Sure, you're mostly right.
Why procrastinating that much instead of going after a real teacher?
Foster, Fully Operational, Hermes Mercury and now, Providence, your outraged persona... pitiful.

 

i think foster (and their multi-manifestation) is an anti-realist. appeals to reality are moot. just an entity solely (pretending to be) engaged in a sisyphean task of extracting an is from an ought or vice versa.

-- does anyone have any thoughts on the possibility that they actually believe any of stuff they are saying? that would be pretty sad.

 

Please, give detailed method to expand major tonality range instead of judgement.

 

Last edited: Aug 3, 2021

Foster? No way.

 

So basically, it seems the idea that the Tritone was Banned in medieval times is basically disinfo,
an urban/cyber myth that has been repeated/legitimized over the years and so on..

Diabolus is another way of saying Diaphonic..
ofc back then the tritone was also seen as a Dissonance, but it wasn't really Forbidden or considered to evoke the Devil,
although that idea grew in acceptance as music evolved to include/exploit ever more sophisticated/exotic and dissonant/altered harmonies..

Or at least that's what Nelly explains/documents here..

Also interesting what he mentions of the Daesian scale/notation system,
which uses a 18 tone scale built from 4 tetrachords, that doesn't Repeat at the Octave..
(G A Bb C - D E F G - A B C D - E F# G A - B C#)

And this allows to harmonize in Fifths avoiding/without ever stumbling with a Tritone..

 

Last edited: Aug 3, 2021

you have to admire the persistence. that is some serious [redacted] energy. years and years of set-up without a punchline. i don't think i am enough of a psychopath to truly appreciate such a feat.

bummer. the only reason i liked the tritone was the mythology surrounding it. i am only playing pentatonics from this day forward. i will pull out all the offending frets and keys from my instruments. problem solved. the future is all consonant, all the time baby.

 

Let me think...

F/B = Diatone? If so, G#aug = Tritone, right?


Thoughts on the "Daesian Scale"



Thus the Bb is somehow replacing D#? The b9 which afterall is a 5th above b5, is acting as its replacement peer. Not to mention Bb/D# is a 4th and Eb/A# is a 5th...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2021

Boy you're Fast!

I don't really know what to tell you,
when you get into Rainman mode it's hard for me to see the global correlations/implications.. lol

But yeah good point on the b9 being the 5th of b5,
easier to see on a guitar than a keyboard..

Also good point on the Eb/A#, I guess if we wanted to extend the scale down and preserve the idea,
we would go: G/D, F/C, D#/A#.. D/A, C/G, Bb/F.. etc,
considering the method also seems to distinguish between lower/higher notes register function..


Personally I find the F# to come much more naturally than the Bnat, specially playing it solo/melodically..
Harmonized as the 5th it's alright I guess, but it has some interesting feel of extra-tension, coinciding with the *new Bnat,
as if the whole thing got an extra wind-up of the gears..

In that sense the Bnat it's OK when harmonizing the fifths, but sounds quite off to me on its own..

(Or IOW, maybe the F# which comes more naturally helps Soften the Bnat,
while gaining some extra forwardness/tension from it..)


But what I don't really get is the last C#, it's quite jarring on its own, (being the #4/b5 of G..)
while harmonized is the #5 of F which is Cool.. but why not leave it at Cnat?

Maybe they though it would fit, adding some kind of extra-stratospheric sound for the highest register/finale of the scale..

 

Last edited: Aug 4, 2021

So said my first girlfriend...

Err... thanks? I guess? lol

Perhaps way beyond this...

Says history (more or less) Pythagoras conceived the 12 pieces we use, however saying nothing on how to displace them on the board, but leaving a hint = 5ths/4ths - which later were realized as being 9ths/7ths too, and more - but that's another story.

Not a rule, but often times, what our ears tend to like the most and interpret as "correct"... yeah we all have tendencious-cheesy ears.

Nonetheless, musician or not, we do ourselves a great favor growing out of it, so that we can appreciate it in a fuller manner, thus more stimulation to our senses.

In other words, whatever floats one's boat... perspectives diversity is the best thing to happen in musical realm. Share what ticks you with others, as much as possible (in a non-trollish fashion, please).

Cheers

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2021

if we view music as a language of emotion. there is a definite emotional pay-off to the, tension --> release, effect of the cadential function. it is not so much correct as a desired effect. adventures in 'incorrectness' in order to present an arbitrary 'correctness'. it is a manipulation of the emotional response. a purposeful story of misadventure.

oppose this to something like shoenbergs 12 tone system, and his students; webern, berg, etc. there was a attempt to move past the importance of any cadential functionality. there is a definite maintainace of tension. the emotional pay-off is sought in different ways. even in some of the romaticism of debussy the goals were shifting into differing types of emotional response.

the intent of these latter composers and their thoughts on evolving techniques to produce a desired effect are well documented, either by themselves or others. they were often responses to artistic movements or schools in other mediums. stravinsky et al. were eager to integrate new emergent movements in the same medium. these departures could be quite radical depending on the evolutionary source of the influence.

i am not disagreeing with you, just trying to add some perspective.

 

Agreed, and I think the same attitude is easily extended to swathes of great pop music that has been authentically composed by people that wouldn't even know what a cadence is.
I'm not implying that the classic V->I in its trillion variations is not important but lots of musicians don't think about it at all.
Consider as just one tiny example a simple song like "(Sitting on) The Dock of the Bay". (a great song)
The main sequence has four chords G B C A - trivially simple major chords - effortlessly breaking out of being diatonic.
At a stretch you can try to squeeze your analysis into see something slightly cadential between the G and the C but I've seen people describe the sequence more usefully and poetically as "two chords breathing in and two chords breathing out".
Repertoire in motion - always better than rules.

 

Mine too. She said it was fast but intense. I'm afraid the "intense" part was only to cheer me up.
Since, you know, that's the last I heard from her

 

Do you know why most people do love popular music (even jazz included)?
Because:
There are no rules in popular music. If it sounds good and feels good, it can and will be used.

What can I say to a guy that he thinks like most popular musicians do? He acts apparently academizedly but thinks similarly like all popular musicians do.

Can you ask all the participants in this thread to explain what they have acquired by his teachings till now? Step-by-Step... I'll be so pleased to hear their elaborations.

 

You continuw to write judgement, but were is your method to expand major tonality range ?

This thread is not for you to jump on popular music... you are histerical about that , man, chill

 

i would go so far as to say people should intentionally not think about theory when they write. i also use to advocate for not writing at, or on, an instrument.

why are you continually calling it music? stop calling it music. it is not real. the rules clearly state that you can not call something that is not real, a real name. you are ruining everything. you are causing the sky to fall on our heads, we will all need to buy helmets. helmets are expensive and uncomfortable. in areas where the sky is particularly heavy this could end in utter destruction. thanks for destroying the world -- again.

 

Agree with that 99%. For the other 1% - I sometimes like to test a theory idea with a contrived experiment to see what might emerge and I might then grab an idea. But definitely agree, you then have to go back into a writing mode that completely avoids thinking about theory.

Agree with trying to write away from instrument (and definitely away from DAW) and trying to cultivate basic ideas in our heads. But, realistically, in my head, harmonies are just too vague. After generating ideas, I need a chord-based instrument to disambiguate my thoughts. I find it's really worth humming-singing into a recorder first though because otherwise the 'exploring on an instrument' stage can kill (and make me forget) whatever mood/vibe/essence the original ideas had.

The above is all on-topic.
A simple riff or melody, just found in your head, can be non-diatonic, straight out of the box.
That could easily be what happened when Otis Redding wrote Dock of the Bay. (who knows? )
- Find a melody in your head (with an implied but scruffily 'vaguely heard' harmony)
- Find the four simple chords on a guitar that just begged to be chosen to support the melody
- Optionally, don't bother trying to figure out why the 'breaking diatonic' aspect is trickier than it looks, just start playing with it.

There we go - philosophy of music composition to piss off the Providential Troll

 

yes, it is a pretty flexible methodology or process. i did not mean it as a hard and fast rule. always within reason, of course. you will have to move to an instrument at some point, either sooner or later, if it is an instrumental piece.

i think the theory behind it at the time was to remove things like muscle memory from the equation or encourage the education of the 'inner ear'.

an extreme example would be something like the waterfall by harry partch. he either conceived a waterfall or witnessed an actual waterfall and sought about to invoke it or emulate it. he even made his own instruments. the music itself is enough to piss anyone off; some may see beauty in the uniqueness of his vision -- or both simultaneously. us mere mortals may only have the capacity to emulate music that has come before us.

 

The following crossed my mind regarding cadential functions, Schoenberg's 12 tones-row, chromaticism, etc. Just sharing some thoughts...


* audio example attached.

Somewhat a personal take of mine over Jobim's power of sounding simple (singable), whilst applying highly sophisticated compositional concepts, featured in:

One note samba

However using the 12 tones in this tune, considering the lyrics, he is goofing on himself, as so probably on others (Schoenberg?)

"... How many people out there who talk so much and say nothing, or almost nothing
I've already used the entire scale and in the end there's nothing left, nothing came of it "

"... And those who want all the notes: Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si, Do
Always windup with none, stay on a single note (instead) "


12 tones-row staple - Suite for Piano, Op.25

 

Here's a nice traditional (and I'm sure very familiar) device.
This is following on from (reminded by) @Freetobestolen's "Chromatically locked onto F" example (above)

A tiny discussion then some examples.
Note I'm trying to avoid being music-theory-techie in this discussion - that's actually the point here!

@Freetobestolen - In your example...
- you locked the single note F (let's still call that the drone or maybe call it the static melody)
- and then you chromatically moved the harmony.

And it works - it's easy to hear. As listeners, it's interesting how we enjoy this idea of hearing something stable and static while also hearing something else moving - we like the contrast.

Aside: and my ears felt violated on the seventh chord in your sequence when you removed the upper F droning note.
You stole the stability from me - you should go to jail for that!

The more commonly used approach to this 'static + moving' idea is the opposite (or complement) of what you did.
You did "melody static - harmony moving"
So, let's look at "harmony static - melody moving"
This approach will keep the chords static and make the melody or the bass (the monophonic line) move chromatically.

This very old trick is often called a "line cliché"
OR much worse jargon... CESH (Chromatic Embellishment of Static Harmony)

I've posted several examples in the spoiler below - all borrowed from the book "Jazzology"

Personal opinion:- I always loved this trick; it might have been Stairway to Heaven or maybe a Beatles song, where I first heard it, but it's in a million places. I remember deliberately working through all the examples below from Jazzology. And I'd recommend scouring Youtube for many more examples. For a while, in my writing, my problem was how to avoid over-using this lovely device.

This idea of chromatic movement, played against something stable and static, is very 'easy on the ear'.
And my main point in this comment: It also feels 'very easy to describe' without being music-theory-techie.
In a band context we would say something like...
"We're all just playing an A minor chord and the bass player is doing one of his funny semi-tone runs".
That simple description feels adequate and it also feels like a better description of what we're actually hearing.
If instead we try to analyse every chord slice then it looks far more complicated than it needs to,
and I think that complex version is NOT what we're actually hearing.

See the first example in the spoiler.
You can see it described as four chords Dm - Dm(maj7) - Dm7 - Dm6
That's correct, but in my early bands we wouldn't have understood that - especially the Dm(maj7) chord.
We would have just said...
we're all playing a simple D minor and the bass player is doing a semi-tone run down D, C#, C, B
That's what we hear - 2 separate things, one static, one moving, we don't hear it as four complicated chords.

This idea obviously relates to the much broader topic of voice leading and multi-part harmonies, etc, where if you try to slice it up into static chords it can be horrendously complex but if you hear it (as intended) and analyse it as four parallel(ish) melodies in motion then it's simpler.

Line Cliché Examples from Jazzology below
and also see (for example) a nice tute at this link
https://www.thejazzpianosite.com/jazz-piano-lessons/jazz-chord-progressions/line-cliches/

Spoiler: Line Cliché Examples from Jazzology

Line Cliché Examples from Jazzology
also called CESH - Chromatic Embellishment of Static Harmony

 

i think you are misunderstanding schoenberg. his 12 tone system was an attempt at going beyond a tonal center.

he was disliked by the local musical establishment at the time.

he also was one of the most prolific writers on traditional diatonic harmony, counterpoint, etc. in the 20'th century. some of his books are considered seminal works on the subject.