# How can I make sense of all of these arbitrary voice-leading rules?



## level82rat

I'm reading a book on harmony and I got to the section on raised sixths and sevenths in minor keys. Here are some of the seemingly arbitrary rules it gives:

1. If V-VI, raise the 7th
2. If V6-VI, don't raise the 7th
3. If V6-IV, then whether the 7th is raised or not depends on whether the bass rises or falls
4. If V6-IV6, 7th always unaltered
5. If V6-II6, only raise if bass rises
6. If IV6 moves to V6 or VII, then always raise 6th and seventh
7. If IV6 moves to III, III6, V, or VI, then don't raise the third of IV6

It's a lot easier to digest and remember rules when there is some kind of logic or principle behind them. But I fail to see the logic in these rules? Can anybody help?


----------



## millionrainbows

level82rat said:


> I'm reading a book on harmony and I got to the section on raised sixths and sevenths in minor keys. Here are some of the seemingly arbitrary rules it gives:
> 
> 1. If V-VI, raise the 7th
> 2. If V6-VI, don't raise the 7th
> 3. If V6-IV, then whether the 7th is raised or not depends on whether the bass rises or falls
> 4. If V6-IV6, 7th always unaltered
> 5. If V6-II6, only raise if bass rises
> 6. If IV6 moves to V6 or VII, then always raise 6th and seventh
> 7. If IV6 moves to III, III6, V, or VI, then don't raise the third of IV6
> 
> It's a lot easier to digest and remember rules when there is some kind of logic or principle behind them. But I fail to see the logic in these rules? Can anybody help?


Maybe one of the box-like thinkers around here can explain it. You said that the rules are _"seemingly"_ arbitrary, so I'm sure that there's some sort of box-like logic that you're missing.

Don't ask for any "principles" which might cover this, since these thinkers frown on "abstracting" principles, since this would facilitate an underlying organic, intuitive or heuristic logic. These things must remain arbitrary.


----------



## level82rat

millionrainbows said:


> You said that the rules are _"seemingly"_ arbitrary, so I'm sure that there's some sort of box-like logic that you're missing.


Yes that's why I asked this question in the first place. And what is "box-like" logic exactly?


----------



## Larkenfield

Well, the voice-leading principles suggest that the results in composition will be pleasing and beneficial by simply hearing and using them rather than viewing them as arbitrary. They can be viewed as conventions at the time... Perhaps it’s necessary to live with them until they’re absorbed by finding good examples. It’s an important part of the history of the music. These rules were mostly accepted and practiced as good harmony mostly during the classical era but are no longer strictly adhered to in the same way now. If you’re just starting out, I would view them as fundamental to understanding what some of the great composers did and the principles that they followed, such as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. A student understands them when he or she can learn how to use them naturally, and perhaps that’s the challenge that’s facing you. The music is supposed to sound better by utilizing these rules. The rules have been developed over time as being correct or the most effective in composition.


----------



## KenOC

I will totally back MR's sugestion that we should eschew "box logic" and, if we like, ignore the classical voice-leading rules (after all, they only hobble a genius). At the same time, maybe we shouldn't give up our day jobs just yet...


----------



## EdwardBast

level82rat said:


> I'm reading a book on harmony and I got to the section on raised sixths and sevenths in minor keys. Here are some of the seemingly arbitrary rules it gives:
> 
> 1. If V-VI, raise the 7th
> 2. If V6-VI, don't raise the 7th
> 3. If V6-IV, then whether the 7th is raised or not depends on whether the bass rises or falls
> 4. If V6-IV6, 7th always unaltered
> 5. If V6-II6, only raise if bass rises
> 6. If IV6 moves to V6 or VII, then always raise 6th and seventh
> 7. If IV6 moves to III, III6, V, or VI, then don't raise the third of IV6
> 
> It's a lot easier to digest and remember rules when there is some kind of logic or principle behind them. But I fail to see the logic in these rules? Can anybody help?


Where did you get all these rules? I learned to write in minor mode without memorizing any such list of rules. If it's important to you, I suggest writing a four part setting for each of these instances. Maybe the rationales will be clearer once you do that?


----------



## level82rat

EdwardBast said:


> Where did you get all these rules?


Roger Sessions "Harmonic Practice" Chapter 4


----------



## Guest

level82rat said:


> I'm reading a book on harmony and I got to the section on raised sixths and sevenths in minor keys. Here are some of the seemingly arbitrary rules it gives:
> 
> 1. If V-VI, raise the 7th
> 2. If V6-VI, don't raise the 7th
> 3. If V6-IV, then whether the 7th is raised or not depends on whether the bass rises or falls
> 4. If V6-IV6, 7th always unaltered
> 5. If V6-II6, only raise if bass rises
> 6. If IV6 moves to V6 or VII, then always raise 6th and seventh
> 7. If IV6 moves to III, III6, V, or VI, then don't raise the third of IV6
> 
> It's a lot easier to digest and remember rules when there is some kind of logic or principle behind them. But I fail to see the logic in these rules? Can anybody help?


In very simple terms, it's all about the notes you would use in the *ascending and descending melodic minor scale*.
Otherwise, follow EdwardBast's advice and write out the progressions given and deduce the rules from that.


----------



## Guest

I'm not sure where you got those rules, but the way I think of rules of harmony, they are a distillation of what composers of traditional music found effective. If you follow them your music will sound "normal." There is still a lot of room for creativity within what is "normal." Of course you can break them and write music that doesn't sound normal, but you probably should be aware of when your music is deviating from normal, i.e. you should break the "rules" on purpose, not by accident. There is a reason that composers who wrote the craziest music often wrote early works that sounded quite dull. Your audience has listened to music before and has expectations and you should be aware of how those expectations are satisfied or not satisfied.


----------



## millionrainbows

To me, a truly talented composer would have already assimilated the 'givens' and has moved on, so I think the answer is an unnecessary statement of some kind of arbitrary thought-process or credo which lies outside of those bounds. I don't like conservative cautioning like that; it has nothing to do with what really should be happening.


----------



## Guest

level82rat said:


> Roger Sessions "Harmonic Practice" Chapter 4


I see. Keep in mind, Sessions wrote music that was bat-***** crazy. 

Just because you know the rules, it doesn't follow that you must obey them.

But, I realize, that has nothing to do with your question. As was noted above by TalkingHead, it is related to the melodic minor scale. If a melody ascends to the tonic you want raised sixth and seventh to give that leading-tone, tonic-y feel.


----------



## millionrainbows

That makes sense about the ascending & descending melodic minor scale, being presented out-of-context by the "confused" poster, to see what kind of responses it would attract for the predators out there.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> That makes sense about the ascending & descending melodic minor scale, being presented out-of-context by the "confused" poster, to see what kind of responses it would attract for the *predators* out there.


Paranoid much?

To the OP: Probably the most important thing to remember about writing in the minor mode is that when so doing, one finds oneself borrowing liberally from the relative major. I suspect that if one is aware of which mode is in play at any given moment, those rules will take care of themselves. Trust to your musical sense levelrat.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Paranoid much?
> 
> To the OP: Probably the most important thing to remember about writing in the minor mode is that when so doing, *one finds oneself borrowing liberally from the relative major*. I suspect that if one is aware of which mode is in play at any given moment, those rules will take care of themselves. Trust to your musical sense levelrat.


Otherwise the linear notes in the CD release of your work will describe it as "modal."


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Paranoid much? Trust to your musical sense levelrat.


Yes, trust your own perceptions, and don't let anyone's comments, such as above, affect that.


----------



## level82rat

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, trust your own perceptions, and don't let anyone's comments, such as above, affect that.


Musical sense can take you a long way, that is for sure. But you can save a lot of time by learning established music theory rules since often your musical sense is instinctively yearning towards those rules anyway. So instead of trial and error or composing in the dark, you already know what musical effect you want to produce and how to produce it.


----------



## millionrainbows

level82rat said:


> Musical sense can take you a long way, that is for sure. But you can save a lot of time by learning established music theory rules since often your musical sense is instinctively yearning towards those rules anyway. So instead of trial and error or composing in the dark, you already know what musical effect you want to produce and how to produce it.


I don't like the implications of what you're saying, but if you want to follow rules, go right ahead.


----------



## level82rat

millionrainbows said:


> I don't like the implications of what you're saying, but if you want to follow rules, go right ahead.


What specific implications? And an important distinction isnt that you should ALWAYS follow the rules, but that you should be aware of why the rules exist and what happens if you don't follow them. Then it is up to your discretion whether following or breaking the rules will work better.


----------



## mikeh375

Remember that in the learning of rules and especially_ practicing the techniques _(as one would scales etc. on an instrument), you also find out about your own artistry and creativity. This is a point so often missed in discussion over compositional technique and yet it is so important to recognise this key benefit which aids in the development of an individual approach, if one is autodidactic enough to recognise, assimilate and then develop what they learn.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Remember that in the learning of rules and especially_ practicing the techniques _(as one would scales etc. on an instrument), you also find out about your own artistry and creativity. This is a point so often missed in discussion over compositional technique and yet it is so important to recognise this key benefit which aids in the development of an individual approach, if one is autodidactic enough to recognise, assimilate and then develop what they learn.


I also resent that implication. I know all my scales, and could probably play rings around both of you.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> I also resent that implication. I know all my scales, and could probably play rings around both of you.


I doubt that very very much, but quite funny, thanks.
I wasn't just talking about scales and there was no pejorative implication, no put down of you or anyone, simply a factual statement - you either get it or you don't.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> I doubt that very very much, but quite funny, thanks.
> I wasn't just talking about scales and there was no pejorative implication, no put down of you or anyone, simply a factual statement - you either get it or you don't.


Yes, I agree. But remember, these "rules" should reflect a self-evident truth, a truth which would just as well exist without being a rule.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I agree. But remember, these "rules" should reflect a self-evident truth, a truth which would just as well exist without being a rule.


Perhaps and a 'truth' can also be found by learning and practicing the rules, for in doing so, one can get to understand one's creative proclivities. That kind of truth also exists without the rules, but its efficacy can be enhanced with them too.

(truth=music within)


----------



## 1996D

level82rat said:


> I'm reading a book on harmony and I got to the section on raised sixths and sevenths in minor keys. Here are some of the seemingly arbitrary rules it gives:
> 
> 1. If V-VI, raise the 7th
> 2. If V6-VI, don't raise the 7th
> 3. If V6-IV, then whether the 7th is raised or not depends on whether the bass rises or falls
> 4. If V6-IV6, 7th always unaltered
> 5. If V6-II6, only raise if bass rises
> 6. If IV6 moves to V6 or VII, then always raise 6th and seventh
> 7. If IV6 moves to III, III6, V, or VI, then don't raise the third of IV6
> 
> It's a lot easier to digest and remember rules when there is some kind of logic or principle behind them. But I fail to see the logic in these rules? Can anybody help?


You won't get far composing with rules, the ideas have to come clear in your head already with the right structure. Composition is one of the hardest, if not the hardest art form. It's up there with the most abstract forms of philosophy, metaphysics, and mathematics. If you haven't the flair for it you probably shouldn't do it.

I'll tell you, composing is spiritual and you must let the creativity flow through you. Adjustments to the feel of the music can be done later but you can't think like that while in the act.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Just try a different book. The raised 6th is not used that much in minor harmony.

Try Tchaikovsky instead


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps and a 'truth' can also be found by learning and practicing the rules, for in doing so, one can get to understand one's creative proclivities. That kind of truth also exists without the rules, but its efficacy can be enhanced with them too. (truth=music within)


That sounds like Confucius, who imparted wisdom, but always with the aim of keeping things calm and controlled. After all, China is a big nation with lots of people; Mao knew this, too.

"Truth can also be found by learning and practicing the rules; that kind of truth also exists without the rules."

Wow, that's super-flexible!


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Just try a different book. The raised 6th is not used that much in minor harmony.


...not less you want your IV chord to be major, as in "Black Magic Woman," "Greensleeves," and countless other songs. You need to put down that dusty old book and listen.


----------



## 1996D

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like Confucius, who imparted wisdom, but always with the aim of keeping things calm and controlled. After all, China is a big nation with lots of people; Mao knew this, too.
> 
> "Truth can also be found by learning and practicing the rules; that kind of truth also exists without the rules."
> 
> Wow, that's super-flexible!


That doesn't apply to art, good taste is the enemy of creativity, and rules are even worse for it. There's a reason we don't have good composers, in the past all the learning was done by the time composers were in their early teen years and they were then free to let go creatively, then with experience, continued to improve organically.

I don't know how old OP is but 'rules' shouldn't be in your mind unless you're a child.


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> ...not less you want your IV chord to be major, as in "Black Magic Woman," "Greensleeves," and countless other songs. You need to put down that dusty old book and listen.


Neither is CP harmony and both lean on the Dorian mode


----------



## 1996D

It's actually strange that I find myself singing this tune because good counterpoint, overall structure, and craftsmanship are lacking in contemporary music just as much as anything, but lately the anemic creativity has been blatant. To the point where it should be stressed and encouraged more than order; it's essential to revive a dying art.


----------



## EdwardBast

level82rat said:


> What specific implications? And an important distinction isnt that you should ALWAYS follow the rules, but that you should be aware of why the rules exist and what happens if you don't follow them. Then it is up to your discretion whether following or breaking the rules will work better.


Your initial impulse is much better than what you are saying here. It's much better to understand the principles behind the "rules" than it is to follow a list by rote, and you were exactly right to ask about principles. So, let's derive some principles, shall we? Below is a four part realization in the key of A minor for every instance Sessions lists, followed by an explanation for those I can explain. If you just want the conclusion, the things you need to remember, see the bold bit at the bottom.









1. This is a typical deceptive resolution, so of course the Leading tone G# must go to A
2. If the G were sharped, there would be motion by an augmented 2nd, a prohibited interval.
3. I don't get 3 & 4. Think I'd have to see these in a larger context. The leap of a tritone in the bass in example 4 could make sense if it were part of a sequence of similar leaps(?)
4. 
5. If the G were sharped, there would be motion by an augmented 2nd, a prohibited interval. 
6. If the G# went down to F it would be a prohibited augmented 2nd.
7. If the G were sharped, there would be motion by an augmented 2nd, a prohibited interval.
8. If the F weren't raised it would be motion by an augmented 2nd 
9. If the F were natural there would be motion by an augmented 2nd. If both were natural the succession of 6 chords would be weak in the bass.
10. If the F were sharped, there would be motion by and augmented 4th in the bass, an interval usually avoided.
11. F# would be out of key - we're going to the relative major here, so F-natural makes sense (is in key).
12. See 11. If it isn't going to continue through G#, there will almost never be an F#. See examples 8 & 9 where the two accidentals are properly paired.
13. F isn't going to turn into F# in this kind of basic diatonic grammar.

So, the main principle seems to be: motions by augmented intervals are outside the voice-leading norms of common practice music. Eight of the above rules can be retired if one simply remembers: Don't write augmented intervals in diatonic progressions!

The second principle can be stated two ways: 1) don't raise the 6th without raising the 7th right after it. 2) Don't sharp the F when you're clearly hanging out in the relative major.

*So, to comply with Sessions' rules you only need to remember two things:

1) Avoid motion by augmented intervals. 
2) Don't raise 6 without also raising 7 (or, don't raise 6 when you're in (flirting with) the relative major.)*


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like Confucius, who imparted wisdom, but always with the aim of keeping things calm and controlled. After all, China is a big nation with lots of people; Mao knew this, too.
> 
> "Truth can also be found by learning and practicing the rules; that kind of truth also exists without the rules."
> 
> *Wow, that's super-flexible!*


That's because I'm mindful of the fact that excellent music has been written by composers without academic training, a lot of which I love.

Edward mentions the principle of the rule and understanding that and assimilating (mastering) it with practice is really the only way to ensure technique is absorbed. It can then enhance, underpin, unify and even eke out fresh material in one's music - it becomes a grounding and starting point for fantasy and imagination. One just needs the right attitude to the learning imv, a sensible and critical one that can, or rather should also find its own preferences during the formative study.


----------



## level82rat

EdwardBast said:


> So, let's derive some principles, shall we? Below is a four part realization in the key of A minor for every instance Sessions lists, followed by an explanation for those I can explain. If you just want the conclusion, the things you need to remember, see the bold bit at the bottom.


Brilliant! Thank you for putting in the time to do this.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Your initial impulse is much better than what you are saying here. It's much better to understand the principles behind the "rules" than it is to follow a list by rote, and you were exactly right to ask about principles. So, let's derive some principles, shall we?


Excellent exposition, and reveals the true intent of this thread and the OP's "innocent" post.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> That's because I'm mindful of the fact that excellent music has been written by composers without academic training, a lot of which I love.
> 
> Edward mentions the principle of the rule and understanding that and assimilating (mastering) it with practice is really the only way to ensure technique is absorbed.


Yes, if you want to stay in that tonal context. I doubt that Debussy thought about it like you are saying.

Arriving at music late, and from the other side of the tracks, Debussy had the benefit of an unprejudiced perspective on the things he was taught. He was a gifted pianist...There are stories of him as a student, sitting at the piano and provoking his teachers with sequences of unconventional chords. As a composer, he always liked to improvise, though he knew the possible pitfalls of this way of making music. He had an incomparable ear, and one can imagine him at the keyboard trying things out, feeling his way into new and unfamiliar areas, listening intently to the sounds his fingers were uncovering, testing them for their interest, implication and beauty.
In the musical language that Debussy was taught and that he would, in important respects, reject - the language of classical tonality - the distinction between dissonance and consonance is axiomatic. Individual dissonances must be resolved, areas of harmonic instability restored to equilibrium. Each degree of the diatonic scale is assigned a place in a hierarchy of relations with the tonic. The strongest degree is the fifth - the dominant - and dominant-tonic relations are at the centre of every musical structure. The discourse is highly directional: phrases and melodic lines are thought of as rising to a point of climax and then subsiding, modulation is a journey away from the home key and back again, structures unfold like arguments or stories. Many of the metaphors used to describe tonality - tension and resolution, disorder and equilibrium - are metaphors of feeling.
In the half-century before Debussy was born, composers had progressively disrupted the stability of the tonal system, exploring its potential to represent more extreme states of mind. The late works of Chopin, for example, express an agitation that Liszt thought verged on the pathological. The withholding of harmonic resolution in Wagner's mature style - most famously exploited in _Tristan und Isolde_ - threatened to take music into the realm of hysteria. Where could it go next?
One answer was simply to push on further, to ratchet up the harmonic and emotional tension to the very edge of psychosis, as Schoenberg was to do in _Verklaerte Nacht_ and Strauss in _Salome_ and _Elektra_. These are works in which a system is at breaking point. Reaching the border, Schoenberg went over, Strauss turned back. After _Elektra_, the guardians of ideological soundness never forgave Strauss. He was labelled a cynic and a coward for his next opera, _Der Rosenkavalier_. _Elektra_ had almost been split apart by its stylistic contradictions: the sense of compositional stress in the more daring music of that opera adds to its derangement, but the queasy eruption of music from the Vienna woods into the charnel house of Agamemnon's palace clearly pointed to the work's true centre of gravity. This wasn't something Strauss could possibly repeat and, for all the flak he received, one can only think he was wise to listen to his nature.
Debussy moved in the opposite direction, developing a musical language that relaxed harmonic and emotional tension rather than raising it. He was motivated by a need for a medium that would allow him to represent non-directional states, whether of energy - subtle drift (clouds, mist), great force (wind, waves), unified fields of intricate and random motion (reflections on water, fireworks) - or of feeling (sentiment and sensation). *He rejected narrative and dialectical structures in favour of a music of apposition, placing one thing next to another - harmonies, motifs, even structural units.* *His harmonic language is usually spoken of as 'non-functional', a term that describes a way of writing music which uncoupled harmonies from their place in the tonal hierarchy and reduced the force fields between them. *Perhaps a better description would be 'less functional': for all its rejection of routine procedure, Debussy's music is awash with tonality and achieves its expressiveness as much from changing the emphasis of the existing idiom as from introducing elements entirely foreign to it.
His music is a naturally evolved inflection of the musical language he inherited - a continuation rather than a rupture. The whole tone scale and the harmonies implicit in it (musical elements that Debussy particularly liked) were not, in themselves, outlandish to the ears of his contemporaries. It was just that Debussy used them outside the contexts that obscured their perceived strangeness. Schoenberg, ruminating on the 'emancipation of the dissonance', acknowledged that Debussy had already unlocked the cage and thrown away the key. For all his valiant and ingenious attempts to argue for atonality as a continuation of the tonal system, Schoenberg had to admit that listeners simply didn't feel this - his hope that one day people would whistle his tunes turned out to be forlorn. Unlike the younger composer, Debussy did not adhere to an ideology which held that all chords are equivalent: it was the individual character of complex harmonies that interested him; he praised César Franck as a composer 'for whom sounds in and of themselves have a precise meaning'.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Edward mentions the principle of the rule and understanding that and assimilating (mastering) it with practice is really the only way to ensure technique is absorbed.* It can then enhance, underpin, unify and even eke out fresh material in one's music - it becomes a grounding and starting point for fantasy and imagination. *One just needs the right attitude to the learning imv, a sensible and critical one that can, or rather should also find its own preferences during the formative study.


I disagree; I think that Debussy just did what the hell he wanted to do, based on sound and his ear, not by rules or procedures. Debussy had a great ear, and this is what he followed. His music was created out of those harmonic perceptions, not by assimilation of the past or using the past as a springboard. His music was based on "the now" and the perception of sound as it is.

The pianistic tradition was an influence on him as a pianist, but not the harmonic tradition of CP tonality, which he left behind. The CP rules meant _nothing_ to him, _especially_ rules of resolution and voice-leading procedures. He only retained from tonality a basic language of triads and scales, tonal devices which are present in almost any "tonal" or harmonic music.


----------



## mikeh375

I'm not talking about Debussy. Where did he come from? 
My comments are borne out of experience, knowledge of compositional practice and how manipulation of material reaps musical rewards - they are actually not speculation, just simple fact, your disagreeing tells me something about you. My comments are also not definitive, just one way it can and actually does work. You do not seem to understand how music _can_ be written, nor do you seem to understand what technique is for, what it does in formative years and how it can be applied after learning otherwise you would not necessarily disagree.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> I'm not talking about Debussy. Where did he come from?


France.



> My comments are borne out of experience, knowledge of compositional practice and how manipulation of material reaps musical rewards - they are actually not speculation, just simple fact, your disagreeing tells me something about you. My comments are also not definitive, just one way it can and actually does work. You do not seem to understand how music _can_ be written, nor do you seem to understand what technique is for, what it does in formative years and how it can be applied after learning otherwise you would not necessarily disagree.


I agree with technique, as in pianism, but I disagree with your prescriptions about CP practice.


----------



## mikeh375

Then you don't understand, it's not your fault, you have to experience it. Silly to outright disagree with someone who actually does know though, but hey it's (only) your opinion.
BTW try scoring for full orchestra without a sense of line and voice leading, see where that gets you in a performance. Debussy knew all about the practicalities inherent in CP. All composers aspire beyond the formative years if they are any good and all composers learn more than you think from CP if they take that route.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Then you don't understand, it's not your fault, you have to experience it. Silly to outright disagree with someone who actually does know though, but hey it's (only) your opinion.
> BTW try scoring for full orchestra without a sense of line and voice leading, see where that gets you in a performance. Debussy knew all about the practicalities inherent in CP. All composers aspire beyond the formative years if they are any good and all composers learn more than you think from CP if they take that route.


Oh, that's hogwash.


----------



## mikeh375

ahhh, but it's solid professional hogwash that's actually true. I'd like to know your direct experience of all this but I suspect that you don't have any apart from, what was it, a year analysing a Beethoven sonata or similar that put you off CP? I admire your chutzpah, but if you haven't taken a route through compositional academia (with the aim of entering the profession) and come out at the other end better for it as a composer and then continued with advanced studies, all the while finding out about your musical self and developing because of the study and practice, how do you even think for one minute you can call any of it hogwash? You don't know, I do because I did it. We can disagree about sooo much more and have sooo much fun, but in this regard, you are wrong.

Being confrontational is one thing, but from a base containing some ignorance doesn't seem like a smart move to me.


----------



## level82rat

millionrainbows said:


> Excellent exposition, and reveals the true intent of this thread and the OP's "innocent" post.


He's agreeing with the intent behind my initial question, so your comment makes no sense. Also, I've ignored all of your passive aggressive pot shots this entire time, but this is just getting out of hand. If you have an issue with me or my intentions, then stop gossiping like a teenage girl and state your accusation clearly and without innuendo.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; I think that Debussy just did what the hell he wanted to do, based on sound and his ear, not by rules or procedures. Debussy had a great ear, and this is what he followed. His music was created out of those harmonic perceptions, not by assimilation of the past or using the past as a springboard. His music was based on "the now" and the perception of sound as it is.
> 
> The pianistic tradition was an influence on him as a pianist, but not the harmonic tradition of CP tonality, which he left behind. The CP rules meant _nothing_ to him, _especially_ rules of resolution and voice-leading procedures. He only retained from tonality a basic language of triads and scales, tonal devices which are present in almost any "tonal" or harmonic music.


In the long quotation you offer in post #35 above, you put in bold only what supports your statements in this post. What follows in that quotation contradicts your statements. You should have bolded this:

_"Perhaps a better description [of Debussy's harmony] would be 'less functional': for all its rejection of routine procedure, Debussy's music is awash with tonality and achieves its expressiveness as much from changing the emphasis of the existing idiom as from introducing elements entirely foreign to it. His music is a naturally evolved inflection of the musical language he inherited - a continuation rather than a rupture."_

You claim that "his music was created out of those harmonic perceptions, not by assimilation of the past or using the past as a springboard. His music was based on 'the now' and the perception of sound as it is," and "the CP rules meant nothing to him, especially rules of resolution and voice-leading procedures. He only retained from tonality a basic language of triads and scales..." These statements are inaccurate and misleading. Debussy most certainly did "assimilate the past" and use it as a "springboard." The "perception of sound as it is" was not a sufficient foundation for _Pelleas et Melisande,_ which is less a product of "the now" than of the thorough absorption of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal._


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> In the long quotation you offer in post #35 above, you put in bold only what supports your statements in this post. What follows in that quotation contradicts your statements. You should have bolded this:
> 
> _"Perhaps a better description [of Debussy's harmony] would be 'less functional': for all its rejection of routine procedure, Debussy's music is awash with tonality and achieves its expressiveness as much from changing the emphasis of the existing idiom as from introducing elements entirely foreign to it. His music is a naturally evolved inflection of the musical language he inherited - a continuation rather than a rupture."_
> 
> You claim that "his music was created out of those harmonic perceptions, not by assimilation of the past or using the past as a springboard. His music was based on 'the now' and the perception of sound as it is," and "the CP rules meant nothing to him, especially rules of resolution and voice-leading procedures. He only retained from tonality a basic language of triads and scales..." These statements are inaccurate and misleading. Debussy most certainly did "assimilate the past" and use it as a "springboard." The "perception of sound as it is" was not a sufficient foundation for _Pelleas et Melisande,_ which is less a product of "the now" than of the thorough absorption of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal._


Ok, he was influenced by Wagner, but I think to emphasize that aspect of Debussy is also misleading, because it doesn't recognize or appreciate the radical nature of Debussy's music.

I think the greatest part of Debussy's achievement is that he cut through the bull---t. To think otherwise is to be in that opposing camp of "traditionalists" and academics.


----------



## millionrainbows

level82rat said:


> He's agreeing with the intent behind my initial question, so your comment makes no sense. Also, I've ignored all of your passive aggressive pot shots this entire time, but this is just getting out of hand. If you have an issue with me or my intentions, then stop gossiping like a teenage girl and state your accusation clearly and without innuendo.


It wouldn't surprise me if you and EdwardBast were in contact outside of this forum, planning out these little "traps."


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> ahhh, but it's solid professional hogwash that's actually true. I'd like to know your direct experience of all this but I suspect that you don't have any apart from, what was it, a year analysing a Beethoven sonata or similar that put you off CP?


You've got a good memory, so something I've said must have impressed you somewhere along the line.



> I admire your chutzpah, but if you haven't taken a route through compositional academia (with the aim of entering the profession) and come out at the other end better for it as a composer and then continued with advanced studies, all the while finding out about your musical self and developing because of the study and practice, how do you even think for one minute you can call any of it hogwash?


When music theory teachers who can't play refuse to acknowledge the connection between diminished seventh chords and flat-nine chords, as in late Beethoven's Quartet in F, then it's time for me to start calling myself a "jazzer," and split that scene. Daddy-o.



> You don't know, I do because I did it. We can disagree about sooo much more and have sooo much fun, but in this regard, you are wrong. Being confrontational is one thing, but from a base containing some ignorance doesn't seem like a smart move to me.


I recognize and respect your credentials, my friend, but your life is not my life.


----------



## level82rat

millionrainbows said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if you and EdwardBast were in contact outside of this forum, planning out these little "traps."


I will leave that as an accusation for EdwardBlast to defend since you still did not respond to my first request. Explain, specifically and without ambiguity, what exactly I am guilty of and (if possible) to what purpose I committed this wrong. I will maintain my cordiality and cease insults with the hope that you will respect me enough to answer my question.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> When music theory teachers who can't play refuse to acknowledge the connection between diminished seventh chords and flat-nine chords, as in late Beethoven's Quartet in F, then it's time for me to start calling myself a "jazzer," and split that scene. Daddy-o.


LOL, I'm with you there all right. Dim7ths, flattened 9ths....It's all in the bass note and the spelling and voice leading.



millionrainbows said:


> I recognize and respect your credentials, my friend, but your life is not my life.


No it's not and I hope yours is good. Your life and my life has no bearing on the fact that CP learning can be of great benefit during formative years and beyond. What the student must do is master the principles and apply them laterally, subjectively and with a spirit of adventure if they want to glean any further insight about themselves and the stuff of music from them. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be instilled or recognised too often which is a shame because CP is a great grounding from which to develop one's own methodology. Modernism can be achieved via CP with the right mindset prepared to push boundaries with open, receptive ears, but of course modernism can also be achieved (and probably more effectively), via a different route that ignores CP altogether. Whatever, it's all good, each to their own way - it's all valid.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if you and EdwardBast were in contact outside of this forum, planning out these little "traps."


Yeah, must be a conspiracy.  Once again, you have exceeded the word count of every other contributor without adding one bit of pertinent information to the thread. Level82rat and mike 375 have drawn the obvious conclusions about this incessantly recurring behavior without any input from me.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Yeah, must be a conspiracy.  Once again, you have exceeded the word count of every other contributor without adding one bit of pertinent information to the thread. Level82rat and mike 375 have drawn the obvious conclusions about this incessantly recurring behavior without any input from me.


You have a nice day, too, Ed.


----------



## MAXSWAGGER

Reduce it as far as possible - but not further.


----------

