely confused me as an approach back when i was still in school designating 0 degrees as north is a social construct, as is the significance we westerners place on the major scale, specifically the C major scale. however, describing music using geometry, one can quickly see how much our social constructs constrain our understanding and imaginations the easiest way to discuss negative harmony, or practically any other music concept, is by conceptualizing the twelve tones on a clock face. from there, we can use simple geometry to represent intervals, chords, or progressions; so if 'triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs,' so does negative harmony i look out my window, and the only triangles i see are man-made structures. triangles, squares, and perfect circles are rare in nature. if we had never before seen these shapes, would we accept that they exist in the real world based solely on mathematical proofs? i would, but what's the use if i lived out in nature? likewise, wind, water, and bird sounds occur in nature, but a naturally occurring IV-V-I would be a statistical anomaly because music is man-made like the structures out my window. meanwhile, it would take great skill to re-create natural sounds like birds and wind within western music's confines. you seem like an accomplished musical person, so maybe negative harmony doesn't help you the way it has helped others, including myself, because you already understand your craft. similarly, triangles and straight lines are not super helpful to cartographer even though anyone can use these simple shapes to plot paths between locations a few years ago, i realized the major and minor chords could be represented as a single triangle with a front and back on a clock face, and it blew my mind. oh my god, not only is music easy to understand, but understanding it is high level math. children playing music are doing math! we are exploring a soundscape, and music theory articulates how we are going about that exploration (regardless of how the exploration is perceived or conceived, everyone has the potential to understand this stuff their own valid, unique way) i think a 'sound musical theory concept' is one that makes music as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. recognizing the geometry of music, including how chords and scales flip on different axis, flattens the field, whereas traditional western music theory is most famous for its exclusivity have you seen the three part series from "Learn Harmony Now!" called "Understand Negative Harmony"? or Noel Johnston's 2 part series on "the flippening"? if i had seen these videos 25 years ago, it would have changed my life. turns out i understood music (and math) much better than i realized. today, i spend my free time on dmitri tymoczko's book 'a geometry of music." fun! i would totally watch a video giving it a review :)
@@louisaruth I appreciate your thoughtful response! I believe that just as people have different learning styles-some preferring text, others images, or even hands-on experiences-our understanding of music can also vary widely depending on how we engage with it. You offer a good example for those that visualize music geometrically, while for others, different modalities might resonate more strongly. Yes, my video has a Western bias because Levy's theory is based on Western music theory. :) While I may not fully align with your viewpoint, it is clear that you have found a method that works for you. Ultimately, I think what matters most is that we all find the tools and methods that help us connect with and explore music in meaningful ways. Thanks again for your insightful contribution!
Finally someone who investigates and really knows this stuff! Thanks for this video. It should be mandatory to every advanced music student.
I like your style of videos.. straight to the point, no fluff.
Thanks Jeremy! I try to keep it simple, and honest. :)
Absolutely spot on, unjudgemental and practical analysis of ‘negative harmony’.
Great work, thank you! Good reasearch and relaxed approach.
The tricky part is Music Theory is always catching-up with Music Reality.
Sometimes it's just synthetic.
I've been studying negative harmony and, up to now, I came to the same conclusion you came: it's just a theory. But it's not a theory based on reality.
What do you mean with "it's not a theory based on reality"?
But in the end..it's just a Theory....A GAME THEORY!
Hi! Do you have more bibliography that you can share about it?
Thanks so much! Very elegant concept!
Music is an expression of how we are able to control the natural forces in nature to our advantage in whatever way we deem advantageus
i see it so
As a music theory teacher, I left a long comment on the last video straightening some things out. Oddly enough, I think I ended up agreeing with this video in my comments there before I even watched this video. I like this video much better, as it seems WAY more informed. As a composer myself, I agree with Hindemith as well 100%.
if were going all physical then only the Major scale is the *Real* scale in terms of its corresponds to the harmonic series.
so you can say most of music theory is emotionally based.
to us a doubling of frequency sounds like the same tone ,but it could be just an artefact of the way humans perceive sound
there is no guaranty that other animals don't perceive it completely diffrently ..
Great video, i've read the book and translate it to spanish. Its a shame to see so many videos with people talking about negative harmony that they havent read the book at all.. .
Also, about undertone and overtones series, there are more postures to talk about but overall I think that neither of the two make complete sense of the Musical phenomena.
Nevertheless, this book is very interesting for it gives a new perspective on how to think harmonic structures and is the first of its kind, that is to say that it a "theory" .
I've been working on diferentes aplications of these ideas and I must say that the famous "negative harmony" chords sustitutions and the melody fliping is really lame (Also, never metioned on the book). But I do found that there are a lot more of other things that we can do with this ideas...
The video to which this is a follow-up was pretty sycophantic in its appreciation of what someone else said about negative harmony (not to mention being crammed full of errors). This follow-up feels like a 180-degree repudiation of negative harmony; again based on what somebody else says. I don't know why either video exists. This seems like the kind of "Hmm, I shouldn't have published that until I'd thought about it more" situation for which RUclips implemented the ability to delete videos.
Incidentally, isn't there an irony, or fatal flaw, in coming on like a guru to assert that "It's ok if someone thinks differently from you"? What I hear is, "Here's the truth, and don't dare to think differently."
It's self-evident that people think differently. It's self-evident that some people think that that's ok. Trying to express those things as your own law just gets you into a logical tangle. *If* what you actually meant was "leave me alone", then it's interesting that somebody publishes videos while wanting to be left alone. Again, a re-think seems in order.
I appreciate you taking the time to send your feedback. As I said at the end of the video I stated I agreed with Paul Hindemeth that the concept is just a theory. You feel like the video is "crammed full of errors," can you share with me some of them? It seems self-evident tht you have somehow managed to be offended by a music theory video, I'd love to understand the source of this angst. What specifically do you suggest I "re-think" in this video? Re-watch the section starting at 8:42 to see where I stand, in case you missed my summary.
@@YoPaulieMusic I don't think there's any need to invent or imagine offence or angst. You publish videos; people leave comments with their opinions. You can take 'em or leave 'em, just like we can take or leave your videos. You originally told me I'm confused, and then you edited it out, so possibly *you're* the one bringing emotion to the table (and possibly you know/feel it, hence your editing). But hey, let's just stick to the content of the videos and comments, and not escalate those things into something personal.
Btw, I said that the video to which this is a follow-up is full of errors (not this one). That should be enough for an author to go identify and correct them. I don't feel like making a list of them.
@@stevencharleswhite7045 I removed the "confused" comment to soften the tone. Can you share with me the errors you found in the first video? There are a couple of minor errors to my knowledge that do nothing to change the impact of my message. "I don't feel like making a list of them" is a cop out, a sign of laziness. If you are interested in intellectual debate you would take the 30 seconds needed to point out what you disagree with. Not doing so just makes it seem like you are complaining just to complain. The original video is five years old and was created in response to the sudden surge in interest about negative harmony. The overwhelming majority of comments are positive and thankful. I post things like this to introduce concepts and help musical beginners learn a thing or two. It would be great if your participation was productive instead of negative.
And to be clear, I think the concept of 'negative harmony' is musical rubbish. It's a gimmick, a math game, a hack to come up with alternative harmonies and melodies that aren't really my cup of tea. As we all know, the overtone series occurs in the real world of acoustical physics; "undertones" (the basis of negative theory) do not actually exist. Is this something we can agree on?
@@YoPaulieMusic I'm still processing the idea of negative harmony and undertones, so I'm not in a position to answer your last question there about what we can agree on.
But here's why I'm still interested in, and not yet closed to, the idea of negative harmony. I've been composing a fun and lively tune in F major, in which there's a point where I go Am-[E note]-C, and then C-C#-C with the root of the C# chord emphasized and repeated in the melody (which to me sounds unexpected, and enjoyably dramatic). Then I thought, no, the C# is Db. The chord is bVI (which is another thing I need to research). And later I'm pivoting between Bb and Bbm (IV and iv), so that also involves that Db note. And at the end I *was* going F-Am-Dm-C7-F. A standard cadence, but I found (by chance) that if I used that same Bbm (iv) chord in place of the C7 (V7) then it still functioned as a cadence, but it was a more spicy and interesting option. I had already been playing a G note in the melody, incidentally. Then I heard about negative harmony, and saw that if you negate C7 in the key of F then you get a Bbm triad (plus that G note that was already in the melody). Exactly the substitution I'd found by chance. And negate F7 in the key of F, and three of the notes form Db. So the Db in my weird C-Db-C vamp corresponded with (three quarters of) a negated I7. I'm not saying that's what it *was*, just that it corresponded interestingly.
Yes, I could explain the above in terms of chords borrowed from the parallel minor. And I don't know yet whether negative harmony is a musico-mathematical trick or happenstance, like a lot of the stuff you see in number theory. Or whether those examples above were just coincidence. But it seemed sufficiently interesting or compelling to look into negative harmony further.
So I don't know. I'm a long way from concluding that it's rubbish, as you've done.
As for undertones not existing, I'm not sure about that yet either. If you do a web search you'll find methods for producing undertones with instruments. Admittedly the methods seem artificial. But even if undertones don't exist, I don't think it matters. There are tons of ideas in math (for example) that aren't real (or don't exist) in the traditional sense, but they prove to be great tools to help people make and do amazing things.
@@stevencharleswhite7045 Ah yes... the magic of the bVI and minor vi. :) Not having the context of your actual music, I played the progression on the piano to give a listen... it sounds like the Db is more of a passing chord more than anything else. It could also be just the extension of the minor vi (Bb-). I too love the resolution that a minor vi provides, I think it is far more emotional than a standard V-I progression. But, from what I can surmise from your description above I don't think any of that has ties to negative harmony.
I agree, there are lots of tools or mathematical concepts that can be applied to music to generate new ideas. A twelve tone row is just one example... it has nothing to do with the general understanding of traditional Western music theory, it is just a way to create something new. I'm all for finding new ways to create music and break out of existing compositional norms.
Thanks for continuing the conversation, best of luck in your compositional adventures!
Hindemith seems to want an objective underpinning to his opinion that certain musical approaches are superior when in fact all such considerations concerning any art are subjective. Otherwise we would call it engineering. He says there is no evidence of such a force, but he assumes there is such a force that legitimizes his approach. "Repugnant to good sense" means "I don't like it, and my opinion means more than yours." Gravitation expressed in the overtone series is a learned aesthetic. Western tonality is all learned, not inherent. So we can describe it mathematically. It's still not inherent to human music. Other systems exist.
Great feedback, thanks Beena. I tend to agree with HIndemith because there is physical acoustical proof of the overtone series. There is no such thing for undertones. In my opinion undertones are an idea or theory, not a scientific, provable fact.
@@YoPaulieMusic What's missing is the link between the existing physical overtones and any intrinsic quality of a music theory based on them, or any neural basis that they are objectively meaningful because they exist in the acoustic environment. What we're assuming without any evidence is that the brain's machinery favors the overtones in some way. I get the argument from generalities, fine, but it's all assumptions, not evidence-based. Musicologists might think the brain works like that, but the neuroscience seems to suggest Western tonality has nothing to do with how the brain fundamentally processes music, even though it reflects natural phenomena. E.g., studies of infants presented consonant and dissonant (by Western definition) chords show the same responses in EEG studies. Differences only emerge with age and exposure to music. People who grow up in a tradition of non-Western music respond differently than Westerners when presented with (Western-defined) dissonance found in their familiar music. Western tonality isn't supported by perceptual brain science as distinct from random clashing notes until we learn to perceive them as clashing. I don't see how a subset of tonality can be seen as more meaningful than another because of its relation to nature when the relation of all Western tonality to human perception is non-preferred until learned. Once we take that away, we're just describing different, nifty, usable systems within Western tonality to describe the music we like, and maybe describing a different scaffold upon which to create more. Not superior, proven, or more valid, just different.
If all considerations are subjective, this statement is false, therefore some considerations are objective.
Hello!!
Loved the video and the your impartiality!
Can you share some bibliography that you might have about negative harmony?
There are not a lot of books out there. I believe Levy's book is the only one dedicated to the topic.
Excellent explanation.
Music is entirely based on the Overtone Series. Everything else is conjecture.
0:54 A music theory, thanks for watching
Thanks Jeferson. It's fun to talk about, to research and see how the concepts can apply to writing music or improvising. Anything on the internet that gets people talking about music theory is 100% fine with me. Music literacy is important.
Paul, do you know how can i get a copy of Ernst's book? I'm from Brazil, and I just couldn't find a pdf version of the book for sale or download. Thanks! Just subscribed to your channel.
The arguments presented in your video are answered in this article. Dá uma olhada: legacy.earlham.edu/~tobeyfo/musictheory/Book3/FFH3_CH1/1H%20Harmonic%20Polarity.html
the font reduces legibility
No more information to add to this concept after 3 years? Any pieces you’ve composed in Negative Harmony.?
Hi Atom-T. :) Nothing new to add, I wish this video would get as many visits as my "What Is Negative Harmony" video that has 111k views. Have not pursued any compositions using this concept, everything I have been writing is geared toward television use. Thanks for watching and commenting!
But wait, undertones exist!
In theory, they exist, but in reality they do not. :) Overtones are an actual acoustical physical thing. Undertones are not.
Paul Croteau Oh I’d question that. Seemingly so because its theory lies in the subharmonic series. And sub harmonics physically exist! If you take a tuning fork and hit it to get the sound of “A”, you’ll find the overtone series. But take that same tuning fork, hit it to produce an “A” and touch a piece of paper with it. You’ll find in that case that it’ll rebound off the piece of paper every 2nd, 3rd or 4th vibration and that is proof of the undertone series. You’ll here A an octave down, D and F.
@@williamcarrmusic Ah, I see what you are saying. Based on my understanding, what you describe are not 'undertones' as defined by negative harmony. They are the fundamental harmonics or sympathetic resonance of the note being resonated.
@@williamcarrmusic Undertones do not physically exist. All you're doing with that experiment is creating an instrument out of the piece of paper (i.e vibrating the paper) that produces a tone at a ratio consistent with however many times the tuning fork hits the paper. The less frequently it hits the paper, the lower the tone it will produce. The overtone series are set intervals that are present in every sound short of "pure" tones such as a sine tone (which is literally only produced electronically). In this sense, the paper is actually producing a low tone (which you can call a fundamental) and is creating very weak overtones from that fundamental above that tone. You can produce a low tone in whatever fashion you want, but they'll never produce subharmonics naturally.
Side note: Humans hear variations within overtone prominence as timbre.
Ah, you’re right!
triangles are just a theory
north is just a theory
noon is just a theory
@@louisaruth interesting comment, but not accurate. Triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs. North exists in physics and can be pretty cen thanks to magnets. Negative undertones/harmonics do not exist.
@@YoPaulieMusic my comment is tongue in cheek
i don't really understand what undertones are supposed to be or why they have to exist in order for negative harmony to count as a 'sound musical theory concept.' i also don't totally understand how overtones relate to music theory beyond it leading to comments like "if were going all physical then only the Major scale is the Real scale in terms of its corresponds to the harmonic series." this screams western bias to me, and definitely confused me as an approach back when i was still in school
designating 0 degrees as north is a social construct, as is the significance we westerners place on the major scale, specifically the C major scale. however, describing music using geometry, one can quickly see how much our social constructs constrain our understanding and imaginations
the easiest way to discuss negative harmony, or practically any other music concept, is by conceptualizing the twelve tones on a clock face. from there, we can use simple geometry to represent intervals, chords, or progressions; so if 'triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs,' so does negative harmony
i look out my window, and the only triangles i see are man-made structures. triangles, squares, and perfect circles are rare in nature. if we had never before seen these shapes, would we accept that they exist in the real world based solely on mathematical proofs? i would, but what's the use if i lived out in nature? likewise, wind, water, and bird sounds occur in nature, but a naturally occurring IV-V-I would be a statistical anomaly because music is man-made like the structures out my window. meanwhile, it would take great skill to re-create natural sounds like birds and wind within western music's confines. you seem like an accomplished musical person, so maybe negative harmony doesn't help you the way it has helped others, including myself, because you already understand your craft. similarly, triangles and straight lines are not super helpful to cartographer even though anyone can use these simple shapes to plot paths between locations
a few years ago, i realized the major and minor chords could be represented as a single triangle with a front and back on a clock face, and it blew my mind. oh my god, not only is music easy to understand, but understanding it is high level math. children playing music are doing math! we are exploring a soundscape, and music theory articulates how we are going about that exploration (regardless of how the exploration is perceived or conceived, everyone has the potential to understand this stuff their own valid, unique way)
i think a 'sound musical theory concept' is one that makes music as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. recognizing the geometry of music, including how chords and scales flip on different axis, flattens the field, whereas traditional western music theory is most famous for its exclusivity
have you seen the three part series from "Learn Harmony Now!" called "Understand Negative Harmony"? or Noel Johnston's 2 part series on "the flippening"? if i had seen these videos 25 years ago, it would have changed my life. turns out i understood music (and math) much better than i realized. today, i spend my free time on dmitri tymoczko's book 'a geometry of music." fun! i would totally watch a video giving it a review :)
@@louisaruth I appreciate your thoughtful response! I believe that just as people have different learning styles-some preferring text, others images, or even hands-on experiences-our understanding of music can also vary widely depending on how we engage with it. You offer a good example for those that visualize music geometrically, while for others, different modalities might resonate more strongly.
Yes, my video has a Western bias because Levy's theory is based on Western music theory. :)
While I may not fully align with your viewpoint, it is clear that you have found a method that works for you. Ultimately, I think what matters most is that we all find the tools and methods that help us connect with and explore music in meaningful ways. Thanks again for your insightful contribution!
Anyone who thinks Collier a musical genius lives far away from reality. If he is a genius, the genius is still a child yet
I think you are the one in an alternative reality, you are certainly in a tiny, tiny minority.