Quit the shady-play Ad... specially on me. We've been there before. Boring...

So, the f3*kin moron dipstick implicitly said:
Bitonal means having two tonalities played simultaneously.

C6 = C + Am triads, or Am7 = Am + C triads, so one Major and one minor tonality altogether. Wrong?

In how many keys do they exist?

Moreover someone could fancily call both these rootless FM9, imparting another tonality, so we could keep expanding and far fetching on and on to our liking...

If that doesn't match the way you'd interpret Bitonal, should I care?

Probably Caug+Dbdim would appease/suit you better... 'cause they don't belong in a common key (or they do?), thus sounding more "exotic", more "bitonal-ish"...

What about the other "colorful" C qualities I've also mentioned? Do the same for them and tell me later to which conclusion you've arrived at. Cadd11 seems a good starting point, then Cadd#11.

Remember the chromatic diminishes, upper extensions by using quintals/quartals, resolutions for all the triadic chords (diminished included) in a key without "leaving" the key or resorting to sub-dominants or alikes, alterations over pentatonic chords, oblique augmentation... Where do you think did that all came from? Books? Snatched from a Google search?

And you don't need to go that far back. I've shown comprehensively how to properly build Modal and Tonal chords right above, where I likewise could have simply gone by Audiosex protocols on you for days... ( C Ionian = CM7 + Dm7 ?! )

Now go ahead and criticize/mock all the post, not only the cherry-picked bitonal C6.

Try harder. 'Tis but a scratch...

Cheers

 

Here you go @Ad Heesive and one link from a music school professor in Northeastern University in Boston clearly delineating the different steps between bitonality and polytonality. It's a straightforward article though long, covering many areas.




https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00133/full

(Just put bitonality in the search box to jump to it)

Some people just do not get that if it sounds like shit, nobody wants to listen to it for any duration, no matter how clever it is.

 

Correct but think carefully what tonality means because... this next bit is hopelessly misguided in its use of the word tonality

By this crazy interpretation of the word tonality I could say something only marginally crazier like...
(note this intended to be crazy!)
C major chord contains a major third, expressing major tonality. Plus it contains a minor third, expressing minor tonality.
Therefore a C Major chord is bitonal all by itself. (using your words - so one Major and one minor tonality altogether)
That sentence is of course (obviously) total nonsense but it's using the same warped view of the word tonality as in your example. If you can't see that - well your conceptual analysis skills need a radical upgrade.

---- and a quick update, based on 'news just in' from @BaSsDuDe above.
@Freetobestolen, I suggest you radically revise your interpretation and use of the words tonal, bitonal, and polytonal, simply to fit in with more conventional usages, as illustrated in my (very conventional) usage and in the references supplied by @BaSsDuDe.
Why try to re-invent the meanings - is it just to contradict what everyone else uses? Does that feel special in some deluded way?
There is lots to praise about being unconventional in actual music making.
But there is nothing to gain by trying to distort all the conventional music theory vocabulary.

 

The word tonal depending on context, with the word 'context' being the most important part can lead to multiple tangents from that single word.

If it is used with the word 'atonality' as its opposite, it takes on a fresh conversation. If tone is taken out of it, it could be likened to timbre, or frequency and a myriad of other possibilities. That is why they defined the usages in universities in the correct 'contexts'.

 

Lets assume I'm oversimplifying things for the sake of the final product then...

How crazy is it a Badd#9 (a real Maj/min chord) being the relative minor of a D6(b9)? Or even better, having a 3rd substitute D#mM7(#5)?

Note to self: it belongs in conventional music theory as awkward as it seems.

Then I call up for matching "definitions" for it, encompassing trivialities such as bitonality, polychords, extended chords, etc...

And it's not even necessary to appeal to such brute approach...

If G, C and F Major scales were played simultaneously (thus 3 keys, not only 2) over a piece using the 7 triadic chords from C Major, chances are most listeners will keep perceiving C as the tonal center, and some others would say they heard some "colour" tones here and there...

Reminder: G Maj Penta, C Maj Penta and F Maj Penta altogether compose C Major scale (not Ionian). Aren't these pentas single tonalities on their on?

Cheers

 

OK, remaining constructive, and also taking the piss - out of all of us!

Here's an entirely speculative (and more than a bit loony) debate - about that (surprisingly contentious) word Tonality

And in this debate I am playing devil's advocate, not interested in expressing my own actual opinions (yet)
just toying with 'what if' questions and answers and seeing what ideas come into focus.

I've bullet pointed a list of semi-arbitrary statements (in spoilers) and I'm really not personally committing to any of them.
So, shoot any of them down in flames at your leisure - as long as it helps you to get your own ideas straight!
But for fun, my devil's advocate will try (and probably fail) to argue that bitonality and polytonality are just bull crap fantasies that don't actually exist. How's that for a fun debate?

So repeat - all these bullet points are devil's advocate claims - might be true - might be bull crap
and my personal pragmatic opinions may or may not coincide with any of it!

Spoiler: [1] The Mystery of Tonality

Start with an antique idea which is that tonality has something to do with listeners brains always hearing a tonal center (irrespective of whether the music can be described as having a tonal center or not). Hence you can find interesting discussions about how listener's brains will build a sense of tonality into their auditory experience even when confronted with allegedly atonal music.
That's just something to bear in mind during the rest of the discussion.
Maybe I should explore whether there's a difference between tonality as perceived by listeners and the tonal intentions of composers.

---

Spoiler: [2] Magum Opus

Composer plays just one note, e.g., "C". (applause please)
As music theorists maybe we can get away with saying either of these...
- Composer has not yet specified a tonality. The tonality is wide open and ambiguous.
OR, we could say the the exact opposite...
- The listener is now hearing a primitive tonality called "C".
Is one of these statements more true than the other? Are they consistent in their use of the word tonality?

---

Spoiler: [3] The Major Upgrade

Composer adds the note E, now playing a major third C,E
Composer: I have still not specified a tonality, it's still too primitive, too ambiguous.
Listener: Well I'm hearing something - and it ain't C minor.

---

Spoiler: [4] Pent Up Feelings

Let's skip forward to a pentatonic example (referencing @Freetobestolen's request to consider pentatonic tonality)
Composer plays melodies, riffs, and phrases using 1=C, 2=D, 3=E, 5=G, 6=A
OOPS skipped forward too far, implied diatonic numbering there, better backtrack to simpler
Composer plays melodies, riffs, and phrases using 1=C, 2=D, 3=E, 4=G, 5=A

Composer: I have now established a popular but primitive major pentatonic tonality
It's so primitive that a snob like me calls it a pseudo-tonality.
Listener: Yep I agree, I'm hearing that, and I think I'm hearing it centered on "C".

---

Spoiler: [5] Then There Was Blues

Composer expands it to a very very wonky 12 bar blues (one with no blues balls at all!)
4 bars of phrases using C major pentatonic (C,D,E,G,A)
2 bars of phrases using F major pentatonic (F,G,A,C,D)
2 bars of phrases using C major pentatonic
1 bar of phrases using G major pentatonic (G,A,B,D,E)
1 bar of phrases using F major pentatonic
2 bars of phrases using C major pentatonic

Composer: I have now expanded the primitive C major pentatonic pseudo-tonality and (at last) established a proper traditional/conventional diatonic tonality.
I am using all the notes from the C Major scale (and only the notes from the C Major scale)

Listener 1: Yep, I can hear that, I notice the changes when you shift from C to F to G etc, but I also hear that we're starting in "C" and ending in "C" and I feel like "C" is the tonal center. I DO NOT feel like we're changing key (changing tonality) at any time.

Listener 2: That's funny cos I DO feel like we're changing key every time we change the pentatonic from C to F to G, etc. But I agree we start in "C" and end in 'C"
Listener 1 and Listener 2 now start a fight about who is right about whether the tonality is changing key or not - even though they're both hearing exactly the same changes.

Composer: calm down guys, when we only had one pentatonic, I loosely used the phrase primitive pseudo-tonality, but now I've got my full blown traditional diatonic variety so I've moved on. My diatonic tonality embraces all three pentatonics, so now I just call them chord changes within my true intended tonality of C Major.
Listener 1 and Listener 2 have no idea what the fuck the composer is talking about and carry on fighting.

---

Spoiler: [6] Bring on The Jazz Gals

A slick composer arrives and demonstrates a tune using all 12 tones of the chromatic scale and has the audacity to claim that she's still entirely in the tonality of C Major. She has 4,327 tricks up her sleeve to explain how she is still in the Key of C Major while also playing the 5 extra notes that don't belong in the C Major scale.

Spoiler: [7] Jazz Gals Cat Fight

She gets into an argument with another composer over which tricks provide the best explanations.
Composer A: this bit here is best viewed as an extended chord with a mind bogglingly complex notation.
Composer B: that's bollox, just view it as two chords stacked on top of each other. A polychordal notation is far simpler than a weird extended chord.
Now the composers are fighting but at least the listeners have stopped fighting and are just laughing at the composers.

---

Spoiler: [8] Music Theory Bollox

Composer A: look these two triads C Major and D minor, when stacked together, have a fairly simple label and they're simple to view and label as an extended chord.

Composer B: I still prefer to see it as polychordal; and what about when you stacked EM7 on top of CM7, I don't want to work out a label for that little monster, I'm much better off thinking polychordal for that.
And it doesn't even fit into your strictly diatonic C Major scale. So guess what, I'm going further - it's not just polychordal - it's bitonal.

Composer A: Now you're just inventing more bollox, this tune is in C Major. - not bitonal at all.

Composer B: No it's not bollox. What about when Stravinsky played Eb7 on top of E Major? that's bitonal.

Composer A: nah, that's just chord V and chord VI from the harmonic minor scale, still monotonal!

Composer B: starts muttering something about Stravinsky also punctuating with an "A" and wrecking the harmonic minor theory, but instead says... "If I keep on piling enough of these non-diatonic chord combinations together, I can eventually break your sense of being in just one tonality" And actually I don't need to do that, I just found Bartok's Twelve-tone Phrygian/Lydian polymodal music and that easily wipes out your single tonality.

Listener: That's strange - I liked that Bartok stuff, it but it still sounded tonal to me. Did my brain do something wrong?

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

No need to split hairs, and argue over it..

Chords are neither one thing or the other.
Chords are Polyphonic, and could be considered Bi/Poly-tonal depending on the Context, or the listener's Perception..


You can play a Dm7 chord,
and say the Tonic/Tonality is whatever note that's included in that chord..

So it could be a regular Dm7,
or why not an inversion of Csus2-4-6 with the C on top..

So, Dm7 = Fadd6 = Amb6add4(no5) = Csus2-4-6

It will be up to the Context, and the Listener's Perception, or even Composer's Intention,
to determine what's the actual tonic/tonality..

So is a Dm7, a Bi/Quadra/Poly-tonal chord?

It's all and nothing, depends on the Context..


And it can get more interesting when there's more instruments, like a Bass..

You can play a Dm7 chord,
and then make the Bass play a solid-fat C note, (as to define the tonal center..)

So in that context one could say it's a Dm7/C,
or again a Csus2-4-6..

Same thing could be done with each diatonic note on the bass,
and so the same Dm7 chord will have a different harmonic effect/function in each case..


But it could be even done with all the other non-diatonic/Chromatic notes,
getting more Exotic/special harmonic effects/results.

Some of them could be more natural/easily palatable than others,
(and some ambiguity will always exist as long as the chord has 4 notes + 1 for the bass)
but the possibilities are there..


-As for Bi/Poly-tonality..
The concept exists, and there's some examples,
(besides the myriad of non-stated/suspected ambiguities or poly-valences that could happen in any piece of music if analyzed from one perspective/another..)

However if the thing can physically happen and be Fully and 100% Simultaneously perceived by our brains..
that's subjective and thus a matter of discussion/opinion.

But I guess examples exist where tonalities gravitate like a Pendulum to/from one tonality/another over time (be it brief moments/not),
or examples where both are intended to sound at the same time..

Here's some basic examples:
https://www.beyondmusictheory.org/polytonality-and-polymodality/
(note how the latter examples begin to sound more like chromatism..)

Wiki has a good article about it too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonality

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

Hey. I'll have you know I put together a whole room full of wardrobes, and the best part? they are STILL standing. Admittedly I haven't tried them out yet but still. Oh wait? You meant about music? Oh well in that case.I push down on the keyboard and sounds come out.. How's that for knowing stuff?

 

I have to admit that someone who said some time ago they were trained in a proper music school / University in Barcelona is using Wikipedia as reference which is unacceptable in any accredited institution as a primary source and not looked upon favourably.
You would have been better looking at where it drew its sources from like a proper researcher. I know without doubt that The Fundacio Conservatori Liceu won't accept it.
You would have been better off using where whoever wrote it and it could be ANYONE gleaned their resources. No point using Wiki's because it is so poorly referenced it lands back on itself so you actually have to find the correct bibliography.

This is where it should have pointed not a bounce-back badly written ISBN code(s) that should have pointed to the original publication.
https://www.booktopia.com.au/musica...ydjVp64G5aRhBqushObUE8JzNXQETF34aAo02EALw_wcB

and here as only the second example where you can find almost any book or the Smithsonian
https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?filters[creatorLiteral]=Reti, Rudolph, 1885-1957.

This is why because anyone can edit it and 90% of the time the sourcing is at best acceptable and more often, not good.
If you think all the main people in Universities in the world do not know each other you might be surprised. They can also tell who isn't because they never cite or use references correctly or at the minimum use incorrect sources. So know your audience. Also, there are people on here who are incredibly skilled and lurk who have never posted. Never. Please do not tell me you are in Patax next because that would be VERY disappointing and someone who lurks here would have to contact Jorge. I doubt it, they would not write it like this.

The point is any musician wants to see a chord they do not have to think too much about otherwise it is unnecessarily complicated. Csus2-4-6? Dm7/C? You left the E out in both with the C triad being the starting point. There is also no D in a C triad on the bottom and an F triad on the top.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

*puff puff pass

 

From the first of your references...
"Polytonality - It is the use of two or more distinguishable key centers, simultaneously. However, the term bitonal can be used instead of polytonality, referring to the use of two key centers in the musical composition."

From the second of your references...
"Polytonality is the musical use of more than one key simultaneously. Bitonality is the use of only two different keys at the same time."

I accept both of those quotes as representing the prevailing, conventional, well-recognised, use of the terms bitonal and polytonal. And it's precisely what I have been boringly using too, in all my discussions. So, why would anyone want to contest the main simple point - which is that the simultaneous use of multiple keys is the essential ingredient in the conventional use of the terms bitonal or polytonal?

But, because I like exploring ideas, I can see how that means we might still have some exploring to do to answer questions like "what does it take to unambiguously establish a key? even before we tackle establishing multiple keys?"
and I already joked a bit about this.
As my caricature illustrated, if I play a C note and an E note simultaneously, and if had been consuming too many intoxicants, I might say, "hey look my C,E, is a bitonal diad because I intended each note to portray a different key."

But that should probably be regarded as just ridiculous, even if I later went on to actually develop this opening diad into a bitonal piece using C Major and E Major. It only actually becomes bitonal when 2 different keys are actually established - at least according to conventional use of the terms.

So, the bottom line is surely, if you haven't yet actually established even one key then you certainly can't yet claim to have bitonality. A chord by itself can indeed go on to become part of a key as the context gets developed, but a single chord by itself. not yet in a context, just projects some possibilities and a lot of ambiguities.

We could easily discuss stuff like, just how much ambiguity do you need to remove before you can say "the key is now unambiguously established". We can go a long way with that quite easily, but I for one would not like to say here's THE only prescription. There is an example of Mozart establishing the key of a piece by playing 11 of the 12 chromatic tones - and you guessed it, the one he left out was the root of the key.

Now can we abandon nonsensical talk of single chords being bitonal? no matter what potential they might have in contexts that have not yet been actualised.

 

BOOM - winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Anyone can go off on a tangent - the entire topic of the thread is based on one triad on the bottom and another chord on the top.
In it's simplest answer which even Julliard would give as an answer - It's a Polychord.

 

The Fok you talkin about...

Your Strawman's arguments are really one of a kind,
and you manage to make them bigger and Bigger each time, I give you that.. lol

It's to no avail tho,
the bigger your Invention, the farther from Reality it is


And I know your kind,
going on unfounded/undeserved personal attacks like that is nothing more than a Distraction tactic,
a false argument, a fallacy, and thus it shouldn't even deserve an answer.. and all for what?

You're often lookin for trouble, magnifying pointless stuff, systematically misinterpreting it, or just plain making the stuff up..
All to have a good reason to argue, and be Right about something..
because that's what's most important for ppl like that, being Right,
even if they have to resort to dirty and Childish techniques,
greatly diminish the scope/validity or truthfulness of their arguments,
or plain inventing/planting imaginary stuff on others..

And you now that,
nothing new under the sun


But since we're at it..
First I studied in a Modern music Conservatory, so they taught me Jazz more than anything else..
However I could only attend for 3 years,
but they weren't teaching me the stuff I wanted/was interested in, so I gathered what I could from them, (specially the attitude/approach)
and kept studying music/harmony on my own.. so by all means/effects I am/consider myself pretty much self taught.
(And I'm telling yo, one couldn't even begin to compare the small Seed of what they taught me,
vs the magnitude, breadth/depth of everything I went into afterwards..)

Secondly, It's not that I'm an advocate for Wikipedia,
or that I second every single word of that article, and swear over it with every single particle of my being.. lol

It's just a small Wikipedia article written by god knows who,
but by all means, it very well serves as an Introductory article on the whole topic of Polytonality which arised..

I don't think the scope/level of this thread (considering the original question/matter of discussion),
should really go much in such depths/complexities..

But since you're all splitting hairs about semantics and the meanings of words, of whats bi/poly-tonality or not,
I just briefly commented it, and gave a couple links to a Basic/elementary/introductory level articles about the topic.

And that's all there is to it,
all the rest is your inflated fantasy of whatever mirage of an argument you want to make up..


But hey in any case,
If it's all so Wrong in that article, perhaps you could tell us your Academically Correct point of view,
or just go and Correct everything that's wrong in it, do the world a favor..

I certainly have no dog in this race, and I actually agreed with you on the meaning on Bitonality,
but if you want to take that article, and make it the Everest of the Strawmen arguments with it..
by all means be my guest! lol

That doesn't mean you're Right, even remotely close so..

 

Chord²

 

I guess you will have to learn the hard way and take a chart in with a high level group of musicians you respect and have them throw it back in your face and say "Write it properly" or "What is this supposed to be?" - before you will learn. I guess I should have expected it from a musician who is still trying to get around Armando's Rhumba which most seasoned musicians learned eons ago.
If you use chords Like a C triad with an F triad on the top it has no D.
That is the greatest strawman bullshit I have heard. If you are going to cite, do it properly. I see 3rd year BMUS's like you everywhere.
They go everywhere except to the most simple answer trying to show how much they know.
Musicians want to understand in a manner they can grasp "What is this?" - which has been answered many times - SIMPLY.
SIMPLY is the true key not convoluted - you do the "Look at me, I am a graduate spouting a pile of alternatives that really do not answer the thread author's question".
You think the most qualified people in the world speak like you do outside of a classroom?? Really??
You are the guy my associates throw a cymbal on the floor and tell to get off the stage. Talk to someone else who does not see through your bullshit.
Guys like you are busking on the streets of NYC without a gig -everywhere. And your instrument a guitar, great guitarists are a dime a dozen.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

Says who.. the Root Note player, turned the Eminence and God of Harmony?

Go back to your Root Notes.. you Bassist!


I learned Armando's Rumba +10 flipping years ago,
and played it Live hundreds of times with musicians of all walks/calibers.

Just because I once gave my analysis/approach/opinion about it doesn't mean I learned it yesterday..
You round headed simpleton.. lol

Again making stuff up, inventing shit and making strawmen arguments..

You're just a bitter boomer,
a sad and regretful Root Note playa..

 

Really? Try citing properly, answering questions directly and stop writing shit not even a guitarist would want to see on a chord chart.
Simpleton? Stop using a diatribe full of a plethora of superfluous and esoteric rhetoric you are parroting and not even correctly. A D in a C triad with an F triad on the top? Dm7/C???
what a joke.Fmaj9/C - basic 1st year BMUS stuff.
It's an extension but that's not what the OP asked. Stay on topic.
You posted you were getting around Armando's Rhumba less than four months ago liar.
They guy you shat on here who also called you out for being a fraud who removed himself from this site permanently was Mike Moreno you loser. He would wipe you off any stage. i do not suggest you ever tell anyone who you are on here in real life. I doubt he has forgotten.

You are a total strawman and a puto.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

You're all testimony,
I never ever meant to argue with him/anyone, but he began coming to me with all that imaginary shit..

But I'm telling yo, if he/anyone comes and tries to pee on me, then naturally..
Imma flipping go and Crush him.. my mouth/fingers can get hot very fast too


"you posted you were getting around Armando's Rhumba less than four months ago liar."
No, that's what your diminutive and damaged ego made you believe,
what your imaginary, ill and deformed perception of things made you think/believe about it..


Mike Moreno? pff..
Then Sadly another Asshole,
and this one Big like a Megalithic Cathedral, telling yo..

Apparently the guy had an Academic Suppository badly stuck up his ass,
and needed to have everything analyzed/normalized/scrutinized by the very same Scribes of Berklee, no.. of Moses the prophet lmao
Otherwise it wasn't a true or valid opinion/point of view..

As much as the fucker complained tho,
he Never managed to say where was I so wrong with my analysis, or bring Anything new/useful to the table..

Just complain and complain, because just like yourself he just Needed to be Right,
and disproportionately overreact over whatever Imaginary thing happened to damage his little and frustrated academician Ego..

(specifically Chromatic Modulation... LOL
Those were the Good times..
what an absolute douche bag of a Potato-Headed simpleton he is, if he cannot accept things for what they are,
and needs instead to relativize everything to whatever convoluted/unrelated dominant shit to feel vaginally secure, and in righteous path.. lmao)

So Fuck him by all means.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

I know a couple of bleeps, a couple bloops, a bip, a bop and ah hope them titties will flop.

 

wow you do not remember what you posted. Lots do.

Go for it, you are a legend in your own lunchbox. And you have no idea what kind of player he is and again you crap on him. He is respected worldwide, you, are not.
Stay in your nice little Internet warrior scene writing stuff nobody has heard of or likely ever will because your cranium is so wedged in your Gluteus maximus I doubt what anyone says will ever seep through.
Learn the hard way, it is the only way fools like you do. I could easily say what I have done and am doing, but it really does not matter and is wasted on someone like you. Fortunately, nobody will tell you anything here who knows me. Complain? just get it right you're the fool who speaks before he puts his brain into gear.
Some people have retentive memories.