I know I'm responding to a troll, but really, how this fits into this topic?

Besides, you keep clamoring about "theory", but this means you need to define your fucking terms, otherwise it's just fluffy wank.

So: define a genuine chord progression with explanations. Then define an "ungenuine" progression. Or a scale, or a melody pattern. Compare and contrast, highlight the differences. Preferably use something from this thread.

Use notation, numbers, solfege, chord degrees, pitch classes, frequencies, ratios, abstract mathematics, or whatever quantifiable.

Quoth Wikipedia:

Otherwise, respectfully, f... buzz off.

 

you touch on some fundamental points.

line progression, either diatonic or chromatic, is a ubiquitous organizational principle. useful in turnaround or coda type segments, breaking or linking movement in fifths or other intervalic schemes. very strong sounding ascending or descending. often a real high point (or low-point) of a piece, maybe due to its primal nature. in analysis some seemingly fairly complex structure can be reduced to harmonization of an implicit or explicit line. very useful in mnemonic or heuristic sense. sometimes better than a dualistic, simultaneous melody vs relativistic chordal, interpretation.

 

Grounding the F made it act as all existing intervals (described above each chord), against the major triads at the top, which in turn were chromatically moved.
Shall it be somehow useful as ear-training / intervalic recognition?

May I appease your soul?



* Check the reworked version attached

I protest! Such statement is conspicuously injurious, your honor!..
In my defense I shall state that if one starts onwards from the bewitching Misty-Chord, so despicably aforementioned as merely "seventh chord of the sequence", it sounds perfectly harmonious...
I can prove it!
You Sir, oh you... you are now the one to blame. You've paved your miserable way straight to the jazz standards' gallows... Hang him high!

* Check the second audio file attached

This is one of the first tunes I've learned on the guitar at tender age. I still play it to this day and enjoy.

Absolutely... and that's what is strictly done to try to impress and boot applauses (if well succeeded) from academic fellows.

* Thanks for the shared content and punctuations.

 

There's a very palpable chance of that to be true.

Attempt... He and his legacy somewhat succeeded in doing so, didn't they?

Anyhow, if one endeavours into doing with the chords I've brought about, as per Ad Heesive: "...multi-part harmonies, etc, where if you try to slice it up into static chords..." - what would come out of that? Tonal music?

I wonder the reasons why...

I couldn't say otherwise.

 

In light of your re-worked "Locked onto F" evidence
AudioSex judiciary has considered commuting your jail sentence by 2 years.
However, having watched your Carinhoso video,
and given the threat of your fellow inmates going insane
listening to James Bond, pissed on tequila, playing line clichés on his ukelele all night long,
we prefer to just release you back into the wild - you are therefore FreeToGo.
Case dismissed.

 

Damn!..

My fellow inmates seemed to have enjoyed very much last time I've played it for them - before my last scapade, of course.

Belatedly in my defense, before being this time released to the wild, I wish to clarify and highlight that the video initially used is just a mere backing-track version (one should play over it), however containing the chords display regarding not only CESH, but cadential 5ths, sub Vs, chromatic mediants, etc.

Therefore, when on a solo guitar, it should sound more like I did above to my fellow inmates, or the following less passionate version, both in G, yet the tune is originally in F.

Thereby I will appeal the sentence.

 

to an extent, yes -- within their own mileu. they just expected it to more extensive. my point is that he was not just throwing all the notes in there just to be cool or display his musical prowess.

historically music has become more modulatory, especially with the advent of the tempered scale. i do not see this as going beyond a tonal center. i don't entirely understand your point.

i think that was the point of the earlier discussion. the establishment of a center, departure, and resolution, carries with it a deeper emotional weight. it can be ambiguous at points, it is more a more a matter of resolution over the arc of an entire piece.

[QUOTE="Freetobestolen, post: 574092, member: 65855"

I wonder the reasons why...
[/QUOTE]

are you being sarcastic? i will answer anyway: specifically because they tried to abandon tonality. they were breaking the rules. there were other factors to do with identity and theories at the time as well, i will leave it at that.

 

Sure, I'm superficially acquainted to the form/structure proposed by Schoenberg's atonalism.

Despite their efforts, detracting the listeners from grounding their senses and perceptions onto anything stable or familiar, turns out to be just the way it sounds: logically tense - thus far from an engaging experience or musically extensive for most, which (perhaps) defeats such purposes, in my low-self opinion of course.

Otoh, I won't further speculate but instead to propose you to play the two tracks together: Suite Op.25 (any movement) over One Note Samba.

Basically my point is, for instance, that one could do a similar thing with the 12 chromatic chords I've previously presented, imparting over them whatever stylistic compositional device (to split, invert, overlap, shuffle, displace, etc), yet such chords contain all the 12 tones, therefore no tonal center implied, however they are linked by a common tone which somehow justifies their unity.
Only the composer would know it priorly, so he can opt to emprehend in disclosuring that to the listener (tonal-"ish") or to make it sound more like a riddle to be decyphered (atonal by nature).

Agreed. Well put.

No I was not. You've just answered what was crossing my mind. Abrupt changes over long-lived common sense tends to go like that in any field.

 

some of these arguments are starting to edge into personal preference. it was not my intent to go in that direction. i am not an advocate of any particular system. it is none of my business what anyone else thinks of these issues on that level, or why. at least in this context.

the ear is educated over time. as an experiment you can imagine if this type of music was conceived to normatively express different aspects of the harmonic series. our ears have become accustomed to the 'out of tune' nature of the tempered scale; dissonance and a less solidly reinforcement of a tonal center is more accepted (musical expressionism?). unlike visual art, auditory art has never had a component that seeks to specifically express an objective state. the advent of photography freed visual artist from a more documentary role into more abstract interpretations or even pure abstraction. in this way the colour, medium, stroke, process, etc. become part of the subject. in post-primitive music the note, pacing, timbre, sonority, and other qualities have always been part of the subject. maybe a way of saying this is that it is contextually relative. i fear i am starting to stray to far from the topic. it is somewhat relevant at a primary level though.

as an example the progression of gorecki or penderecki's works. their latter work may or may not be better for the experimental nature of their earlier work, but they are most likely different because of it. there is a quality in the latter work that is unconventionally different even though they are far more conventional.

in a previous comment i pointed out some of the dynamics of the line progressions as a organizational principle. i think similarly about the static repeated element in the song you reference. the composer has explicitly made the statement in a playful manner. only my personal interpretation, not a definitive one.

common sense is a fallacy in this sense, irrespective of the time span, we are talking about constructed conventions.

i mentioned schoenbergs academic bona-fides in order to make the point that even with an extensive theoretical mastery of a system there is still a yearning for something more. a pretty human quality, no?

 

It's not that easy. I wish I could explain that but people with superficial knowledge of music (or shallow players seeking rash decisions) won't let it happen.

 

So in short, you can't. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Thanks for the demonstration.

 

Exactly, you can't demonstrate nor do anything to make your point because you are only showing off with a superiority complex, there is nothing of an artist in you.

 

Last edited: Aug 9, 2021

That's the symptomatic level of desperation one gets to after years investing time and money on Steven Seagal's blues masterclasses...

 

What is the point of commenting when I got 3 warnings for nothing? Reasoning in this situation is useless.

The end...

Now expand the tonality artistically ...

 

reasoning? did i miss out on something?

 

I've not read any "reasoning" from you. Only trolling, judgements and showing off.
But obviously you'll find a way to justify the fact that you are not able to offer any interesting way to expand the major scale and that it's better to spit your immature judgement anywhere...

 

How do you guys work your ways around upper-extensions in a given key ?

Key : E Major

 

What about V - I cadences for ALL chords without a single note out of key, meaning no usage of the good old "borrowing" or "sub-Vs" ?...

 

@Freetobestolen
I haven't explored your two examples (above) properly, but on first pass... very nice.
Also, usefully 'NOT off topic' to illustrate some fully diatonic examples as in your second example.

Giving you more work...
How about you incorporate some of those nice voicings into some fully diatonic circle of fifths examples,
i.e., take various tours through IV, vii, iii, vi, ii, V, I
which (as you know) is always a nice exercise for someone familiarising themself with a diatonic space;
and especially if and when you target somewhere other than I as the landing, e.g., Aeolian ii, V, I, IV, vii, iii, vi
(and all other modal variations)

Cheers