OK, fine. I'll argue that harmony is the missing "component". Further, saying that harmony is just more than one instance of the "true" components taking place simultaneously, misses the point.

Think of Schubert's "Ave Maria". Even as a vocal solo an harmonic "language" is implied by the sequence of individual notes. A series of chords is "outlined", and discernable by listeners, even those who aren't aware or knowledgable enough to describe the phenomonon. The most moving music I've ever experienced contains this type of harmonic structure, most of all when sung by a single voice.

Sure, Jazz players will spend infinity toying with alternative harmonic structures in support of well known melodies, but that only reinforces the point. Harmony may be "in the ear of the beholder", but after all, we're the ones who are carrying on this discussion, no? Try describing music without hearing.

Harmony is always there, staring at you like the horse at the top of the stairway. Even a single note contains harmony, within its own overtone series. Melodies are built on modes and scales, inescapably. Even the simplest indigenous music and can be recognized easily as bearing major or minor characteristics. Harmony is always there, even when its not.

Timbre itself is largely defined by the presence of overtones, which while less noticeable than a fundamental pitch, color the sound uniquely.

Oh, and re. that little problem with the tempered vs. natural scale. Isn't it ironic that fretted instruments and keyboards are at once the most versatile and the least capable of rendering a true scale, harmony, etc.? That little "gotcha" has caused me endless anguish trying to get (and keep) an intrinsically untunable instrument "in tune", but at least I understand why . . .

Just my $.02,
Emmit Sycamore
sixstringsnsongs@yahoo.com