but what makes it ambiguous?... the understanding that our understanding is correct or normal, and that any other form of tonality is 'ambiguous'. I said it was hard to believe that we are actually taught musical association, I do believe it however. And Mike, of course we assume minor is a sad key.

I could name countless pieces in minor with all an un happy stance and the only thing connecting them all is that they are in a minor key.

AHarker, far be it from be to get Foucaultian on your 'ass', but it is a rather naive view to characterise language (discourse) as being about "communication" - Language is about POWER! rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaarrrrrrrrrr!

And music (well especially pop music) is largely "about" promulgation & dissemination of GENDER IDENTITY.

By the way Mike Snr, there's a difference between a Marxist analysis and a marxist analysis, innit? :-D
Adorno is one of yer clawssick marxist touchstone for music criticism - can't say I've read much of him myself (although I do remember a good weekend spent with that "Frank Zappa and the Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play" book..... :-)


I have to say that personally, the sorts of critical theory & questions I'm most interested in re: music would largely be about stuff such as "What makes The Human League dead cool but Orchestral Manoeuvres a bit ahine?"
"Who is the most For Real? Iggy Pop or David Bwoeie?"
"How high can you have your bass guitar strap before it looks really gay?"
"At what point in her career did Madonna become COOL?"
"Can blue men play the whites?"
"Did Peter Hammill invent punk or invent goth?"
etc etc etc

You cannot answer questions like these using structuralist liberal humanist tropes from the 18th century.
You need post-structural post-modern bru-hah-hah.

WERRRRRRRRK IT!

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Feline... very good.

Mike... a point of clarification. You're talking about analysis from a number of classical angles... when you talk about language I'm not sure if you mean for music or lyrics or both?

I think the main men have all had a name check. Chomsky writes two kinds of stuff: academic and, er, normal. The academic is hard going but he can write accessibly.

If you go from there into signs and symbols pre-modern language you'll end up gibbering... I did.

But then... one man's ahine is another man's deep, or perhaps both.

I think you all need to get out more!

But seriously - if you analyse things too much you rarely get to where you want to be - what about just feeling it? I read somewhere that Lennon started writing on the piano rather than the guitar as he was more unfamiliar with it.. - I often think the better we get at playing the less original our music becomes - because you start to know the tried and tested ways too well - some of the best songs/music is often written by people who don't know how to play very well - and therefore find better and original stuff by accident. maybe the best approach is start to learn a new instrument (and teach yourself - don't take lessons )

Quote feline1:

---

And music (well especially pop music) is largely "about" promulgation & dissemination of GENDER IDENTITY.

---

No, you're confusing music with music criticism .

And anyway, reductionism sucks.

Very interesting stuff!

Has there been much research into the instinctual reaction to sound, lets say in nature the way a rattle snakes shaker is instinctualy frighting to mammals, or other sounds that are non threatening like bird song.

Edited by gav321 (09/11/04 03:10 AM)

"And music (well especially pop music) is largely "about" promulgation & dissemination of GENDER IDENTITY."

"No, you're confusing music with music criticism ."

---- FELLA, in all deadly seriousness,
*NO*, I have to tell ewe that, when I write tracks to perform on the stage as Feline1, I TOTALLY concern myself with question such as "Right, how do I make the missing link between Art Garfunkle and Kenny Everett?", "How can I make this sound as exciting as Activ8 Altern8 did in 1991 whilst using absolutely none of the same musical forms or instrumentations but instead actually sounding more like Brian Eno did in 1977?", "Yes, but will my bum look big in this?" etc etc etc
Which largely involves being able to make a record whose cultural vector is analogously equal in cultrul space to the difference between Mike Hardcastle's N-N-Nineteen versus Status Quo's "In the Army Now", only this time at odds with BUSTED.

.............. OR STHG -------

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Glad you managed to make it across to the new forum feline,
You big mentalist!

Quote Rob C.:

---

Mike... a point of clarification. You're talking about analysis from a number of classical angles... when you talk about language I'm not sure if you mean for music or lyrics or both?

---

I'm interested in the music here. Lyrical considerations are a whole different ball game...

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote Ivories:

---

And anyway, reductionism sucks.

---

How do you mean?

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote Mike Senior:

---

Quote AHarker:

---

No idea where you can find stuff on this, except to say that physiology and music and music therapy might be good areas to start.

---

If I find anything good I'll post.

---

Found this, which looks like the kind of thing. Perhaps I can look up that issue somewhere for the full write-up.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote feline1:

---

"And music (well especially pop music) is largely "about" promulgation & dissemination of GENDER IDENTITY."

"No, you're confusing music with music criticism ."

---- FELLA, in all deadly seriousness,
*NO*, I have to tell ewe that, when I write tracks to perform on the stage as Feline1, I TOTALLY concern myself with question such as "Right, how do I make the missing link between Art Garfunkle and Kenny Everett?", "How can I make this sound as exciting as Activ8 Altern8 did in 1991 whilst using absolutely none of the same musical forms or instrumentations but instead actually sounding more like Brian Eno did in 1977?", "Yes, but will my bum look big in this?" etc etc etc
Which largely involves being able to make a record whose cultural vector is analogously equal in cultrul space to the difference between Mike Hardcastle's N-N-Nineteen versus Status Quo's "In the Army Now", only this time at odds with BUSTED.

.............. OR STHG -------

---

Sounds like the Anxiety of Influence to me. Those nineteenth-century tropes just won't go away...

(PS. No disrespect intended to your music)

Edited by Ivories (09/11/04 10:24 PM)

Quote Mike Senior:

---

Quote Ivories:

---

And anyway, reductionism sucks.

---

How do you mean?

---

Just my obscure way of saying I'm suspicious of any explanation that asserts that Music (or any other universal human cultural activity) is essentially about a single factor (no matter how many ironic quotation marks you hedge your assertions with). I tend to think that music is basically 'about' a lot of things, and they're not the same for different people. In other words, I'm a lot more Nattiez than Foucault. However, I'm afraid I got bored of semiotics a long time ago.

Sorry, I'm afraid my last few contributions to this thread haven't been terribly constructive, have they?

constructive/desconstructive... it all comes to pieces in the end

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Another interesting (and mildly amusing) link. My favourite bit has got to be:

"Jazz, classical, and Ravi Shankar turned out to be the most helpful to the plants. However, the plants tested with the rock music withered and died."

What are they trying to say?

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

A little follow-on the question of Major vs Minor:
When I tried to study modal theory a while ago, I was intrigued by the idea that Major and Minor were but two modes in a wider range, called Ionian and Aeolian respectively.
When you go from Ionian to Aeolian, you are flattening notes one at a time: 7th, 3rd, 6th, each intermediate step a mode of its own. The pattern continues past Aeolian, into Phrygian and Locrian. Go the other way (sharp 4th) and you have Lydian mode. This is one way I wrote it out, in the key of C:
Code:

---

Hyperlydian		C#	D	E	F#	G	A	B	C#	(fictional!)

Lydian			C	D	E	F#	G	A	B	C	

Ionian		MAJ	C	D	E	F	G	A	B	C	

Mixolydian	7	C	D	E	F	G	A	A#	C	

Dorian		M7	C	D	D#	F	G	A	A#	C	

Aeolian		M	C	D	D#	F	G	G#	A#	C	

Phrygian		C	C#	D#	F	G	G#	A#	C	

Locrian			C	C#	D#	F	F#	G#	A#	C	

Stygian			B	C#	D#	F	F#	G#	B	B	(fictional!)

---

Note the two extreme modes are fictional, my own inventions: they are what you get if you continue the pattern of sharps and flats to the point where the original root note is modified and doesn't appear in the scale any more. This is musically nonsensical, but fun to try and play something in...



But anyway, my point is that Major and Minor are only points on a larger map. I can imagine that microtonal scales would have even more intermediate modes, tending towards a "grey scale" of tonality. (Hmmmm....)

Edited by stereoroid (10/11/04 10:15 AM)

Quote stereoroid:

---

Hyperlydian C# D E F# G A B C# (fictional!)
Lydian C D E F# G A B C
Ionian MAJ C D E F G A B C
Mixolydian 7 C D E F G A A# C
Dorian M7 C D D# F G A A# C
Aeolian M C D D# F G G# A# C
Phrygian C C# D# F G G# A# C
Locrian C C# D# F F# G# A# C
Stygian B C# D# F F# G# B B (fictional!)

---

What interests me about the modes is that they're all basically different steps on the TTSTTTS (T=tone, S=semitone) interval pattern. The TSTTTTS pattern (as in the rising melodic minor scale, or perhaps dorian mode with a leading note) and STTTTTS (which is pretty much a whole-tone scale) also spawn sets of modes, but they are less used. This hints at a whole range of unused melodic and harmonic possibilities. It gets even more interesting when you start 'tonalising' modes, as in the classical treatment of the Aeolian mode to form a minor key -- this is one of areas where the needs of harmony and melody could, I'm sure, be balanced in new ways. So many possibilities, so little time...

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

No offence guys but your perceptions of modes are p1ss weak.

You're much better off thinking about modes as harmony. Think about scales as stacked thirds and modal properties as idiosyncratic intervals that are part of the chord or working against it.

You can’t flatten the root, as it is no longer the root then is it. All these notes are measured from the root to give the intervals meaning. It might be interesting to play with the concept of hiding the sense of tonal centre from within the music but it’s been done. Stravinsky is the master!

If you look at scales and their guises as modes then you are best off thinking about the qualities they posses. Are they essentially minor! Do they loose their character when you miss out the basic triad etc?

Usually with modes, they conjure up our experiences of hearing them and recognising them in the first place!

If you think of modes as chord progressions (modal chord progressions) you’ll understand them a lot more! Think of them as a new tonal centre with a character. And also see them as a way of creating a perspective into modulation (changing key).

Regards,
bassdude

Quote Mike Senior:

---

Quote Rob C.:

---

Mike... a point of clarification. You're talking about analysis from a number of classical angles... when you talk about language I'm not sure if you mean for music or lyrics or both?

---

I'm interested in the music here. Lyrical considerations are a whole different ball game...

---

In case it helps... Chomsky, Pinker, etc. relate specifically to language (you mentioned cross-cultural language syntax up the top, so I'm still a bit uncertain). I'm not sure you'll get anything musical out of it. The Language Instinct is (basically) Chomsky's thesis about a pre-programmed universal syntax that's expressed in all languages - as opposed to the blank slate thesis. It is inherently about words.

Do I win a prize if I have even the vaguest idea of what any of these posts are about?

Dan

Go on SOS, maybe one of those cheapo SSL desks or tatty old Neve consoles as the prize.

--------------------
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/james-bond-swagga-ski-rize/id574380007

Quote Rousseau:

---

First one. You need, obviously, to start with the Greeks - especially the notion of the music of the spheres, and the concept of Greek drama. Then examine theorists like Kircher, Mersenne, Sauveur. Interestingly, in the eigheteenth century - when speculation about the connection between music and the universe and music and langauge reached its zenith

cheers

---

Yep theorists designed scales which were close to simple ratios.The theory of equal temperament came when we needed to change keys with least amount of dissonance,which things like Pythagorean tunings wouldn't allow.
Theorists said equal temperament allowed more movement without having a "completely" resolved sound,which exact tuning(relative to overtones)does.This was philosophised to be more in tune with human nature,which is in a state of flux at all timesand requires change.

Personally the major 3rd interval sounds very dissonant to me,where the minor third sounds much more beatiful.

Quote Bassdude:

---

No offence guys but your perceptions of modes are p1ss weak.

---

Ouch. I hope it's just a misunderstanding...

Quote Bassdude:

---

If you think of modes as chord progressions (modal chord progressions) you’ll understand them a lot more!

---

Just because we're representing modes as scales doesn't imply that we're thinking of them merely melodically. It's simply a way of representing the root and the pitch set. I'd also happily ilustrate the major key with a major scale. Any pitch set can be melodic or harmonic -- there's little separating the two.

Quote Bassdude:

---

Think about scales as stacked thirds and modal properties as idiosyncratic intervals that are part of the chord or working against it.

---

Why as stacked thirds, rather than, say, stacked fourths or fifths? Or, indeed, stacked seconds!

Quote Bassdude:

---

You can’t flatten the root, as it is no longer the root then is it.

---

Stereoroid called them fictitious modes, and they would of course have traditional names on different scale degrees. I'm not sure that was ever in dispute.

Quote Bassdude:

---

All these notes are measured from the root to give the intervals meaning. It might be interesting to play with the concept of hiding the sense of tonal centre from within the music but it’s been done. Stravinsky is the master!

---

While I'd agree that Stravinsky is a master, you can't "do" anything in music such that there isn't more that can be done. It's kind of like tourists saying "we've done England".

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote Rob C.:

---

In case it helps... Chomsky, Pinker, etc. relate specifically to language (you mentioned cross-cultural language syntax up the top, so I'm still a bit uncertain). I'm not sure you'll get anything musical out of it. The Language Instinct is (basically) Chomsky's thesis about a pre-programmed universal syntax that's expressed in all languages - as opposed to the blank slate thesis. It is inherently about words.

---

I'm only looking for basic structures that humans might have created or which they might have been influenced by. Language presents such structures. How any of these structures might apply to music is a question for each of us to decide for ourselves. I'm just looking for potential raw materials at the moment!

For example, I'm currently reading about different manifestations of the pentagon, and pentagonal symmetry. Very interesting in its own right, but I'm buggered if I can think of how pentagonal order might usefully apply to my perception of music -- I'm not sure how useful a sight/hearing analogy is here. But having those thoughts in my mind means that I'll be less likely to miss five-fold structures where they might be appropriate to my listening, analysis, or composition.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote DAN:

---

Do I win a prize if I have even the vaguest idea of what any of these posts are about?

---

Yes. It's called 'a life'…

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Hi Mike,

I personally am a rhythm junkie. I use groupings of 5 in my phrases. You could have 5 groupings of 5 if you so desire or you could extend the harmony to 5 extensions Root, third, fifths, seventh, ninth. Or you could look at using the concept of groupings of 5 only with symmetrical scales i.e. the concept of symmetry.

If you are attracted to 5 then perhaps you could include it as an underlying polyrhythmic motif as a trademark in you compositions.

If you relate 5 into dividing and octave equally, then I dunno how good that would sound? Worthy of experimenting

Regards,
bassdude

Quote SunShineState:

---

I think you all need to get out more!

But seriously - if you analyse things too much you rarely get to where you want to be - what about just feeling it? I read somewhere that Lennon started writing on the piano rather than the guitar as he was more unfamiliar with it.. - I often think the better we get at playing the less original our music becomes - because you start to know the tried and tested ways too well - some of the best songs/music is often written by people who don't know how to play very well - and therefore find better and original stuff by accident. maybe the best approach is start to learn a new instrument (and teach yourself - don't take lessons )

---

This was way back in the thread, but i just wanted to say i totaly agree with everything in it. Apart from the 'needing to get out more' bit !

Aha. I'd suggest (if you haven't already) you look at a general 'signs and symbols' book... its a useful addition to the whole semantic area... as you mention with the pentagon.

And 'Godel, Escher, Bach...' (previously recommended) would seem to be right up your street...

Bassdude:

Quote:

---

No offence guys but your perceptions of modes are p1ss weak.

---

Actually, I have to diasgree with a lot of what you say about modes. Your description below seems a rather round about way of describing things. A mode can easily be described without any (actual) harmony (lots of folk msic/plainchant etc.) Thinking of modes as stacked thirds is quite bizzarre to my mind as (historically) the harmony arises out of the scale not the other way round. Stacking perfect fifths is a much easier way to generate the major scale/ionian mode and can be used to understand modulation etc.

Quote:

---

Think about scales as stacked thirds and modal properties as idiosyncratic intervals that are part of the chord or working against it.

---

Quote:

---

If you think of modes as chord progressions (modal chord progressions) you’ll understand them a lot more! Think of them as a new tonal centre with a character.

---

The second sentence is unrelated to the first. I agree that you recognise the modes through their harmonic sound (which could be implied harmony, rather than actual harmony) but a mode is not a chord progression, or a group of chord progressions, it is a set of notes with a tonal centre that can be used to generate harmonic/melodic progressions. A lot of what you write seems to be implying harmony based on thirds, but modal music doesn't have to have harmony based on thirds (whereas tonality is inherently related to this kind of harmony and the dominant-tonic relationship). This is one of several reasons why the ionian mode is not the same as a major key.

Quote:

---

And also see them as a way of creating a perspective into modulation (changing key).

---

Modal music is not in a key - modes are not the same as keys. Modulation is a tonal invention (Modality predates tonality). This is not to say that modal music can't switch to another mode or into a key, but this is not strictly modualtion in a tonal sense.

Quote:

---

If you look at scales and their guises as modes.

---

A mode is not another scale in a different guise, it is a different scale.

Mike: It is worth maybe looking at non-western modes. The indian system has 72 modes (all different), some of which which are based on other interval patterns than TTSTTTS (you use a systematic approach not a million miles away from the one stereoroid use, but you don't ever alter the root note). Also there are scales of less/more than seven notes (like our pentaonic for instance), or Messiaen's modes (but I think you said his music didn't appeal to you on the harmony thread).

Cheers for the links. I should have said 'The Mozart Effect' by Don Campbell is full of this sort of stuff. Not sure I trust it's science, but if you fancy reading about lab rats commiting suicide after listening to heavy metal..........

Alex

P.S. Haven't had time to check it out but... http://www.mozarteffect.com/

Quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you all need to get out more!

But seriously - if you analyse things too much you rarely get to where you want to be - what about just feeling it? I read somewhere that Lennon started writing on the piano rather than the guitar as he was more unfamiliar with it.. - I often think the better we get at playing the less original our music becomes - because you start to know the tried and tested ways too well - some of the best songs/music is often written by people who don't know how to play very well - and therefore find better and original stuff by accident. maybe the best approach is start to learn a new instrument (and teach yourself - don't take lessons )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This was way back in the thread, but i just wanted to say i totaly agree with everything in it. Apart from the 'needing to get out more' bit !

---

Thx!

Hi AHarker,

Any scale or mode of that scale is a series of intervals measured from the root/tonal centre. So chords derived from the tonal centre or root (however you want to look at it) are what you look at when you hear a mode in action. The next step is to understand that as a chord progression moves around each new root of the next chord means that even if you are sticking to the scale you started with there is a new mode at each chord. Now a chord progression almost everytime wants to resolve to it's start point. So chordal movements that are diatonic to the scale or mode have a certain character. It's that aspect of diatonicism that I was talking about in the third quote of mine in your last posting.

After all this thread is related to composition and harmonising!

The stacking of thirds is the conerstone of harmony. There are very few people dealing in quartal harmony or cluster chords. When we think of harmony it takes you somewhere. Chordal resolution (tension and release)is at the heart of the compositional landscape! So given the above, I stand by my previous statments as the fact is it tends to be pretty boaring to listen to music that takes place over just one chord! Harmony isn't static and so unless you go beyond thinking of a scale as a static entity you will produce simple music that has been done before and without much imagination to it.

When a melody is played there is usually some time signature there too or a sense of pulse. During the development of a melody the placement of that melody in the timeframe gives the feeling of strength or weakness against the harmonic resolution. So when the melody is moving around and needs to land on something strong such as a chordal tone close to the basic triad then knowledge on how to resolve the melody by step onto a scale tone close to the basic triad is useful. People thinking in scalic terms tend to produce scales as melody! This sounds weak/lame etc. Remember the late eighties with all those metal lead guitarists with no musicality running scales as melodies! That would be just one example of that mentality! Unmusical!
Lame!

I hope that clears up any missunderstandings you have on my previous posts.

Oh and by the way, rather than thinking about scales and ways to derive them using 5ths or 4ths I'd suggest looking at harmonic quality and resolution. Scales are a collection of options open to you as note choice but in order to really make the most of them you have to understand that melody has to fit the harmony and vice versa. If the melody doesn't develop well then it's just a phrase that looses it's way!

Regards,
bassdude

Quote Bassdude:

---

as a chord progression moves around, each new root of the next chord means that even if you are sticking to the scale you started with there is a new mode at each chord.

---

Bassdude, when I got to this point in your post, I realized what you were talking about. However, while this may be a valid way of using modal scales, say, in jazz improvising, it runs completely counter to the way modes have been understood in music prior to 1950. The mode of a melody was understood to be fixed all the way through a piece. (Even though some people did break what were thought of as the 'rules'). This applies equally to modal music by 19th and 20th century composers - the idea of changing mode every chord is completely alien to their understanding of the modal system.

You are also suggesting that the modes work within the tonal system - e.g. the phrygian mode is what you use over a chord of E minor if you're in the key of C major. Again, this approach may 'work', as a method of thinking about improvising, but it contradicts the way modes have traditionally been understood. By that, I mean that if a melody is really in the Phrygian mode (defined according to start and end notes of the phrases and the piece as a whole, notes which are emphasized in the melody, and the range of the melody), then it won't sound right if you try to harmonize it in C major.

Quote Bassdude:

---

The stacking of thirds is the cornerstone of harmony.

---

Only if you make a huge number of assumptions about your tuning system - for a pianist this may work as a way of thinking of harmony, but only if you avoid asking the fundamental questions of where the sounds come from. Arguably the harmonic series is the cornerstone of harmony - from we get our definitions of dissonant and consonant intervals, as well as the notes of the major triad.

Quote Bassdude:

---

There are very few people dealing in quartal harmony or cluster chords.

---

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean to say that the ones who do are not the interesting ones

Quote Bassdude:

---

When we think of harmony it takes you somewhere. Chordal resolution (tension and release)is at the heart of the compositional landscape!

---

I agree - insofar as this tends to be the music I like to listen to. But it's not the only way of composing, and historically the idea of a chord resolving (rather than an interval) only goes back to the 18th century (Rameau) - and it was controversial then.

Quote AHarker:

---

(historically) the harmony arises out of the scale not the other way round.

---

Alex, I agree with most of your post about modes, but I don't think it's possible to justify this statement. If we understand "harmony" to mean rules that govern relationships between different pitches, then the origin of the Western tuning system, along with note naming, interval classification, then modes, scales and chords, came from the discovery that you could play strings in harmonics. Guido d'Arezzo discovered that the interval upwards from C to G was the same as the interval downwards from C to F (he called it a Diatesseron, we call it a perfect 5th), and the interval down from C to G (called a Diapente - or perfect 4th) was the same as the interval up from C to F. You can see his diagram of all this here. (If you're Latin's up to it - mine isn't - you can read the explanation here). The difference between a 5th and a 4th is defined as a tone, and you can then fill in the blanks between the notes you've defined by going up a tone at a time, until you reach E. You've then got a smaller interval from E to F, which is called a semitone - be careful though, a semitone (in this musical universe) isn't equal to half a tone, it's less than that.

The point is, in Western music, a conception of the vertical relationship between notes precedes their arrangement into horizontal formations like melodies, modes, or Guido's tuning system which he called the Gamut. As far as I know (which is not very far, I'm afraid), other civilizations which use modes, such as Indian classical music, don't have these very prescriptive ideas about the mathematical relationship between notes, which makes their tuning systems more varied and more flexible.

However, it's still one mode per piece

Cheers Ivories,

You've said everything I would have said.

Quote:

---

Alex, I agree with most of your post about modes, but I don't think it's possible to justify this statement. If we understand "harmony" to mean rules that govern relationships between different pitches, then the origin of the Western tuning system, along with note naming, interval classification, then modes, scales and chords, came from the discovery that you could play strings in harmonics.

---

Fair point. This was perhaps a little hasty and badly worded and the very beginnings of western music/notation are not really my period so hats off to you. I certainly didn't mean to imply that scales pre-date any vertical conception of pitches anyway.

Alex

Hi Ivories,

Nice post by the way! Yeah if you want to take a pedagogical approach to composition then what you've said makes lots of sense. It was the way I was shown too!

But as a composer in modern times the perspective I'm putting forth really makes more sense, “The post-modern perspective and all that”. I guess the approach I take is to make music understandable and useable, unrestrained by music composition pedagogy as it relates to the classical or western art music composer. But in terms of that pedagogy I find it an inefficient waste of my time as it relates to the way I make music.

It really does pay to relate to the tonal centers as they move by. I'm not saying that diatonicism shouldn't be used! It is not only the cornerstone but also the constant heartbeat of harmony IMO. But as a composer in development I need to know in this day and age all the possibilities open to me - to generate new music, to play with music and to experiment.

As much as I can acknowledge the idea of alternative non-tempered tunings, as a musician playing with others it doesn't make sense to go against the cultural entity that is the tempered tuning system. Also I'm a musician and like to make music with others so what is the common currency in musician country!

Your point about the quartal harmony is a matter of subjective taste. I personally have put a lot of work into quartal harmony and have spent about a year on making bebop scale improv over quartal harmony aesthetically please me! Just a personal challenge as a muso. It was fun! But it isn't the cultural perspective in which I'd recommend anyone to base their compositional development.

As for the chordal resolution thing... it's a modern times thing! It in no way hinders the understanding of music from any period in history.

I would agree with you that what you've said makes for enjoyment and appreciation of the historical perspective and the pedagogy of western art music composition. But there
is more to life than that. Just look at music tuition in the US. Look at how Julliard in New York do it. All the inefficient homage to Europe gone! Just the music, the ability to hear it and the ability to live it and do it! Hats off to the USA on this one. The Julliard equivalent of the Nashville numbers system is the best way of looking at music I have ever seen. Just compare that to where bored Europeans have taken things with pictures as scores. No music instruction what so ever! Those cookie bored non-musicians!

Regards,
bassdude

Whilst it is intellectually interesting to muse about different possible modes and scales and harmonies and wouldn't it be cool to make music with themyadda yadda yadda, surely you must see that this is closely analogous to thinking:

"Hmmm, I am bored of speaking English. There must be so many other phonetic sounds I could make with my mouth instead of just English words. Think how much more interesting all my conversations could be if they weren't limited by English vocabulary" ...?

Of course, ewe can see what would happen: if you started chatting to people in the pub in random phonetic gibberish, they wouldn't be able to understand ewe!
Even if you suddenly started speaking in Swahili, which is a coherent other language, you'd not get very far if everyone else in the room only spoke Cantonese.

Generally, we wouldn't think "oh, it's simply impossible to express these thoughts in Hebrew - you'd need to be able to speak Russian to verbalise that" (And yes, I know, there is a whole fascinating "no thought without language?" debate yadda yadda yadda)
But to a certain extent, the language used itself is arbitrary - so long as the audience is interpollated into it, you can pretty much say anything.

Likewise with music.

Music needs a set of idioms, a vocabulary, a set of recognisable signs.... only then can the audience 'understand' it and think "Wow! Jay-lo's new single last month sounded like *THAT*, and now Beyonce has one out where the drums go like *THIS* and it's like even MORE amazing!"

Clearly, it is possible for an audience (say, 1960s teenagers) to get just as excited about the Beatles as it is for some clubbers to get just as thrilled by trance in 2002.
Musical form did not preclude enjoyment and so forth. People didn't sit around in 1865 saying "aw bloody hell, there's just no point us even trying to make music yet until the invent Firewire - it will just be rubbish"

AHIEN

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~