analisis of quartals

What is (if there is) the conentional way to analyze quartal harmonies? I invented one of my own, but it's clumsy and not able to describe the invertions.

So I wonder, is there an unified way like the common practice symbols?

There is no unified way, since quartal harmony is no unified thing. To analyse Satie you'd most likely have to use totally different methods than to analyse Var

I get it. I wasn't planning on using common practice harmonic analysis on Debussy ;)

But there has to be a useful code to define some chords with. seems practical to me...

Then come up with a theory that does it and publish it. Sounds like a neat topic for a theoretical paper.

What is (if there is) the conentional way to analyze quartal harmonies? I invented one of my own, but it's clumsy and not able to describe the invertions.

So I wonder, is there an unified way like the common practice symbols?

In a way, I've proposed a theory in which quartal harmony can be dealt with, at least with regard to its interval setup, transposition, inversion, and its relation to other harmonies. You may visit the YC Wiki article Isocord Theory (which, however, is still in a preliminary state). If further interested in this topic, you may visit the current discussion thread A new theory of harmony? – Isocords.

Would be really interested how you might work with this theory!

Oh good lord... don't go to some b/s isocord/ ischord stuff Cramer.

One way to start analyzing harmony... especially when there isn't a unified way to look at it, or you just don't have the knowledge is to compare the the kind of harmonic effects of one way of using quartal harmony with different techniques. Obviously, Satie, as compared with some Jazz artists are going to be different.

Look at the color. Look at how it is actually functioning. Is what you see just a V-I gesture with added fourths... or is it actually stacked fourths. Look at the "rules" composers use within their own pieces. I don't mean harmony rules or some theory bullshit, but some actual compositional analysis. How does each of these aspects work TOGETHER. Thinking about function and intended aesthetic (as much as you can infer without actually knowing who you are analyzing) makes analysis a lot easier, more benefecial, and interesting.

In a way, I've proposed a theory in which quartal harmony can be dealt with, at least with regard to its interval setup, transposition, inversion, and its relation to other harmonies.

bla bla bla

spam spam spam

bla bla bla

I know you are the prophet and only believer of your own religion. But I asked for the "CONVENTIONAL way to analyze quartal harmony":angry:

Listen, maybe your idea is nice, but the way you present is so terrible awfull, selfcentred it becomes repelling.

Well, if you really want to use an "established" theory, you can always use things like set theory etc. But in general, I'd really do it as Corbin mentioned: Try to figure out the harmonic principles and functionality within the "system" of a specific piece and analyse according to that - which really makes "quartal harmony" no different from any other harmonic concept.

In fact, before I came to this forum I wasn't even aware of the term "quartal harmony" - despite having analysed and discussed many pieces that are strongly based on harmonies built from fourths. But in many of these cases fourths aren't actually treated differently to any other interval - they just happen to create a sound the composer wanted for some reasons, so it wouldn't make much sense to use different terminology/signs for quartal chords than any other chords in this music (say Sch

I want to see how any one applied it. Since I'm quite new to the term as well. I tried to write an quartal piece of my own. That happened fairly intuitive, and still has its roots in some common practice harmony (its written in c minor for example)

Because it happened so inttively i wanted to look back and analyze what happened; reflect on my own work to see how I can exploit this theory.

Since I've read its often used as an extention of existing harmonies, but the conventional (common practice) analysis is nt helping me any further.

I tried finding a root, the lowest of the stacked quarters, but that isnt not yet as insightfll as I hoped since the way some dissonants resolve still follow the common practice way.

Hope this makes sense...

Here's the method I use for analyzing quartals.

Say we have a D-G-C-F. I call this a D-4x4 indicating there are four notes in the chord, each at an interval of a fourth. Suppose we have a C-D-F-G chord. We could call that a quartal harmony as well if we unraveled it (F-C-G-D), depending on the context of the piece. It could be a C/F-4x5 or four notes with an interval relationship of a fifth with C as the lowest pitch. It could also be a C/D-4x4. It sort of breaks down at the inversion level, but it all depends on voicing as to what it will most likely be.

That's how I do it. Each person has their own way.

That's how I do it. Each person has their own way.

Taken in the right context, AA is entirely right.

Here's the method I use for analyzing quartals.

Say we have a D-G-C-F. I call this a D-4x4 indicating there are four notes in the chord, each at an interval of a fourth. Suppose we have a C-D-F-G chord. We could call that a quartal harmony as well if we unraveled it (F-C-G-D), depending on the context of the piece. It could be a C/F-4x5 or four notes with an interval relationship of a fifth with C as the lowest pitch. It could also be a C/D-4x4. It sort of breaks down at the inversion level, but it all depends on voicing as to what it will most likely be.

That's how I do it. Each person has their own way.

This would have been exactly the result with the isocord theory also. Only the chord notation would have been somewhat different, more general: D:5-5-5 vs. F:7-7-7 (and C:2-3-2 for the C-D-F-G palindrome chord).

So that's my own way.

Here's the method I use for analyzing quartals.

Say we have a D-G-C-F. I call this a D-4x4 indicating there are four notes in the chord, each at an interval of a fourth. Suppose we have a C-D-F-G chord. We could call that a quartal harmony as well if we unraveled it (F-C-G-D), depending on the context of the piece. It could be a C/F-4x5 or four notes with an interval relationship of a fifth with C as the lowest pitch. It could also be a C/D-4x4. It sort of breaks down at the inversion level, but it all depends on voicing as to what it will most likely be.

That's how I do it. Each person has their own way.

How exactly do you analyze quartals with augmented fourths in them then (such as F - Bb - E - A)?

I thought quartals only applied to perfect 4ths... hmmm... learn something new every day.

^ Well, that again comes down to how you define "quartal harmony", since it's by no means a unified system. If you're talking about Var

How exactly do you analyze quartals with augmented fourths in them then (such as F - Bb - E - A)?

I think if I were to encounter that, I would do something like F(E+) 4x4 to indicate the augmented pitch within the quartal structure. Beyond that, there's really nothing more I can think to do with it. Like I said before, it's just a context thing, and there are just too many good interpretations out there to say, "Well, mine's the best." Personally, I think mine is subpar at best, and if there's another system by all means I'm open to it.

But then again, I usually have no clue what people are talking about when they mention "quartal harmony" as a harmonical principle, which is also why I don't quite understand the wish to have a specific way of analysing it.

Well, I read the lesson with nirvana, and that caught my attention. It was here I first heard something like it existed. When I write a chord progression with a lot of quartal chords in it, I can analyze it by common practice, bt then I'll have lot of added 4th, and 7th (with stacked fourhts) or 2nds and 6ths (with stacked fifths). thats only an extention f the common practice. I want to try to map a progression based on a quartal analisys.

I wrote something (see my forum thread in piano section), and wanted to analyse it, and did so in a quite similar manner as Antiatonality's described.

Only wanted to know if there is a conventional method.

On AntiAtonality's sugestion of analysing F Bb E A as F(E+)4x4 I would say a transposed versin of that chord (say A D Gis Cis) would be A(G+) 4x4. On first sight people cannot see those chord are the same. I would suggest A(3+) 4x4, meaning the third note is augmented.

Just a thought

How exactly do you analyze quartals with augmented fourths in them then (such as F - Bb - E - A)?

I think if I were to encounter that, I would do something like F(E+) 4x4 to indicate the augmented pitch within the quartal structure. Beyond that, there's really nothing more I can think to do with it. Like I said before, it's just a context thing, and there are just too many good interpretations out there to say, "Well, mine's the best." Personally, I think mine is subpar at best, and if there's another system by all means I'm open to it.

Well, mine's not necessarily the best, but descriptively simpler: F:5-6-5 (or 5-6-5 for sparing the starting tone).

Just another system

Well, mine's not necessarily the best, but descriptively simpler: F:5-6-5 (or 5-6-5 for sparing the starting tone).

Yeah, this is a possibility. But a quartal chord like F B E A has to be analysed as well. This chord is not symmetrical (guess it would be F:6-5-5). And I am more interested in the notes, than in the distance in semitones. A system has to be able to show EFBA is an inversion of FBEA. I think your system would fail here...

Its not I'm not open to any creative idea like a system as yours. It has to be said your way of presenting reminds me off a bad salesman. Then the people start saying "not interested..." Sorry, but this is how it works...

Yeah, this is a possibility. But a quartal chord like F B E A has to be analysed as well. This chord is not symmetrical (guess it would be F:6-5-5).

Yes, this would be correctly written in my notation system. That the chord is not symmetric, doesn't matter – the notation is independent of the symmetry property.

And I am more interested in the notes, than in the distance in semitones. A system has to be able to show EFBA is an inversion of FBEA. I think your system would fail here...

Of course, notes (tones) are of primary interest for a musician. But the indication of semitone distances within a chord are of no less interest for a composer, since you can easily see the kind of sonorities – discords and concords – which are present in the chord.

So it's immediately visible that E:1-6-10 contains discords only and a chord like, e.g., E:3-5-7 contains concords only. Nevertheless, you're right that E:1-6-10 (= EFBA) wouldn't show off that it is an inversion of FBEA (= F:6-5-5).

Its not I'm not open to any creative idea like a system as yours. It has to be said your way of presenting reminds me off a bad salesman. Then the people start saying "not interested..." Sorry, but this is how it works...

I admit that the presentation of the Isocord Theory has been unfelicitous so far. But I'll try to do it better in the final version and in the accompanying forum discussions.