Modal Harmony vid series

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jancivil wrote:
zethus909 wrote:
Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such
exactly, its on a tone to tone basis, its all just intervals, and there is no doctrine involved in what your next step is "allowed" to be. there is no rule, when you are making music. rules destroy it. it's faulty to think in terms of "chords", that "belong in keys". etc.
Good grief. What terms do you think in? This is a matter of basic coherence. Now, your writing tends to fail here so, seriously, what terms do you have to replace "chords" "belonging" to "keys"? EG: B minor 'belongs' to a number of keys. If we know that it's ii in A major, and we know that ii in major tends to be subdominant, we understand something of the grammar of tonality. Do you somehow fear that this will be an obstacle to your freedom?
zethus909 wrote: there is simply certain principles, that work, and are effective. but it's not even their manfestation that creates effective music, it's all the stuff in between.
NB: some do not need all this info. McCartney had no problems. But in You Never Give Me Your Number

(I) any jobber
(V) got the sack
(vi) Monday morning
(iii) turning back
(IV) yellow lorry slow, no
(I) where to go...

He works with the principles that are known to work, and knows how they work. Thru osmosis? Could be, but if we want to convey WHAT IT IS as I'm doing here, this is the language we use. Macca speaky the lingua franca, no doubt. Here's it's the manifestation of (the wholly conventional) I V vi iii IV I, and, below bVII IV I that allows him to proceed.
SO. What are you fighting? Rebel without a clue.

but
(bVII) oh, that magic feeling
(IV) nowhere to
(I) go

So, here's a deviation. How do we teach it? What is your methodology?
The simple change of VII creates the possibility of "oh, that magic feeling" conveying the magic of that thought.
So.
Do you think to teach the stuff in between (the unteachable, I think) or convey coherent information and then examples follow which demonstrate knowledge.


and note well, do cease PM'ing me; if you want to justify what you wrote in here after the critique, do it here. seriously.
see my previous post regarding my PM.

i dont know what you are saying, with regard to teaching, i never said I am a teacher. but when i feel like trying to help someone understand music better, then I try to. not necessarily understand music THEORY better, but understand MUSIC....and understand what music really IS...music is real, it's not an abstraction.

hmmm ok, i see what you are implying with that song reference, i didnt say that you cant create space and infinitenesss without using suspended chords. of course in the context of a certain progression you can evoke that sens also. i am speaking on a chord to chord basis. there is simple no other type of chord, in ISOLATION, that evokes space and infiniteness more than a suspended chord. and firm triads evoke certainty and drive home messages, this is why national anthems use triads, what national anthem uses suspended chords, except maybe some exotic nations somewhere like the carribean maybe. this is not a prescription, this is just something i have learned from using thousands of chords in a thousand songs and progressions. suspended chords create immediate sense of space and airiness, in isolation. this is why they are used so much in the 80s music. it was a reflection of the time. alot of collective optimism, with reagan and the end of the cold war, couple that with the imminent crossing of the millenium, the new age, 2000.

suspended chords are also ESSENTIAL, in trance music, not old trance music, but anything modern like post 2000 lets say. but you said you dont listen or know much edm music.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

[quote jancivil"]
zethus909 wrote:there is no doctrine
Who said there was?
music "theory" oftens gets mistaken for being music "directions"....or music "how-to- guides"....it's not

and because there is this common misconception, it creates a creative environment that is based around an "establishment". so someone viewing this video will mistakenly view it as a recipe or an INSTRUCTION...it's not an instruction, it's an explanation. there is a difference.
There is more to both than just their intervallic content.
there actually isn't. i want to agree with what youre saying but it's just not true. "intervals" is an abstraction. Cmajor is an abstraction. they are both labels being used to describe that which is REAL. that which is real is all there is...there is nothing more. anything more is false, it's metaphysical and completely subjective.
someone "playing" the intervals with an internal understanding that they are "playing" the Cmajor scale, is the SAME, as someone else who is playing the exact same intervals, but instead with an internal understanding that they are playing a mode. the notes are irrelavent. notes are just labels. CDEF is a label. 1 2 3 4 is a label. the intervals are geometric macro world. an "interval" or whatever other "relationshonal" human understanding, is an abstraction. notes, scales, intervals, are irrelevant and meaningless. the only thing that is real is the sound. the sound is always the same. call it X, call it Y, call XYZ...call it "she just played an XYZ to A progression all within the mode of DRRUCNW. none of that is real. and the sound doesn't depend on any of it to BE real.
"The bandage was wound around the wound".
"The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse."
"When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes."
"The insurance was invalid for the invalid."
"They were too close to the door to close it."
(see Google for more)
[/quote]
you are equating ssomeone playing music, with someone learning how to spell words. this is innaccurate. you should be comparing someone playing music, with someone speaking words. you don't need to learn how to read to speak.

for your comparison to be accurate, you need to compare someone learning how to spell, with someone learning how to understand music theory and name chords etc. they are both abstractions and both rooted in the intangible, they are both not real. words aren't real. they don't exist, anywhere except in the mind of humans. and other "semi-advanced" beings, we are using words to communicate crude ideas and abstractions. if we are to be realistic, we have to concede that our mode of communication is crude, prone to breakdowns, and misunderstandings. always an approximation. more advanced beings will not be this crude.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

If you can't teach people properly, then you shouldn't be trying to do so at all. In the long run, you'll do more harm than good.
thats just weird statement. considering there are tons of different ways of teaching. and tons of different ways of learning.
zethus909 wrote:
it is absolutely disasterous, to see someone start to "depend" on music theory(abstraction), rather than their musical instincts with respect to music creation...



It sounds like you're trying to justify ignorance here, as though learning more is something to fear...

Humans have been creating fire since almost forever, but learning about fire, what causes it, how it works and so on eventually led to the capability of making fire more efficiently; fire that lasted longer, that was safer, that could be used for other things, etc. Knowledge is never a bad thing.
well, cant say that i am...thats just you projecting that onto my words. i am not fearful of learning, I am fearful of overloading someone with abstractions to the point that it paralyzes their will and motivation to create. creation is STUPID...it is IGNORANT...BLISSFULLY IGNORANT. knowledge is SMART, contemplational, complex...YET FROZEN...in time...STATIC. knowledge is completely useless and NONSENSE...until it is put into USE. too much knowledge is a hazardous as too little, but the WILL to CREATE, that is always useful. and so is the will to contemplate. without "will", there is nothing. there is no sound.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

zethus909 wrote:
There is more to both than just their intervallic content.
there actually isn't. i want to agree with what youre saying but it's just not true. "intervals" is an abstraction. Cmajor is an abstraction. they are both labels being used to describe that which is REAL. that which is real is all there is...there is nothing more. anything more is false, it's metaphysical and completely subjective.
someone "playing" the intervals with an internal understanding that they are "playing" the Cmajor scale, is the SAME, as someone else who is playing the exact same intervals, but instead with an internal understanding that they are playing a mode. the notes are irrelavent. notes are just labels. ...
Music however is much more than just scales. As you say, scales are abstract etc.
Playing "in C major" is much more than simply knowing and using the notes of the C major scale.
Using modes, similarly, is more than just knowing what notes to use.

One can go right back to the start of the Church modes for example and find that "protus authenticus" and "tetrardus plagalis" (later called Dorian and Hypomixolydian) have the same intervals but are two different modes.
zethus909 wrote:you are equating ssomeone playing music, with someone learning how to spell words. this is innaccurate. you should be comparing someone playing music, with someone speaking words. you don't need to learn how to read to speak.
You do need to know the meanings of words though and understand that words that sound the same can mean different things in different contexts. Knowing the words in isolation isn't enough.
zethus909 wrote:too much knowledge is a hazardous as too little


I don't agree. I don't even think there is such a thing as "too much knowledge".
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.

Post

JumpingJackFlash wrote:
zethus909 wrote:you are equating ssomeone playing music, with someone learning how to spell words. this is innaccurate. you should be comparing someone playing music, with someone speaking words. you don't need to learn how to read to speak.
You do need to know the meanings of words though and understand that words that sound the same can mean different things in different contexts. Knowing the words in isolation isn't enough.
So, Son o' Zeus, do you also prefer the speech of the illiterate to that of people that are mindful of grammar and even syntax? You are really wasting a lot of verbiage in this argument for ignorance. And note well, it doesn't amount to a thing past that for me. The sheer volume of bullshit fr. you has alienated me. No one is impressed, get real and listen rather than running your mouth.

Post

You do need to know the meanings of words though and understand that words that sound the same can mean different things in different contexts. Knowing the words in isolation isn't enough.
good point. all of this is just words though. it's not real. only sound is real.
I don't agree. I don't even think there is such a thing as "too much knowledge".
too much information. too much data, that is being thrown onto you, or you are trying to ingest. this has a negative effect, and can leave you in a state of paralysis. it's called information overload. and it happens like in computers when you are trying to make it process too much at once, you start getting dropouts and errors and crashing.

knowledge only comes from experience, and doing, not reading about abstractions. but you can use your existing knowledge and translate it into some topics that you have no real experience with. because the principles are the same. but that is no substitute for actual real experience. with real sound.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

zethus909 wrote:too much information. too much data, that is being thrown onto you, or you are trying to ingest. this has a negative effect, and can leave you in a state of paralysis. it's called information overload. and it happens like in computers when you are trying to make it process too much at once, you start getting dropouts and errors and crashing.
Oh yes, it's certainly true that one shouldn't run before one can walk. - One shouldn't be dealing with advanced topics until one fully understands the basics, and one certainly should never purport to know more than one actually does otherwise one just ends up taking a load of arrogant nonsense.
zethus909 wrote:knowledge only comes from experience, and doing, not reading about abstractions.
Not true. You can learn a lot from reading.
It's possible to do something a dozen times a day and yet still do it wrong (or badly) each time. Indeed it's possible to do something for years and not actually understand the processes behind the action; the whys and the hows.

Some people are perfectly happy living in this state of ignorance, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with it, but my earlier point was that sitting down and learning more than just the mere action (or sound) is not going to hurt - and in almost all cases will lead to improvement.
zethus909 wrote: but you can use your existing knowledge and translate it into some topics that you have no real experience with. because the principles are the same.
There is a danger here though. Even with some similarities there can be many important differences. It is foolish to assume that because you know about one thing you automatically know about another.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.

Post

zethus909 wrote:
JumpingJackFlash wrote:You do need to know the meanings of words though and understand that words that sound the same can mean different things in different contexts. Knowing the words in isolation isn't enough.
good point. all of this is just words though. it's not real. only sound is real.

If you go around making whopping mistakes with the language out of your sheer ignorance, it'll be real. You'll have real difficulties communicating except on the most primitive level.
zethus909 wrote:
JumpingJackFlash wrote:I don't agree. I don't even think there is such a thing as "too much knowledge".
too much information. too much data, that is being thrown onto you, or you are trying to ingest. this has a negative effect, and can leave you in a state of paralysis. it's called information overload. and it happens like in computers when you are trying to make it process too much at once, you start getting dropouts and errors and crashing.
You moved the goalpost, that's not even the same argument. You are at pains to argue against knowledge. Does every person that accumulates knowledge beyond yours blow up due to overload? You wouldn't know about knowledge past your own, who are you kidding.

So what strikes me is that you might experience overload expecting to be superior in a pretty short amount of time. Rather than patiently doing what we do to achieve mastery.
zethus909 wrote: knowledge only comes from experience, and doing, not reading about abstractions. but you can use your existing knowledge and translate it into some topics that you have no real experience with. because the principles are the same. but that is no substitute for actual real experience. with real sound.
I agree that knowledge should mean (or does mean, really) that one has experiece. However, if you expect to do something that requires these 'abstractions', such as you expect to score for orchestra and you:
# have no basis in the harmonic series;
# have no clue as to the ranges of instruments;
# haven't studied the instruments' techniques (do you think you're going to know about them from playing every one of them?);
# have no basis in part-writing, don't know harmony;
# don't know the clefs in order to have analyzed scores...
what do you expect as a result?

Who are you kidding? So, keep it up, you'll have won this argument and convinced yourself, so you'll remain the very picture of a dilettante. It appears you picture yourself up in the clouds... :help:

Post

zethus909 wrote: I am fearful of overloading someone with abstractions to the point that it paralyzes their will and motivation to create.
There is no situation in the world where I'd feel responsible for someone's will. :-o That's a strange damned sentence.

Music theory isn't anywhere near mathematics. Maybe what we'd encounter at conservatory in a few years would drive you over the edge... a shorter drive for some of us than others... :scared:

This is ridiculous. Only diagnosis I could hazard is that your sense of yourself has meant you being in a terrific hurry to obtain omnipotence and the picture of the world's more potent exponents doesn't match. Einstein's intuition, is that a product of his ignorance or his understanding? In the end, he did the math.

Post

zethus909 wrote: if we are to be realistic, we have to concede that our mode of communication is crude, prone to breakdowns, and misunderstandings. always an approximation. more advanced beings will not be this crude.
I'm realistic. JJF and I are talking plain sense to you about what 'music theory' is for, but you're interested in making avoidance of reality seem lofty.
It is true that your communication is prone to any number of problems, owing to your lack of care and confusion of meaning.

It's none of my business why, but at this point you present such a flight of fancy, such delusion I don't think talking sense to you even has a chance to register.

Post

fine youre both right and im wrong.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

I've wasted all the time I'm gonna with you. The entertainment value has washed out.

Post

this is a forum and it's a public discourse. it's not a judicial hearing. Cmajor has the exact same intervals as Ionian mode. this is not an opinion, it's the truth.
i dont really know why you are making it any more than that.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

zethus909 wrote:this is a forum and it's a public discourse. it's not a judicial hearing. Cmajor has the exact same intervals as Ionian mode. this is not an opinion, it's the truth.
i dont really know why you are making it any more than that.
How many times do we have to say to you THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER? There wasn't ever a Ionian mode, but even if it existed (outside of treaties), the fact that is had the same intervals of C Major is just a coincidence.

Besides, any major key has the same intervals, as well as any minor key has the same intervals as any other minor key. Would you say they are all the same?
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
zethus909 wrote:this is a forum and it's a public discourse. it's not a judicial hearing. Cmajor has the exact same intervals as Ionian mode. this is not an opinion, it's the truth.
i dont really know why you are making it any more than that.
How many times do we have to say to you THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER? There wasn't ever a Ionian mode, but even if it existed (outside of treaties), the fact that is had the same intervals of C Major is just a coincidence.
Heinrich Glarean proposed the Ionian and Aeolian modes together with two other 'hypo' modes in his Dodecahordon expansion of the eight-mode system that started with Boethius. Glarean added them to address the fact that church music had already adopted their structures as they became more complex and moved further than Guido of Arezzo's hexachords.

The Ionian was, in effect, an altered version of the Myxolydian – substituting a B for the Bb that would have appeared in Guido's ''natural" (C-A) hexachord had it extended past A (La). In Guido's system there is no difference, because there is no seventh, and therefore no need for two almost identical modes. By Glarean and Zarlino's time, things had changed.

So, no, the idea that the Ionian mode never existed is false, as is the idea that Ionian intervals have nothing to do with the modern C Major scale. Furthermore, it dates back somewhat longer than Glarean's day - the fact that it earned the name modus lascivus is a clue as to why it didn't get used much in medieval singing but was pretty common down the pub.

Locked

Return to “Music Theory”