Music theory

[amethyst_fan]

Where are you coming up with that? I think that's a gross generalization that's completely untrue. In all of my dealings with professional musicians both academically and professionally, I've never found one that "no longer appreciates tonal music"

Even if it's not what a particular person might be most interested in this point, or like to perform the most, it's still important to understand, and appreciate. Any serious musician knows to appreciate the history and background of everything that has gone into making what things are like today.

Well perhaps it is a generalization, but I still believe it to be true. Umm, I am not referring to "musicians" or "professional musicians", but exclusively directors and conductors of high position. And most professors that aspire to be directors or conductors, hehe. This has more to do with other peoples experience than my own as well, literally every major conductor from Chicago to Denver to New Jersey that I've met quips something smart like "Well, we'll be playing Stravinsky tonight, but of course we have to give the audience something to listen to, so we'll start out with a Hadyn symphony first..." before the show. Hehe, there's really nothing wrong with it, but dozens of collegues and friends of mine have all been told at some point "if you are serious about music, you need to get past the tonal thing, and start composing some real music. Most people I know only or mostly like composing tonal music, myself included, but most major symphonies are not looking for tonal music. Rarely will you see a featured piece of a modern *live* composer that is a tonal piece. Or at least completely tonal. It's just not of interest of academic composers. I have worked with people that have worked in states I haven't even visited and they say the same.
That's why I believe it to be accurate.

 

[Codmate]

Well perhaps it is a generalization, but I still believe it to be true. Umm, I am not referring to "musicians" or "professional musicians", but exclusively directors and conductors of high position. And most professors that aspire to be directors or conductors, hehe. This has more to do with other peoples experience than my own as well, literally every major conductor from Chicago to Denver to New Jersey that I've met quips something smart like "Well, we'll be playing Stravinsky tonight, but of course we have to give the audience something to listen to, so we'll start out with a Hadyn symphony first..." before the show. Hehe, there's really nothing wrong with it, but dozens of collegues and friends of mine have all been told at some point "if you are serious about music, you need to get past the tonal thing, and start composing some real music. Most people I know only or mostly like composing tonal music, myself included, but most major symphonies are not looking for tonal music. Rarely will you see a featured piece of a modern *live* composer that is a tonal piece. Or at least completely tonal. It's just not of interest of academic composers. I have worked with people that have worked in states I haven't even visited and they say the same.
That's why I believe it to be accurate.

This is also my experience.

Many, but certainly not all, music professionals are more interested in experimental and microtonal musics than the regular diatonic stuff. A friend of mine, inspired by the great Harry Partch, built a microtonal marimba with a 48 note octave. The piece he wrote for it was wonderful.

If you took a beater and slid it from one end to another it was like using a steel or glass slide on a guitar.

I, and many of my friends, are seriously into experimental music, but we still love the regular stuff!

 

[famous beagle]

This is also my experience.

Many, but certainly not all, music professionals are more interested in experimental and microtonal musics than the regular diatonic stuff. A friend of mine, inspired by the great Harry Partch, built a microtonal marimba with a 48 note octave. The piece he wrote for it was wonderful.

If you took a beater and slid it from one end to another it was like using a steel or glass slide on a guitar.

I, and many of my friends, are seriously into experimental music, but we still love the regular stuff!

So where do you draw the line between "experimental" and "regular"?

And if society and context doesn't affect musical perception, how do you explain someone who has perfect pitch now, with A as 440 hz, when it used to be much lower in years past?

And in response to your post earlier, you basically set up a whole straw-man argument against me when all you had to do was state your last point: that it came down to a semantic issue with the word "rule." I don't have a problem with your definition, but I don't think most people are thinking of that definition. I really do think some people think of the "rules" as like laws that shouldn't be broken. And they actually change their compositions because of this perception. And I think that's silly.

 

[RAK]

But Africans who were brought to the USA on slave ships found the major chord 'happy' - yes?
And just because a culture didn't develop the minor triad as we know it, doesn't mean it wouldn't have the same effect on those people.

Howard Goodall (talking about major triads in his program "How Music Works"):
"So where did these strict ideas come from? Who determined that there are hierarchies of notes? Who determined that [these] chords should have three notes? Well - they weren't invented by some brilliant composer, or developed by a committee. Hierarchies of notes were there all along before we humans found them. Once, discovered their power was harnessed and exploited."

Of course, the 'hierarchies of notes' he's discussing is also the hierarchy of the harmonic series, as he demonstrates with harmonics on a harp.

He goes on to talk about the development of minor triads:
"A minor triad differs from its major siblings in just one respect. Its middle note is a half step lower in pitch. This seemingly tiny adjustment has a big impact. It turns the mood of the chord sombre. Why? The middle note of a minor chord is much less prominent in the harmonic series than the middle note of a major chord. It's still there alright, but it's faint and distant. This weakens the minor chord. It's as if it has fewer natural ingredients... It's more fragile and vulnerable than the major."

Howard Goodall's website:
http://www.howardgoodall.co.uk

Trust me - the man knows his shit

Well I'll admit I don't know who Howard Goodall is, but I don't like making these societal generalizations you can't prove. I certainly don't know anything about how slaves felt when they came over.

I'm not sure I agree with a minor chord being more "fragile and vulnerable." Using language to describe sound is a struggle anyway.
however I don't find sounds like "Shout" or any I VII IV V progression, or "Jack-A-Roe" to be fragile or vulnerable or less natural because of their minor chords. Or how about a song like "The Thrill is Gone" It's a minor blues, but I don't think it's sad. Maybe a litte dark, but you can do that with a major progression too if you want to.
And besides, not every major or minor key has the same feeling (especially with Well Temperment, but I know that's not what we're talking about.)

 

[famous beagle]

That's to do with the intonation of the first four frets of the guitar, and is in itself a rule. Basically you've just shattered your own argument by stating a clear musical rule that always holds true!

And this is just untrue. It has nothing to do with a guitar. You'll have the same problem with a piano or any instrument.

The octave is not perfectly divisible into twelve notes --- not by a long shot. Just about every interval has to be slightly out of tune for all keys to sound acceptable to us.

 

[RAK]

Well perhaps it is a generalization, but I still believe it to be true. Umm, I am not referring to "musicians" or "professional musicians", but exclusively directors and conductors of high position. And most professors that aspire to be directors or conductors, hehe. This has more to do with other peoples experience than my own as well, literally every major conductor from Chicago to Denver to New Jersey that I've met quips something smart like "Well, we'll be playing Stravinsky tonight, but of course we have to give the audience something to listen to, so we'll start out with a Hadyn symphony first..." before the show. Hehe, there's really nothing wrong with it, but dozens of collegues and friends of mine have all been told at some point "if you are serious about music, you need to get past the tonal thing, and start composing some real music. Most people I know only or mostly like composing tonal music, myself included, but most major symphonies are not looking for tonal music. Rarely will you see a featured piece of a modern *live* composer that is a tonal piece. Or at least completely tonal. It's just not of interest of academic composers. I have worked with people that have worked in states I haven't even visited and they say the same.
That's why I believe it to be accurate.

So you know Barenboim? I do not dispute the conversations you've had with the people you met, or that certain musicians/professors/conductors find atonality more interesting. But from my experience of formally studying music for over 15 years, including studying with symphony players in high school and graduating from DePaul University School of Music and studying with conductors, composers, and performers from the lyric opera and CSO, I can tell you that tonality is doing just fine in the hearts and minds of musicians everywhere. To say it's "not of interest of academic composers" is way off base. It might not be where they want to pursue their career, but it's certainly of interest, if no other reason, than understanding it helps you be atonal. It gets back to knowing the "rules" before you can break them.

 

[Codmate]

So where do you draw the line between "experimental" and "regular"?

That difference is fairly subjective - but I would define experimental as something that doesn't fit into the currently recognized rules of music. It's music that's after finding new rules, or sometimes testing and stretching old ones. You know the definition of the word 'experimental' right?

And if society and context doesn't affect musical perception,

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying there *are* certain fundamental rules. I'm not saying that they are *all* of music. We don't know all the rules yet - just as we don't know all the rules of gravity yet. We know enough to write a good tune (or design a working hydro-electric dam) though.

how do you explain someone who has perfect pitch now, with A as 440 hz, when it used to be much lower in years past?

That's easy - my friend has perfect pitch and has a reference in his head. Not only can he tell you what diatonic note a given tone is, he can tell you the frequency of it too.
If it is not a 'B' or a 'C' he'll quite easily tell you it's somewhere in-between.
When 'A' was lower people using perfect pitch (which is *not* a natural ability - although some have a predisposition to it, it can be taught) simply used a different internal reference.

And in response to your post earlier, you basically set up a whole straw-man argument against me when all you had to do was state your last point: that it came down to a semantic issue with the word "rule." I don't have a problem with your definition, but I don't think most people are thinking of that definition. I really do think some people think of the "rules" as like laws that shouldn't be broken. And they actually change their compositions because of this perception. And I think that's silly.

I agree that it is a common mistake - but should we really compound it?

It doesn't annoy as much as incorrect interpretation of the word 'theory' in 'the theory of evolution' by creationists though...

 

[Codmate]

And this is just untrue. It has nothing to do with a guitar. You'll have the same problem with a piano or any instrument.

The octave is not perfectly divisible into twelve notes --- not by a long shot. Just about every interval has to be slightly out of tune for all keys to sound acceptable to us.

Ahh - I misunderstood - you are talking about 'Just Intonation'. This is a 'rule' of music - yes?

 

[RAK]

And this is just untrue. It has nothing to do with a guitar. You'll have the same problem with a piano or any instrument.

The octave is not perfectly divisible into twelve notes --- not by a long shot. Just about every interval has to be slightly out of tune for all keys to sound acceptable to us.

Equal Temperment does divide the octave into twelve equal parts. You end up with no "perfect" intervals, but it works in all keys. I think this is what you're saying though, yes?

 

[famous beagle]

Equal Temperment does divide the octave into twelve equal parts. You end up with no "perfect" intervals, but it works in all keys. I think this is what you're saying though, yes?

Yes this is what I was saying. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Codmate]

Well I'll admit I don't know who Howard Goodall is, but I don't like making these societal generalizations you can't prove. I certainly don't know anything about how slaves felt when they came over.

I'm not sure I agree with a minor chord being more "fragile and vulnerable." Using language to describe sound is a struggle anyway.
however I don't find sounds like "Shout" or any I VII IV V progression, or "Jack-A-Roe" to be fragile or vulnerable or less natural because of their minor chords. Or how about a song like "The Thrill is Gone" It's a minor blues, but I don't think it's sad. Maybe a litte dark, but you can do that with a major progression too if you want to.
And besides, not every major or minor key has the same feeling (especially with Well Temperment, but I know that's not what we're talking about.)

OK - maybe 'weaker' is a better word than sad, and 'strong' is a better word than 'happy'. And context changes everything as we know. An energetic drum-beat might make a song with minor chords feel 'happy' overall.

I (and Dr Goodall) are talking about sitting down with an instrument and playing a major chord. Listening to it carefully. Listening especially to the third. And then playing the same chord with a minor third. Go do it.

I defy you to say the the minor third is not somehow, and importantly, *objectively* weaker. I think Howard Goodall's word 'distant' is perfect.
The minor third is not quieter - but 'feels' it.

I suggest you find some comparable sources and come back. Sometimes you have to listen to people that have been studying this stuff for years. They sometimes know what they're talking about you know

 

[famous beagle]

Ahh - I misunderstood - you are talking about 'Just Intonation'. This is a 'rule' of music - yes?

Yes, by your definition I suppose.

(I still think most people think of the other definition when they hear the "rules of music." I think they think of it as akin to the "rules of grammar.")

 

[Codmate]

Yes, by your definition I suppose.

(I still think most people think of the other definition when they hear the "rules of music." I think they think of it as akin to the "rules of grammar.")

I still *know* they are wrong

 

[famous beagle]

OK - maybe 'weaker' is a better word than sad, and 'strong' is a better word than 'happy'. And context changes everything as we know. An energetic drum-beat can make a song with minor chords 'happy' overall.

I (and Dr Goodall) are talking about sitting down with an instrument and playing a major chord. Listening to it carefully. Listening especially to the third. And then playing the same chord with a minor third. Go do it.

I defy you to say the the minor third is not somehow, and importantly, *objectively* weaker. I think Howard Goodall's word 'distant' is perfect.
The minor third is not quieter - but 'feels' it.

I suggest you find some comparable sources and come back. Sometimes you have to listen to people that have been studying this stuff for years. They sometimes know what they're talking about you know

It makes perfect sense to me about a minor sounding darker or whateveryouwannacallit because it somewhat goes "against the grain" of the natural harmonic series. I've even mentioned this in several of the books I've written. But, again, you chose to interpret my use of "rule" as one way, when I meant it the other way.

 

[Codmate]

It makes perfect sense to me about a minor sounding darker or whateveryouwannacallit because it somewhat goes "against the grain" of the natural harmonic series. I've even mentioned this in several of the books I've written. But, again, you chose to interpret my use of "rule" as one way, when I meant it the other way.

Because you were using it incorrectly in the context.
Maybe now you won't go around bashing the 'rules' of music as though the Nazis invented them?
Pretty please?

 

[RAK]

OK - maybe 'weaker' is a better word than sad, and 'strong' is a better word than 'happy'. And context changes everything as we know. An energetic drum-beat can make a song with minor chords 'happy' overall.

I (and Dr Goodall) are talking about sitting down with an instrument and playing a major chord. Listening to it carefully. Listening especially to the third. And then playing the same chord with a minor third. Go do it.

I defy you to say the the minor third is not somehow, and importantly, *objectively* weaker. I think Howard Goodall's word 'distant' is perfect.
The minor third is not quieter - but 'feels' it.

I suggest you find some comparable sources and come back. Sometimes you have to listen to people that have been studying this stuff for years. They sometimes know what they're talking about you know

Did you read my next post after this one that you responded to?

I disagree that a minor chord feels "quieter" than it's major counterpart. That's like saying that you use brushes to be quieter over sticks. That's not really true. You can be just as loud with brushes, or just as quiet with sticks, but the sound is the main difference, not the volume.
I'm not saying a C Major sounds the same as a C Minor, or that they have the same feeling.

I will concede this, if you sit down at a piano, play a C Major Chord, and then play a C Minor chord, the majority of people who's ears have the experience of the majority of the people in this country, will probably say the Minor chords sounds "dark" or "sad" compared to the Major which is "bright" or "happy" And maybe even people who have never heard the western art music tradition will agree. But once you put these chords in context to a piece of music, I think all that goes out the window, and all the other aspects conspire to make the piece "happy" or "sad"

 

[Codmate]

Did you read my next post after this one that you responded to?

I'm not sure - it's all becoming quite dizzying explaining this rather basic stuff to people that have 'been studying music for more than 15 years' and those who have written tomes on the subject.

Bizzarre since I have never been such a respected heavyweight in the music world myself!

I disagree that a minor chord feels "quieter" than it's major counterpart.

Well stop right there sir - because it's not 'quieter' and it's certainly not the whole chord. I asked you to listen specifically to the third.

Even famous beagle agrees with me here - so I must be right

That's like saying that you use brushes to be quieter over sticks. That's not really true. You can be just as loud with brushes, or just as quiet with sticks, but the sound is the main difference, not the volume.
I'm not saying a C Major sounds the same as a C Minor, or that they have the same feeling.

Shame really - then I could have written you off as tone-deaf

I will concede this, if you sit down at a piano, play a C Major Chord, and then play a C Minor chord, the majority of people who's ears have the experience of the majority of the people in this country, will probably say the Minor chords sounds "dark" or "sad" compared to the Major which is "bright" or "happy" And maybe even people who have never heard the western art music tradition will agree. But once you put these chords in context to a piece of music, I think all that goes out the window, and all the other aspects conspire to make the piece "happy" or "sad"

So, with the chords taken in total isolation, a major played and then a minor, you don't think the third in the minor chord sounds objectively weaker?

 

[TelePaul]

I write songs without music, so in all your faces!!!!

Muchos love to you all. Tele.

 

[famous beagle]

Because you were using it incorrectly in the context.
Maybe now you won't go around bashing the 'rules' of music as though the Nazis invented them?
Pretty please?

Listen, it's really this simple.

You hear about the "rules of grammar" all the time, yes?

Don't dangle a preposition at the end of a sentence. A sentence must contain a subject and a verb or it's a fragment, etc.

There are comparable "rules" in music.

Avoid parallel 5ths. Don't play a minor pentatonic scale over a major chord, etc.

These are the "rules" I was talking about. I wasn't using the word incorrectly. Everything I said relates to this usage.

 

[Codmate]

I write songs without music, so in all your faces!!!!

Muchos love to you all. Tele.

You are a poet

Haha!