Music theory

[amethyst_fan]

What an awful thing to say! Are you suggesting there's such a thing as "incorrect" music??!!

I certainly am not saying anything. However that would be the agreed upon convention. It's not that music is right or not, it just could arguably be better if arranged according to standards that have been developed with specific reasons. Why do you think that people from Beethoven all the way through modern composers go to theorists to check their work. Do you think they are checking if the piece is good or not? No. They are making sure they follow certain conventions that are designed to be taylored to the way people like to hear things happen. Parallels have been more and more accepted over time, but were not acceptable in professional music of past.

 

[mshilarious]

I certainly am not saying anything. However that would be the agreed upon convention. It's not that music is right or not, it just could arguably be better if arranged according to standards that have been developed with specific reasons. Why do you think that people from Beethoven all the way through modern composers go to theorists to check their work.

Beethoven was arguably the #1 rulebreaker at a time when there really were rules to be followed. I recall Haydn kicked him out as a composition student, but I might be slightly making that up . . . but certainly the substitution of the scherzo for minuet, the extra movement in the Sixth, and of course the reversal of the second and third movement of the Ninth, not to mention the chorus and the modulation in the fourth movement . . . the argument can be made that Beethoven began the path to the postmodern world of music theory, even if his first movements were still sonatas allegro.

Although anarchy has a perverse way of creating its own rules . . . I once heard a composition professor tell a student it wasn't possible to be tonal and original

 

[famous beagle]

I certainly am not saying anything. However that would be the agreed upon convention. It's not that music is right or not, it just could arguably be better if arranged according to standards that have been developed with specific reasons. Why do you think that people from Beethoven all the way through modern composers go to theorists to check their work. Do you think they are checking if the piece is good or not? No. They are making sure they follow certain conventions that are designed to be taylored to the way people like to hear things happen. Parallels have been more and more accepted over time, but were not acceptable in professional music of past.

Oooh ... I'm going to have to strongly disagree here. To say that following conventions and standards will make the music arguably better is just way too much of a blanket statement.

Think about this. There was a time when it sounded new and fresh (and probably odd and maybe even "wrong") for a secondary dominant to not resolve in the standard way (up a 4th). But now, progressions like these (all of which have non-resolving, and therefore "wrong," secondary dominants):

I III IV

I II IV

IV V I VII


are commonplace. And because they're commonplace, theory has developed a term for them: non-resolving secondary dominants. But there was a time when progressions like these weren't used and were considered "wrong," just like there are progressions now that theorists might call "wrong."

People think of theory as something that's set in stone. Theory isn't stagnant. It's a REACTION to music; it's not the cause of it.

Consider the progression in the verse to Nirvana's "In Bloom."

||: Bb Gb | Eb B A :||

If you were to analyze this with Roman numerals, you'd have:

I bVI | IV bII VII

I imagine if you were to take this to a "theorist" (the thought is just funny to me), they'd say ... "umm ... no .. you can't do that." But it just turns out that this progression sounds cool as hell.

Granted, there are ways to try to analyze this progression with conventional theory, although it wouldn't make much sense. The Gb is a borrowed chord, no big deal there. But the B and A chords just don't make much sense at all, theory-wise. You do have a mediant relationship in the major 3rd movement between Bb and Gb that's mimicked in Eb to B, but that's stretching a bit. And it doesn't explain the A chord. The bottom line is that it sounds great.

 

[Codmate]

Here's my 2 cents on the subject:

I think it's very important to avoid referring to the "rules" of music. There aren't "rules." There are conventions and traditions.

Music theory is an attempt to analyze what composers write when they compose music. The music came first, and the analysis (the theory) came after the fact.

Even the "rules" of 4-part harmony, or inverted counterpoint, etc. all stemmed from the analysis of the music of composers.


The reason I bring this up is because when I hear people refer to the "rules" of music, I think they're missing the boat. The MUSIC is the important thing --- not the "rules" or theory! The music is the thing we hear, not the Roman numerals on paper.

Having said that, I certainly don't argue that learning theory is very helpful, and I wouldn't take back my musical education for anything. But a sentence like "you have to know the rules before you break them" is false, because there are no rules. There are only conventions.

Of course, there are facts. A triad contains a root, 3rd, and 5th, and things like that. But when it comes to things like parallel 5ths and certain resolutions, those aren't rules. They're conventions based on what previous composers have done.

Music theory is (and should be) a changing and growing discipline to account for the conventions that gain popularity in recent works.

For example, I'd argue that, in pop music, it's now almost as common to follow a major II chord with IV instead of the "proper" V chord.

Anyway, music theory is great, but it's not rules!

I don't agree with this at all.

The rules of music are built into human nature and have merely been discovered by musicians.

Is the rule that you double the frequency of a note for every octave something that was invented by musicians? No - of course not.

Is it a coincidence that all the different developing musics around the world through history have discovered many of the same rules?

No. The rules are there to begin with - we just find them, as physicists find other rules of nature. A major chord is always 'happier' than a minor chord - no matter who you speak to. It's a natural rule rather than a cultural one.

I think often it is the word 'rule' that is problematic here.
These 'rules' of music should be viewed as rules of nature, like gravity or natural selection - not rules to be followed, like not writing on the board in school.

I notice you prefer the word 'facts' - you describe a the rule of the triad using this word. You are simply substituting one word for another here though, due to a mis-interpretation of the word 'rule' in this context. Semantically I could replace the word 'fact' with the word 'rule' in your sentence with no problem at all.

There are no "rules to be followed" in music - you can do what you like. The natural rules of music tell you what the music you are creating might sound like (if, like many earlier composers, you write it down before you ever hear it) and what effect it may have on the listener. They also give you options to consider composing.

It's more (although certainly not exactly) like using the rules of physics to build a beautiful machine that does what it was designed to do, rather than slavishly following rules that must be obeyed no matter what. I don't think any composer in history has ever done that, or ever will.

Of course there are many cultural quirks on top - but these also follow the natural rules of music. By definition of the rules of music they have to! I may chose to spin an apple sideways as it falls - but it is still following the rules of physics.

And finally - the word rule at the free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=rule

You are interpreting the word rule in context 2a:
"An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest."

Clearly, when discussing music we should use the word rule in a different context - further down the page you will find it in the Thesaurus section as:
"rule - a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system; "the principle of the conservation of mass"; "the principle of jet propulsion"; "the right-hand rule for inductive fields""

 

[amethyst_fan]

Beethoven was arguably the #1 rulebreaker at a time when there really were rules to be followed. I recall Haydn kicked him out as a composition student, but I might be slightly making that up . . . but certainly the substitution of the scherzo for minuet, the extra movement in the Sixth, and of course the reversal of the second and third movement of the Ninth, not to mention the chorus and the modulation in the fourth movement . . . the argument can be made that Beethoven began the path to the postmodern world of music theory, even if his first movements were still sonatas allegro.

Although anarchy has a perverse way of creating its own rules . . . I once heard a composition professor tell a student it wasn't possible to be tonal and original

This is exactly the same point I was making actually...Beethoven had studied theory for decades before making any of the works you are mentioning, therefor he had the knowledge to break the rules. And I don't think he did it just because "it sounded good". Likely, he did it for the specific reason of breaking the rules. Haha, he actually made that claim many times in his life, that he would make his own rules...but one could only do that by knowing the rules that already existed, otherwise you'd just be doing the same thing other people have already done without even knowing it.

And as far as the professor, that is actually quite common. Honestly, if any of you have worked with an orchestra or a symphony's conductor or director, you will find most, if not all, can no longer appreciate tonal music. There isn't anything original to be done with tonal music. It's hard to accept, and most here won't accept it, but people in high places in the classical world just don't care for tonal music. They still support it, because that is where the money is at (no big audiences for atonal or danger music), but they always gripe about having to play mozart's clarinet concerto in A for the hundreth time.

Now that certainly isn't my disposition, I can't stand to compose atonal stuff more than every once in a while. But any professor I've worked with, is always like "oh, hmm, this is in the key of a minor...must be tonal, uhh that looks OK as long as V to I is in there somewhere." "Now let's look at that octatonic piece of yours...." hehe

 

[ez_willis]

There isn't anything original to be done with tonal music.

Do you have any music that you can post? I'm dying to hear it.

 

[wbcsound]

Here's my 2 cents on the subject:

I think it's very important to avoid referring to the "rules" of music. There aren't "rules." There are conventions and traditions.

Music theory is an attempt to analyze what composers write when they compose music. The music came first, and the analysis (the theory) came after the fact.

Even the "rules" of 4-part harmony, or inverted counterpoint, etc. all stemmed from the analysis of the music of composers...

...Music theory is (and should be) a changing and growing discipline to account for the conventions that gain popularity in recent works.

For example, I'd argue that, in pop music, it's now almost as common to follow a major II chord with IV instead of the "proper" V chord.

Anyway, music theory is great, but it's not rules!

This is the best quote of the thread. Music theory is an analysis and applied language to to discuss and visualize music via spoken/written word. When learned, you can more easily understand why something sounds a certain way. In combination with a well trained ear, you should be able to hear any chord/progression/scale and verbalize what you heard, you could then later tell someone else who is trained what you heard and they could play it back for you. That is what theory is good for. Communication, not a rule set which must be applied for composition (unless you're aiming for a certain stylistic period and then the conventions of that time should be followed).

Concerning learning all the scales/modes. From an ear training perspective, I believe it's important to learn the sound of all the modes and the harmony behind each scale pattern. However, from a practical application perspective learning all the modes does little to improve your soloing ability (other than perhaps build agility) and a whole lot to ingrain patterns into your head, which you will then have to unlearn. I found it much more useful to learn chords and transpose them though all inversions and keys up and down the neck. This builds a visual of the chord structure which I think results in much more melodic soloing versus scale patterns. I think this also helps when soloing over songs which have plenty of accidentals in which the harmony shifts tempoarily out of the song's route key, patterns get you into real trouble in those situations.

However regarding patterns, may fav is the "super box" which is kinda a pentatonic/dorian mix with a few passing tones (when playing all the passing tones you approach chromaticism so note choice is very important):

String |---6--|-----5-----|----4----|-----3-----|---2---|--1--|
Scale value 1,2,b3,(3),4,(#4),5,6,b7,(7),8,b3,3,4,(#4),5,6,b7,7,8,2,b3

 

[famous beagle]

I don't agree with this at all.

The rules of music are built into human nature and have merely been discovered by musicians.

Is the rule that you double the frequency of a note for every octave something that was invented by musicians? No - of course not.

Is it a coincidence that all the different developing musics around the world through history have discovered many of the same rules?

No. The rules are there to begin with - we just find them, as physicists find other rules of nature. A major chord is always 'happier' than a minor chord - no matter who you speak to. It's a natural rule rather than a cultural one.

I think often it is the word 'rule' that is problematic here.
These 'rules' of music should be viewed as rules of nature, like gravity or natural selection - not rules to be followed, like not writing on the board in school.

I notice you prefer the word 'facts' - you describe a the rule of the triad using this word. You are simply substituting one word for another here though, due to a mis-interpretation of the word 'rule' in this context. Semantically I could replace the word 'fact' with the word 'rule' in your sentence with no problem at all.

There are no "rules to be followed" in music - you can do what you like. The natural rules of music tell you what the music you are creating might sound like (if, like many earlier composers, you write it down before you ever hear it) and what effect it may have on the listener. They also give you options to consider composing.

It's more (although certainly not exactly) like using the rules of physics to build a beautiful machine that does what it was designed to do, rather than slavishly following rules that must be obeyed no matter what. I don't think any composer in history has ever done that, or ever will.

Of course there are many cultural quirks on top - but these also follow the natural rules of music. By definition of the rules of music they have to! I may chose to spin an apple sideways as it falls - but it is still following the rules of physics.

And finally - the word rule at the free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=rule

You are interpreting the word rule in context 2a:
"An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest."

Clearly, when discussing music we should use the word rule in a different context - further down the page you will find it in the Thesaurus section as:
"rule - a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system; "the principle of the conservation of mass"; "the principle of jet propulsion"; "the right-hand rule for inductive fields""

So, using your last definition of the word "rule," what "rule" applies to music?

I didn't say there weren't scientific facts, such as the overtone series, etc., at work in music. I think you missed my point, or I didn't clearly convey it.

Besides, the twelve-tone system of music is hardly scientifically sound--far from it. We're actually dividing up the octave in a very non-tunable way, and this is why if you tune every pair of open strings on the guitar to a beautiful in-tune 4th (or 3rd in case of the G and B), the guitar as a whole will sound terrible.

And I don't agree that a major chord will always sound "happier" than a minor chord to anyone. I do agree that most people will feel this way. But to a culture whose music is based on semitones, I don't imagine the Western system of major and minor tonalities would have much of an impact.

Regardless, this is all beside the point. As much as music is a science, it is also an art. And this is my whole point. Just because the overtone series suggests a down-a-5th movement, that doesn't mean we have to follow it. There's lots of wiggle room between standard, by-the-book progressions that follow the "rules" of music and complete atonality. And this is what I'm talking about.

Physics tell us that a bumble bee can't fly, but it does anyway. In fact, the more we learn about physics, the more we learn that it too is a growing, changing discipline.

 

[wbcsound]

There isn't anything original to be done with tonal music. It's hard to accept, and most here won't accept it, but people in high places in the classical world just don't care for tonal music. They still support it, because that is where the money is at (no big audiences for atonal or danger music), but they always gripe about having to play mozart's clarinet concerto in A for the hundreth time.

The question is not whether anything is abosultely unique, but whether it is unique to the person experiencing it. Additionally, uniqueness can be derived. I grew up listening to a lot of orchestral music due to my father and I think a clarinet sounds like a clarinet. No matter how atonal a piece is written you are largely bound by the physical design of the instrument. However mozart's clarinet concerto played on a therimin or a Chinese erhu or even a clarinet sent though a fuzz pedal into a Marshall amp might be a very unique experience. Uniques is conditional to perspective.

You could apply the same narrow thought process to novels, movies, art, etc...

 

[amethyst_fan]

Do you have any music that you can post? I'm dying to hear it.

Of course I have music, but I am not the one trying to break new ground. I am firmly grounded in composing tonal music...that wasn't the point of my post. The point is, come up with something post it and see if folks here are not able to figure out what you did in 10 minutes. If you can do that I'll be impressed. It was like that at some point in time by the way...it's not anymore. We have explored every chromatic note on the keyboard and came up with a way to use each and have it make musical sense, there's not much left to explore in that regards...as I said this is not my sentiments, it's just the way it is.

 

[famous beagle]

Of course I have music, but I am not the one trying to break new ground. I am firmly grounded in composing tonal music...that wasn't the point of my post. The point is, come up with something post it and see if folks here are not able to figure out what you did in 10 minutes. If you can do that I'll be impressed. It was like that at some point in time by the way...it's not anymore. We have explored every chromatic note on the keyboard and came up with a way to use each and have it make musical sense, there's not much left to explore in that regards...as I said this is not my sentiments, it's just the way it is.

What do you mean by "see if folks aren't able to figure out what you did in 10 minutes" ? Do you just mean transcribe the music? There was a time when people weren't able to transcribe music?


Of course there are still original things you can do with tonal music. There are literally endless combinations of notes and rhythms at our disposal.

It's almost like saying that people should stop writing novels in standard English because there's no more that can be said. We should start writing in gobbly goop language because stanard English is all used up. That's silly.

 

[mshilarious]

This is exactly the same point I was making

I am not really in the debate of whether or not there are "rules", etc. Generally I think knowledge is good.

However, postmodern classical music, even though some of it is quite good, has became a caricature. If tonal music cannot be original, then neither can atonal music, because in assiduously avoiding tonality, one has restricted a composition to the point where it's really just a mirror of the sort of rules that give rise to tonality in the first place. It was fun in the '30s, but that is as distantly related to today as Berlioz was to Berg.

I have no sympathy for orchestras that are afraid to play modern music. Soon all their patrons will be dead anyway. It's a matter of time, might as well take the bitter pill of cancelled subscriptions now and do something useful before their lives are over too.

But don't make the mistake of that professor and confuse good music with originality. That isn't quite the same thing as creativity, because there are lots of ideas that aren't worth committing to paper . . .

For example, I can't fathom your professor's response. Either your music is good or it isn't, it doesn't matter how many tones you select, the novelty or lack thereof will wear off quickly.

To quote Moe Szyslak, "William Faulkner can write an exhaust pipe gag that would really make you think."

 

[amethyst_fan]

The question is not whether anything is abosultely unique, but whether it is unique to the person experiencing it. Additionally, uniqueness can be derived. I grew up listening to a lot of orchestral music due to my father and I think a clarinet sounds like a clarinet. No matter how atonal a piece is written you are largely bound by the physical design of the instrument. However mozart's clarinet concerto played on a therimin or a Chinese erhu or even a clarinet sent though a fuzz pedal into a Marshall amp might be a very unique experience. Uniques is conditional to perspective.

You could apply the same narrow thought process to novels, movies, art, etc...

Well of course you are correct. I am not suggesting anyone should stop listening to Mozart or something, music has to be recreated and re-experienced and should be. I think it is wise to at some point realize the humor of it though. I used to be someone who wouldn't think that is possible with so many new cool bands coming up with music that I like. Umm, but it just is kind of the way it is.

I think the post about music being like a rule of nature sums it up best, I mean you can play a single chord through a whole song and have it resolve III to I if you want, but no one would like it. The so called "rules" are just more like a basic way that music works, and when you stray from that it either doesn't sound as good as it could have, or you are doing something unique. Usually it's the first one though, hehe

 

[Codmate]

So, using your last definition of the word "rule," what "rule" applies to music?

Umm - I don't know if you've understood.
The rules of music apply to music. Find them in any good theory book. They're also constantly being added to as we discover more!

I didn't say there weren't scientific facts, such as the overtone series, etc., at work in music. I think you missed my point, or I didn't clearly convey it.

These 'scientific facts' constitute some of the rules of music.

Besides, the twelve-tone system of music is hardly scientifically sound--far from it. We're actually dividing up the octave in a very non-tunable way, and this is why if you tune every pair of open strings on the guitar to a beautiful in-tune 4th (or 3rd in case of the G and B), the guitar as a whole will sound terrible.

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!

A better example for what you're trying to say is just intonation - but even that can be turned around as a rule. The rule would be 'Just intonation sounds horrible'

And I don't agree that a major chord will always sound "happier" than a minor chord to anyone.

Find somebody who thinks differently and I'll concede the point. Until then it stands. I don't have a source - but I believe this rule has been shown to be anthropologically correct.

I do agree that most people will feel this way. But to a culture whose music is based on semitones, I don't imagine the Western system of major and minor tonalities would have much of an impact.

You don't imagine? Find a source - it sounds as though you're flying blind with this argument.

Regardless, this is all beside the point. As much as music is a science, it is also an art. And this is my whole point. Just because the overtone series suggests a down-a-5th movement, that doesn't mean we have to follow it.

This just shows that you've completely misunderstood my point. All the way through my post I said "There are no 'rules to be followed' in music.". All I'm saying is that there are natural rules of music that are common to all musics.

Just as various different physical laws make up the theory of gravity, different rules make up the theory of music. They are there and undeniable.

The same rules and phenomena appeared totally independently throughout the history of many musics.
How do explain that, if music is as culturally driven as you suggest? Explain the development of identical modes, the development of the 'drone', the pentatonic scale and then some of the rules of harmony - all independently of each other all over the globe, and I may start to take the argument seriously.

There's lots of wiggle room between standard, by-the-book progressions that follow the "rules" of music and complete atonality. And this is what I'm talking about.

Physics tell us that a bumble bee can't fly, but it does anyway. In fact, the more we learn about physics, the more we learn that it too is a growing, changing discipline.

Sure - I don't deny that musical theory is constantly being updated and added to. All that bothers me is your semantic problem with the word 'rule'.

It simply doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.

It is not the same as the rules your parents gave you or the rules in school. I really don't see how much more simply I can put it.

It's a rule of nature. It's a "If you do this - then it will have this effect" rule, as opposed to a "If you do this, then the consequences will be horrific" rule.

 

[RAK]

IV V I VII

Start that on the Tonic and you've got every doo-wop song ever written.

Theory isn't stagnant. It's a REACTION to music; it's not the cause of it.

Historically speaking, absolutely. People came along and analyzed Bach and came up with "rules" (or whatever you want to call it), as a way to interpret what had been written before the "rules" existed. This is where much of theory came from.
And as music evolved, so did theory. Take something like Serialism for example, this is a type of music with very specific compositional guidelines.

I think we all agree that you can do whatever you want to write music that speaks to you, but understanding what was done before, and why, and what makes it work, is very improtant. Like it or not, all music is just math, and has a structure. Sometimes analyzing it too much can take the soul and fun out of the music, but you can analyze anything you want to, whether it's Western music, Eastern music, pop, classical, blues, whatever, it will help you understand where the music came from, why certain compositional decisions where made, and help you to make decisions in your own music.

[/QUOTE]

 

[RAK]

Is it a coincidence that all the different developing musics around the world through history have discovered many of the same rules?

No. The rules are there to begin with - we just find them, as physicists find other rules of nature. A major chord is always 'happier' than a minor chord - no matter who you speak to. It's a natural rule rather than a cultural one.

I have to say I disagree. I think context is everything. First of all not all cultures even have major and minor chord structures like the Western music tradition has. Even within western music, things change a little when you start comparing different tuning schemes (Just Intonation, Mean Tone Tempterment, Equal Temperment, Well Temperment). Also many Eastern musics don't deal with a twelve tone scale. They have microtones that expand the tonal experience, I guess you could say.

In my opinion, feeling that a major chord is happier than a minor chord is absolutely a product of environment, society, and history.

 

[RAK]

And as far as the professor, that is actually quite common. Honestly, if any of you have worked with an orchestra or a symphony's conductor or director, you will find most, if not all, can no longer appreciate tonal music. There isn't anything original to be done with tonal music. It's hard to accept, and most here won't accept it, but people in high places in the classical world just don't care for tonal music. They still support it, because that is where the money is at (no big audiences for atonal or danger music), but they always gripe about having to play mozart's clarinet concerto in A for the hundreth time.

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.

 

[amethyst_fan]

In my opinion, feeling that a major chord is happier than a minor chord is absolutely a product of environment, society, and history.

This is a much debated subject, and almost impossible to prove either way. There are claims of people that grew up with no music due to extreme enviroments, and no access to technology that upon being exposed to music reacted same as anyone else, and then there are claims that this is bogus

So that is one that cannot be argued through I'm afraid...

 

[RAK]

So that is one that cannot be argued through I'm afraid...

Absolutely.

 

[Codmate]

I have to say I disagree. I think context is everything. First of all not all cultures even have major and minor chord structures like the Western music tradition has. Even within western music, things change a little when you start comparing different tuning schemes (Just Intonation, Mean Tone Tempterment, Equal Temperment, Well Temperment). Also many Eastern musics don't deal with a twelve tone scale. They have microtones that expand the tonal experience, I guess you could say.

In my opinion, feeling that a major chord is happier than a minor chord is absolutely a product of environment, society, and history.

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