# Music Theory from Square One.



## PostMinimalist

In reply to a request for help with basic music theory, I have elected to start a thread which will act as a simple, unofficial tutorial on the subject. The idea is to have an open discussion based on the posts I'll be puting up here from time to time dealing with very basic music theory topics. 

This first post should be up later today and I hope it will be helpful for a lot of the newcomers to this forum as well as entertaining for the more regular visitors. 

See you later.
FC


----------



## Bach

Two quavers equals one crotchet.


----------



## PostMinimalist

For almost a thousand years western music has been written down. Despite being part of an aural tradition where songs and tunes were learned by ear or by someone showing someone else how to play a certain tune, the stuff of music (notes and chords etc.) at some point became too complex to be passed on in this manner. It became absolutely essential to be able to write down or 'notate' a piece of music. 

Written down music is called 'music manuscript' and the system for writing it down in any way is called 'notation'. 

Today's musicians in western culture use several 'notation systems' depending on which instrument and style they have in mind. 

A guitarist might use any of three or four different types of notation: 

1. A pictorial representation of the fretboard with dots showing where his fingers should be pressed down to form a certain chord (several notes sounding together).
2. A 'tabulation' where the strings of the instrument are each given instructions which the guitarist follow simutaneously. 
3. A system of chord names abreviated into letters and numbers which he translates into the chords to be played. And finally 
4. Actual 'standard musical notation' where the notes to be played are represented independantly of whether they are intended for guitar or not. 

It is this fourth system that is the most widespread music notation system in use in western music today and it is the most useful for demonstrating all the features of western musical theory. 

It was invented in the 10th century by an Italian monk called Giudo D'Arezzo and consists of several horizontal parallel lines which are read left to right and upon those lines are placed symbols (dots and lines) which represent notes (both in pitch and duration). 

The set of parallel lines that has come down to us today is known as 'the stave' and looks like the first of the two diagrams below. 5 parallel lines.

In the second diagram there are 2 florid symbols which are called clefs (the French word for 'key') and helps the musician to work out which pitches are being refered to by the stave. 
The first symbol is called the 'treble clef' and is centred on the second bottom line of the stave. Since the sign is based on the written letter 'G' as you can see below, the treble clef is sometimes called the 'G clef'. It indicates that the second bottom line of the stave represents the note 'g'. The dot on this line which follows is the note 'g'. We'll look at all the notes next time.

Also in the second diagram there is another symbol called the 'Bass clef' which is centred on the second top line of the stave. This symbol is based on the written letter 'F' and is sometimes called the 'F clef' and indicates that the second top line of the stave is the note F. The note following it in the diagram is the note f. Note that if the F clef had not been there the note would be considered as belonging to the treble clef which is at beginning of the line.

Next time we'll look at how different notes are written and how their lengths are notated.

Cheers
FC


----------



## Tapkaara

What a great idea for a thread! I just hope, um, some don't get too carried away here with their knowledge on the subject. Anyway, I think this will be a very useful resource.


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> Two quavers equals one crotchet.


for american english speakers that's...

*two eighth notes equals one quarter note.*


----------



## PostMinimalist

Tapkaara said:


> What a great idea for a thread! I just hope, um, some don't get too carried away here with their knowledge on the subject. Anyway, I think this will be a very useful resource.


The idea is to be really basic for absolute beginners without making anyone feel alienated by the depth of theoretical knowledge some here may have. So let's keep everything right down to a lowest common denominator as we go. Hopefully in a few weeks or months this will be a reference thread for newcomers.

I should thank sammyyooba for getting me started on this.

'Eighth notes' and 'quarter notes' are names given to certain note lengths. That is to say a word that describes the duration of the note but only relative to the speed of the music and not an absolute measurement in seconds. It is easy to guess that in the same piece an 'eighth note' will last half as long as a 'quarter note' which is only half as long as a 'half note' and so on. In England the old French words for relative note lengths are still in use.

A half note = a 'minim'
a quarter note = 'crotchet'
an eighth note = 'quaver'

so you can now see the full story behind the references to 'two crotchets = a minim' etc.

I will use the american system of calling the note lengths after their 'fraction' names. That is eighth, quarter, sixteenth etc. because it is easier to imagine and it is more universally accepted.

FC


----------



## R-F

JoeGreen said:


> for american english speakers that's...
> 
> *two eighth notes equals one quarter note.*


Or for those in my school learning music, that's...

*two "coffees" equals one "tea"*


----------



## Elgarian

I'll be very interested to see at what point I drop out of this (brilliant idea Fergus, by the way). In my time I've acquired a passable understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics, but music theory, despite many attempts - never. I know what will happen - I shall follow you perfectly well through these elementary stages, and then at some point in the future I shall meet a brick wall of incomprehension, and there'll be no crossing it. Reading a score (unless it be _Three Blind Mice_ in C major for treble recorder) still seems as utterly impossible as flying.

I think it's one of those dodgy brain-wiring things that some people experience with regard to mathematics. But lead on, Fergus, lead on. I will follow till I drop.


----------



## Cyclops

Elgarian said:


> I'll be very interested to see at what point I drop out of this (brilliant idea Fergus, by the way). In my time I've acquired a passable understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics, but music theory, despite many attempts - never. I know what will happen - I shall follow you perfectly well through these elementary stages, and then at some point in the future I shall meet a brick wall of incomprehension, and there'll be no crossing it. Reading a score (unless it be _Three Blind Mice_ in C major for treble recorder) still seems as utterly impossible as flying.
> 
> I think it's one of those dodgy brain-wiring things that some people experience with regard to mathematics. But lead on, Fergus, lead on. I will follow till I drop.


I too attempted to teach myself music theory and tho I struggle to read notation(and can't get away with tab at all) i find the theory fascinating. I got quite into it,learning about T,T,T,st,T,T,st etc but then kids came along and that was that! Game over.


----------



## sam richards

I don't have the energy to do it myself, but I think you should touch upon the notes and their naming before music notation.


----------



## PostMinimalist

sam richards said:


> I don't have the energy to do it myself, but I think you should touch upon the notes and their naming before music notation.


All that coming very soon! I've had a busy week puting a new floor down but I am preparing things to post. My Flickr account is filling up with examples and diagrams.
FC


----------



## Clancy

I would like to add a belated thumbs up to this thread idea, I am looking forward to trying to follow the next few lessons! I'm afraid my experience of music theory is similar to Elgarians, but I will see how far I get.


----------



## PostMinimalist

2. Notes.

Now that we have seen the 'stave', the place where most western music is written down, it's time to look at exactly what is written there and how that relates to what musicians play as they read it.

Music notation is like a written language in as much as it is a set of symbols which represent sound which can be translated into sound. In the case of language these sounds are spoken, in the case of music they are sung or played. Whereas a language has letters, words and sentences, music has its constituent parts such as notes, chords, melodies, phrases etc. We will see exactly what they are in due course, first let's see some notes.

When you sing, you sing notes, no matter how badly or untrained you might be. Almost anyone can do this, but a trained musician will be able to make controlled changes to his or her voice to produce a melody and not just any melody but a melody which as been written down by another musician (possibly from another country and even a different time), rather like reading a book by Dostoyevsky. There is no need to have Dostoyevsky in front of us to tell his stories. He 'wrote them down' and now we can 'read' them anytime we like. In the same way Beethoven, Mozart and all the other great composers of western music have written down their music in order that they don't have to stick around to play it to us when we want to hear it. Imagine having to ask Beethoven round so you could hear his ninth symphony!

So what do these musical symbols look like and what do they mean? Like letters and words on the page, notes on the stave have different shapes and placements. Let's have a look at what a note you might sing could look like:










That's it there, the first dot! Of course this may not be very accurate because not everyone will sing exactly the same thing, but I imagine that you all might sing a note and hold it for a second or two and then stop. That's what you are seeing here. It looks like a black dot sitting somewhere on the stave with a tail going off vertically. The dot, or 'note head' has to be written in such a way that you can tell exactly where it sits, vertically on the stave. If it were a huge dot (like the second dot) then you could not say if it was on the second bottom line or in the first space or whatever. If it was tiny (like the third dot) then it might not show up if it was on a line! So the dot has to be a bit bigger than the thickness of the stave lines but smaller or equal to than the distance between the stave line.

This makes it easy to see where the note sits vertically on the stave. This is very important because it is the key to telling which note is being symbolised! 
Remember in the first post we looked at the G clef where the florid G symbol was centred on the second bottom line of the stave? Well that is the key to working out which note is being symbolised. First let me tell you how the notes themselves are named.

In western music different countries use different systems to name notes and some times even professional musicians form different coutries get confused when discussing music that they are playing. What a French man calls 'Si' in what an Englishman calls 'B' and what an Englishman calls 'C' is what a Frenchman calls 'Do', and what an Englishamn calls 'Dough' the Frenchman calls l'argent! (Humour aside.)

I will use the accepted English language system for naming the notes so let's see how that works.

Here are all the notes that fall within the stave in order from lowest to highest. Below the notes are their names as used in the English system.










As you can see the lowest note is E and the next F followed by G. The next note, however, is called A! Why is that?

Well in this system we use seven letters A,B,C,D,E,F and G to name the notes as they appear on the stave without any exrta infromation (we'll see what kind of information this can bee when we look at 'accidentals' a bit latter). If you remember that the florid 'G cleff' or "treble clef' (which is what we will call it from now on) is written on the second line of the stave so, naturally a note on that line would be a 'G'. Everything is relative to this point - so the note written in the space just below the 'G' line is an 'F', and the note written on the line below the 'F' space is an 'E'. Notes written above the 'G' line start over using the series A,B,C,D,E,F and G again. So the note written in the second space (the one just above the 'G' line) is an 'A'. If you look at the diagram again you can see all the names of the notes that fall within the stave.

You might think that the diagram looks like a fight of stairs. Well you're right! The musical word for what you're seeing here is a 'scale'. A lot of western music is built using certain series of notes called 'scales'. The word means 'steps' and comes from the Italian 'scalla', like the famous opera house, the 'Teatro la Scalla' in Milan, which is called literally 'the Theatre of the Steps'.

Here's a bit of ancient history:

We'll take a quick trip back in time about 2500 years to the Island of Samos in the Aegean Sea. There we find the great mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras. He was the one who told us how to measure triangles if you remember, but besides that he was also an avid observer of nature. One of the things that Pythagoras noticed was that when he hung his boots up by the laces they swung in accordance to the length of the lace. The longer the lace the slower the swing. Now he was also a lute player (the lute is a bit like a small harp) and he knew that the longer his lute string was, the 'lower' in pitch the note would be. After looking at all this together he decided to see what the mathematical relationship was between the notes and the speed of the swing and the length of the string etc.

To do this he built a thing called a 'monochord' which just means, 'one string' which is in fact all it was: a box with one string stretched over it.










Here you can see that there is a 'moveable bridge' supporting the string. (A 'bridge' is the part of a stringed instrument that supports the string.) Pythagoras would measure the length of the string at various points and try to find out which notes came out of his monochord. He was delighted to find that there was a mathematical relationship between the length of the string and the pitch of the note. He discovered that when a string is pucked it produces a note of a certain pitch which is the result of the string swinging back and forth quickly (called 'oscilation' or 'vibration') and that when it was only half of the original length it would produce a sound that was in many ways very similar to the original but somehow higher in pitch. He worked out that to produce this effect the number of 'oscilations' was exactly double!

With this in mind he decided to shorten the string length to a third of the original and found that the note changed all together but when both the original string and the third of the length string were struck at the same time the sound was very rich and pleasing.

Pythagoras believed that the universe was ruled by numbers and decided to experiment further by dividing the string into quarters and fifths and sixths etc of it's original length. Doing so he discovered that each division sounded slightly different and some would not sound good together and others sounded lovely.

Ultimately he found that he could make divisions in string length up to about a twelfth and still find someway of combining the resulting sounds together. He then built a monochord which could artificially divide the string into proprtions of it's original lengths by use of 'frets'. Frets are the lines you see on the neck of a guitar and they are almost exactly in the places that Pythagoras would have put them if he made guitars today!

The strange strange simlalrity between a one string and another half it's length in called an 'Octave' You can hear this phenomena on a guitar by playing the string without any fingers pressing down and then pressing down your finger on the half way mark and playing the free part of the string again. This was so much an itegral part of the pythagorean way of thinking that even today at meetings of Pythagoreans the 'sounding of the octave' is used to signify the beginning of their council.

Now, going back to the diagram of the scale, the notes E on the bottom line and E in the top space have the same name but they are written in different places. They are related to each other by the 'interval' of an octave (the thing Pythagoras was nuts about!). An 'interval' is the distance between two notes and that is one of the many things we'll look at next time.

FC


----------



## Drew97

I'm desperately trying to study for my Grade 5 theory exam and failing quite miserably. This thread looks interesting, so I might have to spend several hours hunched over the computer (this is my first theory exam.)


----------



## chillowack

Did this wonderful thread end back in June then?

I would have thought it would be quite popular, and full of life and activity.

I think it's a great idea, Fergus sharing his knowledge with beginners. I hope it resumes.


----------



## Lukecash12

chillowack said:


> Did this wonderful thread end back in June then?
> 
> I would have thought it would be quite popular, and full of life and activity.
> 
> I think it's a great idea, Fergus sharing his knowledge with beginners. I hope it resumes.


Same here. Seems like it didn't even get as far as the order of sharps and flats You'd think it'd be more popular.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Is there anyone else with sufficient knowledge to continue?
I wouldnt mind continuing on to basic harmony/circle of fifths.


----------



## Lukecash12

I'm not nearly eloquent enough, myself. I just know how it works, how to write it down, different harmonic structures, etc.

We could go over format for pieces starting as simple as ABA format, though.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well your use of the word eloquent is proof enough of your eloquence.

Yes we could.


----------



## Lukecash12

Here's some info on composition formats:



> *Levels of organization*
> 
> The most basic levels of musical form concern (a) the arrangement of the pulse into accented and unaccented beats, the cells of a measure that, when harmonized, may give rise to the "briefest intelligible and self-existent musical unit" (Scholes, 1977), called a motif or figure, and (b) the further organization of such a measure, by repetition and variation, into a true musical phrase having a definite rhythm and duration that may be implied in melody and harmony, defined, for example, by a long final note and a breathing space. This "phrase" may be regarded as the fundamental formal unit of music: it may be broken down into measures of two or three beats but its distinctive nature will then be lost. Even at this level we can see the importance of the principles of repetition and contrast, weak and strong, climax and repose. (Macpherson 1930). (See also: Metre (music)) Given all this, we may understand the term "form" on three further main levels of organization that we can roughly designate "passage", "piece", and "cycle" for purposes of exposition:
> 
> *Passage*
> 
> The smallest level of construction concerns the way musical phrases are organised into musical "sentences" and "paragraphs" such as the verse of a song. This may be compared to, and is often decided by, the verse-form or metre of the words or the steps of a dance.
> 
> For example, the twelve bar blues is a specific verse form, while common metre is found in many hymns and ballads and, again, the Elizabethan galliard, like many dances, requires a certain rhythm, pace and length of melody to fit its repeating pattern of steps. Simpler styles of music may be more or less wholly defined at this level of form, which therefore does not differ greatly from the loose sense first mentioned and which may carry with it rhythmic, harmonic, timbral, occasional and melodic conventions.
> 
> In the analysis of musical form, sections, units etc. that can be defined on the time axis are conventionally designated by letters, as is the case in discussing poetic form. Capitals are used for the most fundamental, lower-case for sub-divisions. If one such section returns in a varied or modified form, a small digit or an appropriate number of prime symbols appears after the letter. Even at this most basic level we find patterns that may be re-used on larger time-scales. For example, the following verse:
> 
> _Twinkle twinkle little star
> How I wonder what you are
> Up above the world so high
> Like a diamond in the sky._
> 
> has a verse composed of two differently-rhymed couplets (AABB): its organisation is twofold or binary. But in this one:
> 
> _ There once was a fellow from Leeds
> Who swallowed a packet of seeds.
> In less than an hour he burst into flower
> And he died trying to pull up the weeds._
> 
> there is a rhyme repeated in the second line, but in the third we find a variant, two half-lines sharing a new rhyme, followed by a final return to the first arrangement in the last line, giving the four lines the form AABA. This "same-different-same" form in music is called ternary or threefold. However, as Macpherson points out (1930) there is a preference at all levels of musical organization for groupings of two, four, eight over other divisions, so that even a "threefold" form is often extended by repetition of the first subject into a fourfold structure. Composers, in fact, must be on guard against excessive "squareness".


----------



## Lukecash12

And we soldier on:



> *Piece*
> 
> The next level concerns the entire structure of any single more or less self-contained musical piece. If the hymn, ballad, blues or dance alluded to above simply repeats the same musical material indefinitely then the piece is said to be in strophic form overall. If it repeats with distinct, sustained changes each time, for instance in setting, ornamentation or instrumentation, then the piece is a Theme and variations. If two distinctly different themes are alternated indefinitely, as in a song alternating verse and chorus or in the alternating slow and fast sections of the Hungarian czardas, then this gives rise to a simple two-fold or binary form. If the theme is played (perhaps twice), then a new theme is introduced, the piece then closing with a return to the first theme, we have a simple ternary form. - (see Single forms below)
> 
> Great confusion, argument and misunderstanding can be generated by such terms as "ternary" and "binary", however, since a complex piece may have elements of both at different organizational levels. For example, a simple minuet, like any Baroque dance, generally had a simple AABB binary structure - but this was frequently extended by the introduction of another minuet arranged for solo instruments (called the trio), after which the first was repeated again and the piece ended. This, of course, is a ternary form - ABA: the piece is binary on the lower compositional level but ternary on the higher. Organizational levels are not clearly and universally defined in western musicology, while words like "section" and "passage" are used at different levels by different scholars whose definitions, anyway, as Scholes (1977) and others point out, cannot keep pace with the myriad innovations and variations devised by musicians.
> 
> *Single forms*
> 
> Scholes (1977) suggested that European classical music had only six main stand-alone forms; simple binary, simple ternary, compound binary, rondo, air with variations, and fugue, although he allowed for several sub-categories and hybrids. Mann (1958), however, while confirming that the fugue has taken on certain structural conventions at times, emphasized that it is primarily a method of composition.
> 
> Where a piece cannot readily be broken down into sectional units (though it might borrow some form from a poem, story or programme) It is said to be through-composed. Such is often the case with pieces named Fantasia, Prelude, Rhapsody, Etude or study, Symphonic poem, Bagatelle (music), Impromptu etc.
> 
> Keil (1966) classified forms and formal detail as sectional, developmental or variational.
> 
> Sectional form is built from a sequence of clear-cut units (DeLone, 1975) that may be referred to by letters as outlined above but also often have generic names such as Introduction and Coda, Exposition, Development and Recapitulation, Verse, Chorus or Refrain and Bridge. Introductions and codas, when they are no more than that, are frequently excluded from formal analysis. All such units may typically be eight measures long. _Sectional forms_ include:
> 
> * _Strophic form_ (AAAA...) indefinitely - the "unrelieved repetition" that is one extreme of the spectrum of musical form.
> 
> * _Medley, potpourri or Chain form_: this is the opposite extreme of "unrelieved variation": it is simply an indefinite sequence of self-contained sections (ABCD...), sometimes with repeats (AABBCCDD...). Orchestral overtures, for example, are sometimes no more than a string of the best tunes of the show to come, possibly, like Johann Strauss' Blue Danube waltz, ending with a reprise of the main theme; ((intro)ABCD...A1(coda)).
> 
> * _Binary form using two sections _(AB...); each section is often repeated (AABB...). In 18th-century western classical music simple binary form was often used for dances and carried with it the convention that the two sections should be in different musical keys but maintain the same rhythm, duration and tone. The alternation of two tunes gives enough variety to permit a dance to be extended for as long as may be required.
> 
> * _Ternary form_, having three parts. In Western classical music a simple ternary form has a third section that is a recapitulation of the first (ABA). Often the first section is repeated (AABA) This approach was popular in the 18th-century operatic aria and was called da capo (i.e. "repeat from the top") form: later it gave rise to the 32-bar song, the B section then often being called the "middle eight". A song has more need than a dance of a self-contained form with a beginning and an end.
> 
> * _Rondo form_ has a recurring theme alternating with different (usually contrasting) sections called episodes. It may be asymmetrical (ABACADAEA) or symmetrical (ABACABA). A recurring section, especially the main theme, is sometimes more thoroughly varied, or else one episode may be a development of it. A similar arrangement is the Ritornello form of the baroque concerto Grosso. Arch form (ABCBA) resembles a symmetrical rondo without intermediate repetitions of the main theme.


----------



## Lukecash12

We continue here once again:



> *Cyclical forms*
> 
> Opera was originally modeled upon classical drama and takes much of its form from its libretto and narrative. Ballet was for many years a component of opera, not in itself narrative but having the form of a suite of set dances included at some appropriate moment in the story such as a festival or wedding. It emerged as a separate form, supplying its own narrative or representation, during the nineteenth century CE. At the same time the Song cycle emerged, a set of related songs as the suite is a set of related dances. The Oratorio took shape as a narrative, often religious, recounted but not acted by the singers.
> 
> The Sonata, Symphony and Concerto were all developed by the great composers of the Viennese school, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven along the same formal lines into distinctively musical forms limited little by the forms of song, dance or ceremony. Other forms of music, such as the Catholic Mass and Requiem, are largely shaped by and subordinated to their texts and ceremonial functions.


----------



## Lukecash12

Some more info:



> *More recent developments*
> 
> A common idea is the "depth" of layers of form necessary for complexity, in which foregrounded "detail" events occur against a more structural background, as in Schenkerian analysis. Lerdahl (1992), among others, argues that popular music lacks the structural complexity of multiple structural layers and thus lacks depth. However, Lerdahl's theories explicitly exclude "associational" details which are used to help articulate form in popular music, which Allen Forte's book theories were designed to analyze. (Middleton 1999, p. 144).
> 
> Western classical music is the apodigm of the extensional form of musical construction. Theme and variations, counterpoint, tonality (as used in classical composition) are all devices that build diachronically and synchronically outwards from basic musical atoms. The complex is created by combination of the simple, which remains discrete and unchanged in the complex unity...If those critics who maintain the greater complexity of classical music specified that they had in mind this extensional development, they would be quite correct...Rock however follows, like many non-European musics, the path of intensional development. In this mode of construction the basic musical units (played/sung notes) are not combined through space and time as simple elements into complex structures. The simple entity is that constituted by the parameters of melody, harmony, and beat, while the complex is built up by modulation of the basic notes, and by inflexion of the basic beat. All existing genres and sub-types of the Afro-American tradition show various forms of combined intensional and extensional development.
> -Chester 1970, p.78-9
> 
> Similarly, (Middleton 1990, p. 115) maintains that "syntactic music" is "centered" on notation and "the hierarchic organization of quasilinguistic elements and their putting together (com-position) in line with systems of norms, expectations, surprises, tensions and resolutions. The resulting aesthetic is one of 'embodied meaning.'" on the other hand, non-notated music and performance "foreground process and are concerned with gesture, physical feel, the immediate moment, improvisation; the resulting aesthetic is one of 'engendered feeling' and is unsuited to the application of 'syntactic' criteria".
> 
> Connection and contrast may be achieved in new ways. Procedures of connection include gradation, amalgamation, and dissolution. Procedures of contrast include stratification, juxtaposition, and interpolation.
> 
> Especially recently, more segmented approaches have been taken through the use of stratification, superimposition, juxtaposition, interpolation, and other interruptions and simultaneities. Examples include the postmodern "block" technique used by composers such as John Zorn, where rather than organic development one follows separate units in various combinations. These techniques may be used to create contrast to the point of disjointed chaotic textures, or, through repetition and return and transitional procedures such as dissolution, amalgamation, and gradation, may create connectedness and unity. Composers have also made more use of open forms such as produced by aleatoric devices and other chance procedures, improvisation, and some processes.


----------



## Lukecash12

And now we tackle each form individually to end it for today:



> *Gregorian Chant-**Melodic types*
> 
> Gregorian chant is of course vocal music. The text, the phrases, words and eventually the syllables, can be sung in various ways. The most straightforward is recitation on the same tone, which is called "syllabic" as each syllable is sung to a single tone. Likewise, simple chants are often syllabic throughout with only a few instances where two or more notes are sung on one syllable. "Neumatic" chants are more embellished and ligatures, a connected group of notes, written as a single compound neume, abound in the text. Melismatic chants are the most ornate chants in which elaborate melodies are sung on long sustained vowels as in the Alleluia, ranging from five or six notes per syllable to over sixty in the more prolix melismas.[22]
> 
> Gregorian chants fall into two broad categories of melody: recitatives and free melodies.[23] The simplest kind of melody is the liturgical recitative. Recitative melodies are dominated by a single pitch, called the reciting tone. Other pitches appear in melodic formulae for incipits, partial cadences, and full cadences. These chants are primarily syllabic. For example, the Collect for Easter consists of 127 syllables sung to 131 pitches, with 108 of these pitches being the reciting note A and the other 23 pitches flexing down to G.[24] Liturgical recitatives are commonly found in the accentus chants of the liturgy, such as the intonations of the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel during the Mass, and in the direct psalmody of the Office.
> 
> Psalmodic chants, which intone psalms, include both recitatives and free melodies. Psalmodic chants include direct psalmody, antiphonal chants, and responsorial chants.[25] In direct psalmody, psalm verses are sung without refrains to simple, formulaic tones. Most psalmodic chants are antiphonal and responsorial, sung to free melodies of varying complexity.
> 
> Antiphonal chants such as the Introit, and Communion originally referred to chants in which two choirs sang in alternation, one choir singing verses of a psalm, the other singing a refrain called an antiphon. Over time, the verses were reduced in number, usually to just one psalm verse and the Doxology, or even omitted entirely. Antiphonal chants reflect their ancient origins as elaborate recitatives through the reciting tones in their melodies. Ordinary chants, such as the Kyrie and Gloria, are not considered antiphonal chants, although they are often performed in antiphonal style.
> 
> Responsorial chants such as the Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory, and the Office Responsories originally consisted of a refrain called a respond sung by a choir, alternating with psalm verses sung by a soloist. Responsorial chants are often composed of an amalgamation of various stock musical phrases, pieced together in a practice called centonization. Tracts are melismatic settings of psalm verses and use frequent recurring cadences and they are strongly centonized.
> 
> Gregorian chant evolved to fulfill various functions in the Roman Catholic liturgy. Broadly speaking, liturgical recitatives are used for texts intoned by deacons or priests. Antiphonal chants accompany liturgical actions: the entrance of the officiant, the collection of offerings, and the distribution of sanctified bread and wine. Responsorial chants expand on readings and lessons.[26]
> 
> The non-psalmodic chants, including the Ordinary of the Mass, sequences, and hymns, were originally intended for congregational singing.[27] The structure of their texts largely defines their musical style. In sequences, the same melodic phrase is repeated in each couplet. The strophic texts of hymns use the same syllabic melody for each stanza.


----------



## Lukecash12

Gregorian Chants continued:



> *Modality*
> 
> Early plainchant, like much of Western music, is believed to have been distinguished by the use of the diatonic scale. Modal theory, which postdates the composition of the core chant repertory, arises from a synthesis of two very different traditions: the speculative tradition of numerical ratios and species inherited from ancient Greece and a second tradition rooted in the practical art of cantus. The earliest writings that deal with both theory and practice include the Enchiriadis group of treatises, which circulated in the late ninth century and possibly have their roots in an earlier, oral tradition. In contrast to the ancient Greek system of tetrachords (a collection of four continuous notes) that descend by two tones and a semitone, the Enchiriadis writings base their tone-system on a tetrachord that corresponds to the four finals of chant, D, E, F, and G. The disjunct tetrachords in the Enchiriadis system have been the subject of much speculation, because they do not correspond to the diatonic framework that became the standard Medieval scale (for example, there is a high F#, a note not recognized by later Medieval writers). A diatonic scale with a chromatically alterable b/b-flat was first described by Hucbald, who adopted the tetrachord of the finals (D, E, F, G) and constructed the rest of the system following the model of the Greek Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems. These were the first steps in forging a theoretical tradition that corresponded to chant.
> 
> Around 1025, Guido d'Arezzo revolutionized Western music with the development of the gamut, in which pitches in the singing range were organized into overlapping hexachords. Hexachords could be built on C (the natural hexachord, C-D-E^F-G-A), F (the soft hexachord, using a B-flat, F-G-A^Bb-C-D), or G (the hard hexachord, using a B-natural, G-A-B^C-D-E). The B-flat was an integral part of the system of hexachords rather than an accidental. The use of notes outside of this collection was described as musica ficta.
> 
> Gregorian chant was categorized into eight modes, influenced by the eightfold division of Byzantine chants called the oktoechos.[28] Each mode is distinguished by its final, dominant, and ambitus. The final is the ending note, which is usually an important note in the overall structure of the melody. The dominant is a secondary pitch that usually serves as a reciting tone in the melody. Ambitus refers to the range of pitches used in the melody. Melodies whose final is in the middle of the ambitus, or which have only a limited ambitus, are categorized as plagal, while melodies whose final is in the lower end of the ambitus and have a range of over five or six notes are categorized as authentic. Although corresponding plagal and authentic modes have the same final, they have different dominants.[29] The existent pseudo-Greek names of the modes, rarely used in medieval times, derive from a misunderstanding of the Ancient Greek modes; the prefix "Hypo-" (under, Gr.) indicates a plagal mode, where the melody moves below the final. In contemporary Latin manuscripts the modes are simply called Protus authentus /plagalis, Deuterus, Tritus and Tetrardus: the 1st mode, authentic or plagal, the 2nd mode etc. In the Roman Chantbooks the modes are indicated by Roman numerals.
> 
> Modes 1 and 2 are the authentic and plagal modes ending on D, sometimes called Dorian and Hypodorian.
> Modes 3 and 4 are the authentic and plagal modes ending on E, sometimes called Phrygian and Hypophrygian.
> Modes 5 and 6 are the authentic and plagal modes ending on F, sometimes called Lydian and Hypolydian.
> Modes 7 and 8 are the authentic and plagal modes ending on G, sometimes called Mixolydian and Hypomixolydian.
> 
> Although the modes with melodies ending on A, B, and C are sometimes referred to as Aeolian, Locrian, and Ionian, these are not considered distinct modes and are treated as transpositions of whichever mode uses the same set of hexachords. The actual pitch of the Gregorian chant is not fixed, so the piece can be sung in whichever range is most comfortable.
> 
> Certain classes of Gregorian chant have a separate musical formula for each mode, allowing one section of the chant to transition smoothly into the next section, such as the psalm tones between antiphons and psalm verses.[30]
> 
> Not every Gregorian chant fits neatly into Guido's hexachords or into the system of eight modes. For example, there are chants-especially from German sources-whose neumes suggest a warbling of pitches between the notes E and F, outside the hexachord system.[31] Early Gregorian chant, like Ambrosian and Old Roman chant, whose melodies are most closely related to Gregorian, did not use the modal system.[32] The great need for a system of organizing chants lies in the need to link antiphons with standard tones, as in for example, the psalmody at the Office. Using Psalm Tone i with an antiphon in Mode 1 makes for a smooth transition between the end of the antiphon and the intonation of the tone, and the ending of the tone can then be chosen to provide a smooth transition back to the antiphon. As the modal system gained acceptance, Gregorian chants were edited to conform to the modes, especially during 12th-century Cistercian reforms. Finals were altered, melodic ranges reduced, melismas trimmed, B-flats eliminated, and repeated words removed.[33] Despite these attempts to impose modal consistency, some chants-notably Communions-defy simple modal assignment. For example, in four medieval manuscripts, the Communion Circuibo was transcribed using a different mode in each.[34]


----------



## Lukecash12

And the 3rd part on Gregorian Chants (soldier on some more, we're almost through!):



> *Musical idiom*
> 
> Several features besides modality contribute to the musical idiom of Gregorian chant, giving it a distinctive musical flavor. Melodic motion is primarily stepwise. Skips of a third are common, and larger skips far more common than in other plainchant repertories such as Ambrosian chant or Beneventan chant. Gregorian melodies are more likely to traverse a seventh than a full octave, so that melodies rarely travel from D up to the D an octave higher, but often travel from D to the C a seventh higher, using such patterns as D-F-G-A-C.[35] Gregorian melodies often explore chains of pitches, such as F-A-C, around which the other notes of the chant gravitate.[36] Within each mode, certain incipits and cadences are preferred, which the modal theory alone does not explain. Chants often display complex internal structures that combine and repeat musical subphrases. This occurs notably in the Offertories; in chants with shorter, repeating texts such as the Kyrie and Agnus Dei; and in longer chants with clear textual divisions such as the Great Responsories, the Gloria, and the Credo.[37]
> 
> Chants sometimes fall into melodically related groups. The musical phrases centonized to create Graduals and Tracts follow a musical "grammar" of sorts. Certain phrases are used only at the beginnings of chants, or only at the end, or only in certain combinations, creating musical families of chants such as the Iustus ut palma family of Graduals.[38] Several Introits in mode 3, including Loquetur Dominus above, exhibit melodic similarities. Mode III (E authentic) chants have C as a dominant, so C is the expected reciting tone. These mode III Introits, however, use both G and C as reciting tones, and often begin with a decorated leap from G to C to establish this tonality.[39] Similar examples exist throughout the repertory.


----------



## Lukecash12

_To stave off any accusations of plagiarism (I hate plagiarism as much as any other bloke), these quotes are from Wikipedia (which itself also quoted from a book on composition). _So we have a double quote, here And now, our final segment on the Gregorian Chant (if anyone has enjoyed these brackets of information as much as me, just let me know and I'll continue with the rest of the musical forms):



> *Notation*
> 
> The earliest notated sources of Gregorian chant (written ca. 950) used symbols called neumes (Gr. sign (of the hand) to indicate tone-movements and relative duration within each syllable. A sort of musical stenography that seems to focus on gestures and tone-movements but not the specific pitches of individual notes, nor the relative starting pitches of each neume. Given the fact that Chant was learned in an oral tradition in which the texts and melodies were sung from memory, this was obviously not necessary. The neumatic manuscripts display great sophistication and precision in notation and a wealth of graphic signs to indicate the musical gesture and proper pronunciation of the text. Scholars postulate that this practice may have been derived from cheironomic hand-gestures, the ekphonetic notation of Byzantine chant, punctuation marks, or diacritical accents.[40] Later adaptations and innovations included the use of a dry-scratched line or an inked line or two lines, marked C or F showing the relative pitches between neumes. Consistent relative heightening first developed in the Aquitaine region, particularly at St. Martial de Limoges, in the first half of the eleventh century. Many German-speaking areas, however, continued to use unpitched neumes into the twelfth century. Additional symbols developed, such as the custos, placed at the end of a system to show the next pitch. Other symbols indicated changes in articulation, duration, or tempo, such as a letter "t" to indicate a tenuto. Another form of early notation used a system of letters corresponding to different pitches, much as Shaker music is notated.
> 
> By the 13th century, the neumes of Gregorian chant were usually written in square notation on a four-line staff with a clef, as in the Graduale Aboense pictured above. In square notation, small groups of ascending notes on a syllable are shown as stacked squares, read from bottom to top, while descending notes are written with diamonds read from left to right. When a syllable has a large number of notes, a series of smaller such groups of neumes are written in succession, read from left to right. The oriscus, quilisma, and liquescent neumes indicate special vocal treatments, that have been largely neglected due to uncertainty as to how to sing them. Since the 1970s, with the influential insights of Dom. E. Cardine (see below under 'rhythm'), ornamental neumes have received more attention from both researchers and performers.
> 
> B-flat is indicated by a "b-mollum" (Lat. soft), a rounded undercaste 'b' placed to the left of the entire neume in which the note occurs. When necessary, a "b-durum" (Lat. hard), written squarely, indicates B-natural and serves to cancel the b-mollum . This system of square notation is standard in modern chantbooks.


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

greaaaat post =)


----------



## Lukecash12

Beethovensheadphone said:


> greaaaat post =)


Thanks


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

can anyone help me?

I'm having problems understanding the relation of the intervals of a major scale:

The interval of the major scale:

notes half steps to next note

Tonic 2
second 2
third 1
fourth 2
fifth 2
sixth 2
seventh 1

in other words it goes.. whole, whole, half, whole,whole, whole, half. right?

now, when i look at the major scales i cannot point out the "half-steps to next note"
ex: C-sharp Major

it starts in C#, the next note is D#.. after is E# 

to me, it's seems more like the interval is just a half-step
i can't figure this out.. =/

anyways, thanks in advance!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well, it's probably a little easier to think in Db instead of C# at that point (though it's possible)

Db - Eb - F makes a lot more sense to me than C# - D# - E#

Remember...E# is F. 

But a C# major scale is: C# - D# - E# - F# - G# - A# - B# - C# (all sharps!)


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

sorry but i still don't get it

from the tonic to the second note there must be 2 half steps to the next note.

in the c# major scale, the first note is C# then D#...


----------



## Romantic Geek

Yes, the order you had was correct. W-W-H-W-W-W-H

So C# to D# is a whole step (2 half steps). D# to E# (F enharmonically) is a whole step. E# to F# is a half step. F# to G# is a whole step. G# to A# is a whole step. A# to B# (C enharmonically) is a whole step. B# to C# is a half step.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Hi Guys!

Firstly I'd like to apologise for leaving this thread in its infancy. I was involved in a huge project which literally used up all my time since the summer. It's almost finished so I'm starting to come back.

Secondly I'd like to say a huge thanks to Lukecash for filling in with some really interesting and well informed articles. The original idea was that I would leave this open for other contributors anyway.

So now lets look at the interval issue in major scales.

1. Remember the sharp # after a note name means that it has been raised a half tone or _semitone_ from the original pitch so C# is a semitone higher than C.

2. In the same way D# is a semitone higher than D and E# a semitone higher than E.
since the intervals between these notes too have all ben displaced by the same amount the overall inteerval will not have changed. Think how the interval would be if the C was sharpened and not the D.... From C# to D is a halfstep only, where as C# to D# is a wholetone. The same applies to the next interval D# to E# is still a wholetone, as was C to D.

3. The fact that some notes can be written in more than one way is vey useful for composers and instrumentalists like harpists. From a theoretical point of view however F and E# are not the same they just 'sound (!?!)' the same on the piano. A string player will play the major third in Db major verry differently from the way he would play an E# in C# major... seriously! The 'flat' keys have a quite different character from the harp ones.

This is a bit advanced for this thread just yet but we will get round to it!

Nice to be back
FC


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

thanks for the clarification guys =)


----------



## Lukecash12

Beethovensheadphone said:


> can anyone help me?
> 
> I'm having problems understanding the relation of the intervals of a major scale:
> 
> The interval of the major scale:
> 
> notes half steps to next note
> 
> Tonic 2
> second 2
> third 1
> fourth 2
> fifth 2
> sixth 2
> seventh 1
> 
> in other words it goes.. whole, whole, half, whole,whole, whole, half. right?
> 
> now, when i look at the major scales i cannot point out the "half-steps to next note"
> ex: C-sharp Major
> 
> it starts in C#, the next note is D#.. after is E#
> 
> to me, it's seems more like the interval is just a half-step
> i can't figure this out.. =/
> 
> anyways, thanks in advance!


I'm sorry I didn't see that post. Any other questions will be answered promptly. And mondo thanks to PostMinimalist for answering your questions correctly.


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

I'm studying major and minor scales..
i have a question... i think im loosing track of what im learning
my question is:
what makes a scale have sharps and flats that other scales don't have:

C major has no sharps nor flats
C minor has an Eb and an Ab

in other words, how would i know that the C minor scale has an Eb and an Ab?

i hope this is clear!
thanks


----------



## PostMinimalist

1. Scales are characterised by the sequence of intervals between its adjacent notes. 

2. Any note can have a scale built upon it.

3. Different sequences of intervals give rise to different scales or 'modes'. A mode is the name we give to a certain type of scale. We could say that a mode is defined by a sequence of intervals which could more easily be described if we started on a different note. For example the scale resulting from the intervals WHWWWHW (starting on C that would be C D Eb F G A Bb C) could be described as a major scale starting on the second note. Of course the idea of scale is linked to the idea of 'tonal center'. Tonal center is the note to which music tends towards or 'gravitates' as it finishes. We say that music in C major will generally finish on (i.e. gravitate towards) the note C. If the music used the scale above ( C D Eb F G A Bb C) and finished on C then of course it's not C major but a mode of C (the 'Dorian Mode' to be exact). However the notes seem to be exactly the same as the notes in Bb major! (Bb C D Eb F G A Bb) with the only difference being that it sarts on Bb and not C. 

So modes are 'scales' that are derived from other scales by starting on notes other than the first and then using that note as the tonal center.

That's already a lot to take in.

4. Let's look at a scale starting on say Gb.

Gb -W- Ab -W- Bb -H- Cb -H- Db -W- Eb -W- F 

You can see that the sequence of intervals is that of the Major scale so Gb major must have an Ab, a Bb, a Cb, aDb and an Eb (as well as a Gb of course) in its 'key signature' ( the key signature is a group of flats or sharps written at the beginning of the stave to indicate the tonic center and also make the notation easier - imagine if you had to write a sharp or a flat infront of verey note seperately!)

I have to take a break but... 

More later.
FC


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

Thank you


----------



## Beethovensheadphone

G major scale will have the following intervals: w-w-h-w-w-w-h

it has one sharp: F#

G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G
W W H W W W H

my question is how come from A to B is 2 half steps, while from B to C it's a halfstep?

one other question: what makes the G major scale, or any other scale for that matter, have a certain kind of intervals?

i appreciate all the help im getting from you guys, since i can't afford having a private teacher.

thanks again =)


----------



## Romantic Geek

Look on a piano. That's the best way to describe it.


----------



## danae

Beethovensheadphone said:


> one other question: what makes the G major scale, or any other scale for that matter, have a certain kind of intervals?


It's a form of convention.

As we all know, praxis precedes theory. And people wrote a lot of music for a lot of years without necessarily knowing its theory. So the scales of the Western European Art Music (namely the major and minor modes that you learn in theory today) are derived from centuries of music writing and performing. They are the alphabet of western music and their form was "determined" by centuries of musical praxis.

This is the raw material of western, in the same way as the makams are for ottoman and arabic music. Each musical culture has its own materials, its own grammar and syntax. And scales represent this material.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Nice post Danae!


----------



## danae

PostMinimalist said:


> Nice post Danae!


Thank you *bows with gratitude (and gratification, since I hold your opinion in high esteem)*


----------



## Lukecash12

An enjoyable thread thus far.


----------



## tenor02

see bach and his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_temperament system for why the intervals are the way the are. and you should also try looking at the Circle of 5th's. It'll help you learn the order of the scales, and their key signatures really quickly.

http://www.mariadewi.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/circle-of-fifths.jpg


----------



## mueske

Can anyone tell me what kind of chords these are? If they even have a 'name' or function.

f - a flat - d flat

b - e flat (or d sharp?) - g sharp (or a flat?)

b- e flat (or d sharp?) - f sharp (or g flat?)


----------



## emiellucifuge

mueske said:


> Can anyone tell me what kind of chords these are? If they even have a 'name' or function.
> 
> f - a flat - d flat
> 
> b - e flat (or d sharp?) - g sharp (or a flat?)
> 
> b- e flat (or d sharp?) - f sharp (or g flat?)


first is Db major

e flat - g sharp - b would be an Eb augmented
Alternatively spelling the chord as b - d sharp - a flat would change it to a B major 7th without the 5th.

e flat - g flat - b = eb augmented
b - d sharp - fsharp = B major

Im afraid that function depends entirely upon the context in which the chords are found.


----------



## Romantic Geek

emiellucifuge said:


> first is Db major
> 
> e flat - g sharp - b would be an Eb augmented
> Alternatively spelling the chord as b - d sharp - a flat would change it to a B major 7th without the 5th.


Eb, G#, B is not augmented. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Eb augmented would be Eb, G, B (and thus be G augmented and B augmented as well).

Also, B, D#, Ab is not a B major 7 but rather a B diminshed seventh with a major third.

From what it looks like to me, it's just a misspelled Ab minor (or G# minor) chord.
G# B D# - or Ab - Cb - Eb


----------



## andruini

That first chord could also be considered a neapolitan sixth chord which is normally used to substitute the subdominant chord before an authentic cadence of V-I.


----------



## emiellucifuge

thank you for the corrections


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Trivia questions!

1) Can you move from a V to a IV chord in traditional music?
2) What can't be doubled in a V first inversion chord?
3) Why is the cadential I 6/4 chord annotated as (I 6/4) (with parenthesis)?


----------



## Argus

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Trivia questions!
> 
> 1) Can you move from a V to a IV chord in traditional music?
> 2) What can't be doubled in a V first inversion chord?
> 3) Why is the cadential I 6/4 chord annotated as (I 6/4) (with parenthesis)?


I'll have a go.

1) Yes. Often in deceptive cadences.
2) Any tone _can_ be doubled. What the textbooks say _shouldn't_ be doubled is another matter.
3) The I six-four chord is very often used as a preparation to the V chord in cadences. The parentheses just show the chord is more or less an appogiature into the V.

Here's my questions.

What non-diatonic chords are available through use of the church modes?

In a dimished seventh (or as I prefer incomplete dominiant ninth) chord what reason is there for flattening the seventh (ninth)? e.g the Bb in (A) C#, E, G, Bb.

If you're in the key of Bb and there are the tones E, Gb, Bb and Db it is a (German) augmented sixth chord yet is enharmonically equivalent to an F# dom7 chord (F#, A#, C#, E) or Gb dom7. So is the chord in question better described as an augmented sixth chord or the V of the Neapolitan? And is there any difference other than spelling?


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 2) What can't be doubled in a V first inversion chord?





Argus said:


> 2) Any tone can be doubled. What the textbooks say shouldn't be doubled is another matter.


But if we're talking strict voice leading, then the 3rd of the V chord can't be doubled because it is the leading tone of the tonic and you _never_ double the leading tone. Never! And it doesn't matter what inversion the V chord is in.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Jeff N. said:


> But if we're talking strict voice leading, then the 3rd of the V chord can't be doubled because it is the leading tone of the tonic and you _never_ double the leading tone. Never! And it doesn't matter what inversion the V chord is in.


Yes. 

And as for the thing about Deceptive Cadences, that is the _only _time you can more from V to IV (it would be a IV6) in traditional music.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> In a dimished seventh (or as I prefer incomplete dominiant ninth) chord what reason is there for flattening the seventh (ninth)? e.g the Bb in (A) C#, E, G, Bb.


Flattening the B would make it a fully diminished as opposed to half diminished (which would require a B natural). Is that what you're looking for?


----------



## Argus

Jeff N. said:


> Flattening the B would make it a fully diminished as opposed to half diminished (which would require a B natural). Is that what you're looking for?


No. I understand that but meant what is the threoretical reasoning behind the creation of the diminished seventh interval. Why is this aspect of chromatic change permissable in tonal harmony?

I understand how it is formed in minor where the dimished seventh is diatonic (in d minor, C#, E, G, Bb are all in the scale with raised seventh tone C# and unraised sixth tone Bb) but in major the Bb is foreign. Is it a case of using tones from the parallel minor temporarily to artificially create the dim7 or is the Bb a kind of reverse leading tone downward into the A (the V root or the I fifth). Then there will be both leading tones into the D upward (C#) and the A downward (Bb).


----------



## Romantic Geek

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Trivia questions!
> 
> 1) Can you move from a V to a IV chord in traditional music?
> 2) What can't be doubled in a V first inversion chord?
> 3) Why is the cadential I 6/4 chord annotated as (I 6/4) (with parenthesis)?


1. Yes, but very rarely, and only to IV6 as a deceptive cadence. Typically you see a V-IV progression in pop music.
2. As Jeff mentioned, you can never double the leading tone of the key you're in, so the 3rd of the V chord. It doesn't matter what inversion. This is just general strict voice leading though, not the law 
3. This annotation is different depending on how you learn the chord. Since I 6/4 is rarely used outside of a cadential 6/4 process (the only real exception being a pedal tone embellishment I 5/3 - I 6/4 - I 5/3), some people annotate it as a V 6/4 when in reality, it is a I 6/4. They use V 6/4 - V 5/3 because of the strong presence of the dominant in the bass and thus, sounds like an incomplete upper pedal embellishment of the V chord (as I demonstrated with the I chord.) So, except for the one instance I mentioned (and maybe a few very very minor exceptions) I 6/4 is in parenthesis because it is really a dominant acting chord and thus should be treated as such.



Argus said:


> Here's my questions.
> 
> What non-diatonic chords are available through use of the church modes?
> 
> In a dimished seventh (or as I prefer incomplete dominiant ninth) chord what reason is there for flattening the seventh (ninth)? e.g the Bb in (A) C#, E, G, Bb.
> 
> If you're in the key of Bb and there are the tones E, Gb, Bb and Db it is a (German) augmented sixth chord yet is enharmonically equivalent to an F# dom7 chord (F#, A#, C#, E) or Gb dom7. So is the chord in question better described as an augmented sixth chord or the V of the Neapolitan? And is there any difference other than spelling?


For your question about the church modes, the answer is really none. The only exceptions are Bb when you're in the a non transposed mode (i.e. D dorian, E phyrgian, etc.) to avoid the tritone with F. There are a lot of specific rules regarding the appropriate use of the lowered scale degree 7 when writing 16th century counterpoint, including things like the outline of a scalar passage not outlining a augmented fourth, leaps of a tritone, etc. It's really complicated and I suggest you read more about 16th century counterpoint if you really want to know more. The other exception to this is Eb, and this only occurs if you are in a transposed church mode. Since transposed church modes occurred in what we now call F major, you could occasionally see an Eb in addition to the Bb. So G dorian, A phyrgian, etc...

I'm not sure how the heck you're getting an incomplete dominant 9th as your preferred name for a diminished seventh chord. That's just completely odd and I'm not even sure how you can justify it...but I will leave that alone to address your question. The diminished seventh came into being because it was more dissonant than other seventh chords. Composers started using it to create tension within their music to satiate the need for tension and release in their works. The reason for lowering the seventh is to create an even stronger need to resolve downwards. If you notice, there are actually two tritones in a diminished seventh. This creates an incredible desire to resolve in their respective notes, even more so than the half diminished seventh, which appears naturally in a major key. I think you are dwelling too much on how specifically the lowered seventh fits in the picture of scales. Just remember, a diminished seventh is found naturally in the harmonic minor mode and that a fully diminished chord is most likely in the function of vii or an applied chord version of vii.

And for your last question, you have hit on one of the most interesting aspects of the German augmented chord. Yes, it is the same as a dominant seventh chord. Mostly, you will analyze it as what it is, a German augmented 6th chord. This is characteristic by the Ger+6 - V 6/4 (or I 6/4, whatever you want to call it) - V 5/3 resolution of the chord. Do note that you cannot move directly from a German augmented sixth chord to a V in strict voice leading practices because of parallel fifths! But if you see the chord progression following this path, it will almost always be analyzed as a German augmented sixth chord. However, because of the wonderful property of being a dominant seventh chord, enharmonically, the German augmented sixth chord can be a pivot to a new key, that of the Neapolitan. You see it occasionally in Schubert's music and it becomes much more prominent as you dive further into the Romantic era. So, you could be in the key of C minor for instance, but immediately after the supposed German augmented sixth in C minor, there is a drastic shift to Db (major or minor)...there's a good chance the German augmented sixth was used as a pivot chord and thus can be reanalyzed as a V in the new key, a half-step up. This is why the German augmented sixth chord is so unique and cool!


----------



## Argus

Romantic Geek said:


> For your question about the church modes, the answer is really none. The only exceptions are Bb when you're in the a non transposed mode (i.e. D dorian, E phyrgian, etc.) to avoid the tritone with F. There are a lot of specific rules regarding the appropriate use of the lowered scale degree 7 when writing 16th century counterpoint, including things like the outline of a scalar passage not outlining a augmented fourth, leaps of a tritone, etc. It's really complicated and I suggest you read more about 16th century counterpoint if you really want to know more. The other exception to this is Eb, and this only occurs if you are in a transposed church mode. Since transposed church modes occurred in what we now call F major, you could occasionally see an Eb in addition to the Bb. So G dorian, A phyrgian, etc...


I just remember reading Schoenberg's Harmonielehre, and it having a section on the use of church modes to generate different kinds of chords in different regions. eg a minor chord on the V in a major key. I haven't got a copy of the book at the moment so I can't look it up, but it was something I couldn't really understand the reasoning for, unless it's classed as a micro modulation. I need to pick up a copy of that book but it seems to be out of stock most places.



> I'm not sure how the heck you're getting an incomplete dominant 9th as your preferred name for a diminished seventh chord. That's just completely odd and I'm not even sure how you can justify it...but I will leave that alone to address your question. The diminished seventh came into being because it was more dissonant than other seventh chords. Composers started using it to create tension within their music to satiate the need for tension and release in their works. The reason for lowering the seventh is to create an even stronger need to resolve downwards. If you notice, there are actually two tritones in a diminished seventh. This creates an incredible desire to resolve in their respective notes, even more so than the half diminished seventh, which appears naturally in a major key. I think you are dwelling too much on how specifically the lowered seventh fits in the picture of scales. Just remember, a diminished seventh is found naturally in the harmonic minor mode and that a fully diminished chord is most likely in the function of vii or an applied chord version of vii.


One of the first harmony books I read was Walter Piston's Harmony, and he often uses this term, and it just stick with me. Like you say it appears in the harmonic minor scale (in c minor: B, D, F, Ab), and I just treat it as a rootless G7b9, with the root interchangable with any tone a minor third away from the missing root. I can see it has many leading tones back to the I (B to C, Ab to G, F to E and, in minor, D to Eb), so I it is useful because of that strong chromatic pull. The problem is that the harmonic minor is not natural but an artistic creation to provide the leading tone, so if this liberty was allowable then why not others, which slowly lead to the dissolution of tonality altogether.



> And for your last question, you have hit on one of the most interesting aspects of the German augmented chord. Yes, it is the same as a dominant seventh chord. Mostly, you will analyze it as what it is, a German augmented 6th chord. This is characteristic by the Ger+6 - V 6/4 (or I 6/4, whatever you want to call it) - V 5/3 resolution of the chord. Do note that you cannot move directly from a German augmented sixth chord to a V in strict voice leading practices because of parallel fifths! But if you see the chord progression following this path, it will almost always be analyzed as a German augmented sixth chord. However, because of the wonderful property of being a dominant seventh chord, enharmonically, the German augmented sixth chord can be a pivot to a new key, that of the Neapolitan. You see it occasionally in Schubert's music and it becomes much more prominent as you dive further into the Romantic era. So, you could be in the key of C minor for instance, but immediately after the supposed German augmented sixth in C minor, there is a drastic shift to Db (major or minor)...there's a good chance the German augmented sixth was used as a pivot chord and thus can be reanalyzed as a V in the new key, a half-step up. This is why the German augmented sixth chord is so unique and cool!


Yeah, I think it's the Wanderer Fantasy where Schubert goes mad with the augmented sixth, especially for modulations. I tend to analyse it like you say and how the composer has written it, unless there is a modulation. I've noticed a lot of times the composer will use German augmented sixth of the subdominant (in A major, D, F, G#, Bb) because of it's two leading tones (G# and Bb) to the tonic. Anyway, I think it's a cool chord.

The late Romantic period seems to be the cut off point where I can't make full sense of what is going on harmonically. Strauss, Wagner, Debussy etc seems to be the cut off point. I can recognise the chords, the use of chromaticism and the use of added tones and suspensions and stuff, but I can't find a clear linear progression of keys and how the modulations fit together (and sometimes what key it's in at points). A lot of the time it seems like a series of unconnected harmonies with plenty of augmented and diminished chords for a mystical, restless sound. I can see voice leading is key to these harmonies fitting together and taken on their own they just don't fit.

I haven't been using too much diatonicism in my writing at the minute anyway. I've been studying more the nature of the sounds, and what guys like Helmholtz, Partch, Cowell and Tenney wrote about in returning back to the mathematics of music and using it as a basis for new systems.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Argus said:


> I just remember reading Schoenberg's Harmonielehre, and it having a section on the use of church modes to generate different kinds of chords in different regions. eg a minor chord on the V in a major key. I haven't got a copy of the book at the moment so I can't look it up, but it was something I couldn't really understand the reasoning for, unless it's classed as a micro modulation. I need to pick up a copy of that book but it seems to be out of stock most places.


Well, this would be your first issue. There are no such things as "major" or "minor" keys in church modes. There are the modes: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian. (Locrian is not a church mode). Ionian and Aeolian were late additions to the church modes, which we now know as major and minor modes respectively. You're probably thinking of Mixolydian, which would be rooted around G, but the "dominant" would be D-F-A, which is minor.

Also, you might be wondering about raised sevenths and stuff like that too with church modes. You may hear it in recordings. Just know that these raisings (or sharp notes) were understood and not notated for a very long time. Now, editions of these pieces usually have an editorial mark where these raised sevenths would normally appear.



> One of the first harmony books I read was Walter Piston's Harmony, and he often uses this term, and it just stick with me. Like you say it appears in the harmonic minor scale (in c minor: B, D, F, Ab), and I just treat it as a rootless G7b9, with the root interchangable with any tone a minor third away from the missing root. I can see it has many leading tones back to the I (B to C, Ab to G, F to E and, in minor, D to Eb), so I it is useful because of that strong chromatic pull. The problem is that the harmonic minor is not natural but an artistic creation to provide the leading tone, so if this liberty was allowable then why not others, which slowly lead to the dissolution of tonality altogether.


Well, yes, the harmonic minor is not natural, but neither is the melodic minor. These were adaptations from modal mixture. I can see the benefits of calling it an incomplete minor ninth now. Usually fully diminished chords serve a dominant-esque function. Either it is an expansion or a substitution for a dominant. However, I would never call that because when I think of incomplete chords (larger than a 7th) it is the 5th omitted, not the root. The root is the most essential part in analyzing chords, so I cannot ever personally analyze it as an incomplete minor ninth.



> Yeah, I think it's the Wanderer Fantasy where Schubert goes mad with the augmented sixth, especially for modulations. I tend to analyse it like you say and how the composer has written it, unless there is a modulation. I've noticed a lot of times the composer will use German augmented sixth of the subdominant (in A major, D, F, G#, Bb) because of it's two leading tones (G# and Bb) to the tonic. Anyway, I think it's a cool chord.
> 
> The late Romantic period seems to be the cut off point where I can't make full sense of what is going on harmonically. Strauss, Wagner, Debussy etc seems to be the cut off point. I can recognise the chords, the use of chromaticism and the use of added tones and suspensions and stuff, but I can't find a clear linear progression of keys and how the modulations fit together (and sometimes what key it's in at points). A lot of the time it seems like a series of unconnected harmonies with plenty of augmented and diminished chords for a mystical, restless sound. I can see voice leading is key to these harmonies fitting together and taken on their own they just don't fit.
> 
> I haven't been using too much diatonicism in my writing at the minute anyway. I've been studying more the nature of the sounds, and what guys like Helmholtz, Partch, Cowell and Tenney wrote about in returning back to the mathematics of music and using it as a basis for new systems.


Well, that was one of the characteristics of the late Romantic era. You can always find some explanation for the harmonies used. However, it may get to some very complicated theoretical stuff, like transformational theory, which uses the idea of chords sliding without context within a progression. Developmental sections are the worst but you usually can come up with some backwards way to harmonically analyze it.

Now Debussy, I wouldn't really call him a Romantic. His music is very much on the brink of 20th century techniques. For analyzing his music, you would have better luck using early 20th century analysis techniques. I think even set theory applies better for him than tonal theory. Some pieces, it is possible to analyze in tonal theory, but there are some other discoveries that might be made possible using set theory instead. Now that in itself is an advanced theory course. If you care to know about set theory, you need to pick up Joseph Straus' book "Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory." It is _the_ set theory book.


----------



## Comus

Argus said:


> I just remember reading Schoenberg's Harmonielehre, and it having a section on the use of church modes to generate different kinds of chords in different regions. eg a minor chord on the V in a major key. I haven't got a copy of the book at the moment so I can't look it up, but it was something I couldn't really understand the reasoning for, unless it's classed as a micro modulation. I need to pick up a copy of that book but it seems to be out of stock most places.





Romantic Geek said:


> Well, this would be your first issue. There are no such things as "major" or "minor" keys in church modes. There are the modes: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian. (Locrian is not a church mode). Ionian and Aeolian were late additions to the church modes, which we now know as major and minor modes respectively. You're probably thinking of Mixolydian, which would be rooted around G, but the "dominant" would be D-F-A, which is minor.
> 
> Also, you might be wondering about raised sevenths and stuff like that too with church modes. You may hear it in recordings. Just know that these raisings (or sharp notes) were understood and not notated for a very long time. Now, editions of these pieces usually have an editorial mark where these raised sevenths would normally appear.


I am reading Schoenberg's Harmonielehre. The section on chords derived from the church modes can be rather confusing and it seems to me that his treatment of these nondiatonic chords isn't present in the texts of other theorists. I'm guessing that Argus isn't speaking of writing with the church modes, but applying the raised degrees utilized in those modes within the context of the major or minor modes. Schoenberg's concept is that since the relative major/minor modes are in the same key and you can interpret their degrees respectively (mistake one for the other in a sense) then the various church modes could be applied in the same way. It's insightful because it accounts for secondary dominants. In C major, for instance, you can get a secondary dominant on the third degree (E-G#-B) which is of course the dominant of A minor. This is accounted for by the derivation of G# from A minor as the artificial leading tone. Likewise you can acquire a secondary dominant on VI (A-C#-E) which is the dominant of D minor and the C# is derived from artificial leading tone of the Dorian mode. Nonetheless, the chords on these degrees are still functionally interpreted as III and VI of C respectively.

Schoenberg goes on to explain how other chords in the literature (and some uncommon ones) can be derived in the same fashion: diminished, augmented, etc. The minor chord on V (G-Bb-D in C major) is derived from the lowered fifth degree in Lydian and is the only artificial minor chord derived from this application. It seems that some of these chords are structurally sound enough to function within the key and others are more effective for modulation as they threaten the tonality.


----------



## Argus

Comus said:


> Schoenberg goes on to explain how other chords in the literature (and some uncommon ones) can be derived in the same fashion: diminished, augmented, etc. The minor chord on V (G-Bb-D in C major) is derived from the lowered fifth degree in Lydian and is the only artificial minor chord derived from this application. It seems that some of these chords are structurally sound enough to function within the key and others are more effective for modulation as they threaten the tonality.


Thanks for the input.:tiphat:

I am struggling to understand this part of your post. The first paragraph made perfect sense but I can't get my head around this bit.

I can see two simple ways of viewing a g minor chord in C major. As RG said, in C Mixolydian which has the usual Bb providing the minor third on the V chord, or to relate that diatonically, as a temporary modulation from C into the subdominant of F major, and the g minor chord is interpretted as being in the ii region of F (or v of V).

The way you described, I can't see how the Bb can be found using the Lydian mode (either C Lydian or F Lydian in C major). I also can't see which tones can become pivots or leading tones to create the Bb, unless you mean by lowering the augmented fourth in F Lydian, but then it becomes just F Major (Ionian), equalling a modulation into the subdominant region again.

Could you please elaborate on how Schoenberg got the minor v chord through the use of the Lydian mode?


----------



## Lukecash12

It's good to see this thread is still going.


----------



## Comus

Argus said:


> Thanks for the input.:tiphat:
> 
> I am struggling to understand this part of your post. The first paragraph made perfect sense but I can't get my head around this bit.
> 
> I can see two simple ways of viewing a g minor chord in C major. As RG said, in C Mixolydian which has the usual Bb providing the minor third on the V chord, or to relate that diatonically, as a temporary modulation from C into the subdominant of F major, and the g minor chord is interpretted as being in the ii region of F (or v of V).
> 
> The way you described, I can't see how the Bb can be found using the Lydian mode (either C Lydian or F Lydian in C major). I also can't see which tones can become pivots or leading tones to create the Bb, unless you mean by lowering the augmented fourth in F Lydian, but then it becomes just F Major (Ionian), equalling a modulation into the subdominant region again.
> 
> Could you please elaborate on how Schoenberg got the minor v chord through the use of the Lydian mode?


Yes, the Bb is derived from Lydian to avoid the augmented fourth and it does in fact create the equivalent of F major. Schoenberg explains the treatment of this chord like the treatment of II in F major or IV of D minor, but only as a treatment. He speaks of intervening keys (temporary modulation), but believes that interpretation is superfluous as it should still be related back to C major. The F# and G# in minor are considered just as diatonic as the unraised tones of minor. When the 7th tone of Dorian is raised to get C# then you get the melodic minor scale, but the use of A-C#-E is not considered a modulation to D minor, but a secondary dominant to emphasize II. The only difference is that the B ins Lydian is lowered for a different reason than the 7th tones of other modes are raised. Instead of artificially creating a leading tone it provides a functional subdominant with a perfect fourth rather than an augmented fourth.

So a secondary dominant like A-C#-E occurs in C major for the purpose of emphasizing II so the progression resembles that of V-I of D minor, but it's not a modulation. So a chord like G-Bb-D would be handled akin to II of F major or IV of minor. Naturally a model of 
II-V comes to mind for F, but this does pose a risk to the key as it sets up modulation to F major so means to balance this in the favor of C major would be neccessary (extended cadence in C or a stress on the dominant rather than subdominant region) to preserve the key. This, however, is another subject.

It's not easy to understand his ideas in this chapter. I had to reread it a dozen times to get it. Also (and I should have mentioned this), he explains Bb as being derivative of Dorian as well in its descending form: D, C, Bb, A, but I prefer to see it as coming from Lydian exclusively since this scale pattern really just mimics the relative minor of the subdominant.

I hope this helps. I'm not much of a scholar, but Schoenberg's my man so most of my music knowledge comes from him.


----------



## Comus

I might add that Schoenberg's book is available for download for free, but the legality of doing so is questionable. I don't know if it's public domain yet. I hope so because he's seriously not making any money and you said copies aren't in stock most places. Look into the legal issue, you can get it in .pdf format. 

*For your own safety and for the legitamacy of this forum I suggest you don't.


----------



## Ernie

Comus said:


> In C major, for instance, you can get a secondary dominant on the third degree (E-G#-B) which is of course the dominant of A minor. This is accounted for by the derivation of G# from A minor as the artificial leading tone. Likewise you can acquire a secondary dominant on VI (A-C#-E) which is the dominant of D minor and the C# is derived from artificial leading tone of the Dorian mode. *Nonetheless, the chords on these degrees are still functionally interpreted as III and VI of C respectively*.


Are they? Only if you turn your ears off! IMHO there is no such thing as a Major III or Major VI chord - regardless of its derivation. They will always be heard as a secondary dominance even if they don't resolve where expected. One of the problems with music theory is that it can become too theoretical.

Ernie


----------



## Comus

Ernie said:


> One of the problems with music theory is that it can become too theoretical.


I like that and it's often too true, but I hear secondary dominants as adding emphasis to the degree that they resolve to (the intended degree a fifth below) and not as deciding for a new key so long as the original key is established and the listener doesn't forget where these progressions are springing from; otherwise, one might just as well expect D major. If a secondary dominant on VI resolved to D major, then there's definitely a threat to the key because now the F# and C# are certainly in the favor of a new key, but a minor triad on II is expected in the key of C because that chord is a natural occurence. The C# on VI is quickly resolved and an appropriate continuation (e.g. something with B natural) will reconfirm that C major was there the whole time. In fact, after II one could cadence and the appearance of G major wouldn't disturb the ear because you are, after all, in the key of C major.


----------



## Ernie

Comus said:


> I like that and it's often too true, but I hear secondary dominants as adding emphasis to the degree that they resolve to (the intended degree a fifth below) and not as deciding for a new key so long as the original key is established and the listener doesn't forget where these progressions are springing from; otherwise, one might just as well expect D major. If a secondary dominant on VI resolved to D major, then there's definitely a threat to the key because now the F# and C# are certainly in the favor of a new key, but a minor triad on II is expected in the key of C because that chord is a natural occurence. The C# on VI is quickly resolved and an appropriate continuation (e.g. something with B natural) will reconfirm that C major was there the whole time. In fact, after II one could cadence and the appearance of G major wouldn't disturb the ear because you are, after all, in the key of C major.


Well said. One must remember that secondary dominance is a *temporary* suspension of the key feeling. In the key of C major even if the V of ii resolved to a D Major chord there wouldn't be a believable cadence in D Major so there would be no modulation. It is possible for a secondary dominant chord ( V of ii) to resolve to another secondary dominant chord ( V of V ) and finally back to the original tonic. Of course, taken to the extreme, this will lead to tonal confusion on the part of the listener.

Ernie


----------



## Argus

Comus said:


> Yes, the Bb is derived from Lydian to avoid the augmented fourth and it does in fact create the equivalent of F major. Schoenberg explains the treatment of this chord like the treatment of II in F major or IV of D minor, but only as a treatment. He speaks of intervening keys (temporary modulation), but believes that interpretation is superfluous as it should still be related back to C major. The F# and G# in minor are considered just as diatonic as the unraised tones of minor. When the 7th tone of Dorian is raised to get C# then you get the melodic minor scale, but the use of A-C#-E is not considered a modulation to D minor, but a secondary dominant to emphasize II. The only difference is that the B ins Lydian is lowered for a different reason than the 7th tones of other modes are raised. Instead of artificially creating a leading tone it provides a functional subdominant with a perfect fourth rather than an augmented fourth.
> 
> So a secondary dominant like A-C#-E occurs in C major for the purpose of emphasizing II so the progression resembles that of V-I of D minor, but it's not a modulation. So a chord like G-Bb-D would be handled akin to II of F major or IV of minor. Naturally a model of
> II-V comes to mind for F, but this does pose a risk to the key as it sets up modulation to F major so means to balance this in the favor of C major would be neccessary (extended cadence in C or a stress on the dominant rather than subdominant region) to preserve the key. This, however, is another subject.
> 
> It's not easy to understand his ideas in this chapter. I had to reread it a dozen times to get it. Also (and I should have mentioned this), he explains Bb as being derivative of Dorian as well in its descending form: D, C, Bb, A, but I prefer to see it as coming from Lydian exclusively since this scale pattern really just mimics the relative minor of the subdominant.
> 
> I hope this helps. I'm not much of a scholar, but Schoenberg's my man so most of my music knowledge comes from him.


I think I get what Schoenberg meant now. He is viewing the tones that are natural to the various modes as pivot tones which can be lowered or raised into the diatonic versions. This also implies a temporary modulation away from the home key, but the following harmonies can either re-strengthen the link to the original tonality or pull away towards the new implied key.

Like you say, Schoenberg tries to relate all these moves away from the tonality back to the original key but he also shows the other various tonalities implied (sometimes 3 or 4 simultaneously).



> I might add that Schoenberg's book is available for download for free, but the legality of doing so is questionable. I don't know if it's public domain yet. I hope so because he's seriously not making any money and you said copies aren't in stock most places. Look into the legal issue, you can get it in .pdf format.
> 
> *For your own safety and for the legitamacy of this forum I suggest you don't.


I read the whole of Schoenberg's Structural Functions of Harmony and Fundamentals of Music Composition off Scribd. I was most of the way through the Harmonielehre when they upgraded to their new interface about a year ago, and I kept getting error messages and pages not loading, so I thought I'd just pick up the book. I'll get back round to it at some point but right now I'm reading Partch's Genesis of a Music.

Anyway, reading full books of a computer screen is kind of tiring on the eyes. I much prefer paper.



> Well said. One must remember that secondary dominance is a temporary suspension of the key feeling. In the key of C major even if the V of ii resolved to a D Major chord there wouldn't be a believable cadence in D Major so there would be no modulation. It is possible for a secondary dominant chord ( V of ii) to resolve to another secondary dominant chord ( V of V ) and finally back to the original tonic. Of course, taken to the extreme, this will lead to tonal confusion on the part of the listener.


Tonal confusion was very much in fashion at the time the Harmonielehre was written, and you can tell from Schoenberg's discourses throughout the text that he was already thinking of a new method to organise the tones.

I like how he uses the analogy of a monarch ruling over his subjects to demonstrate the role of the tonality and how the likes of the dominant and subdominant are constantly attempting coup d'etats to take control. His 12-tone technique is very much a Communistic approach with each tone being equal and all sharing power, and the total serialism made it even more egalitarian by making note/silence duration and dynamics as evenly distibuted as the pitch control. Polytonality would represent an oligarchy and Cage took it further towards an anarchic state with his chance music where no tone has any control whatsoever.


----------



## Comus

I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'm thinking this tangent is contrary to the op's intention. It's not superadvanced, but it's certainly not under the heading 'very basic.' Perhaps another thread would be suitable if there's more to say.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Comus said:


> Yes, the Bb is derived from Lydian to avoid the augmented fourth and it does in fact create the equivalent of F major.


Uh, what? If you make Bb with Lydian, you've just changed THE altered tone in Lydian, thus making the mode null and void. That augmented fourth is the reason Lydian exists.

Yes, occasionally, the B was changed to Bb to accommodate certain rules of 16th century counterpoint, but it was mainly left natural for that particular quality of #4. You could make the argument of altering a B to a Bb in any mode to avoid the augmented fourth/diminished fifth.

It's not particular to Lydian - and in fact - should be least particular to Lydian.



Ernie said:


> Are they? Only if you turn your ears off! IMHO there is no such thing as a Major III or Major VI chord - regardless of its derivation. They will always be heard as a secondary dominance even if they don't resolve where expected. One of the problems with music theory is that it can become too theoretical.
> 
> Ernie


For the sake of me writing a lecture, refer to Romantic harmony after 1850. There are plenty of III# and VI# chords to be found (otherwise known as Major III and Major VI chords.) And they are functional outside of the secondary dominant world.

Yes, you are right for most of the time. They are rare...but they do exist.

Music theory becoming too theoretical? Blasphemy!



Comus said:


> I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'm thinking this tangent is contrary to the op's intention. It's not superadvanced, but it's certainly not under the heading 'very basic.' Perhaps another thread would be suitable if there's more to say.


Seeing that this thread was just revived only a few weeks ago after no one posting in it for months, I don't think it matters too too much. If we need to tone it down, I gladly will comment on a new thread...but I think this is not a bad thread to start.


----------



## Comus

Romantic Geek said:


> Uh, what? If you make Bb with Lydian, you've just changed THE altered tone in Lydian, thus making the mode null and void. That augmented fourth is the reason Lydian exists.
> 
> Yes, occasionally, the B was changed to Bb to accommodate certain rules of 16th century counterpoint, but it was mainly left natural for that particular quality of #4. You could make the argument of altering a B to a Bb in any mode to avoid the augmented fourth/diminished fifth.
> 
> It's not particular to Lydian - and in fact - should be least particular to Lydian.


I read this in Salzer and Schacter's _Counterpoint in Composition_ concerning the modes:

"In polyphonic textures the Lydian mode regularly employs B flat; this mode, therefore, becomes equivalent to to transposed Ionian...The Dorian mode, untransposed, centers on D. When functioning as a leading tone, the seventh step is raised to C sharp. The Sixth step occurs in variable form, sometimes as B natural, sometimes as B flat. In general, the natural is used in ascending lines and the flat is used in descent...G is the central tone of the Mixolydian mode. As in Dorian, the seventh step is raised when a leading tone is desired. B flat occurs in descending progressions in this mode."

I find it interesting that they not only concur with Schoenberg in that B flat is employed in the Lydian and Dorian modes, but alight upon Mixolydian as well. The raising of the seventh tone in any of the modes is for cadential purposes. If you raise the seventh tone of Mixolydian you again find a mode nullified by converting it to Ionian. Dorian mode with its C# makes it identical to the melodic minor scale. If the B flat is applied in its descending form it is identical to Aeolian. It's obvious why we would arrive at major and minor as the exclusive modes utilized in composition and why the church modes became a thing of the past. They were ideals sought out in the other modes through the lowering or raising of tones and this is apparent in the treatment of the minor mode. Ionian was the only mode to possess both a leading tone and a perfect fourth from the tonic.

You're right, it can be argued that B can be flatted to do away with the augmented fourth in the other modes, but then emerges another: Bb-E and you're dealing with another key and another set of modes. Now, Lydian is on Bb and the problem is not yet resolved.

Of course, this discussion does not pertain to modal writing as such, but those characteristics of the church modes that can be carried over to the present major and minor to enrich the harmonic possibilities. Secondary dominants are conveniently accounted for in this interpretation as are numerous other chords on their respective degrees.

I also must disagree that Lydian exists by virtue of the augmented fourth. I'm not versed in set theory, but it seems that a basic set of seven notes arranged diatonically were decided upon as the basis for composition. Each mode is a rotation of that set. Our predecessors tried all of them and by a process of elimination rested upon the two most practical rotations that summed up the practice observed in the others. In short, it exists quite arbitrarily.


----------



## Ernie

Romantic Geek said:


> For the sake of me writing a lecture, refer to Romantic harmony after 1850. There are plenty of III# and VI# chords to be found (otherwise known as Major III and Major VI chords.) And they are functional outside of the secondary dominant world.
> 
> Yes, you are right for most of the time. They are rare...but they do exist.
> 
> Music theory becoming too theoretical? Blasphemy!


You may be right - but I'd love to see - no, make that hear, an example in tonal music. I agree if it exists at all it would be in the late 19th century.

As for the blasphemy comment: Having taught music theory for 34 years, I've seen too many examples of knowledgeable people drowning in the minutiae of music theory while simultaneously turning their ears off.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Comus said:


> I read this in Salzer and Schacter's _Counterpoint in Composition_ concerning the modes:
> 
> "In polyphonic textures the Lydian mode regularly employs B flat; this mode, therefore, becomes equivalent to to transposed Ionian...The Dorian mode, untransposed, centers on D. When functioning as a leading tone, the seventh step is raised to C sharp. The Sixth step occurs in variable form, sometimes as B natural, sometimes as B flat. In general, the natural is used in ascending lines and the flat is used in descent...G is the central tone of the Mixolydian mode. As in Dorian, the seventh step is raised when a leading tone is desired. B flat occurs in descending progressions in this mode."
> 
> I find it interesting that they not only concur with Schoenberg in that B flat is employed in the Lydian and Dorian modes, but alight upon Mixolydian as well. The raising of the seventh tone in any of the modes is for cadential purposes. If you raise the seventh tone of Mixolydian you again find a mode nullified by converting it to Ionian. Dorian mode with its C# makes it identical to the melodic minor scale. If the B flat is applied in its descending form it is identical to Aeolian. It's obvious why we would arrive at major and minor as the exclusive modes utilized in composition and why the church modes became a thing of the past. They were ideals sought out in the other modes through the lowering or raising of tones and this is apparent in the treatment of the minor mode. Ionian was the only mode to possess both a leading tone and a perfect fourth from the tonic.
> 
> You're right, it can be argued that B can be flatted to do away with the augmented fourth in the other modes, but then emerges another: Bb-E and you're dealing with another key and another set of modes. Now, Lydian is on Bb and the problem is not yet resolved.
> 
> Of course, this discussion does not pertain to modal writing as such, but those characteristics of the church modes that can be carried over to the present major and minor to enrich the harmonic possibilities. Secondary dominants are conveniently accounted for in this interpretation as are numerous other chords on their respective degrees.
> 
> I also must disagree that Lydian exists by virtue of the augmented fourth. I'm not versed in set theory, but it seems that a basic set of seven notes arranged diatonically were decided upon as the basis for composition. Each mode is a rotation of that set. Our predecessors tried all of them and by a process of elimination rested upon the two most practical rotations that summed up the practice observed in the others. In short, it exists quite arbitrarily.


First off, you're thinking of church modes in an entirely different context. I'm speaking purely of 16th-century counterpoint. You can disagree whether or not my view of Lydian is right, but I'm telling you, what defines Lydian is #4. Look in any basic theory text book that describes modes. Dorian is #6, Phrygian is b2, Lydian is #4, Mixolydian is b7, and Locrian is b2 and b5. As you well know Ionian and Aeolian are found alive and well in tonal music. The point is, once you take away #4, you cannot have Lydian. You can temporarily take it away for a voice leading issue with the augmented fourth, diminished fifth...yet, if you continuously change the B to Bb, you have just turned it into transposed Ionian.

It's really that cut and dry. What you're getting into is it's application into the 20th century, where it isn't so cut and dry...and yes, they bend the rules, well, because they don't care about the rules as much at that time. But if we're ever talking about church modes, it's pretty cut and dry as to their functions.

You actually don't need to be versed in set theory at all. Instead, take it back about 500 years.

In fact, here's an example of true writing in Lydian, Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa est: 




You will notice a few Bb's, but notice how they quickly revert back to B's. The most striking part are the B's in scalar passages and now they stick out more than if Bb's were in it's place.

So just for a clarification, that's the Lydian I'm talking about. You can pretty much throw out any conventions in the 20th century. Plus, most of what Schoenberg wrote about has been much improved upon in more current texts. I appreciate your enthusiasm for such an influential figure in music, but if you want to keep up theoretically, it might be best to put down the Schoenberg.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Ernie said:


> You may be right - but I'd love to see - no, make that hear, an example in tonal music. I agree if it exists at all it would be in the late 19th century.
> 
> As for the blasphemy comment: Having taught music theory for 34 years, I've seen too many examples of knowledgeable people drowning in the minutiae of music theory while simultaneously turning their ears off.


Dare I say then you're teaching theory wrong? The point of theory is to create a better musician, opening up their ears. If your students are doing the opposite, then you have a serious problem in your teaching approach. I really don't even want to know where you teach (high school, college) regardless of the approach.

As far as the examples, I used to have a small pile of extended Romantic harmony examples, that included some of these III# and VI# chords...and somehow have misplaced it. I can give you one example in a fairly tonal piece, but if you want to use the transformational theory out...then you got me on that example. However, no doubt anyone who hears the piece would definitely call it tonal.

Anyway, here it is: Edward MacDowell's Piano Sonata #2 (Eroica) IV: 




Look around 2:00 for a key shift from C to E, which would constitute as a III# in C. Around 3:06 is your true example of III#, with the Db major chord acting as the enharmonic III# of A major/minor (remains ambiguous, but the E7 clearly establishes A as tonic). There's no other explanation about this III# in this passage (no dominant relationship, etc.) The only way theorists use to describe this passage is through slide functions in transformational theory...yet, this 8 or so measure fragment is the only "transformational" section in the entire sonata. So, take it for what you will...this isn't Ravel.

So I don't have them handy...when I do find them or find an example myself, I'll let you know. As I said, they're rare. Just like the vi-halfdim7...which exists (contrary to many people's beliefs)...


----------



## Comus

Romantic Geek said:


> So just for a clarification, that's the Lydian I'm talking about. You can pretty much throw out any conventions in the 20th century. Plus, most of what Schoenberg wrote about has been much improved upon in more current texts. I appreciate your enthusiasm for such an influential figure in music, but if you want to keep up theoretically, it might be best to put down the Schoenberg.


What would you suggest?


----------



## Ernie

Romantic Geek said:


> Dare I say then you're teaching theory wrong? The point of theory is to create a better musician, opening up their ears. If your students are doing the opposite, then you have a serious problem in your teaching approach. I really don't even want to know where you teach (high school, college) regardless of the approach.
> 
> As far as the examples, I used to have a small pile of extended Romantic harmony examples, that included some of these III# and VI# chords...and somehow have misplaced it. I can give you one example in a fairly tonal piece, but if you want to use the transformational theory out...then you got me on that example. However, no doubt anyone who hears the piece would definitely call it tonal.
> 
> Anyway, here it is: Edward MacDowell's Piano Sonata #2 (Eroica) IV:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look around 2:00 for a key shift from C to E, which would constitute as a III# in C. Around 3:06 is your true example of III#, with the Db major chord acting as the enharmonic III# of A major/minor (remains ambiguous, but the E7 clearly establishes A as tonic). There's no other explanation about this III# in this passage (no dominant relationship, etc.) The only way theorists use to describe this passage is through slide functions in transformational theory...yet, this 8 or so measure fragment is the only "transformational" section in the entire sonata. So, take it for what you will...this isn't Ravel.
> 
> So I don't have them handy...when I do find them or find an example myself, I'll let you know. As I said, they're rare. Just like the vi-halfdim7...which exists (contrary to many people's beliefs)...


Listen sonny - I don't need any lectures from a kid still wet behind the ears. Get out of the ivory tower you live in and get a job teaching. Try it for a few decades and then you can comment. Until then, your opinion is worth very little.

What in my words indicated that my students weren't using their ears? That was the whole point of my post. Whether or not you can dig up some obscure exception to the rule is exactly what I meant about drowning in minutia. If it makes you feel better, then I'm happy to concede your examples - whether you have them or not.

Since you brought it up, I taught high school music theory which was wonderfully rewarding although certainly not on the high level you aspire to. I wish you well.


----------



## Comus

Romantic Geek said:


> First off, you're thinking of church modes in an entirely different context. I'm speaking purely of 16th-century counterpoint. You can disagree whether or not my view of Lydian is right, but I'm telling you, what defines Lydian is #4. Look in any basic theory text book that describes modes. Dorian is #6, Phrygian is b2, Lydian is #4, Mixolydian is b7, and Locrian is b2 and b5. As you well know Ionian and Aeolian are found alive and well in tonal music. The point is, once you take away #4, you cannot have Lydian. You can temporarily take it away for a voice leading issue with the augmented fourth, diminished fifth...yet, if you continuously change the B to Bb, you have just turned it into transposed Ionian.
> 
> You actually don't need to be versed in set theory at all. Instead, take it back about 500 years.
> 
> In fact, here's an example of true writing in Lydian, Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa est:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will notice a few Bb's, but notice how they quickly revert back to B's. The most striking part are the B's in scalar passages and now they stick out more than if Bb's were in it's place.


I was about to concede my point, but I reread your post and I think you are misinterpretting some things. I'm not claiming that the lowered fourth tone in Lydian is an absolute. Just like in your example it is used where it is needed. It's obvious if Bb usurped B natural it would be pointless as you have Ionian; I understand this quite well. All I am saying is that it was used regularly enough for it to be considered a staple of that mode just as much as F# and G# are considered staples of the minor mode. Too many F#s and G#s in minor and you have destroyed the true minor feeling as it is then too close to Ionian itself. Too many Bbs in Lydian and you have destroyed the feeling of Lydian, but the accidentals occur nevertheless. The theory is that the modes have been consolidated so characteristics of every mode can be made apparent in the major key. The characteristics of Lydian (#4) can be expressed in major easily as they occur naturally. This would just be a matter of phrasing. The artificial phenomenon, the accidentals, are what are of interest here. With these you can now express the natural and the artificial aspects of every mode conveniently within one mode.

Generalization is all I aim for as it is the principle of efficient knowledge. (I can't find a sufficiently pompous emoticon to express such lofty and pretentious statements as this!:lol


----------



## Romantic Geek

Ernie said:


> Listen sonny - I don't need any lectures from a kid still wet behind the ears. Get out of the ivory tower you live in and get a job teaching. Try it for a few decades and then you can comment. Until then, your opinion is worth very little.
> 
> What in my words indicated that my students weren't using their ears? That was the whole point of my post. Whether or not you can dig up some obscure exception to the rule is exactly what I meant about drowning in minutia. If it makes you feel better, then I'm happy to concede your examples - whether you have them or not.
> 
> Since you brought it up, I taught high school music theory which was wonderfully rewarding although certainly not on the high level you aspire to. I wish you well.


I am teaching...thank you very much. 5 days a week.


----------



## Comus

Good to see you've returned to this post, however briefly, Romantic Geek.



Romantic Geek said:


> So just for a clarification, that's the Lydian I'm talking about. You can pretty much throw out any conventions in the 20th century. Plus, most of what Schoenberg wrote about has been much improved upon in more current texts. I appreciate your enthusiasm for such an influential figure in music, but if you want to keep up theoretically, it might be best to put down the Schoenberg.


I ask again, what would you suggest? I am genuinely interested in an updated textbook touching on these matters.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Nice to see you too? (Nearly 3 months later...)

If you're talking standard theory textbooks, it depends on how in depth you want to go in basic theory. If you want a big honking textbook, go with the Steven Laitz "The Complete Musician." If not, I'd go with Roig-Francoli "Harmony in Context." The 2nd editions are the current ones at the moment.

I teach out of Harmony in Context right now.

As far as the modes thing, in my Early Period Music History class, it was brought to my attention by my professor that with church modes, the characteristics that we know about them (i.e. Lydian #4) is actually even more skewed than I previously thought. The fact was, by the time Glarean wrote his _Dodecachordon_, Lydian mode had become so altered (in that B natural was changed to Bb) that in essence, they were writing in Ionian. It wasn't until Glarean however that Ionian got its name. But the fact that it started on F would make it Lydian (even though today we'd hear it as F Ionian). So in fact, transposed Lydian was on C - and thus Ionian was born out of transposed Lydian. Quite fascinating. I'm going to read up on the _Dodecachordon_ more in the upcoming months to understand this issue even better...

...so in the end, even my preconceptions of church modes were off...


----------



## heart

Hi,

I'm new to the forums and new to piano lessons. I take them for fun but am passionate about it and have taken lessons since March but played for about a year prior to lessons and learned reading music in choir. I want to learn more theory too so I was excited to find this thread! I don't understand some very basic things yet.

I don't understand: 
The circle of 5ths even though I know 7 scales by memory (I'm adding more when my teacher says) when I look at the circle I have no idea what I'm looking at.
I IV V progression or what they mean when they're under the chords in my book.
Time measures (I know the top means how many beats the bottom gets but many times when I count things don't add up especially when the bottom isn't 4)
And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_(music)

So those are really simple basic things I know, to clarify, my teacher has gone over them with me, but I don't really grasp it yet.

I don't expect anyone to just answer what I don't understand but I wanted to say this is where I'm at and would love this thread to continue for more beginning stuff too please.

I look forward to reading more here and the other threads in this forum.
Beth (heart)


----------



## hreichgott

Hi Beth!
Congratulations on starting piano lessons and on your choir experience.
Don't worry, theory will get less confusing when you have more "data" -- known pieces that you know the sound of, have read through all parts of the score AND can play all the notes.

Here is a quick explanation of those questions -- maybe this will be helpful, maybe not?

Circle of 5ths:
A fifth is an interval (distance between two notes). Pick any scale you know, play the first note and then the fifth note. That's the sound of a fifth. In "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" the first and second "Twinkle" are a fifth apart.
The circle of fifths is created by going up a fifth, then up another fifth, then up another fifth. For example, starting Twinkle on C you get C C G G. Then start twinkle on G: G G D D. Then start Twinkle on D: D D A A. Et cetera. If you keep doing this, eventually you cycle through all 12 notes and arrive back at C. 
On an 88-key piano, if you start on the lowest available C, the circle of fifths concludes on the very highest C on the piano.

I IV V refers to degree of the scale. Pick any scale and play the first note, the fourth note and the fifth note. That is I IV V. To create chords that follow that progression, make triads built on those notes like so:
I chord: first, third and fifth notes of the scale (in C major: C E G)
IV chord: fourth, sixth and eighth notes of the scale (in C major: F A C)
V chord: fifth, seventh and ninth notes of the scale. Ninth is the same as second. (in C major: G B D)

Of course, in C major the IV chord could be any F, any A and any C on the piano. The F doesn't have to be the lowest note; if all three notes sound, it's an F major chord, and it is the IV chord of C major. Composers of piano music will choose notes that fit the hand well and don't require you to jump around too much.

Time signature is made of two numbers. The top number says how many beats are in the measure. The BOTTOM number is the number that says what kind of note gets a beat, so maybe that is your problem?
examples: 
2/4 = two beats per measure, quarter note gets a beat = two quarter notes will fill a measure exactly
3/4 = three beats per measure, quarter note gets a beat = three quarter notes will fill a measure exactly
3/8 = three beats per measure, eighth note gets a beat = three eighth notes will fill a measure exactly

Good luck and have fun


----------



## Taggart

heart said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm new to the forums and new to piano lessons. I take them for fun but am passionate about it and have taken lessons since March but played for about a year prior to lessons and learned reading music in choir. I want to learn more theory too so I was excited to find this thread! I don't understand some very basic things yet.
> 
> I don't understand:
> 
> And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_(music)
> 
> So those are really simple basic things I know, to clarify, my teacher has gone over them with me, but I don't really grasp it yet.
> 
> IBeth (heart)


The wiki article is a little compressed. You need to know the technical names of all the notes on a scale.


NoteNumberNameCITonicDIISupertonicEIIIMediantFIVSubdominantGVDominantAVISubmediantBVIILeading noteCVIIITonic

Once you get the hang of this, you can then start to work on wiki. Another good resource is the tonality guide from Liverpool Hope University.

Don't worry, it eventually makes sense.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Taggart said:


> The wiki article is a little compressed. You need to know the technical names of all the notes on a scale.
> 
> 
> NoteNumberNameCITonicDIISupertonicEIIIMediantFIVSubdominantGVDominantAVISubmediantBVIILeading noteCVIIITonic
> 
> Once you get the hang of this, you can then start to work on wiki. Another good resource is the tonality guide from Liverpool Hope University.
> 
> Don't worry, it eventually makes sense.


Actually where I am from and live we don't call it sub-mediant... but super-dominant, because it is above dominant. The rest we use, and you forgot the bVII degree to be Sub-Tonic!


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethovensheadphone said:


> G major scale will have the following intervals: w-w-h-w-w-w-h
> it has one sharp: F#
> G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G
> W W H W W W H
> my question is how come from A to B is 2 half steps, while from B to C it's a halfstep?
> one other question: what makes the G major scale, or any other scale for that matter, have a certain kind of intervals?
> i appreciate all the help im getting from you guys, since i can't afford having a private teacher.
> thanks again =)


From my blog "Key Signatures:"

If one starts building fifths from a starting point of C, then going "forward" or clockwise around the "circle of fifths" would yield C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#.

If, on the other hand, you go in reverse (counter-clockwise), you travel the "circle of fourths", which yields C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db-Gb (Cb).

As you can see, there are three keys which "overlap" under two different names: B (Cb), F# (Gb), and C# (Db). The reason it goes no further has to do with *the physical layout of the keyboard itself (there are two semitone steps in the letter sequence), and the subsequent "letter-naming" of notes which results*. *To be a diatonic scale, you must have seven different letter names. *

For example, there is no key of "Fb" because this is E, a sharp key; but if we named it anyway, we would get Fb-Gb-Ab-Bbb (you can't repeat A - there must be seven different letter names with no repeats), Cb-Db-Eb-Fb. This "repeating letter or double-flat" dilemma does not arise on the three "repeat" keys of B (Cb), F# (Gb), and C# (Db), because this is the "seven-letter limit".


----------



## Taggart

MRs blog entry is here if you want to read it in full.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> MRs blog entry is here if you want to read it in full.


Well, that was a nice gesture, Taggart. A real gentleman.

As a guitarist, I finally realized that the key signature system was based around the keyboard, and that it's somewhat arbitrary. As a guitarist, you tend to think along a chromatic line; but it zig-zags. Actually, I was helped quite a bit by British thinking; the Guitar Grimoire was where I fully grasped key signatures. My brain must be wired like theirs.


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> Well, that was a nice gesture, Taggart. A real gentleman.


No problem.



millionrainbows said:


> As a guitarist, I finally realized that the key signature system was based around the keyboard, and that it's somewhat arbitrary. As a guitarist, you tend to think along a chromatic line; but it zig-zags. Actually, I was helped quite a bit by British thinking; the Guitar Grimoire was where I fully grasped key signatures. My brain must be wired like theirs.


Arbitrary??? Start at bottom C and play the 8 white notes. That's the basic C Major scale. They split into two tetrachords or groups of four. The gaps within each group of four are tone, tone, semitone. Start with G of the second tetrachord and play 8 white notes - doesn't quite work need to sharp the third note - F - in the second tetrachord to keep the pattern of tone - tone - semitone. Work your way up the keyboard like this raising the third note of the second tetrachord and you get all the sharp keys.

Start at top C and play the 8 white notes going down. Start at second tetrachord - F - and work down. First four notes are OK - semitone - tone - tone (remember we're going backwards) next one, we need to flat the first note - B - to keep the pattern of semitone - tone - tone. Now Start with the second tetrachord B flat and keep going down. Every time, you hit the second tetrachord you have to flat the first note to keep the pattern. By the time you run out of keyboard, you've done all the flat keys.

Totally logical. No way am I going into minors, harmonic and melodic and relative majors but they're also equally logical and totally sensible. At least for a pianist - my hands must be wired that way.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> Arbitrary???


Yes, *arbitrary* in this sense of the word: 
_
"the arbitrary power of the prince," autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian; absolute. antonym democratic.

I call it, prosaically, "The Tyranny of the Piano."
_
Not 'democratic' in its single-minded pursuit of tetrachords and Ionian scales. My context in saying this is that as a guitarist, we _automatically_ think more chromatically. It's the mechanical nature of the instrument.

Pianists have to sharp or flat notes in order to generate all 12 major scales. Guitarists learn one form which can be transposed up the neck, unaltered. Therefore, to guitarists and other instrumentalists, the key signature system must seem quite arbitrary. Your explanation is good, but it demonstrates that the system is derived from, or at least reflects the physical layout of the keyboard.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wow, you liked that, Taggart?


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, *arbitrary* in this sense of the word:
> _
> "the arbitrary power of the prince," autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian; absolute. antonym democratic.
> 
> I call it, prosaically, "The Tyranny of the Piano."
> _
> Not 'democratic' in its single-minded pursuit of tetrachords and Ionian scales. My context in saying this is that as a guitarist, we _automatically_ think more chromatically. It's the mechanical nature of the instrument.
> 
> Pianists have to sharp or flat notes in order to generate all 12 major scales. Guitarists learn one form which can be transposed up the neck, unaltered. Therefore, to guitarists and other instrumentalists, the key signature system must seem quite arbitrary. Your explanation is good, but it demonstrates that the system is derived from, or at least reflects the physical layout of the keyboard.


Hmm. Guitar is indeed chromatic (the steel ones brightly so) but not tuned in fifths (usually) hence the reason guitarists use a capo . A fiddle tuned in fifths behaves identically in all positions so once you have your scale worked out starting from the nut, you can preserve the finger positions and simply move your hand up so that your "first" finger is where your third finger was to get some higher notes. Any instrument tuned directly in fifths will automatically demonstrate the circle of fifths, any instrument tuned in a mixture of fourths and fifths will not. The key signature thing is easy to demonstrate on a keyboard but any fiddler does it automatically and it is easy to transpose because of the fifths.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> Hmm. Guitar is indeed chromatic (the steel ones brightly so) but not tuned in fifths (usually) hence the reason guitarists use a capo . A fiddle tuned in fifths behaves identically in all positions so once you have your scale worked out starting from the nut, you can preserve the finger positions and simply move your hand up so that your "first" finger is where your third finger was to get some higher notes. Any instrument tuned directly in fifths will automatically demonstrate the circle of fifths, any instrument tuned in a mixture of fourths and fifths will not. The key signature thing is easy to demonstrate on a keyboard but any fiddler does it automatically and it is easy to transpose because of the fifths.


Are you talking about the circle of fifths, or the circle of fourths? If you are talking about the circle of fourths, then the guitar is better suited to demonstrate it.


----------



## Taggart

Quod scripsi, scripsi.

Have a nice day. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Well, don't go away mad. It's just that by your fiddle example, I see the guitar being marginalized, but it & the fiddle are the same in this regard, that's all I wish to point out. I must assume that this is due to your not fully seeing what I mean by the guitar (with the fiddle, in a general sense) and keyboard as being two different mechanisms.

The repeating mechanisms on a guitar are the diminished seventh chords, repeating every four frets, and the augmented chords, which repeat every major third, or every 5 frets. This corresponds with chromatic thinking in an abstract sense, in terms of semitone distances.

On *guitar,* there are at least 7 different patterns for a C major scale, starting at various points on the neck, all different.

On *piano,* each major scale, like C major, is a unique pattern, so if you know that one pattern, you know all the C major scales.

But on *guitar,* you know 12 different scales for a unique pattern, simply by ascending; C-C#-D-Eb-E, etc;

But on *piano,* if you know all 12 unique patterns for the scales, you know them all. There are no "different" forms for each scale, as on guitar. Each piano scale has one unique form, in terms of black/white notes.

So, each instrument has its advantages.

I point out that fiddle is the same as guitar in this regard; and both differ from the keyboard in this general way; both are string-course instruments, and the tuning makes minimal difference;

...hence, my calling-you-out with my "circle of fourths" retort, which apparently incensed you (you always spout Latin when that happens).


----------



## mstar

Waaaiitttt..... millionrainbows? MILLIONRAINBOWS?!?! A few thirty users were just lamenting your leave from TalkClassical! 
See the community forum thread: Where's millionrainbows??? 
Glad you're back.


----------



## aleazk

mstar said:


> Waaaiitttt..... millionrainbows? MILLIONRAINBOWS?!?! A few thirty users were just lamenting your leave from TalkClassical!
> See the community forum thread: Where's millionrainbows???
> Glad you're back.


He posted that more than a month ago...


----------

