和声解析:迈向音乐科学理论的进程(2012年)
Harmony Explained: Progress Towards a Scientific Theory of Music (2012)

原始链接: https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4212

在《和声解析》(*Harmony Explained*)一书中,丹尼尔·肖克罗斯·威尔克森(Daniel Shawcross Wilkerson)指出,传统乐理缺乏严谨的科学基础,并将其对“无根据迷信”的依赖比作中世纪医学。为了寻求更实证的方法,威尔克森将物理现象与人类大脑处理声音的计算模型相结合。 作者对19世纪物理学家赫尔曼·冯·亥姆霍兹(Hermann Helmholtz)的既定理论提出了挑战,指出亥姆霍兹的“谐和”理论无法解释为何复杂和声会存在。相反,威尔克森为大调音阶、标准和弦词典,以及大三和弦与小三和弦之间明显的感性差异推导出了科学依据。他声称,自己对后两种现象的推导代表了该领域的原创性贡献。 本文以通俗易懂、对话式的风格撰写,旨在架起科学探究与音乐实践之间的桥梁。通过超越传统的术语,威尔克森提供了一个逻辑框架,解释了调性音乐为何以这种方式运作,从而为传统乐理中往往晦涩难懂的解释提供了一种令人满意的替代方案。

这篇 Hacker News 帖子讨论了 2012 年发表在 arXiv 上的论文《和声的解释:迈向音乐科学理论的进展》(Harmony Explained: Progress Towards a Scientific Theory of Music)。 评论者们对这种音乐理论化的学术方法持褒贬不一的态度。一位用户批评作者可能缺乏实际的音乐修养,而另一位则建议将该文章与 3Blue1Brown 的视频内容结合起来,以便更直观地解释音乐理论背后的“所以然”。 关于音乐理论的侧重点,引发了一场核心辩论。一位资深音乐家指出,传统理论过分强调和声关系,他认为这很“枯燥”。他主张音色、乐句处理、节奏和表现力等要素远比此类论文中常强调的和声数学更为重要。他认为,一个演奏出色的音符可能比理论上“正确”的和弦进行更具感染力,并指出和声质量往往更多地取决于音量、泛音含量和语境,而非音符本身。讨论最后,大家转向了一个技术性探讨:在没有和声语境的情况下,单个音符是否真的能持续吸引听众的注意力。
相关文章

原文

View a PDF of the paper titled Harmony Explained: Progress Towards A Scientific Theory of Music, by Daniel Shawcross Wilkerson

No PDF available, click to view other formats
Abstract: Most music theory books are like medieval medical textbooks: they contain unjustified superstition, non-reasoning, and funny symbols glorified by Latin phrases. How does music, in particular harmony, actually work, presented as a real, scientific theory of music?
The core to our approach is to consider not only the Physical phenomena of nature but also the Computational phenomena of any machine that must make sense of sound, such as the human brain. In particular we derive the following three fundamental phenomena of music:
* the Major Scale,
* the Standard Chord Dictionary, and
* the difference in feeling between the Major and Minor Triads.
While the Major Scale has been independently derived before by others in a similar manner [Helmholtz1863, Birkhoff1933], I believe the derivation of the Standard Chord Dictionary as well as the difference in feeling between the Major and Minor Triads to be original.
We show to be incomplete the theory of the heretofore agreed-upon authority on this subject, 19th-century Physicist Hermann Helmholtz [Helmholtz1863]: he says notes are in "concord" because the sound playing them together is "less worse" than that of some other notes. But note that, in this theory, more notes can only penalize, some merely less than others, and so the most harmonious sound should be a single note by itself(!) and harmony would not exist as a phenomenon of music at all.
I intend this article to be satisfying to scientists as an original contribution to science and art, yet I also intend it to be approachable by musicians and other curious members of the general public who may have long wondered at the curious properties of tonal music and been frustrated by the lack of satisfying, readable exposition on the subject. Therefore I have written in a deliberately plain and conversational style, avoiding unnecessarily formal language.
From: Daniel Wilkerson [view email]
[v1] Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:16:20 UTC (1,065 KB)
[v2] Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:22:18 UTC (1,067 KB)
联系我们 contact @ memedata.com