Negative Harmony - Are we being fooled? 

Thanks Jeremy! I try to keep it simple, and honest. :)

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?

i see it so

There are not a lot of books out there. I believe Levy's book is the only one dedicated to the topic.

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!

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!

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.

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!

I think you are the one in an alternative reality, you are certainly in a tiny, tiny minority.