I am considering adding harmonic function labels to my PurrSoftware Meander series of modules. Let me know here if you are interested in this and would use it. If you are interested, would a T/S/D scheme suffice, or would you want a more nuanced and detailed indication? If I do this, the feature would be off by default at then enabled via context menu along with any optional choice of level of detail to display. This would be displayed in the circle of fifths graphical display.
This would not change the functionality of my modules other than the display. To keep this simple, only respond here if you ARE interested and WOULD make use of this functionality..
This would be adding in functionality that existed in my 1988-2001 versions of Meander for DOS and Windows but was removed when I ported Meander to VCV Rack in 2019.
I think it is a safe bet to make that those who already know harmonic function theory do not need help and those who do not are unlikely to want to go so deep into music theory. I think it was wise that I removed harmonic function display from Meander when I ported it to VCV Rack in 2019.
So, for now, I will shelve this idea.
Hehe… well, that was a very rational decision, Ken. I like how your mind works.
I think that’s a fair guess. I always thought Meander seemed awesome, and I like this idea (no pun intended) in theory. But it turns out I really prefer to write my chord changes/harmony/whatever at a physical keyboard or acoustic instrument, then put it in the DAW as MIDI notes and send to VCV Rack and elsewhere. Thus I end up with very little need for specific tonal harmony functions inside VCV. Perhaps people exist with some perfect mix of formal traning and experimental mindset to want this, but you’re probably right they are not many.
I like it for putting the idea of functional harmony out into the world where someone might see it. Of course you’d have to have the option of jazz-style (where bVII7 is subdominant minor because it contains b6) or Bartok-style (where bVII7 is dominant because it’s bVII)
Yeah, my fundamental problem is that I am not a music theorist. I can figure out just about anything these days with the help of an LLM, but it would make more sense for someone who has expertise to do something with this idea. I don’t use LLMs to generate code.
LLMs are going to be wrong on these facts. I have tested some on more esoteric music theory questions and they fail. Do not trust that avenue yet, it doesn’t make any money so they are largely just spewing internet garbage.
Yeah, I have found that the LLMs are wrong a lot of the time. I ask 3 LLMs the same question and compare their answers to try to weed out the hallucinations. I’ve only been working with the LLMs for about 18 months. As I have mentioned here elsewhere, my adult daughter and I were the sole confirmed decoders of the “A Sign In Space” scientifically simulated ETI message in 2024. The ASIS message is designed to use no anthropocentric symbology but rather only use universal principles such as mathematics that would be the same for any intelligence in the universe. My efforts over the past 2 years have focused on deeper interpretations of the message and one thing I have done is to determine if an LLM can decode the ASIS message. My conclusion is that they cannot do such without training them via thousands of chat words and tell them exactly what to do and then exactly how to “see” the decoded message, which they absolutely cannot do without training. I still find the LLMs valuable in my scientific studies, but, they currently cannot deal with non-anthropocentric symbology. They quite often get basic arithmetic questions wrong.