TelePaul
J to the R O C
Codmate said:You are a poet
Haha!
Fuck I never thought of it like that!! Sweet!
Fuck I never thought of it like that!! Sweet!
Codmate
New member
famous beagle said:
Luckily I seem to have escaped these rules all my life.
Maybe it's because I have always pursued my own study of music and only came across rules that were general and not specific to one style or period.
The don't sound like "rules of music" - they sound like rules of different musics.
I was never talking about one specific music myself - and I didn't think you were either really?
I guess I'll let you off though... This time...
Now to find the next victim of super-pedantry man!
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
Codmate said:
What exactly is bizarre? I take you're being sarcastic and that you are a respected heavyweight in the music world. Since I don't know who you are, I have no reason not to believe you. But you also don't know who am, so don't discount my experiences, I do not discount yours. I would be very interested to hear about your background.
So your talking about just directly comparing a major third interval to a minor third. Fair enough. I'm still not sure I would agree that one "feels quieter" than the other (assuming they're being played at the same volume of course)
Of course since low frequencies will appear quieter at equal levels to high frequencies, maybe this is part of it.
I don't really think a half step is enough to make a difference there, but I guess I'd have to get out my fletcher-munson graph and check.No, honestly I don't. But since language is such a subjective thing, maybe we have slightly different definitions for "weaker" That very well could be, and is one the reasons language is such a difficult communicator, especially when it comes to music.
A
amethyst_fan
New member
RAK said:
Well, I wouldn't say I "know" Barenboim, but yeah i've played viola with the CSO before and he was conducting. He never said anything to me personally other than addressing the whole orchestra. Anywho, I guess it is quite well documented that Barenboim has had much disagreement and dislike from CSO members and the audience about his disdain for tonal music. There is even a wiki page about it, hehe. He has already surrendered his duties, and probably won't be brought back to the CSO other than as a guest conductor. But his case is kind of extreme, he is very anti-tonal music. Most conductors just lost interest in tonal music long ago. They know it is a job requirement of course, because as you said, most musicians and audiences are interested in tonal music, as I am.
It's just the real musicians that aren't
(that was sarcasm by the way)
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Okay I know i'm picking a bad time to start writing in this rather 'involved' thread, but songwriting rules? Sometimes they apply, sometimes they don't. look at Bach; now look at Nirvana. Use anything you can to create something you find aurally pleasing.
famous beagle
Well-known member
Codmate said:Luckily I seem to have escaped these rules all my life.
Maybe it's because I have always pursued my own study of music and only came across rules that were general and not specific to one style or period.
The don't sound like "rules of music" - they sound like rules of different musics.
I was never talking about one specific music myself - and I didn't think you were either really?
I guess I'll let you off though... This time...
Now to find the next victim of super-pedantry man!
Right, I wasn't talking about one specific style, although musical theory is normally taught in conjunction with classical music (or at least in school anyway). While many of the same conventions apply to pop music as well, there hasn't really been a pop-music school of theory (that I know of), so we tend to attach the same theory "rules" to both musics.
At any rate, I think we're on the same page now. Good luck with your next victim.
A
amethyst_fan
New member
famous beagle said:
Hey, I see what you're saying, and you are right. I think we're just saying the same thing in a different way. I mean obviously rules aren't there to restrict you or something. But if you aren't doing anything new or original, then you'll probably be wise to follow some conventions, to get the end result you desire. I mean between Mozart's 9th symphony and 10th, you probably won't find anything out of the norm, it's just a different arrangement of the same tonal language. Sometimes composers purposely break a "rule" for a desired effect, and maybe sometimes they do just because they think it sounds good. But I think that would be the rarity, and not the other way around.
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
amethyst_fan said:Well, I wouldn't say I "know" Barenboim, but yeah i've played viola with the CSO before and he was conducting. He never said anything to me personally other than addressing the whole orchestra. Anywho, I guess it is quite well documented that Barenboim has had much disagreement and dislike from CSO members and the audience about his disdain for tonal music. There is even a wiki page about it, hehe. He has already surrendered his duties, and probably won't be brought back to the CSO other than as a guest conductor. But his case is kind of extreme, he is very anti-tonal music. Most conductors just lost interest in tonal music long ago. They know it is a job requirement of course, because as you said, most musicians and audiences are interested in tonal music, as I am.
It's just the real musicians that aren't
Barenboim left primarly because all he wanted to concentrate on was conducting music, and not all the other things that go with being the artistic director of a major metropolitan orchestra. The CSO as an organization, and the City of Chicago wanted him to be more of an "ambassador" I guess you could say, and get involved with the community, which he didn't want to do.
For the most part, when you got a concert, you can tell in the music if the conductors and performers are really into it. I've heard symphony performances that were flat, and some there were amazing, both Tonal and Atonal.
If you want to say that in a poll with 10 conductors, 9 of them would sya they'd rather conduct atonal music over tonal, I guess I don't have anyway to refute that, but my guess is it's probably more like 50/50, and that even those would rather conduct atonal music, still have a great appreciation for tonal music.
X
XLR
______
The thread has turned into a series of tangential discourse-like arguments having nothing to do with the OP's current situation.
Danny, given that you're at a stage where you're learning the major and minor scale (and pentatonic major and minor) you'd be doing yourself a favor to focus on ear training (integrated w/gtr technique) at that fundamental level rather than more complex levels of theory.
Practical suggestion for the place you're at.... try this:
Play a major scale on the guitar up and down in a one octave range while you sing the scale step numbers: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Pick a scale where you can sing it easily and don't worry about letter names yet. Use a capo if it's helpful.
Next, using the same scale, play and sing these intervals:1-2-1, 1-3-1, 1-4-1, 1-5-1, 1-6-1, 1-7-1, 1-8-1. If some of the intervals feel impossible to sing, just do the ones that make sense and save the others for later. Many people have difficulty hearing/singing the 1-4-1, 1-6-1, and 1-7-1 intervals at first.
Then do the same things with the minor scale.
All that will give you a good start in developing a sense of tonality - hearing how the notes of a scale make sense in relation to each other. It's a deep subject but this is a solid first step.
A good next step would be to play and sing the arpeggios for basic harmonies:
1-3-5-3-1, 4-6-8-6-4, etc.
Another next step would be to do all the above exercises in C major and A minor, saying the letter names. Another further step, once the sounds are in the ear, would be to learn the terminology for intervals... perfect, major, minor, etc, and the scale degree names (tonic, supertonic, mediant etc)... and the Roman numeral terminology for harmonies. But get the sound in the ear for each thing before learning its symbols and terms.
If all of that's easy for you already then just move it up a small notch in complexity.
Danny, given that you're at a stage where you're learning the major and minor scale (and pentatonic major and minor) you'd be doing yourself a favor to focus on ear training (integrated w/gtr technique) at that fundamental level rather than more complex levels of theory.
Practical suggestion for the place you're at.... try this:
Play a major scale on the guitar up and down in a one octave range while you sing the scale step numbers: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Pick a scale where you can sing it easily and don't worry about letter names yet. Use a capo if it's helpful.
Next, using the same scale, play and sing these intervals:1-2-1, 1-3-1, 1-4-1, 1-5-1, 1-6-1, 1-7-1, 1-8-1. If some of the intervals feel impossible to sing, just do the ones that make sense and save the others for later. Many people have difficulty hearing/singing the 1-4-1, 1-6-1, and 1-7-1 intervals at first.
Then do the same things with the minor scale.
All that will give you a good start in developing a sense of tonality - hearing how the notes of a scale make sense in relation to each other. It's a deep subject but this is a solid first step.
A good next step would be to play and sing the arpeggios for basic harmonies:
1-3-5-3-1, 4-6-8-6-4, etc.
Another next step would be to do all the above exercises in C major and A minor, saying the letter names. Another further step, once the sounds are in the ear, would be to learn the terminology for intervals... perfect, major, minor, etc, and the scale degree names (tonic, supertonic, mediant etc)... and the Roman numeral terminology for harmonies. But get the sound in the ear for each thing before learning its symbols and terms.
If all of that's easy for you already then just move it up a small notch in complexity.
A
amethyst_fan
New member
RAK said:
Well, I hear what you're saying, I can just say that simply isn't my experience. I would guess it would be more like 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 10.
And the fact that Codmate who is from the UK feels the same way just kind of firms up my experience, since it sounds like it might be similar in a complete different country.
Well, it just kind of logically makes sense. I mean, most people (like 90%) do not like atonal music when they start working with it. But after being forced (and I mean FORCED) to work with it in school for 5-10 years, it kind of grows on you, and once you enjoy atonal music it is kind of hard to go back to tonal music (at least that's what everyone that likes atonal music so much tells me.)
Out of all of the Universities I have visited, all of the music departments are similar in that, if you want to pursue a composition degree, you have to compose mostly atonal music. It's just how it is, I don't know that there is anything wrong with that (I say that now, since I've already been through the ringer, but I didn't like it at the time.) And they even prep you by telling you that, you should already have learned/mastered tonal music before you came to learn composition.
I think it's just the nature of the business. But most people will continue to like tonal music as far as I can see, so tonal music is here to stay.
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
Timothy Lawler said:
Haha. Fair enough.
Codmate
New member
Ha - no I was just poking a little fun at you and famous beagle's very slight arrogance (I've been studying music for blah blah years" and "I've been writing books on music la dee la dee la"). No harm intendedRAK said:
I have zero musical qualifications and nobody knows who the hell I am in the musical world! I'm not being sarcastic (although I can be - so you're forgiven!)...
RAK said:So your talking about just directly comparing a major third interval to a minor third. Fair enough. I'm still not sure I would agree that one "feels quieter" than the other (assuming they're being played at the same volume of course)
Of course since low frequencies will appear quieter at equal levels to high frequencies, maybe this is part of it.
I prefer the harmonic series explanation. But hell - whatever gets you off. Somebody once gave me a completely different really killer explanation for the difference that I totally fail to remember...
RAK said:
Well - I suppose. But it's unquestionable that you hear a difference and that that difference is mathematically quantifiable. It's like colours I suppose. You can never be entirely sure that you're seeing what I am when I say I see blue - but we know that our eyes work in the same way and so do the visual bits of the brain, so it's a pretty safe assumption.
It's easier to test music though - 'cos you can make somebody cry with a sad bit
Now that different musics have proliferated around the globe - often being quickly accepted by other cultures - I think the idea that cultural quirks affect your understanding of music on such a *fundamental* (did you see that - haha) level as major and minor intervals, is looking rather old-fashioned and plainly wrong.
In short, the harmonic series argument is one I find totally convincing. It's a weaker interval - just because "it is"!
I like Nusrat Fateh Ali Kahn and Party. I think I understand their music as well as somebody who grew up in their culture. I believe I also have much the same reaction to the music on a very basic level (although, having grown up in the associated culture is going to change their perception on other levels).
None of this explains why my Gran says "Turn off that horrible noise" when I put Slayer on, or the massive success of Oasis when I loathe them totally
So yeah - ultimately context *is* king.
But... "if you're really interested in music - check out the theory, it's very interesting and sometimes really helpful" has got to be the consensus?
Reading Mr Beagle again - I think there is a perspective thing here too. I don't think some of the more stylistically specific rules he mentioned should really be taught as 'rules of music'. They should be taught as "rules of [insert type of music]".
I don't really have much to do with them to be honest.
I know little 'jazz tricks' and a bit about classical cadences etc., but when you consider that Bach broke all his own 'rules', who really cares... Lets throw them away and just stick with my rules eh?
Oh, and lets call them "Codmate's rules of music", so that I can become immortal. Hooray
A
amethyst_fan
New member
Timothy Lawler said:
Who is Danny??
Codmate
New member
Oh come on - look at the history here.Timothy Lawler said:
Do a search on 'music theory' (or even better 'modes') - if you can find a post with one page only and no tangental arguments I'll send you a fun-size Mars Bar (not really - but I will be surprised).
This was a good one though!
I'm done now I think.
Bach, etc etc etc...
Ok - now I am. Really. I think I have RSI :s
famous beagle
Well-known member
Timothy Lawler said:
Right on, here. The key to this is the singing. There's no better way to connect your ear to your brain. My musicianship improved by leaps and bounds when I started singing.
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
amethyst_fan said:
But you don't start there. I was no composition major, but I certianly studied the gamut from early greek music all way to moder whatnot. I was in the percussion department, but as a Sound Recording Technology major, I studied a lot of electronic music composition. Music Concrete, Electronik Musik, Fractal Music, that kind of thing. It's very cool interesting stuff, but obviously not as popular as John Williams (the composer, not the guitarist) getting up on stage and conducting Yoda's theme (which was a very cool concert to go see by the way). Anyway, like with any discipline, the more you study it, the better you understand it.
Try taking a stab at Schoenberg and Babbit if you've never studied Bach and Beethoven, it's probably not as easy.
Wait a sec, you're saying that the schools say you should already have learned/mastered tonal music before studying composition. How can you learn/master tonal music without studying composition? Are you talking about at the Ph.D level or something? If you want to go get your bachelor's in composition, you're going to get your basic education. There very well be submission requirements to have an atonal piece, but I bet you have to show your stuff with traditional tonal music as well.
Last edited:
Codmate
New member
Utterly - I know know where you were coming from and agree.famous beagle said:Right, I wasn't talking about one specific style, although musical theory is normally taught in conjunction with classical music (or at least in school anyway). While many of the same conventions apply to pop music as well, there hasn't really been a pop-music school of theory (that I know of), so we tend to attach the same theory "rules" to both musics.
At any rate, I think we're on the same page now. Good luck with your next victim.
Whereas you may have studies music formally, I studied language, so forgive me if I'm like a dog with a bone over really trivial things...
It was useful - to me anyway
A
amethyst_fan
New member
RAK said:
Actually the way most programs work is that you cannot enroll as a composition major for a bachelors degree until you have already taken 3 years of music study as a music major. Then you can change your major to a composition major if you are accepted from your audition, where you must show your compositions. There are many thorough classes that are taken during that first three years, and tonal music is usually covered in about a year or year and a half. After changing to a composition major, you can graduate with a bachelors in composition, which basically equates to diddly squat. You MUST pursue a masters at least to have a career as a composer, through traditional circles that is. Many conductors get a Ph.D in composition or conducting as well.
Depending on the school, you might not even be accepted to study in the first place if you don't already know all your theory stuff...that is why people take private lessons for many years before enrolling to some schools, Julliard is a good example.
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
Codmate said:Ha - no I was just poking a little fun at you and famous beagle's very slight arrogance (I've been studying music for blah blah years" and "I've been writing books on music la dee la dee la"). No harm intended
I have zero musical qualifications and nobody knows who the hell I am in the musical world! I'm not being sarcastic (although I can be - so you're forgiven!)...
I was not trying to be arrogant, just showing that I have spent a lot of time in formal music training, so I'm not just making it up. Not to say I'm better than anyone, but to say that I'm not completely baseless either.
But not all harmonic series are created equal.
Do-Re-Me-Fa-So-La-Ti-Do DOES NOT EQUAL Sa-Re-Ga-Ma-Pa-Dha-Ne-Sa
I don't follow you here.
R
RAK
Manufacturer - Shure, Inc
amethyst_fan said:
Absolutely, that's what I'm saying. No matter what type of music degree you want to pursue, you have to have a solid background in your discipline, if for no other reason than to pass your entrance audition. At DePaul for example, everyone is just a general music student for the first two years, and then you choose your major for your junior year. My point was just that when you enter music school as a freshman, no matter what your intended major, you start at the beginning of music theory/history (unless you have the opportunity to pass out of those courses).
