As I have promised in the other thread, let me share with you the results of the «Dodecaphonic survey»:
Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment (http://ariis.it/static/articles/dodecaphonic-experiment/page.html).No time to read? Have this executive summary:
Quote
- take a brief dodecaphonic piece, let us call it D;
- modify 10% of the notes in D by changing their pitch. Let us call this new piece DM;
- have an audience of people who appreciate dodecaphonic music listen to D and DM;
- there is no evidence that the listener's enjoyment is lowered from D to DM. In other words, dodecaphonic enthusiasts seem not to care that the notes being played are "wrong".
I want to thank everyone who took the survey and commented on in in the survey thread (http://https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,29884.0.html") (and the one before that, obliterated due to server crash).
Thanks for reporting about the findings of this study! The results make a lot of sense to me. When I did the test I really "hated" two of the samples (DOD original and DOD corrupted apparently) while one sample was a bit annoying (TON corrupted apparently) and one sample was superior to the other three (TON original).
The funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong. :D
Thanks 71 db. The study is conceptually simple but as all things it takes a bit of labour to devise/code/write, so your feedback — and everyone's — means a lot.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PM
I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music. Of course dodecaphonic music can offer "something different" after you have listened to Mozart for 700 hours ;D Personally I listen to dodecaphonic music hardly at all and if I do it's Alban Berg. There is a reason why most music is tonal, why we have tonal centers and so on.
My conclusion is narrower: I believe that there is value in atonal (pardon the inexect word) music — in the end I personally enjoy some Schönberg, Berg, etc. from time to time —, it is just that the whole twelve-tone «scaffolding» does not add to the composition as much as was thought.
QuoteThe funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong.
I was puzzled by the data and had to double check it was not a plot error!
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PM
I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.
Ah, this old chestnut, again.
And since we're talking about beliefs, here's mine: the people who believe this chestnut cannot understand how anyone can like something that they themselves do not like. The easiest way to deal with the situation is to simply deny that the people who enjoy something that you do not enjoy are not really enjoying it. They're just pretending. (Why this bit of self-deception would comfort anyone, I have no idea.)
And, to move away from beliefs for a moment and indulge in a spot of logic: I enjoy some pieces that are dodecaphonic. I enjoy some pieces that are tonal as well. That means, I suppose, that I listen to the one in order to feel intellectually superior to... myself? Hmmm. That seems a trifle off, somehow, doesn't it?
As for the "study" itself, there's a lot to unpack there, and little or nothing of value to gain from the unpacking. It starts with its conclusion and ends with it as well, dispensing with things like premises, which are pesky creatures that insist on getting in the way. Aside from reiterating my earlier comment from before the crash that dodecaphony is no longer new, in any sense of the word, I'll only mention that the concept of "wrong notes" cannot be applied equally to tonal and dodecaphonic musics. Tonal music has been around for a bit longer than dodecaphonic music, for one. It is ingrained to the extent of seeming natural (and not itself a complex and continually evolving system). That is, the sense of "right" in tonal music, as it is more familiar, is stronger than the sense of "right" in dodecaphonic music. Stronger, but even so.... Here are couple of counter examples from my own short (sixty years) experience with music (of all types). One is from my high school band teacher, who said once that most recordings of (tonal) classical music contain dozens of cuts that most listeneres simply do not notice at all. I'm not saying he was correct, mind. I cite him to point out that people who listen to tonal music can be seen as not being all that astute about mistakes themselves. The second gives different perspective. "When the British composer Charles Villiers Stanford heard Johannes Brahms play his Second Piano Concerto, he observed that the composer 'took it for granted that the public knew he had written the right notes, and did not worry himself over such little trifles as hitting the wrong ones. . . . [T]hey did not disturb his hearers any more than himself.'" (I don't remember where I found this wee gem.)
That is, "wrong notes," given the right (!) circumstance, needn't ruffle anyone's feathers.
Quote from: accmacmus on June 14, 2020, 01:05:26 PM
Thanks 71 db. The study is conceptually simple but as all things it takes a bit of labour to devise/code/write, so your feedback — and everyone's — means a lot.
Yes, I read the study in the link and I can see that this is normal scientific study, which takes effort. I know, because I used to do scientific research for a few years long ago until the funding ended. The study included arranging listening tests of how people hear room modes (as they are/corrected) below 200 Hz.
Quote from: accmacmus on June 14, 2020, 01:05:26 PMMy conclusion is narrower: I believe that there is value in atonal (pardon the inexect word) music — in the end I personally enjoy some Schönberg, Berg, etc. from time to time —, it is just that the whole twelve-tone «scaffolding» does not add to the composition as much as was thought.
Sure, nothing wrong with listening to atonal music, but the fact is if dodecaphony was such a powerful tool there would be much more of it and much less tonal music in the World.
Quote from: accmacmus on June 14, 2020, 01:05:26 PMI was puzzled by the data and had to double check it was not a plot error!
Of course it's good to double-check your results before publishing your work, but as I said, the results make a lot of sense to me.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PMI believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.
Or...because it's good music? The technique really isn't important. And why would I want to feel intellectually superior to a group that includes myself? It makes no sense.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PMOf course dodecaphonic music can offer "something different" after you have listened to Mozart for 700 hours ;D Personally I listen to dodecaphonic music hardly at all and if I do it's Alban Berg. There is a reason why most music is tonal, why we have tonal centers and so on.
Most music is not tonal. Tonality was a relatively short-lived phenomenon, as these things go (about 300 years), and everything else is...not tonal. The 12-tone method hasn't had time to last that long, but a lot of great music has been produced using it.
Years ago I took an online quiz/poll thing that asked whether I could tell the differences between piano music by Cage (Music of Changes, which used chance procedures), Boulez (the Second Sonata I think?), and Stockhausen (some of the Klavierstucke). I hadn't had all that much experience listening to that repertoire, and I could still tell the composers apart decently well (I think I got something like 75% correct). Contrary to the intent of the quiz, I came away convinced that the results of each composer's method, whether serial or chance, reflected a distinct and recognizable aesthetic.
Moreover, if you want to be disturbed by how little people are disturbed by "wrong notes," just check out the most popular Beethoven Symphony 5 video on Youtube, and then look at the comments:
https://www.youtube.com/v/fOk8Tm815lE
Quote from: some guy on June 14, 2020, 01:24:07 PMThat is, the sense of "right" in tonal music, as it is more familiar, is stronger than the sense of "right" in dodecaphonic music.
Always amusing reading your post and the quoted part is indeed a worthy of consideration for future experiments.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 14, 2020, 01:49:36 PMYears ago I took an online quiz/poll thing that asked whether I could tell the differences between piano music by Cage (Music of Changes, which used chance procedures), Boulez (the Second Sonata I think?), and Stockhausen (some of the Klavierstucke). I hadn't had all that much experience listening to that repertoire, and I could still tell the composers apart decently well (I think I got something like 75% correct). Contrary to the intent of the quiz, I came away convinced that the results of each composer's method, whether serial or chance, reflected a distinct and recognizable aesthetic.
Interesting quiz, do you happen to know whether it is still online (and running)?
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PM
I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.
Secondly, I do not find that my enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is "superior" to my enjoyment of tonal music, nor vice versa.
Firstly, none of my enjoyment of any music of any stripe, involves any feellng of superiority to anyone else, whatever.
Your "belief" here is tosh.
Quote from: accmacmus on June 14, 2020, 02:26:08 PMInteresting quiz, do you happen to know whether it is still online (and running)?
This might be the same thing:
https://lukedahn.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/aleatory-quiz/
(In the interest of transparency, I did the above again, and I mixed up one each of the Cage and Stockhausen excerpts with each other, but got the rest correct. The fact that Boulez's Second Sonata is a piece I know pretty well made identifying those excerpts easy.)
My biggest issue with the kind of test you ran (and any similar ones), is that it compares two completely different kinds of things: one pair of excerpts contrasts with notes that are outside of the expected diatonic context, while the other pair contains only notes that are from within the same fully chromatic context. If you want a fairer comparison, you can use either diatonic notes for the former (as I note you take note of on your page) or add quarter-tones etc. for the latter.
I've heard Schoenberg et. al. played well, and I've heard them played badly, I've played Babbitt's easiest piece on piano (Duet) myself, and let me tell you, I prefer all of the above played well rather than not.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 14, 2020, 02:34:56 PM
My biggest issue with the kind of test you ran (and any similar ones), is that it compares two completely different kinds of things: one pair of excerpts contrasts with notes that are outside of the expected diatonic context, while the other pair contains only notes that are from within the same fully chromatic context. If you want a fairer comparison, you can use either diatonic notes for the former (as I note you take note of on your page) or add quarter-tones etc. for the latter.
Correct and indeed in the «Limitations» paragraph I noted:
Quote[W]e could have corrupted the tonal pieces respecting tonality (i.e. shuffling notes on a diatonic scale rather than chromatic one).
Thank for the link, I will listen to the tracks now!
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PM
I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.
There are people who believe that those who listen to or profess a liking for classical music only do so in order to appear intellectually superior to others. If you think that is a ridiculous position to hold, I invite you to reconsider what you have written here. I hasten to add that I do so as someone who currently has Haydn, Schumann, Bach, Lutyens, Schoenberg, and late Stravinsky in regular rotation.
Quote from: Crudblud on June 15, 2020, 12:10:43 AM
There are people who believe that those who listen to or profess a liking for classical music only do so in order to appear intellectually superior to others.
Yes, definitely! On some forums I am called an elitist when I list my CD purchases... :P
Quote from: Crudblud on June 15, 2020, 12:10:43 AMIf you think that is a ridiculous position to hold, I invite you to reconsider what you have written here. I hasten to add that I do so as someone who currently has Haydn, Schumann, Bach, Lutyens, Schoenberg, and late Stravinsky in regular rotation.
Well, I do listen to Alban Berg. Not often, but I do. Sometimes even Schoenberg and Webern. However, an elistist or intellectually superior I am not... :P
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 14, 2020, 02:34:42 PM
Secondly, I do not find that my enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is "superior" to my enjoyment of tonal music, nor vice versa.
Firstly, none of my enjoyment of any music of any stripe, involves any feellng of superiority to anyone else, whatever.
Your "belief" here is tosh.
I did not mean people like you. Clearly your enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is genuine and not a product of feeling superior.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 14, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Or...because it's good music? The technique really isn't important. And why would I want to feel intellectually superior to a group that includes myself? It makes no sense.
Music being "good" is subjective. If something is "good" for you then great! Enjoy it! You don't need to get triggered by my post if you don't feel intellectually superior. I meant people who do feel intellectually superior, not everyone who likes dodecaphonic music. Clearly I did not make this clear, sorry.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 14, 2020, 01:49:36 PMMost music is not tonal. Tonality was a relatively short-lived phenomenon, as these things go (about 300 years), and everything else is...not tonal. The 12-tone method hasn't had time to last that long, but a lot of great music has been produced using it.
Maybe 99 % of the music I listen to is tonal. For me tonality seems to be an attractive thing so that only 1 % of my listening in not tonal. A lot of contemporary composers choose tonalism. I wonder why? Why didn't Englund go dodecaphonic? As far as I see it tonalism is doing fine and it's dodecaphonic music that is "struggling". Where is the great dodecaphonic music composed during the last 50 years? Have I missed some great music here?
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 06:12:33 AMMaybe 99 % of the music I listen to is tonal. For me tonality seems to be an attractive thing so that only 1 % of my listening in not tonal. A lot of contemporary composers choose tonalism. I wonder why? Why didn't Englund go dodecaphonic? As far as I see it tonalism is doing fine and it's dodecaphonic music that is "struggling". Where is the great dodecaphonic music composed during the last 50 years? Have I missed some great music here?
Properly speaking, most music of the 20th century (which I believe is mostly what you listen to) isn't tonal. Pop music isn't really tonal, minimalism isn't really tonal, impressionism certainly isn't tonal, and the so-called "neotonality" of people like Hindemith, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky isn't really tonal either.
Tonality, in that sense, is the specific set of hierarchies and musical norms that characterize common practice music of the 17th-19th centuries, and the above practices, while they may share some features in common with tonality, lack those particular norms.
I also see people bandying about a different definition of tonal that relates the word to "having a center" or something, but that really doesn't help to create a distinction, because 12-tone music also tends to have centers, even if they don't function in the same way. So then you would be contrasting two things that are actually overlapping categories, like dogs and mammals.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 05:52:10 AM
Yes, definitely! On some forums I am called an elitist when I list my CD purchases... :P
Well, I do listen to Alban Berg. Not often, but I do. Sometimes even Schoenberg and Webern. However, an elistist or intellectually superior I am not... :P
So, if it is ridiculous to call you an elitist for listening to classical music, in what sense is it legitimate to say that people who listen to twelve-tone music are only doing so to be "intellectually superior"?
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 06:43:50 AM
Properly speaking, most music of the 20th century (which I believe is mostly what you listen to) isn't tonal. Pop music isn't really tonal, minimalism isn't really tonal, impressionism certainly isn't tonal, and the so-called "neotonality" of people like Hindemith, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky isn't really tonal either.
Tonality, in that sense, is the specific set of hierarchies and musical norms that characterize common practice music of the 17th-19th centuries, and the above practices, while they may share some features in common with tonality, lack those particular norms.
I also see people bandying about a different definition of tonal that relates the word to "having a center" or something, but that really doesn't help to create a distinction, because 12-tone music also tends to have centers, even if they don't function in the same way. So then you would be contrasting two things that are actually overlapping categories, like dogs and mammals.
Well, how I have understood it, tonal music uses scales such Minor, Phrygian, Ultralocrian, Pentatonic or 6/8-note variations of these where a "spicy passing note" has been added (e.g. Blues scale) so that there is a clear root note/chord creating the tonal center ( hence tonal music). I believe pretty much all pop music is like that and for example Mixolydian scale has been popular in rock music. Am I mixing up tonal and modal music? I was never given good education of these concepts and I and trying to firuge things out by myself. I am not sure I know about the "norms" of common practice whatever they are.
Quote from: Crudblud on June 15, 2020, 06:51:03 AM
So, if it is ridiculous to call you an elitist for listening to classical music, in what sense is it legitimate to say that people who listen to twelve-tone music are only doing so to be "intellectually superior"?
Whether you are doing it to be "intellectually superior" or you are doing it for some other reason. I could be listening to classical music to feel "intellectually superior", in which case calling me an elitist would be accurate, but I am not. In fact, I openly tell how I also listen to "dumb" music such as Katy Perry.
Same goes to twelve-tone music.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 07:50:03 AM
Well, how I have understood it, tonal music uses scales such Minor, Phrygian, Ultralocrian, Pentatonic or 6/8-note variations of these where a "spicy passing note" has been added (e.g. Blues scale) so that there is a clear root note/chord creating the tonal center ( hence tonal music). I believe pretty much all pop music is like that and for example Mixolydian scale has been popular in rock music. Am I mixing up tonal and modal music? I was never given good education of these concepts and I and trying to firuge things out by myself. I am not sure I know about the "norms" of common practice whatever they are.
Scales are really a secondary product, not a determiner of anything. You can find excerpts of Bach or Mozart that use the complete chromatic in a tonal context and of Debussy that use only the diatonic collection without tonal functionality.
Bach fugue in which the subject uses all twelve chromatic notes:
https://www.youtube.com/v/ryu7WcPV7fg
Debussy prelude which is largely diatonic but without any tonal functionality:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Eym3nCRxev0
Common practice tonality is a particular set of harmonic hierarchies and voice leading norms that held sway in the time frame of those few centuries which span the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. Everything is oriented towards the dominant-tonic relationship and all harmonies/progressions are heard in terms of their distance or closeness to that relationship. That level of layered interconnection is something that's specific to tonality and doesn't really exist in either pre-tonal (modal) music or post-tonal music.
Rock and pop music tend to be triadic (using major and minor chords) and diatonic (as you said above, using 7-note scales like minor or Phrygian), but that sense of interdependence and more importantly of dominant-tonic hierarchy are not generally present, except as an occasional effect (which effect also appears in a good number of 12-tone pieces). Just as crucially, centricity in these musics is contextual and mutable. A classical sonata form that begins in one key and ends a step higher would seem strange; a pop song that does the same is banal.
Time to revisit what 71 db actually said:
Quote from: 71 dB on June 14, 2020, 12:11:37 PMI believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music....
The funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong. :D
What's funny is your repeated attempts to insist that you did not really say what you really said. There is no wiggle room in this original statement. It is unequivocal.
This thread might better bear the title: Why am I so worried about listening?—I might like it, I might not.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 08:09:53 AM
Scales are really a secondary product, not a determiner of anything. You can find excerpts of Bach or Mozart that use the complete chromatic in a tonal context and of Debussy that use only the diatonic collection without tonal functionality.
Bach fugue in which the subject uses all twelve chromatic notes:
https://www.youtube.com/v/ryu7WcPV7fg
Debussy prelude which is largely diatonic but without any tonal functionality:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Eym3nCRxev0
Common practice tonality is a particular set of harmonic hierarchies and voice leading norms that held sway in the time frame of those few centuries which span the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. Everything is oriented towards the dominant-tonic relationship and all harmonies/progressions are heard in terms of their distance or closeness to that relationship. That level of layered interconnection is something that's specific to tonality and doesn't really exist in either pre-tonal (modal) music or post-tonal music.
Rock and pop music tend to be triadic (using major and minor chords) and diatonic (as you said above, using 7-note scales like minor or Phrygian), but that sense of interdependence and more importantly of dominant-tonic hierarchy are not generally present, except as an occasional effect (which effect also appears in a good number of 12-tone pieces). Just as crucially, centricity in these musics is contextual and mutable. A classical sonata form that begins in one key and ends a step higher would seem strange; a pop song that does the same is banal.
My head exploded because of this. Seems like things aren't as simple as I have thought. Sure, Bach used Chromatic notes, but he did not use tone rows like Schoenberg did he? He was a Baroque composer operating in common practice tonality era so what should we call his music? Tonal is the logical choice. Also, I believe pop music is also based on dominant-tonic relationship (chord progressions like I-IV-V-I are common)
I try to learn more about tonality in order to understand this better.
Quote from: some guy on June 15, 2020, 08:24:40 AM
Time to revisit what 71 db actually said:
What's funny is your repeated attempts to insist that you did not really say what you really said. There is no wiggle room in this original statement. It is unequivocal.
Okay then. I take it back. Maybe it was just a stupid opinion. I have those. Sorry.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 09:22:59 AM
Maybe it was just a stupid opinion. I have those. Sorry.
We all have those. ;)
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 15, 2020, 10:37:29 AM
We all have those. ;)
Speak for yourself.... ::)
Just kidding, of course ;). Good day,
John.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 09:19:43 AM
My head exploded because of this. Seems like things aren't as simple as I have thought. Sure, Bach used Chromatic notes, but he did not use tone rows like Schoenberg did he? He was a Baroque composer operating in common practice tonality era so what should we call his music? Tonal is the logical choice. Also, I believe pop music is also based on dominant-tonic relationship (chord progressions like I-IV-V-I are common)
Of course Bach's music is tonal. My point was that there's no contradiction between using the whole chromatic scale and tonality, so long as it's embedded within that harmonic hierarchy.
You're correct that pop music tends to use chords related to each other in that way, but the reason I don't consider it tonal is that it's not embedded within the particular context of the common practice era. It's much more common to hear all of the chords in block form moving in parallel than to have the individual notes within them function in the multi-level way that they do in a tonal work.
Also, progressions like V-IV-I are as common, if not more so. In a common practice work, that kind of "retrogression" would be extremely unusual and certainly not sound like a proper cadence.
Finally, as I said above, there's no sense of higher tonal organization in pop/rock that makes it seem strange if the song ends in a different tonal region from the one it began in. The centricity in operation is contextual and limited in effect.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 09:19:43 AMI try to learn more about tonality in order to understand this better.
The main issue is that the term is used in a variety of conflicting ways. The version you've heard is probably from the jazz/pop side, where the theory is very different, and focuses a lot more on scales than harmonic hierarchies. My training is as a classical musician, and that's why for me tonal is more or less synonymous with "common practice tonality."
Quote from: ritter on June 15, 2020, 10:43:50 AM
Speak for yourself.... ::)
Just kidding, of course ;). Good day, John.
:P And good day to you, Rafael.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 11:33:36 AM
Of course Bach's music is tonal. My point was that there's no contradiction between using the whole chromatic scale and tonality, so long as it's embedded within that harmonic hierarchy.
I believe you mean chromatic notes are treaded as such, notes outside the chosen diatonic scale.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 11:33:36 AMYou're correct that pop music tends to use chords related to each other in that way, but the reason I don't consider it tonal is that it's not embedded within the particular context of the common practice era. It's much more common to hear all of the chords in block form moving in parallel than to have the individual notes within them function in the multi-level way that they do in a tonal work.
I am afraid my knowledge starts lacking the moment you start talking about notes functioning in the multi-level way within chords... ...to me C major chord for example is simply C-E-G so I don't know how these notes could function in the multi-level way... ...but from the "blocks moving in parallel" I get the vibe you mean things like "anticipation", certain notes predicting the chord change before the other ones. The way I have learned this concept is if you want to make dull pop music you don't use them, but if you want to make interesting more sophisticated pop music you use them.
For example going from I to ii you would go to Isus4 before the chord change to have the common note (e.g. F in C major) when ii kicks in to melt the chords together better and also make the music more interesting using anticipation.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 11:33:36 AMAlso, progressions like V-IV-I are as common, if not more so. In a common practice work, that kind of "retrogression" would be extremely unusual and certainly not sound like a proper cadence.
Of course. Popular music seems to be more "flexible" when it cames to cadencas. You have Mario Cadence, Pickardy third,...
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 11:33:36 AMFinally, as I said above, there's no sense of higher tonal organization in pop/rock that makes it seem strange if the song ends in a different tonal region from the one it began in. The centricity in operation is contextual and limited in effect.
Are you talking about for example going from C major to D major near the end of a song in order to "raise energy level"?
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 11:33:36 AMThe main issue is that the term is used in a variety of conflicting ways. The version you've heard is probably from the jazz/pop side, where the theory is very different, and focuses a lot more on scales than harmonic hierarchies. My training is as a classical musician, and that's why for me tonal is more or less synonymous with "common practice tonality."
The sources where I have learned what I know are not from "classical world", but they say the theories are applicable to any genre. Yes, I have heard a lot about scales, but nothing about
harmonic hierarchies.
So, if to you only common practice tonality = tonal, what do you call pop music tonality? Malpractice tonality? :laugh:
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMI believe you mean chromatic notes are treaded as such, notes outside the chosen diatonic scale.
The scale isn't the important thing. The key of B minor (in this instance) is more important, and relates all of the notes to a hierarchy with the B minor triad as its most important pole and the F# major triad as its most important counterpart. It would be more confusing to analyze in terms of scales, because the harmonic and melodic minor modes are both in operation and not at all "outside" of anything.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMI am afraid my knowledge starts lacking the moment you start talking about notes functioning in the multi-level way within chords... ...to me C major chord for example is simply C-E-G so I don't know how these notes could function in the multi-level way... ...but from the "blocks moving in parallel" I get the vibe you mean things like "anticipation", certain notes predicting the chord change before the other ones. The way I have learned this concept is if you want to make dull pop music you don't use them, but if you want to make interesting more sophisticated pop music you use them.
For example going from I to ii you would go to Isus4 before the chord change to have the common note (e.g. F in C major) when ii kicks in to melt the chords together better and also make the music more interesting using anticipation.
Yes, using anticipations and such for smoother voice leading is helpful for creating interest in any style. But what I meant is that common practice music tends to treat every note within a chord as an individual voice, even in homophonic (melody and accompaniment) music, so each note is both working as a vertical and a horizontal element, and the two are interrelated. If a dissonance is in the melody, it is supposed to resolve in a specific way, and if it's in an inner voice, it's still supposed to resolve in that way.
In jazz, on the other hand, you have "consonant" seventh chords, which are free of any particular resolution. If you ended a Mozart movement on a seventh chord, it would sound unresolved, no matter how many chromatic excursions had been taken in the meantime, while a jazz song often ends on a seventh chord or something else that would be considered a dissonance in common practice contexts. It's not a matter of one practice being more or less complex than the other, but the fact that the two use completely different syntax and vocabulary. The treatment of suspended chords as consonances in some rock and pop music is similar at times. In both cases, the added notes are used as a "color," not as a dissonance that requires resolution.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMOf course. Popular music seems to be more "flexible" when it comes to cadences. You have Mario Cadence, Pickardy third,...
What I'm saying is that the additional flexibility is possible because the dominant-tonic axis is optional at best and possibly irrelevant to the harmonic structure of the music. The same cannot be said of common practice tonality.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMAre you talking about for example going from C major to D major near the end of a song in order to "raise energy level"?
Yeah, things like that. You can find examples in some common practice literature too, like Mahler's Songs of a Wayfarer, each of which ends in a different key from the one it began in, but these are markedly unusual and
depend on a sense of an unstable shifting tonality.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMThe sources where I have learned what I know are not from "classical world", but they say the theories are applicable to any genre. Yes, I have heard a lot about scales, but nothing about harmonic hierarchies.
I think that trying to apply one set of rules to both common practice tonality and the wealth of popular, folk, and jazz practices will ultimately be unsatisfying on both sides. A scale-based approach really can't make good sense of why classical and baroque music work the way they do any more than a common practice functional hierarchy approach will do much to explain rock music.
A common practice approach also really can't explain most 20th century music either: whether it's Copland, Debussy, Shostakovich, Boulez, Stravinsky, or Schoenberg, the music doesn't work in the same way.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 12:43:52 PMSo, if to you only common practice tonality = tonal, what do you call pop music tonality? Malpractice tonality? :laugh:
Pop music harmony? Diatonicism? I don't know. It's such a disparate collection of practices, not a unified system. Best to just embrace the variety and not worry about labels.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 02:15:24 PM
The scale isn't the important thing. The key of B minor (in this instance) is more important, and relates all of the notes to a hierarchy with the B minor triad as its most important pole and the F# major triad as its most important counterpart. It would be more confusing to analyze in terms of scales, because the harmonic and melodic minor modes are both in operation and not at all "outside" of anything.
On the other hand on both harmonic and melodic minor modes of B minor B is scale degree 1 and F# is scale degree 5. Only the 6th scale degree is different, G for harmonic minor and G# for melodic minor. That said, I must admit I don't understand how these modes operate together, because my sources are "pop"-oriented and this is classical music oriented stuff. They say going down means harmonic minor and going up is melodic minor so I guess that's clear for melodies, but how about chords with the 6th scale degree note in them? What's the "movement"? I guess the chord just must "imitate" the melody in regards of the 6th scale degree. Anyway, only 8 notes in all are employed.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 02:15:24 PMYes, using anticipations and such for smoother voice leading is helpful for creating interest in any style. But what I meant is that common practice music tends to treat every note within a chord as an individual voice, even in homophonic (melody and accompaniment) music, so each note is both working as a vertical and a horizontal element, and the two are interrelated. If a dissonance is in the melody, it is supposed to resolve in a specific way, and if it's in an inner voice, it's still supposed to resolve in that way.
Yeah, ok. I think I get what you mean now. Yes, in pop music chords are often "just" chords, musical lego blocks of desired effect in the chord progression. It's interesting that for long I tried to understand music theory the way classical music thinks about chords (vertical + horizontal) and it was when I was told the "pop" music way of thinking about chords/scales etc. when I understood a lot things.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 02:15:24 PMIn jazz, on the other hand, you have "consonant" seventh chords, which are free of any particular resolution. If you ended a Mozart movement on a seventh chord, it would sound unresolved, no matter how many chromatic excursions had been taken in the meantime, while a jazz song often ends on a seventh chord or something else that would be considered a dissonance in common practice contexts. It's not a matter of one practice being more or less complex than the other, but the fact that the two use completely different syntax and vocabulary. The treatment of suspended chords as consonances in some rock and pop music is similar at times. In both cases, the added notes are used as a "color," not as a dissonance that requires resolution.
Good points here! Pop music is perhaps more interested of musical
hooks than "resolving" things.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 02:15:24 PMWhat I'm saying is that the additional flexibility is possible because the dominant-tonic axis is optional at best and possibly irrelevant to the harmonic structure of the music. The same cannot be said of common practice tonality.
Yes, I suppose...
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 15, 2020, 02:15:24 PMYeah, things like that. You can find examples in some common practice literature too, like Mahler's Songs of a Wayfarer, each of which ends in a different key from the one it began in, but these are markedly unusual and depend on a sense of an unstable shifting tonality.
I think that trying to apply one set of rules to both common practice tonality and the wealth of popular, folk, and jazz practices will ultimately be unsatisfying on both sides. A scale-based approach really can't make good sense of why classical and baroque music work the way they do any more than a common practice functional hierarchy approach will do much to explain rock music.
A common practice approach also really can't explain most 20th century music either: whether it's Copland, Debussy, Shostakovich, Boulez, Stravinsky, or Schoenberg, the music doesn't work in the same way.
Pop music harmony? Diatonicism? I don't know. It's such a disparate collection of practices, not a unified system. Best to just embrace the variety and not worry about labels.
Well, this has been educational and I must admit I never realized such fundamental differences between common practise and popular music and other genres...
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 04:44:48 PM
On the other hand on both harmonic and melodic minor modes of B minor B is scale degree 1 and F# is scale degree 5. Only the 6th scale degree is different, G for harmonic minor and G# for melodic minor. That said, I must admit I don't understand how these modes operate together, because my sources are "pop"-oriented and this is classical music oriented stuff. They say going down means harmonic minor and going up is melodic minor so I guess that's clear for melodies, but how about chords with the 6th scale degree note in them? What's the "movement"? I guess the chord just must "imitate" the melody in regards of the 6th scale degree. Anyway, only 8 notes in all are employed.
Ascending, the melodic minor uses #6 and #7, descending it uses the lowered sixth and seventh degrees. Harmonic minor has #7 but a lowered sixth degree. Which one is used in a given harmony depends on where that harmony is going and what it's doing. It's a matter of horizontal considerations as much as vertical ones.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 15, 2020, 04:44:48 PMWell, this has been educational and I must admit I never realized such fundamental differences between common practise and popular music and other genres...
Like I said above, I'm interested in the diversity of musical approaches more than in trying to fit everything into a single system. When you've heard traditions from around the world, with the variety of scales, tunings, and timbres that are possible, you realize that any attempt to say "this is the way music
is" based on what's familiar will fail to account for what music
can be.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 16, 2020, 08:34:19 AM
Ascending, the melodic minor uses #6 and #7, descending it uses the lowered sixth and seventh degrees. Harmonic minor has #7 but a lowered sixth degree. Which one is used in a given harmony depends on where that harmony is going and what it's doing. It's a matter of horizontal considerations as much as vertical ones.
The scales themselves are very clear to me. It's the USE of harmonic and melodic minor scales in classical "common practice" manner that I have no experience of. I have only used natural minor and the modal variations Dorian and Phrygian (+ Phrygian Dominant). I feel that now that I have gotten into music theory at least to some reasonable degree it all feels surprisingly logical (compared to how confusing it felt to me just 2 years ago) and makes so much sense. I think that when I start testing the use of harmonic and melodic minor scales it will come to me.
Quote from: Mahlerian on June 16, 2020, 08:34:19 AMLike I said above, I'm interested in the diversity of musical approaches more than in trying to fit everything into a single system. When you've heard traditions from around the world, with the variety of scales, tunings, and timbres that are possible, you realize that any attempt to say "this is the way music is" based on what's familiar will fail to account for what music can be.
Well, isn't "dodecaphonic music" a single system under which all kind of 12-note music is being squeezed?
The best definition of the role of music theory I have seen is:
"It doesn't tell where to walk, but it's the flashlight in your hand luminating your path of choice so you don't falter in the dark."