# What's the Difference Between a Scale and a Key Signature?



## millionrainbows

What's the Difference Between a Scale and a Key Signature? Also, what are the 'similarities' and connections between the two things? Watch out, this is a trick question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I guess this thread is similar to Difference between scale an key?, except that the key signature is an easier way to notate stuff. Say, if you're writing a piece in the key of E major, you don't want to write # to every notes F, C, G, D. So you write the key signature of E major initially to indicate that all notes F, C, G, D following it are sharped by default. A composer can change the key signature as often as his music requires, but he wouldn't want to change it every time he has to use an accidental for a bar. He would want to use it just so it enhances readability.
It's much like whenever we see a post with the signature "_millionrainbows_" (the key information), we know in advance that all the utterances in it will defy all conventional logic and mess with our heads. -like seeing a key signature with a million accidentals in a rainbow-shaped staff.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> It's much like whenever we see a post with the signature "_millionrainbows_" (the key information), we know in advance that all the utterances in it will defy all conventional logic and mess with our heads. -like seeing a key signature with a million accidentals in a rainbow-shaped staff.


Thank you...I think. Then again...

So what does a scale do? What does a key signature do? Aren't they both basically the same thing? If not, what are the differences?


----------



## Kopachris

I think we're all sick of your trick questions, because as hammeredklavier points out you constantly defy conventional logic.

A key signature is a symbol on a piece of paper or computer screen. Nothing more.

A scale is an arbitrary collection of pitches. Nothing more.


----------



## isorhythm

A key signature is the thing that tells you what accidentals to play. A scale is a collection of pitches in stepwise order.

In common practice music the key signature usually tells you that the piece is going to be based on one of two scales, either the major or minor scale corresponding to that key signature.

Nothing mysterious here, and really no possibility of making a trick question out of it unless you don't understand it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> I think we're all sick of your trick questions, because as hammeredklavier points out you constantly defy conventional logic.
> 
> A key signature is a symbol on a piece of paper or computer screen. Nothing more.
> 
> A scale is an arbitrary collection of pitches. Nothing more.


It sounds like you don't want to engage. That's why your "answers" are so unsatisfying and unimaginative.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> A key signature is the thing that tells you what accidentals to play. A scale is a collection of pitches in stepwise order.
> 
> In common practice music the key signature usually tells you that the piece is going to be based on one of two scales, either the major or minor scale corresponding to that key signature.
> 
> Nothing mysterious here, and really no possibility of making a trick question out of it unless you don't understand it.


"Nothing mysterious" or "tricky," but this sort of "trick" query is designed to help us uncover hidden principles which underly the obvious; i.e., to make us think about "simple" obvious things in a new way. Not, as Kopachris implied, to "jack" with people.

isorhythm is zero-ing in on an interesting area. A key signature is an indicator which tells us which notes are flatted or sharped. In the CP major/minor system, the key signature for G major is also the key signature for E minor. 
What does this tell us about the difference between a key signature and a scale?

Consider "no key signature at all" as in C Major. What does this tell us about the scale notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B? Since a scale's note-order really has no significance (other than the first note being an indicator of the tonic), what does this tell us about those notes of the scale, individually?


----------



## isorhythm

OK, I'll try this again.

A key signature is literally just the collection of accidentals you see at the beginning of a section of written music. It is a notational convention.

Common practice music overwhelmingly uses two modes, major and minor. That means that in common practice music a given key signature tells you that a piece is in either the major or minor key corresponding to that key signature.

There are of course other diatonic scales. The key signature for G major and E minor is also the key signature for A Dorian, B Phrygian, C Lydian, and D Mixolydian, but common practice music is usually not written in these modes. (If you really want to nitpick you might note that in the early Baroque composers sometimes used a "Dorian" key signature for minor key pieces, but don't let that confuse you - they are still minor.)

You can also write whatever key signature you want, corresponding to no diatonic scale, and composers beginning in the 20th century have certainly experimented with that.


----------



## Kopachris

millionrainbows said:


> Consider "no key signature at all" as in C Major. What does this tell us about the scale notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B? Since a scale's note-order really has no significance (other than the first note being an indicator of the tonic), what does this tell us about those notes of the scale, individually?


Why don't you just tell us instead of asking rhetorical questions?


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> A key signature is literally just the collection of accidentals you see at the beginning of a section of written music. It is a notational convention.


Indeed. It doesn't even necessitate that the music that follows it has to be in the key it seems to indicate, or use any particular scale.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kopachris said:


> I think we're all sick of your trick questions, because as hammeredklavier points out you constantly defy conventional logic.
> A key signature is a symbol on a piece of paper or computer screen. Nothing more.
> A scale is an arbitrary collection of pitches. Nothing more.


I agree with everything you've said except I'm not exactly _sick_ of millionrainbows' trick questions, or the way he arouses various reactions from other people here. I think the way he thinks of music is just so radical and revolutionary, it makes us question the very fundamentals of its existence. And I think he's also a pro, just in a _different way_, as a sort of an entertainer concept. O what boring place this forum would have been without his presence.



millionrainbows said:


> Consider "no key signature at all" as in C Major. What does this tell us about the scale notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B? Since a scale's note-order really has no significance (other than the first note being an indicator of the tonic), what does this tell us about those notes of the scale, individually?


What do you mean, MR. MR? C Major doesn't have a key signature? Would it be more _conventionally appropriate_ to say "C major/A minor do have a key signature, it's just that it's a key signature without any accidentals"? Are you saying "Beethoven starts the Credo of his mass Op.86 in C without a key signature, but inserts in one in the middle of the movement, and then removes it towards the end of the movement"?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. It doesn't even necessitate that the music that follows it has to be in the key it seems to indicate, or use any particular scale.


True, and Woodduck has even stated more succinctly what I am getting at, in a past thread. I agree, a key signature is simply an indicator of which notes are sharp or flat, but it would be misleading to say they have "absolutely no connection to scales whatsoever."

So, since key signatures do not indicate a key area, or a particular scale, then going by the thread title, it must follow that scales do this.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree with everything you've said except I'm not exactly _sick_ of millionrainbows' trick questions, or the way he arouses various reactions from other people here. I think the way he thinks of music is just so radical and revolutionary, it makes us question the very fundamentals of its existence. And I think he's also a pro, just in a _different way_, as a sort of an entertainer concept. O what boring place this forum would have been without his presence.


I think of Woodduck in the same way, although I feel he is somewhat...oh, never mind.



> What do you mean, MR. MR? C Major doesn't have a key signature? Would it be more _conventionally appropriate_ to say "C major/A minor do have a key signature, it's just that it's a key signature without any accidentals"? Are you saying "Beethoven starts the Credo of his mass Op.86 in C without a key signature, but inserts in one in the middle of the movement, and then removes it towards the end of the movement"?


The collection of white notes on the piano notes has no key signature because it's all "white notes;" nothing is sharped or flatted. So the key signature by itself indicates this; that all the notes are white notes.

But it doesn't indicate what the starting note is. What does the starting note in a scale do, that a key signature ostensibly can't do?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> But it doesn't indicate what the starting note is. What does the starting note in a scale do, that a key signature ostensibly can't do?


What do you mean, what does it "do"? It starts the scale.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> What do you mean, what does it "do"? It starts the scale.


In normal scales it establishes a tonal center (the "chromatic scale" isn't a normal scale).


----------



## isorhythm

I want him to say it! Or whatever he's trying to say.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> I want him to say it! Or whatever he's trying to say.


I believe I hear a frown and a foot being stamped.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> What's the Difference Between a Scale and a Key Signature? Also, what are the 'similarities' and connections between the two things? Watch out, this is a trick question.


No, it's not a trick question. It's a nonsensical question. On my home planet, when one asks a "what's-the-difference" question, one is either telling a joke of a traditional type or comparing two items with similarities significant enough as to require careful discernment in differentiating them. Your question is clearly not of the latter kind, since "scale" and "key signature" lack a salient or interesting conceptual relationship. No, it's more like asking "What's the difference between a duck and a bicycle" - it makes no sense but it might have comic potential. You just need to work up a punchline.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, Woodduck gets it right again, and is getting to the heart of the matter. *A key signature indicates which notes are sharped or flatted, but the scale is what estabishes a tonic, and thus a tonality.* That's why I gave the all-white-note "no key signature" as an example. In the scale C-D-E-F-G-A-B, the "blank" key signature can indicate C major, or its relative minor, A minor (natural minor/ aeolian minor). But it can also indicate, if we are mor modern thinkers, any mode of that collection, which includes D dorian minor, E phrygian (used in jazz and Spanish music), F lydian (used in jazz over mass 7th chords), G mixolydian, and B locrian (used in jazz over min7b5 chords).


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's not a trick question. It's a nonsensical question. On my home planet, when one asks a "what's-the-difference" question, one is either telling a joke of a traditional type or comparing two items with similarities significant enough as to require careful discernment in differentiating them. Your question is clearly not of the latter kind, since "scale" and "key signature" lack a salient or interesting conceptual relationship. No, it's more like asking "What's the difference between a duck and a bicycle" - it makes no sense but it might have comic potential. You just need to work up a punchline.


There's a little pond nearby where I often see a pair of mallards paddling around. Every time I walk past there, since reading this post, I am overcome with the desire to know how a duck is different from a bicycle. I'm not getting any closer to the answer, but at least I've figured out how they're similar.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> There's a little pond nearby where I often see a pair of mallards paddling around. Every time I walk past there, since reading this post, I am overcome with the desire to know how a duck is different from a bicycle. I'm not getting any closer to the answer, but at least I've figured out how they're similar.


All that got you was a wet bicycle. If you'd concentrated on the differences, maybe you'd still be dry and on land. But since you're a duck, this shouldn't matter.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> All that got you was a wet bicycle. If you'd concentrated on the differences, maybe you'd still be dry and on land. But since you're a duck, this shouldn't matter.


"This" never did matter.


----------



## isorhythm

OK, I think we're ready for the big reveal now - where were you going with this?


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> A key signature indicates which notes are sharped or flatted, *but the scale is what estabishes a tonic, and thus a tonality.*


Basic harmony texts, when they get to the subject of modulation, tend to offer guidance on what's required to convincingly establish a tonic in common practice style. I suggest you consult one or more of these texts. A hint: it ain't "the scale."


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Basic harmony texts, when they get to the subject of modulation, tend to offer guidance on what's required to convincingly establish a tonic in common practice style. I suggest you consult one or more of these texts. A hint: it ain't "the scale."


Then you're disagreeing with what Woodduck has said in the past. Your reply is irrelevant and negative anyway.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> OK, I think we're ready for the big reveal now - where were you going with this?


Sorry, isorhthm...EdwardBast and Woodduck have decided that this discussion will not exist.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Sorry, isorhthm...EdwardBast and Woodduck have decided that this discussion will not exist.


No, you've decided that. If you want to have a discussion, go ahead!


----------



## millionrainbows

I already stated that key signature does not establish a tonality, a scale does. Of course, there is more. Why don't YOU add something? Would that be too much work for your index finger?


----------



## millionrainbows

There is no "big reveal," so don't hold your breath. We can probe the diatonic scale further.

The major diatonic scale, one of the main scales the CP major /minor system is based on, has its half-steps in a certain place in relation to "1" or tonic. *In C*, these half-steps are B-C and E-F. 
Our staff notation & letter names of notes are based on this.

What do these half-steps do, and why are they preferred above all other arrangements?

It's my assertion that E-F is a leading tone which reinforces the key of F, and that B-C likewise reinforces the key of C. This is so the scale facilitates travel, not stability, to other keys, either F (counterclockwise or down by fourths) or G (clockwise or up by fifths).

If our main scale was the Lydian (derived from the same scale), used in jazz, we would get (key of F: F-G-A-*B-C, *reinforcing the dominant C, and C-D-E-F, reinforcing the home key of F. As you can see, this arrangement is not conducive to travel in 4ths and 5ths, but instead creates harmonic stability within itself, with F and its main overtone C being reinforced.


----------



## mikeh375

I can accept that the diatonic major scale has a duality in that two semitone intervals can imply leading tone functions. It's also true that asymmetry in the major scales intervallic make-up invites "travel", but that is also one of the scales strengths. Stability is boring.

The raised fourth as in a Lydian mode will obviously invite travel to the dominant and affirm the tonic, dominant relationship, but to be convincing in bringing the music home and affirming the original tonic, the raised fourth needs be flattened again _in CP_ writing.
What are you saying specifically, that a lydian scale is more valid than CP diatonicism in some way because it doesn't invite travel?


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> I can accept that the diatonic major scale has a duality in that two semitone intervals can imply leading tone functions. I can also accept that asymmetry in the major scales intervallic make-up invites "travel", but that is also one of the scales strengths. Stability is boring.


Stability is not boring if you want to reinforce a key center, or a chord, as in jazz, and you want maximum consonance.



> The raised fourth as in a Lydian mode will obviously invite travel to the dominant and affirm the tonic, dominant relationship, but to be convincing in bringing the music home and affirming the original tonic, the raised fourth needs be flattened again _in CP_ writing.


I'm lost. The F Lydian is in F, so no flatted note is needed.



> What are you saying specifically, that a lydian scale is more valid than CP diatonicism in some way because it doesn't invite travel?


NO, I'm not saying the Lydian is "more valid"; just different. The Lydian is a more consonant scale harmonically, because of the placement of the half-steps. You can demonstrate this on any keyboard which sustains notes, such as an organ.

When you play fifths from F: F-C-G-D-A-E-B, giving you all 7 (white) scale notes, it sounds more consonant. There are all fifths between notes.

When you try to play fifths from C: C-G-D-A-E-B-F, using all the (white) scale notes, you have the tritone B-F on top, which ruins the consonance. To have all fifths, the "F" would need to be "F#", which is a C Lydian scale.
_
Your ear will tell you this.

Jazz is "ear" music. It's based on maximum consonance for each chord.

_So, yes, the lydian scale is better *"harmonically"* than the Ionian (major) scale.


----------



## mikeh375

Well thanks for the lessons, gee, what do I owe you? I never thought to play it on a piano and that stuff about the perfect 5th whatnots, oh boy what revelations.....

Ok then the lydian scale is just...well... lydian and different from a diatonic scale...and? 
Jazz music isn't_ just_ based on lydian, all _perfect_ 5ths together consonances. You'll no doubt know that earlier jazz used chromatic diatonicism, so how does that fit in? What are you trying to telling us MR that we don't know?

You are saying then that the lydian mode, because it _inherently _facilitates travel to the dominant, it is therefore more consonant as an harmonic entity in comparison to a diatonic major scale because it recognises more decisively and readily the third partial of the tonic, thus strengthening that relationship (apparently more so than CP I'd wager) and it's raised 4th is a consequence of stacking perfect 5ths...indeed, this is undeniable. Conversely, the 3rd to 4th step in diatonicism has a leading note function that undermines the dominance of V-I making it less emphatic and as a consequence invites instability.....Great, good,...so?

The instability of the the tone/ semitone relationships within diatonicism are one thing and the perfect stacked 5ths lydian construction another. Ok, now what?

All music is ear music and to some ears, CP will confirm the tonic dominant relationship more clearly than a Lydian mode. There is no right or wrong here with CP versus Lydian or any other scale system..it's what you do with the system and not what you say about it that matters most.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows, what do you think of this? Does it support your theory? 




How about this? 




Or, of course, this?


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Well thanks for the lessons, gee, what do I owe you? I never thought to play it on a piano and that stuff about the perfect 5th whatnots, oh boy what revelations.....
> 
> Ok then the lydian scale is just...well... lydian and different from a diatonic scale...and?
> Jazz music isn't_ just_ based on lydian, all _perfect_ 5ths together consonances. You'll no doubt know that earlier jazz used chromatic diatonicism, so how does that fit in? What are you trying to telling us MR that we don't know?


This is easily demonstrated to your ear using a major seventh chord, C-E-G-B. What scale sounds best over this, to your ear? Not C major. The "F" sounds terrible, and clashes with the E. This is about as basic "jazz" as you can get. "Use Lydian scales over major seventh chords."



> You are saying then that the lydian mode, because it _inherently _facilitates travel to the dominant, it is therefore more consonant as an harmonic entity in comparison to a diatonic major scale because it recognises more decisively and readily the third partial of the tonic, thus strengthening that relationship (apparently more so than CP I'd wager) and it's raised 4th is a consequence of stacking perfect 5ths...indeed, this is undeniable. Conversely, the 3rd to 4th step in diatonicism has a leading note function that undermines the dominance of V-I making it less emphatic and as a consequence invites instability.....Great, good,...so?





> The instability of the the tone/ semitone relationships within diatonicism are one thing and the perfect stacked 5ths lydian construction another. Ok, now what?


That's the difference between a harmonic approach and a melodic approach.

It just depends _where_ the semitones are in the scale, and where the tritone is. Cp has to rely on melodic movement and classifications of dissonance and resolution to solve these problems.



> All music is ear music and to some ears, CP will confirm the tonic dominant relationship more clearly than a Lydian mode. There is no right or wrong here with CP versus Lydian or any other scale system..it's what you do with the system and not what you say about it that matters most.


The Lydian scale is more harmonically consonant. If you wish to reject what your ears tell you, then go ahead and "join the monastery."


----------



## mikeh375

Your reliance on your ears being an arbiter of some musical truth is quite possibly a flaw. Aesthetic proclivities differ and whilst I'm not saying you don't have a reasonable pov, even one that makes occasional sense, it is not the only one available. My ears tell me I love the lydian scale and many other unusual scales be they synthetic (of which I use quite a lot) or cultural. 

I say again, the Lydian is not in any competition with diatonicism from CP, there are no ultimatums, nor is there any problem with preferring one form of harmonic thinking over another - great music can be had either way.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Your reliance on your ears being an arbiter of some musical truth is quite possibly a flaw. Aesthetic proclivities differ and whilst I'm not saying you don't have a reasonable pov, even one that makes occasional sense, it is not the only one available. My ears tell me I love the lydian scale and many other unusual scales be they synthetic (of which I use quite a lot) or cultural.
> 
> I say again, the Lydian is not in any competition with diatonicism from CP, there are no ultimatums, nor is there any problem with preferring one form of harmonic thinking over another - great music can be had either way.


It doesn't sound like you are committed to a particular view. Myself, I am compelled to advocate & argue for the musical principles my ear tells me are right. I guess most people aren't like that; they can just breeze through.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> It doesn't sound like you are committed to a particular view. Myself, I am compelled to advocate & argue for the musical principles my ear tells me are right. *I guess most people aren't like that; they can just breeze through.*


...yeah that's what all that study, practice and professional and private work does for one...
My ears are flawed yours are the truth....are you serious man? Even when I partially agree with you, you are still obnoxious.
Breezin' through was never an option, not that you'd ever know.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> ...yeah that's what all that study, practice and professional and private work does for one...
> My ears are flawed yours are the truth*....are you serious man? Even when I partially agree with you, you are still obnoxious.*
> Breezin' through was never an option, not that you'd ever know.


You can certainly dish it out, but you can't take it. You deserve every word after you said in post #35 _"Your reliance on your ears being an arbiter of some musical truth is quite possibly a flaw."

_My ear is *always* right. It's been proven "in the field."


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> You can certainly dish it out, but you can't take it. You deserve every word after you said in post #35 _"Your reliance on your ears being an arbiter of some musical truth is quite possibly a flaw."
> 
> _My ear is *always* right. *It's been proven "in the field."*


.....as has mine and then some, so where does that leave us huh? 
I did say "_quite possibly_ a flaw..." It wasn't that aggressive and it was actually a valid point but whatever. Your reply is however ignorant and insulting, all rolled into one...well done.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> .....as has mine and then some, so where does that leave us huh?
> I did say "_quite possibly_ a flaw..." It wasn't that aggressive and it was actually a valid point but whatever. Your reply is however ignorant and insulting, all rolled into one...well done.


Like I said, _You can certainly dish it out, but you can't take it.
_
I have a "shadow" but you don't? I've heard that before. We are always unaware of our own shortcomings, because we don't remember them. If you are on the "hurting end," then you certainly remember it. It's that simple.


----------



## mikeh375

Nope, you lost me there.
We can get back to discussing why you are peddling the lydian if you like or we can keep on bitchin'.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Nope, you lost me there.
> We can get back to discussing why you are peddling the lydian if you like or we can keep on bitchin'.


Oh, so NOW you want to get back on topic? Okay, I'll go along.

For me, the most convincing demonstration of the harmonic purity of the Lydian scale (compared to the major scale) was the keyboard test, where the fifths which make up the scale are stacked and sounded at once.

Another interesting fact: piano tuners start on F and tune all their white-note fifths from there.

Of course, the major scale has its charm as well; the endearing harmonic instability of the tritone F-B, the tendency to emphasize root movement to IV, the symmetry and uniformity of the tetrachords (always major third I-IV, and V-I). All those lovely rules and procedures to take care of the inherent dissonances, like a naughty little boy trying to stay out of trouble, making excuses for his obvious I-IV transgressions. As adults from ear-land, we know better.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> You can certainly dish it out, but you can't take it. You deserve every word after you said in post #35 _"Your reliance on your ears being an arbiter of some musical truth is quite possibly a flaw."
> 
> _My ear is *always* right. It's been proven "in the field."


Listen to the examples I linked and tell me if you think they support your theory or don't. It's telling that you don't seem to want to talk about actual music.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Listen to the examples I linked and tell me if you think they support your theory or don't. It's telling that you don't seem to want to talk about actual music.


Isorhythm, you need to make some sort of commentary about the music. To me, it's just a link. What am I supposed to say about it? What am I listening for?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Isorhythm, you need to make some sort of commentary about the music. To me, it's just a link. What am I supposed to say about it? What am I listening for?


Well, they're all in the Lydian mode, sticking very strictly to the notes of the Lydian scale (except the D major interludes in the Beethoven). So, according to your own ear, do they support your belief that the Lydian mode is inherently more stable than the major mode?

To pose some more specific questions:

In the first piece, does the final cadence sound more or less final, or give a stronger or weaker sense of rest or home, than a final cadence in a common practice major key piece?

In the Bruckner and Beethoven pieces, does it seem as though the composers are making special efforts, compared to what you would find in a major key piece, to establish a tonic or feeling of home on the first scale degree? If so, are those efforts entirely successful?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> millionrainbows, what do you think of this? Does it support your theory?


The link here is to a vocal piece called "Salve virgo virginum" sung by the Hillier Ensemble.

Isorhythm comments in his post #45:

_



Well, (it's)...in the Lydian mode, sticking very strictly to the notes of the Lydian scale. So, according to your own ear, (does it) support your belief that the Lydian mode is inherently more stable than the major mode?

Click to expand...


_This is a perfect example of "harmonic instability" because Gregorian chant is purposely harmonically ambiguous. In short, the whole thing sounds like a constant shift between IV and V, with no resolution to I, which we imagine is there, but never shows up.
Here's how I hear the piece. I know it's Gregorian chant, but if it "had a key," it's in Ab, and if it had "functions," it constantly fluctuates between Db (IV) and Eb (V).
vi-IV-V-iii-IV-V-IV...IV-V-vi-IV-V...over & over...
It constantly fluctuates between IV and V without ever resolving to I. That's the way I hear it.
It is not only a perfect example of "harmonic instability," but you are proving my _vertical _"harmonic" point by using pre-harmonic music with ambiguous _horizontal_ chord movement. If there were ever an example of the restless harmonic instability of Western music, this is it.

_



To pose some more specific questions:

Click to expand...

_


> _In the first piece, does the final cadence sound more or less final, or give a stronger or weaker sense of rest or home, than a final cadence in a common practice major key piece?_


_

_It sounds very UN-final. I can't even tell what the "tonic" or keynote is supposed to be. I hear no "Lydian" mode.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm at a loss for words.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I'm at a loss for words.


You think much differently than I do, much differently. Why do you even bother?


----------



## isorhythm

I don't know. It's possible I've misunderstood you all along. I thought you were arguing that the Lydian mode was inherently more stable than major. Was I wrong about that?

Edit to make this a little more explicit: why do you hear that piece as being in Ab major, instead of Db Lydian? It uses the notes of the Db Lydian scale and it ends on a Db chord. What more could you want to make it Lydian? You're right that as a piece of medieval polyphony it's not using common practice functional harmony, but so what?

Also curious what you make of the Beethoven and Bruckner pieces.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I don't know. It's possible I've misunderstood you all along. I thought you were arguing that the Lydian mode was inherently more stable than major. Was I wrong about that?


The major scale is "unstable" (have I offended anyone?) only in the sense that the Lydian scale is more consonant harmonically in the sense that it reinforces its tonic note (F) better than the C major scale reinforces its tonic (C). Of course, it can be argued that this fact is irrelevant to the CP system, which is apparently designed for travel to other key areas.



> Edit to make this a little more explicit: why do you hear that piece as being in Ab major, instead of Db Lydian? It uses the notes of the Db Lydian scale and it ends on a Db chord. What more could you want to make it Lydian? You're right that as a piece of medieval polyphony it's not using common practice functional harmony, but so what?


As I said, that's the way I hear it, and I even provided you with Roman numerals to demonstrate this:

Gregorian chant is purposely harmonically ambiguous. In short, the whole thing sounds like a constant shift between IV and V, with no resolution to I, which we imagine is there, but never shows up.
Here's how I hear the piece. I know it's Gregorian chant, but if it "had a key," it's in Ab, and if it had "functions," it constantly fluctuates between Db (IV) and Eb (V).
vi-IV-V-iii-IV-V-IV...IV-V-vi-IV-V...over & over...
It constantly fluctuates between IV and V without ever resolving to I. That's the way I hear it.

Why don't you try listening to it that way, with the guide I have provided?



> Also curious what you make of the Beethoven and Bruckner pieces.


The late Beethoven Quartet in F is one of my favorites. It sounds like a fairly normal tonality to me. The Bruckner will take some time.

But what is it you are trying to prove with the 'anonymous' piece? If you hear it as Lydian, you've lost me completely.


----------



## isorhythm

It's not Gregorian chant, which is monophonic.

Whether or not the anonymous person who wrote it thought it was "in the Lydian mode," I don't know - medieval and Renaissance composers' conception of mode in polyphony is not clear.

However it is unambiguously a piece built on the Lydian scale. As such it should reinforce its tonic of Db Lydian more strongly - not less - than if it were built on a major scale, according to your theory. Instead, to your ear, it reinforces an implied tonic of Ab major, which is never even stated. This suggests that it's the major scale, not the Lydian, that reinforces its tonic more strongly.

Are you aware of pieces written using the Lydian scale that support your point?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> It's not Gregorian chant, which is monophonic.
> 
> Whether or not the anonymous person who wrote it thought it was "in the Lydian mode," I don't know - medieval and Renaissance composers' conception of mode in polyphony is not clear.
> 
> However it is unambiguously a piece built on the Lydian scale. As such it should reinforce its tonic of Db Lydian more strongly - not less - than if it were built on a major scale, according to your theory. Instead, to your ear, it reinforces an implied tonic of Ab major, which is never even stated. This suggests that it's the major scale, not the Lydian, that reinforces its tonic more strongly.
> 
> Are you aware of pieces written using the Lydian scale that support your point?


All you have to do is go to a keyboard. If you want a musical example, the Lydian scale sounds better over a major seventh chord than the major scale, which clashes its "F" with the "E" in the chord. What more simple, direct evidence could you want? Does this upset your paradigm of what Western CP music should be? Do you think Western CP music is "the most consonant music there could ever be"?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> All you have to do is go to a keyboard. If you want a musical example, the Lydian scale sounds better over a major seventh chord than the major scale, which clashes its "F" with the "E" in the chord. What more simple, direct evidence could you want? Does this upset your paradigm of what Western CP music should be? Do you think Western CP music is "the most consonant music there could ever be"?


No, of course not. Is there any musical tradition anywhere in the world that consistently treats the Lydian scale as more stable than the major? Any examples from any musical tradition in the world would do.

I know you're not going to change your mind so I'll end by suggesting that it's best to just take all the music you encounter on its own terms and try to understand how it works and enjoy it.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> No, of course not. Is there any musical tradition anywhere in the world that consistently treats the Lydian scale as more stable than the major? Any examples from any musical tradition in the world would do.


I suggest you go to WIK and at least read _about_ George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Gravity.



> I know you're not going to change your mind so I'll end by suggesting that it's best to just take all the music you encounter on its own terms and try to understand how it works and enjoy it.


That's what I've always done. I'm not rejecting PC tonality, I've just dared to point out some of its characteristics, which apparently remain as unquestioned "givens" in many minds.

Now, I'm going over to the "Gregorian Chant" thread I started, and see what emerges there. At least, thank you for the civil responses you have provided.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I suggest you go to WIK and at least read _about_ George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Gravity.


I've read about it a little, thanks to your posts on this board, and it sounds interesting, but I wonder if it's broadly applicable beyond soloing in modal jazz, or even if it was meant to be.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I've read about it a little, thanks to your posts on this board, and it sounds interesting, but I wonder if it's broadly applicable beyond soloing in modal jazz, or even if it was meant to be.


Why would you even ask such a question unless you assumed that the major/minor CP system was the end-all, be-all?
There will come a time, perhaps already arrived, when _I_ will be sitting pretty and _you_ will be the 'fringe character.'


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Why would you even ask such a question unless you assumed that the major/minor CP system was the end-all, be-all?


What?

The major/minor CP system describes harmony for a certain period of European written music. That's a tiny fraction of all the music in the world. Of course it isn't the end-all, be-all of anything.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> What?
> 
> The major/minor CP system describes harmony for a certain period of European written music. That's a tiny fraction of all the music in the world. Of course it isn't the end-all, be-all of anything.


Then why would you question if the Lydian Chromatic Concept was "broadly applicable beyond soloing in modal jazz, or even if it was meant to be"? It's either accurate or not. You seem ready to accept status quo opinion on this, and I assumed you were using the major/minor CP system for that.

Whether or not you accept the accuracy of the LCC is made irrelevant now, since you are questioning its "broad applicability" and purpose.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Then why would you question if the Lydian Chromatic Concept was "broadly applicable beyond soloing in modal jazz, or even if it was meant to be"? It's either accurate or not. You seem ready to accept status quo opinion on this, and I assumed you were using the major/minor CP system for that.
> 
> Whether or not you accept the accuracy of the LCC is made irrelevant now, since you are questioning its "broad applicability" and purpose.


Music theory is _descriptive_ and different traditions are best described by different theories. The theory of Indian classical music is not suitable for analyzing Bach and Western harmonic theory is not suitable for analyzing Japanese gagaku music, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Music theory is _descriptive_ and different traditions are best described by different theories. The theory of Indian classical music is not suitable for analyzing Bach and Western harmonic theory is not suitable for analyzing Japanese gagaku music, etc.


I disagree. I think there are underlying principles in music as it concerns humans experiencing it. I'm searching for those underlying 'universal' principles.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree. I think there are underlying principles in music as it concerns humans experiencing it. I'm searching for those underlying 'universal' principles.


I agree with you. Some universal principles might be: tendency to organize music around a single tone; use of fixed scales or modes, especially of seven and five notes, characterized by particular sequences of tones and semitones; in harmony, a tendency to treat intervals with simpler frequency ratios, like fifths and fourths, as more consonant; regular groupings of rhythmic pulses; strophic structure; general things like that.

The primacy of the Lydian scale isn't a universal principle since the Lydian scale doesn't have special importance compared to other scales in the vast majority of music made by humans. In Western classical music it tends to feel unstable which is why, even in the middle ages, the fourth scale degree was often flatted. However I wouldn't claim that's a universal principle of all music. There are Indian ragas that use the Lydian scale and feel perfectly stable. It depends on the surrounding musical context.

You didn't want to recognize that anonymous _Salve virgo virginum_ as Lydian, so here's an undisputed example of Lydian mode with a sharp fourth throughout: 



 Just for your listening pleasure.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> The primacy of the Lydian scale isn't a universal principle since the Lydian scale doesn't have special importance compared to other scales in the vast majority of music made by humans. In Western classical music it tends to feel unstable which is why, even in the middle ages, the fourth scale degree was often flatted. However I wouldn't claim that's a universal principle of all music. There are Indian ragas that use the Lydian scale and feel perfectly stable. It depends on the surrounding musical context.


I disagree, because I feel that _*both*_ the major and lydian 7-note diatonic scales are themselves to an extent "unnatural" since neither contains a b7.

The scale with the most natural harmonic properties is the mixolydian. Its first notes, G-A-B-C reinforce C, the key a fourth below G; and D-E-F-G reinforces a G with a b7, or a 'harmonic' scale. This "fourth" relationship between G and C (G up to C) sounds very natural, and reinforces C as a new root, since we hear fourths as 'root on top.'

'Harmonic sevenths' are flatter than ours, and therefore don't have the strong tendency to want to resolve down. That's how African music used them, and when Africans came to the Americas as slaves, they kept this unresolved seventh. It can be heard in guitar tunings. Blues progressions use I7-IV7-V7 (all flat sevenths) as their functions.


----------



## isorhythm

That actually makes sense to me, even if I might not use the same natural/unnatural language.

Could be my Irish background talking, lots of Mixolydian Irish folk songs.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> That actually makes sense to me, even if I might not use the same natural/unnatural language.
> 
> Could be my Irish background talking, lots of Mixolydian Irish folk songs.


Me, too, the Irish in me. The drone of bagpipes...


----------

