Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment

[Karl Henning]

This thread might better bear the title: Why am I so worried about listening?—I might like it, I might not.

[71 dB]

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.

[71 dB]

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.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe it was just a stupid opinion. I have those. Sorry.

We all have those.

[ritter]

We all have those.

Speak for yourself....

Just kidding, of course  . Good day, John.

[Mahlerian]

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.

I 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."

[Mirror Image]

Speak for yourself....

Just kidding, of course  . Good day, John.

And good day to you, Rafael.

[71 dB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course. Popular music seems to be more "flexible" when it cames to cadencas. You have Mario Cadence, Pickardy third,...

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.

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"?

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."

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? 

[Mahlerian]

I 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.

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.

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.

Of 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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

So, if to you only common practice tonality = tonal, what do you call pop music tonality? Malpractice tonality? 

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.

[71 dB]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Good points here! Pop music is perhaps more interested of musical hooks than "resolving" things.

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.

Yes, I suppose...

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.

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...

[Mahlerian]

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.

Well, 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.

[71 dB]

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.

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.

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."