Stirling S Newberry wrote:

>Chris Bonds wrote:
>
>>... are you suggesting, as Hindemith did, that harmony is somehow
>>inescapable because of the universality of the harmonic series?
>
>No. I am saying that the mechanism of finding a "harmonic background"
>is universal fact of perception.  Give people sounds and they will find
>a "background".  The attempt by the ear to find a related sound pattern.

So then harmonic background = related sound pattern? What kind of pattern?
Related to what?

To you, harmony must not be limited to the simultaneous sounding of
different pitches.  Barring archaic definitions of the word (which put
it as synonymous with melody), I think this is what most people understand
to be a requirement for harmony to exist.  If you want to broaden the
definition, you would strengthen your case by explaining in clearer terms
what you mean.

>Since this mode of perception is inescapable - harmony is inescapable.

I agree that all humans are biologically the same when it comes to the
structure of the ear. Big deal. It seems to me by identifying harmony so
closely with perception you are simply making the definition of "harmony"
so broad as to be useless.

Chris Bonds