To musicians using modes:

In my opinion, modal music used in the 20th century does not have a strong theoretical basis. That is why when we use modes, the music falls into an aura of ambiguity.

The modes used by earlier musicians (who created the modes) is quite different from the usage pattern that occurred in the 20th century. In the 20th century, many musicians were looking for new ways to make music, and because of this, they made undefendable innovations in the use of musical materials, including modes, which were not theoretically and musically strong.

 

Note that Bb lydian "belongs" to the harmonic field of F major, which has Dm as relative. D harmonic minor can be thought of as a means of covering this close relationship between ASus, A7 and Bb.

 

Fully Operational once has said: The only solution is creating modern styles employing the theory:



And I quote you: If you know any of them, I'd be pleased to hear one ('cos avant-garde and/or postmodernism sound almost like musical diarrhea to any common listener!)

Don't get Nought again... I mean caught again!

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2021

In case you replied me: thanks for the feedback. Good! That went exactly as intended then. Prior to that I've been accused of being "too techie"...

 

You beat me to it. Foster enters the chat...

Wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, just to avoid over simplifications. Cheers ;)

 

Last edited: Jan 30, 2021

Music wasn't even set in stone in Babylon!!

 

done!

 

Common listeners and producers (including @The Pirate 's thread's most voters) are not much interested to delve deeply and accurately discern differences.

 

Haha, I feel like some people are (kind of) attacking me.

For sure this isn't a totally grievance song, but 100% happy? Nah, more like inspirational and hope, but still far away to be called 100% happy imo. If you want a happy song, then you need Pharell. You guys are seeing what I did here?

But by the way, now the interesting thing right here is, this song is actually in 'minor', according to what I have seen on the internet. Music theory is confusing imo.

 

Last edited: Jan 30, 2021

I'm pretty sure you are joking, but if not then it would kind of fit that you feel like that, especially in relation to your general sad feelings as explained in the original post! haha
When you feel happy, does it make you feel sad?

 

Well, yeah, you can be happy and sad at the same time time, but sometimes I don't even know what I am feeling

 

I totally relate to this.
So my prior comment you quoted exemplifies the motto "Many a true word spoken in jest".

 

I don't want to divide the music into happy and sad, but a lot of the time, because the music is made without a purpose, it doesn't evoke any particular feeling in the listener too.

Music producers should be fully acquainted with music, but since most of them are not so familiar with it, they aren't able to control the listener's emotions at different times. The interesting point is that they don't want to know it.

 

Is this a Major? It sounds sad and depressed as f*ck to me.

 

D minor, A minor (i, v) * - also, detuned for additional "feel"

*corrected - look @Ad Heesive's take on this.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2021

These songs are not made based on theoretical principles. If you'd notice, they don't convey any special feeling too. You can easily call these songs senseless.

 

As RobertoCavally said - D minor, A minor Those chords are definite (and as Robert said, detuned from absolute pitch)

But the labels (i, v) and hence the key? That's worth discussing.

When Robert said (i, v) that labels the D minor as i (root) and the A minor as v - so that means the key is D minor.

For me that doesn't work. I just heard it as in key A minor.
IF that's true then the labelling would be D minor as iv and A minor as i (root)
so D minor, A minor (iv,i)

How to check which is correct? (and note the song is so sparse that in theory both could be correct)
The only difference between the keys is
A (natural) minor includes note B
D (natural) minor includes note Bb

So, try doodling over the song and see if you can make a B note work or make a Bb note work.
It MIGHT have been the case that because the song was so sparse and so ambiguous that either could work
but, for me, I thought the B worked ok and the Bb didn't. So that supported me hearing it as A minor.
(disclaimer - I only listened to the first minute; after that it was just too boring to check any further)

---

Other related comments about labelling (there's a lot of options here - so personal preferences are all that matter)
Because the song is very simple diatonic, I just heard that A minor feel as A Aeolian mode
Having decided it's A Aeolian, I would label the D Minor, A Minor as (ii vi) - why?
Because I just prefer to retain the labelling from this
I C Ionian
ii D Dorian
iii E Phrygian
IV F Lydian
V G Mixolydian
vi A Aeolian
vii Locrian

For other reasons, (too long would be an essay)
IF the song is clearly a simple diatonic mode, then I choose not to relabel the vi Aeolian as the i root of a minor key.
I just retain the modal labels as above (makes life MUCH simpler in so many contexts)

 

You really don't seem to have any grasp on objective versus subjective.
You seem to believe that the way you see it is the only way there is - just so blinkered.

A statement like "A song is made based on theoretical principles" discusses the method not the song.
It is a statement where we could, in principle, find some objective answers.
i.e., maybe a composer did or did not think about theory while writing it.
Just ask the composer and find the brute facts. (objective)
But songs don't contain theory (even if written by someone using theory as a method).
Any song, having been written (by any means - with or without using theory), can then be analysed using music theory. (personal choice about if it's worth bothering to analyse it)

Your statement "If you'd notice, they don't convey any special feeling too" is NOTHING other than a personal opinion.
The statement is actually total bollox unless and until you include "to me" or "to you" or "to someone".
Then it can be a valid. 'personal-only' opinion. (subjective)

Maybe for you a song invokes nothing, but for someone else it invokes pure ecstacy
Any one person's opinion is just that - one opinion amongst many.
It is a grotesque meglomaniac mistake to assume that because "it's not to your taste" then it's somehow deficient.

When I said in my previous post "it was too boring" notice how sloppy my casual use of language was.
If I meant "the song was boring" then that would be a huge error.
If I meant "I personally was bored by the song" then that is entirely valid.
'Boring' is NOT a property of a song, it is a property of your perception of a song.

You also said..."You can easily call these songs senseless"
You can say it and it's either just sloppy language or it's just plain dumb.
It becomes a sensible statement only if you say "these songs seem senseless TO YOU"

Given that this a recurring flawed theme in most of your posts - any chance you might just absorb what this reply means?
'Objective versus subjective' - why not try paying attention to which is which.

---
Update edit:
The importance of 'subjective'. (and more on topic about major, happy, etc)
It's not music that's sad - it's your perception that generates sadness (or not)
See this comment...
https://audiosex.pro/threads/major-scale-help-me-understand.56957/page-7#post-531267
This was when @Lenny Belardo II posted an inspired choice of "The Last Post" the classic trumpet piece, played at rememberances, which uses ONLY the three notes from a major triad and (to most people) does not sound happy.
Lenny described it as heart achingly forlorn, but soon after @Psychoacoustic said "It sounds rousing to me"
You cannot say anyone is wrong here. You can just notice that the music invokes responses, sometimes similar, sometimes different.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2021

Yes, I was lazy af and I just listened to first couple of bars and then skipped through the piece just to see that the chords were cycling and there was the quick&dirty answer to the @Roject's Q. I appreciate your effort to show other potential ambiguities (in fact, I'd expect something like this happening more often and I find it constructive).

I'm a simple guy. I prefer spending my time playing/making music than (over)analyzing it. But if/when I do it, my personal preference is: when talking about Williams, I will usually say something like "this is mainly Lydian..". When talking about Mozart's Symphony No. 41 in C major, I will say something like.. yp, "C major". Following what I think the composer/creator had in mind. So, when analyzing Aphex ..I am just.. "confused"

 

Nice reply - thanks.
I do so agree with your line... "I'd expect something like this happening more often and I find it constructive"

I also agree with the priority being 'just enjoy playing' rather than analysing and labelling.
But for me that ideal falls over when I see a complex piece that I have no chance of playing or understanding without some analysis first. And in many cases I need someone else to provide that analysis because it's just too difficult otherwise. (Debussy blows my head off)

Totally opposite with the Aphex song - couldn't be simpler! I wouldn't have bothered analysing it at all except for it being discussed in this thread. Just jamming over it without thinking at all would have been enough.

You said... "I appreciate your effort to show other potential ambiguities"
I think the subject of ambiguities is well worth exploring.
In jamming it straddles "what are the constraints that I must obey?" and "what are the freedoms that I can explore?"

For example, in that Aphex song, I didn't explore it enough to figure out why I heard it as A Aeolian minor. Maybe some other decorative bits of the song actually played B notes that removed the ambiguity between A minor and D minor.
But maybe not. And if it didn't play a B note anywhere, then maybe the ambiguity is still there.
Maybe, after my brain fixed onto A Aeolian it was just too awkward for me to change my perception and hear it in D Aeolian.
If I had bothered to go further I might have tried to coerce it into D Aeolian instead.
(Maybe Aphex could have done better if they tried that too - maybe deliberately modulating between A Aeolian and D Aeolian)

So, for me, that would have involved targetting the D minor chord as D Aeolian, and targetting the A minor chord as A Phrygian
- they're both in the same diatonic space - should be easy to make something work.
Then some melodic riffs that emphasised the Bb could have been worth exploring (especially over the A Phrygian).

Although I share the 'just play it' idea - instead of (over)analysing, I don't know how to describe or talk about ideas like those above without carefully using appropriate labels, like the modal labels.
I now prefer to abandon calling a chord A minor (too ambiguous).
If it's A minor then I want to know which A minor - is it A Aeolian, or A Dorian, or A Phrygian, (or at a push A Locrian).

When these modes and labels are familiar it can lead to occasional theory-driven explorations too.
For example, IF Aphex song is 'very' ambiguous - i.e., IF it has used no more than the basic A minor 3rd and D minor 3rd)
then while jamming over it, I might like to explore (and probably fail) to see whether the following could work....
Target the D minor chord as D Phrygian, and the A minor chord as A Locrian (dim)
That still keeps the whole thing in one safe diatonic space but now it's Bb (Ionian) / G (Aeolian).
So now it's D minor, A minor (iii, vii) and will surely be weird.
Even if the Bass player was playing a 5th on the A minor chord, it might still work as a slightly polytonal sound.

And the whole point of this would be to change the question from "does that work?" to "can I make it work?".

p.s.
I'm likely to have botched something above - please do tell me if you find errors.

Cheers