[R2D2]

As most of you are probably aware, music can be understood in terms of tension and resolution. This often happens at many levels: for example, at the level of the form of the piece, maximum tension is reached at the dominant pedal point in the development section of a sonata. Or in a rock song, tension might build during a bridge before maxing out in the guitar solo...and the following more subdued energy level of the next section represents the denouement.

Tension/resolution also happens at the level of the melody, the chord progression, etc. For example, there is the V7-I resolution that is so common. In almost all cases, tension/resolution is created by dissonances resolving to consonances.

However, there is a choral piece of I've been listening to a lot lately that seems to turn this on its ear. The piece is Lux Aurumque by Eric Whitacre. In addition to being quite possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever heard, the piece treats consonances and dissonances very differently. It's almost as if tension is built through consonances and resolves to dissonances. Most of the phrases begin on consonances and end on these absolutely breathtaking disonances.

So, I'm wondering....how the heck does this work? Why does this sound so beautiful? What are some other ways to swap the roles of consonances and dissonances? Nate, do you have any ideas?

I've included a short clip of the beginning of the piece to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

[Xkcer Man]

The first chord in the opening doesn't resolve to the second. The second resolves to the first. It's harder to hear it that way because of the gap in between, but if you heard them with no break, it would be a bit more obvious.

You probably find it so beautiful because its tonal center is C#, which is the greatest of all notes.

[Nate]

Is a score of the piece available anywhere?

XckerMan's theory regarding the back-relating dissonances/tendencies is intriguing... and plausible. Interesting. I'll have to give it a listen sometime when I have free time tomorrow.

In His love,
Nate

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by KeyboardFreak

Is a score of the piece available anywhere?

XckerMan's theory regarding the back-relating dissonances/tendencies is intriguing... and plausible. Interesting. I'll have to give it a listen sometime when I have free time tomorrow.

In His love,
Nate

Yes, the score is available somewhere...I'm just not sure where. And you'd have to purchase it, I bet, too. I really wish I had a score to this, because I want to figure out how this piece works!!

And Xkcer Man...I'm not sure I completely follow your theory. Could you expound upon it? If it's simply that the resolutions come before the tension...I can see that working on paper, but I don't think it would work to our ears. Resolutions are very specific to the tension that builds prior to it, and I don't see how running the relationship backwards would allow the same specificity of resolution.

[Xkcer Man]

My mistake. I don't mean that it is resolving backwards (although that does sound like it would be really cool). I'm saying it has the same resolution as if you were going i v i v i v, but in the clip you posted, there are breaks between v and i. So it's really very basic, but he handled it in a beautiful and uncommon way.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by Xkcer Man

My mistake. I don't mean that it is resolving backwards (although that does sound like it would be really cool). I'm saying it has the same resolution as if you were going i v i v i v, but in the clip you posted, there are breaks between v and i. So it's really very basic, but he handled it in a beautiful and uncommon way.

That's a more plausible explanation, but I'm still not convinced its as simple as that. I still hear tension building through the consonances and a sense of resolution on the disonances. I think there's something else he's doing that's making it work so well.

Nate, have you given this a listen yet?