It's like I can use use a national flag to clean a dirty boot but that wouldn't be really fitting, you know? But, yeah, in that particular case with that particular piece you can easily spot and justify the existence of chord tones and non-chord tones according to traditional harmony (and other tonal ones).

 

Bach, for instance, wrote some really weird melodies (like the sujeito in this fugue: J.S. Bach, The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, Fugue No 24 in B Minor, BWV 869 - YouTube

and this one: J.S. Bach - Crab Canon on a Möbius Strip - YouTube (check the quartal jumps!)

But then he would always adhere to those tonal procedures in order to give tonal meaning to them.

 

Alright. Let's leave at that then. Cheers mate.

 

Thank you! But I didn't write that comment to you. I have no doubt about your abilities.

Music theory consists of 2 words of theory and music.

• Someone can start the learning process from music and then get into theory.
• Someone else can start from theory and get into music.
• Someone can not start at all and stay in the first place.
• Someone can start with music and be fascinated by a certain style of music that doesn't feel the need for theory at all.
• Someone can focus on theory and not get into music.
• Someone can learn theory correctly.
• Someone can not learn theory very well and have the wrong idea of theory.
• Someone can make the right connection between theory and music.
• Someone can know theory, but they can't implement theory properly in their own music.

The number of states is so high.

 

Ah - but the saying which has been around for centuries "Making beautiful music" does not include the word theory in it.
A necessary tool for development past intermediate level, but it has the same importance as a manual does to operating a DAW.
The real skill is what you do with it.

 

Music theories talk about what's Best. I don't think it's possible to find a chapter in music theory entitled Beauty.

Probably beauty can't be theorized due to its super complexity.

 

Actually, you are both right and wrong. Consider that Pythagoras realised there was a scientific connection between mathematics, tempo and pitch - So taking the time signature everyone is first taught 4/4 - Four quarter notes to a bar, 8ths mean half that, 16ths a quarter so on and so forth. Then as music developed polyrhythms like 7:3 - When people started developing it further that an even seven could be played across a 3/4 bar because 21 divided by 3 = 7.... so there is a SMALL part of the math. Then people realised they could play in 3/4, play a division of seven while simultaneously writing a melody that was an even 4 in a 3/4 bar (12/3=4 also called a Hemiola).

To a mathematician this is beautiful and in some cases, some theorists are definitely responsible for advancing music because it gave players more ways to develop themselves rhythmically and harmonically. You hear everyone speak of 'The Cycle of Fifths' - They do not call it the cycle of notes, they use a number based on perfect 5ths a mathematical distance. You will find a lot on the beauty in theory if that is an interest. It is not for everyone. It is interesting - As theory.

Consider this - Music is actually simple in design and in its audible beauty. The theory was never designed to confuse people and it should not.
It is based on a simple construct of time and frequency division. People have advanced this to some amazing levels. Different cultures have this embedded into them almost from birth because it is part of their religion or culture.

The moment people focus on labels and categorisation without understanding the purpose, problems begin. Some people believe finding the need to explain the existence of something means they are trying to understand it rather than actually knowing. Both aspects are part of human development and interpretation.

You can find beauty in anything if you look for it

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2021

Guys, this thread was going right (for once in a music theory thread)
@BaSsDuDe and @Riviera are having a constructive conversation.
So please don't troll/write off topic comments.

 

i think that is the crux of all these discussions about the intersection of music (as heard) and theory. science can be seen as, not a singular process, but as individual problem solving methodologies. similarly, the more scientific aspects of music (theory) in application are probably best thought of as multiplicitous and individualistic methodologies -- down to a granular level.

it is the responsibility of the artist to provide the context in the communication of a work. the 'context' includes all the necessary information to interpret the work. music is so contextually dependent, in a lot of cases, that the 'meaning' can be derived from other extenalities, but sufficient 'clues' must still be provided for effective communication.

critique would be based on the effectiveness (and efficiency) of the artist to provide a sufficient context (meaning -- according to its internal logic).

all of this can be avoided by just adhering to the aesthetics; the couplets: beauty--ugly, dark--bright, loud--quiet, long--short, whatever-- =/=whatever -- each element relying on the other to provide context. thinking in generalities: phrases as opposed to notes, movements as opposed to time-lined vertical structures, what are you trying to express (conceptual thinking) vs plotting a graph of sound, etc.

while presenting a nightmare to the analyst, such gross, profane methods may yeald more satisfactory (humane) results. YMMV.

i think @Ad Heesive was, meekly, trying to make this point (at one point) in their own idiosyncratic way. [as much as i hate to admit it] i think they have a point.

 

The whole OP's question is where to start and what path to take and where to go, and in all three stages, he's looking for a reference point.

There's not only one answer. There are infinite answers. Any answer from different people's point of view can be true, weak or wrong. Deciding about any of these answers is the artist's responsibility, and no one can definitely dictate to the artist that this answer is the best and that answer is bad.

Another challenge is how to find a reference point?

 

You are good with the ambiguity in this thread !!

I will assume you mean MUSIC directly related to the thread author's main post (BELOW)
A reference point in dictionary definition is a basis or standard for evaluation, assessment, or comparison; a criterion.
THIS means a starting point based on your question.
The answer is simple. Pick a key and the melody starting note, tempo and key signature. That is your reference point. every rhythm/polyrhythm, harmony, scale, tonality, symmetry, interval, voice-leading, melodic development, calculation and theoretical analysis and too much to list here....develop it from the one starting point. Then apply it to any key. Do NOT go into microtones PLEASE !
You will send the topic off the rails. Start a new topic if you must...please.

T.A's POST

The thread author has already selected the best post by Djord Emer, just check page one, so theoretically, this thread should be closed.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2021

Well noted! This question seems to me to be too generic and unfocused: different composers, from different periods, therefore, incorporating different styles, proposed different solutions to tendency tones. Does the OP want an inventory of ALL possible subsequent notes (and its tendency tones) across all music history periods? Me either! Why not research and produce this knowledge? Then try to Write a thesis on this subject and please give me the download link!

Smells like fTRoLLster spirit...

 

Last edited: Oct 21, 2021

There's definitely a lot more and you know it very weel. The OP changed the initial objective of the post. The charts I posted were used as a simple starting point in reference to the first image posted by the OP.
OBS: Jobim é FODÁSTICO!

Passarim is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard!

Along with Trem de Ferro:

 

Last edited: Oct 21, 2021

They're musical components, not reference points. Each of those things you've said are very long discussions, with a lot of opinions in each of them. Learning any of them increases the number of choices and further confuses the OP. Now let's assume that OP learned them all, but eventually he'll ask himself what I'm going to do and what to choose.

The reference point should be simple and accessible. The reference point means that at any moment in time you know what to choose. The point of reference is like someone controlling your brain and ordering you to do that work at any moment of time and make that choice.

I personally don't know such a reference point.

 

Melody, key and tempo. Pretty straight ahead and right at the core. everything else is the extrapolation on that. I am staying on topic.

 

Music has a qualitative part and also a quantitative one. The qualitative part is for the most part in the subjective domain and barely evaluable, but the quantitative part is in the objective domain. I was more looking for the quantitativeness.

The selections have different types:

1. careful selection
2. well-chosen selection
3. poor selection
4. random selection
5. wide selection
6. limited selection
7. natural selection

.
.
.
Without a powerful reference point, the choices will be largely option type 4. Random Selection can be good or poor.

PS:
Unless you say randomness is art in itself. Random art...

 

Last edited: Oct 21, 2021

To the archetypical kind of situation we've been all witnessing here recently - but proper.

 

Can you explain the relevance to tendency tones and related subjects which is the thread author's topic and question? The addition they made was about choosing the next note in the melody and interest in melodic intervals. A reference point has been given by many people. I cannot see the relevance to his question, so please explain the relevance? It does seem unrelated and going off on a tangent? A reference point to where they might start such as melody, key and tempo seems simple enough as one example. Others have gone into detail so I saw no point in parroting. You seem to be almost changing the subject entirely. He was asking a "how does one go about?" question, not additional intricacies that add so many questions that they would not know if they were Arthur or Martha that won't give them any answers at all and it is your question so maybe start a thread of your own??


The best answer award was given to Djord and your question really seems to have gone somewhere.....but not here... you are giving him more choice-based questions, not answers.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2021

OP's question is a good one. That's right, there have been good answers too, but those answers aren't enough. Knowing a very small amount of basic information about notes makes no one a melody maker (melodist). It doesn't solve the problem to get basic information and make random choices with that basic information.

 

The thing is the thread author wants to know how to make definitive choices, not random ones was the impression a lot of people, myself included, got from the question?

Music is not confusing though anyone can make anything that way. What I grasped was they were looking for inspiration on developing it, not a multitude of additional randomness that might prevent them from being inspired? Anything can inspire a melody - emotions, an occurrence to you or someone else, a meal, something seen... they are all random. At that level what you are saying makes sense, but on a musical level, a definite starting point that relates to what anyone wants to write is important. Having a groove at a specific tempo can inspire a melody, so can the sound of a particular voicing of a chord or a melody a bird in the trees sings.... which leads back to melody, tempo and working out what key suits you best. You can add whatever randomness you like to those.
The more convoluted anyone makes something, the more difficult the finish line becomes. That seems quite sensible.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2021