# Why is the tonic so important for melodies?



## youngcapone

I made a simple melody in FL studio that was in C Major. The melody consisted of two phrases both of which started on D. The only difference between the two is the second phrase ended on C (the tonic of C major). The only problem is it didn’t feel resolved ending on the tonic like I thought it would. When I changed the last note of the tonic to a D it sounded resolved even though D is not the tonic of C Major. I’m assuming it has something to do with the context in which I’m using it. For reference, I didn’t use C at all until I tried to resolve the second phrase and the other notes used we’re D,F,G,A and E. Any insight into why it didn’t sound resolved even though I used the tonic? Is there a fundamental concept I’m missing here?


----------



## Woodduck

I don't know how anyone could answer this without seeing/hearing your melody.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how anyone could answer this without seeing/hearing your melody.


That's illuminating. So music theory ideas and explanations are sometimes better answered in a very direct experiential way. That reminds me of the R.D.Laing quote:

"Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence"." 
― R.D. Laing


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's illuminating. So music theory ideas and explanations are sometimes better answered in a very direct experiential way. That reminds me of the R.D.Laing quote:
> 
> "Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence"."
> ― R.D. Laing


I hardly think a simple matter of needing to see/hear a melody to know what the melody's tonality is requires an explanation by R. D. Laing. It just seems common sense to me. Nevertheless, I'm glad to have illuminated you.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I hardly think a simple matter of needing to see/hear a melody to know what the melody's tonality is requires an explanation by R. D. Laing. It just seems common sense to me. Nevertheless, I'm glad to have illuminated you.


Thank you, you did, and I consider your reply to be just as useless as you say mine is.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you, you did, and I consider your reply to be just as useless as you say mine is.


I made a simple, accurate, useful reply to youngcapone. This is the very beginning of his thread. He wants responses to his questions.

You're poking the bear again. Don't.


----------



## millionrainbows

The point I wanted to emphasize is that "music theory ideas and explanations are sometimes better answered in a very direct experiential way," and the R.D. Laing quote is perfectly suited for this point. As far as "poking the bear," I think I deserve the same respect as you do, not implications that my posts are 'useless.'


----------



## Sad Al

Yep, it's crucial for my gin & tonic.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sad Al said:


> Yep, it's crucial for my gin & tonic.


Does it make you feel dominant, or sub-dominant? How about a 2-shot supertonic?


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Does it make you feel dominant, or sub-dominant? How about a 2-shot supertonic?


Perhaps G&T makes Al _"unstable"_ MR.....


----------



## EdwardBast

youngcapone:
Without seeing and hearing your melody it's impossible to know for sure. However, the notes you say you used are comprised by more than one key. The most likely explanation is that your melody is in D minor (D, E, F, G, and A are the first five notes in a D minor scale), not C major.



millionrainbows said:


> The point I wanted to emphasize is that "music theory ideas and explanations are sometimes better answered in a very direct experiential way," and the R.D. Laing quote is perfectly suited for this point. As far as "poking the bear," *I think I deserve the same respect as you do, not implications that my posts are 'useless.'*


Sadly, you are wrong. Your responses have added nothing substantive or helpful. They've merely loaded a thread launched by a simple question with irrelevancies.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps G&T makes Al _"unstable"_ MR.....


Some people get unstable when they have no fifth.

BTW, Tikoo Tuba said it was Dorian on that other thread, so he must be as smart as EdwardBast. He's just fooling us with that zen unicorn stuff.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Sadly, you are wrong. Your responses have added nothing substantive or helpful. They've merely loaded a thread launched by a simple question with irrelevancies.


You are wrong in your attitude towards me, and interpreted my response wrongly. What I was getting at is "use your ear and common sense."

What is many times "irrelevant" are the pedantic answers that beginners receive about basic questions. I see this as indicative of inadequate teaching methods which do not explain enough to "ear" oriented students, or "ear" questions. This is what I mean by "direct experience:" the ear.

"Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence"." 
― R.D. Laing

Pedantic:



Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
Being showy of one's knowledge, often in a boring manner.
Being finicky or fastidious, especially with language.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I hardly think a simple matter of needing to see/hear a melody to know what the melody's tonality is requires an explanation by R. D. Laing. It just seems common sense to me. Nevertheless, I'm glad to have illuminated you.


I DO think it's necessary to remind some of the members here on the music theory thread that sometimes beginners need to see the difference in 'what their ears hear' and in CP music theory, which doesn't correspond to what the ear hears as much as other less restrictive approaches. In many cases, I think these beginners would be better off elsewhere to get their questions answered.


----------



## mikeh375

MR, learning CP is the best way to develop an ear imv and the best way to acquire musicality. It is also the best way for a young composer to find their own voice. I am assuming said young composer would want to write for instrumental combinations big and small and for the concert hall. 

A proviso would be a composer who feels the pull of the 20th and 21stC I would suggest. That composer would be better off learning basics and then heading straight for extended techniques once they felt able to control an atonal medium. 

Personally, I also think mastering CP has a benefit when heading off into atonal fields, for one can then rely on the instincts gained in a 'safe' environment when negotiating dense chromaticism and indiscernible pulse.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> What is many times "irrelevant" are the pedantic answers that beginners receive about basic questions.
> 
> I DO think it's necessary to remind some of the members here on the music theory thread that sometimes beginners need to see the difference in 'what their ears hear' and in CP music theory, which doesn't correspond to what the ear hears as much as other less restrictive approaches. In many cases, I think these beginners would be better off elsewhere to get their questions answered.


If this beginner would have been better off inquiring elsewhere it isn't because of our direct responses to his question. The problem is not with the responses or with the theoretical approach of the people who offered them, but simply with the fact that the questioner didn't provide enough information for a definitive answer.

There's nothing about this case to suggest that CP theory would be incapable of dealing with it. On the contrary, the question of why a melody someone thinks is in C major sounds out of key when it ends on the nominal keynote is clearly assuming a CP harmonic context and should be approached on that basis. To echo EdwardBast's suggestion, the questioner is most likely to have invented a melody in which a D minor tonality was predominant - he did say that both phrases of the melody began on D - and didn't know how to shape the tune so that a move into a C major tonality felt natural (something perfectly possible to do). Nothing about this calls for a theoretical approach outside of common practice, and if the OP is having difficulty writing music that preserves the sense of tonality he's clearly after, it seems to me that there would be no more efficient way of training himself than to accompany his composing efforts with the study of music in the CP tradition and of the theory that conceptualizes it. What "less restrictive" procedures would you suggest instead?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If this beginner would have been better off inquiring elsewhere it isn't because of our direct responses to his question. The problem is not with the responses or with the theoretical approach of the people who offered them, but simply with the fact that the questioner didn't provide enough information for a definitive answer.
> 
> There's nothing about this case to suggest that CP theory would be incapable of dealing with it. On the contrary, the question of why a melody someone thinks is in C major sounds out of key when it ends on the nominal keynote is clearly assuming a CP harmonic context and should be approached on that basis. To echo EdwardBast's suggestion, the questioner is most likely to have invented a melody in which a D minor tonality was predominant - he did say that both phrases of the melody began on D - and didn't know how to shape the tune so that a move into a C major tonality felt natural (something perfectly possible to do). Nothing about this calls for a theoretical approach outside of common practice, and if the OP is having difficulty writing music that preserves the sense of tonality he's clearly after, it seems to me that there would be no more efficient way of training himself than to accompany his composing efforts with the study of music in the CP tradition and of the theory that conceptualizes it. What "less restrictive" procedures would you suggest instead?


The quote you posted was my response to EdwardBast. Here it is in its entirety, in context:



> You are wrong in your attitude towards me, and interpreted my response wrongly. What I was getting at is "use your ear and common sense."
> 
> What is many times "irrelevant" are the pedantic answers that beginners receive about basic questions. I see this as indicative of inadequate teaching methods which do not explain enough to "ear" oriented students, or "ear" questions. This is what I mean by "direct experience:" the ear.
> 
> "Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence"."
> ― R.D. Laing
> 
> Pedantic:
> 
> 
> Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
> Being showy of one's knowledge, often in a boring manner.
> Being finicky or fastidious, especially with language.


Now, to reply to you:



Woodduck said:


> If this beginner would have been better off inquiring elsewhere it isn't because of our direct responses to his question. The problem is not with the responses or with the theoretical approach of the people who offered them, but simply with the fact that the questioner didn't provide enough information for a definitive answer.


I think that as good teachers, theorists, or loose-jeans wearers, we should all be aware of the plight of beginning music students, and should be prepared to offer advice that is common sense and not 'definitive' or strictly CP, even if it is as simple as your answer that "it needs to be heard." More importantly, we need to put CP theory into context by studying and familiarizing ourselves with thinkers & material which can do this.



> There's nothing about this case to suggest that CP theory would be incapable of dealing with it.


But you don't "understand his misunderstanding."

I don't see it that way. I clearly see this as a beginner, somewhat inarticulate as to CP terminology, struggling with a way to relate what _he_ has done creatively to "what it might be called" in CP terms, and is trying to relate it to CP concepts such as "tonic."



> On the contrary, the question of why a melody someone thinks is in C major sounds out of key when it ends on the nominal keynote is clearly assuming a CP harmonic context and should be approached on that basis.


I see that the question is framed in CP terms, but clearly the student has not fully grasped the specific nature of CP theory, and perhaps a better answer would be a more direct, common sense one which is suited to the ear. View also the duplicate thread, in which this is even more evident.



> To echo EdwardBast's suggestion, the questioner is most likely to have invented a melody in which a D minor tonality was predominant - he did say that both phrases of the melody began on D - and didn't know how to shape the tune so that a move into a C major tonality felt natural (something perfectly possible to do). Nothing about this calls for a theoretical approach outside of common practice, and if the OP is having difficulty writing music that preserves the sense of tonality he's clearly after, *it seems to me that there would be no more efficient way of training himself than to accompany his composing efforts with the study of music in the CP tradition and of the theory that conceptualizes it. What "less restrictive" procedures would you suggest instead?*


First of all, my reply to EdwardBast had a general application, not just pertaining to this particular question, but a request to lighten up on the CP rhetoric.
As far as whether or not the question is a "CP" question or not, here is the post:



> I made a simple melody





> *in FL studio* that was *in C Major.* The melody consisted of two phrases both of which started on D. The only difference between the two is *the second phrase ended on C (the tonic of C major).* The only problem is *it didn't feel resolved ending on the tonic like I thought it would*.* When I changed the last note of the tonic to a D it sounded resolved even though D is not the tonic of C Major. I'm assuming it has something to do with the context in which I'm using it.* For reference, I didn't use C at all until I tried to resolve the second phrase and the other notes used we're D,F,G,A and E. Any insight into why it didn't sound resolved even though I used the tonic? Is there a fundamental concept I'm missing here?


To me, I see him as using a computer program to write this. It also suggests that he is writing in D dorian, which has a C major key signature (that the computer provided as a template). This is another example of the CP's notation system which is ambiguous. D dorian "mode" is not recognized in CP as a "real" tonality unto itself, with a name, since by definition CP deals with the major/minor scale system. Admittedly, folk songs can be transcribed in D dorian, but this is not explicitely a given: it's another one of those "workarounds" one must learn in order to "speak the lingo." A more modern outlook can easily explain this, and simply switching over to a jazz-oriented system in which these sorts of questions are irrelevant.

In other words, CP's key signature system is somewhat archaic and must be 'worked around.' The key signature system deals with the diatonic scales, and their relative minors (natural minor or aolean minor), but not with "modes" in a more modern or even "folky" context. The computer system the OP was using gave him a C major key signature, but what his "ear" wrote was probably in D dorian.

The diatonic system is biased towards the piano; the piano reflects this in its layout. Modern music is much more chromatic, however, and the diatonic key system has to be "accommodated" all the time.

These kinds of "critical overviews" of the CP system neeed desperately to be explained to newcomers.

The OP's plight is expressed:




> The only problem is





> *it didn't feel resolved ending on the tonic like I thought it would*.* When I changed the last note of the tonic to a D it sounded resolved even though D is not the tonic of C Major. I'm assuming it has something to do with the context in which I'm using it.* For reference, I didn't use C at all until I tried to resolve the second phrase and the other notes used we're D,F,G,A and E. Any insight into why it didn't sound resolved even though I used the tonic? Is there a fundamental concept I'm missing here?



This clearly demonstrates to me how CP theory and its corresponding diatonic notation/key signature system has become more of a burden to the OP's creativity.

I strongly suggest that the OP get a jazz theory book, such as one by Dan Haerle, and use it as a theory guide instead of some CP textbook or classroom, or on-line classical music forums.




> What "less restrictive" procedures would you suggest instead?


To get a jazz theory book and a teacher who is not bound by CP theory, who sees CP in perspective. This might be exceedingly rare. But you're going to lose all these kids if you don't. You need to make yourselves relevant.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^"Rationalism" gone berserk. 

The poor guy just wants to know why his melody sounds resolved on D instead of C. Obviously it's because his melody isn't in C. The solution? Learn to write in C when you think you're in C. You don't need a jazz theory book for that. A little Haydn will do just fine - or just come over to my house and I'll fix it in a jiffy.


----------



## Guest

youngcapone said:


> I made a simple melody in FL studio that was in C Major. The melody consisted of two phrases both of which started on D. The only difference between the two is the second phrase ended on C (the tonic of C major). The only problem is it didn't feel resolved ending on the tonic like I thought it would. When I changed the last note of the tonic to a D it sounded resolved even though D is not the tonic of C Major. I'm assuming it has something to do with the context in which I'm using it. For reference, I didn't use C at all until I tried to resolve the second phrase and the other notes used we're D,F,G,A and E. Any insight into why it didn't sound resolved even though I used the tonic? Is there a fundamental concept I'm missing here?


Hello youngcapone, I hope you haven't been put off by the replies to your post.
I don't know anything about FL Studio but I'm going to make a couple of assumptions to try and explain why you might be confused. If I'm wrong in my assumptions, please ignore this message.
I imagine, in the FL programme you're using, that when you open a file it doesn't specify a tonality but offers you a blank page (notational?) that has no accidentals whatsoever (no specific key signature). 
Such a blank page may "look" like C major (which has no accidentals in the key signature, just like A minor) so whatever note your melody starts on may well be (for you, for your ears) the "real tonic".
This is my supposition, but as Woodduck has said above, we would really need to see (or hear) the melody you have written to offer any concrete guidance.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The point I wanted to emphasize is that "music theory ideas and explanations are sometimes better answered in a very direct experiential way," [..]


That's a fair point MR but really, you often write endless _reams_ of text positing your ideas about intervals, ratios, tuning systems and so on without a single link to what really matters: the sounds, the music. I appreciate the efforts you make to keep this forum ticking but I do think you need to get off your high horse.


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> Hello youngcapone, I hope you haven't been put off by the replies to your post.
> I don't know anything about FL Studio but I'm going to make a couple of assumptions to try and explain why you might be confused. If I'm wrong in my assumptions, please ignore this message.
> I imagine, in the FL programme you're using, that when you open a file it doesn't specify a tonality but offers you a blank page (notational?) that has no accidentals whatsoever (no specific key signature).
> Such a blank page may "look" like C major (which has no accidentals in the key signature, just like A minor) so whatever note your melody starts on may well be (for you, for your ears) the "real tonic".
> This is my supposition, but as Woodduck has said above, we would really need to see (or hear) the melody you have written to offer any concrete guidance.


Oh you tech-savvy modernists! I thought FL studio meant he was working in Tallahassee.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think that as good teachers, theorists, or loose-jeans wearers, we should all be aware of the plight of beginning music students, and *should be prepared to offer advice that is common sense* and not 'definitive' or strictly CP [...]


I agree. Thing is, CP - and how that feeds into how we understand the soundscape, how we "engage" with the music of our culture, past and present - is very much _common sense_. (I was going to say "good practice".) Without my training in CP I doubt I would appreciate as much as I do the electroacoustic/electronic music of Parmegiani, Stockhausen and a host of other such composers; theirs is a genre that can only make sense in its _confrontation_ with CP.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Oh you tech-savvy modernists! I thought FL studio meant he was working in Tallahassee.


This is obviously a culture-specific reference which is completely over my (Talking) head. Hah! What is an [sic] Tallahassee?


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> This is obviously a culture-specific reference which is completely over my (Talking) head. Hah! What is an [sic] Tallahassee?


Sorry, guv. It's a city in Florida (FL).


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, *guv*. It's a city in Florida (FL).


That's ok, *dude*.


----------



## Guest

Back to the OP (YoungCapone). 
Here's a melody I really relate to that I heard years ago. It was written by a film composer called *Richard Rodney Bennett* and it's the main theme (the leitmotif) that is heard throughout the film. The film is called *Far from the Madding Crowd*, based on the novel of the same name by 19th-century author *Thomas Hardy*.
Now, in reference to the OP, the key is very vague for the first two phrases: it starts in what sounds like B minor natural ("modal", I would say in my ignorance) but seems to move to F# minor, and in the second phrase it sounds like a cadence in E minor (though there is no D# to confirm this). The final phrase return to a sort of "home base" of B, but nothing is clear, it's all vague and "pastoral", though not in F (!).
So, my second supposition _vis-à-vis_ the OP is that maybe the melody she/he wrote had no clear "home" key.
Rather than write reams of text, here's the YouTube extract that illustrates my point (0.00" to 0.46"):


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Nice Vaughan Williamsy piece. If YoungCapone could write music like that he wouldn't have ended up here talking to the likes of us. But then, I could probably write music like that, and I ended up here anyway.


----------



## starthrower

Woodduck and Millionrainbows are sparring again!


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I agree. Thing is, CP - and how that feeds into how we understand the soundscape, how we "engage" with the music of our culture, past and present - is very much _common sense_. (I was going to say "good practice".) Without my training in CP I doubt I would appreciate as much as I do the electroacoustic/electronic music of Parmegiani, Stockhausen and a host of other such composers; theirs is a genre that can only make sense in its _confrontation_ with CP.


That's like bending over backwards to make a point. I'm not impressed.

Yes, I'm glad I know what I know about the CP system and its notation. but I put it in perspective. It's an archaic ststem which has to be constantly accommodated for. I'm not afraid to criticize it.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Woodduck and Millionrainbows are sparing again!


 I assume you meant to write "sparring." Last time, you were on Woodduck's side, saying I needed to learn something from him because he had more knowledge. That was your implication, that was the net effect of what you said.
You could learn something from all this, starthrower, as a Frank Zappa fan. 
Zappa could write compositions like "The Black Page" and orchestral works, but when he played his guitar solos, he was doing it totally by ear as an improvisor.
Zappa's ability to write music far exceeded his ability to read it. He could read a little, and had parts for guitar he played in the ensemble, but he couldn't sight-read very well. That's why he got Steve Vai to play the more complex written parts. He got Steve Vai to transcribe his solos from "Shut Up and Play Your Guitar" and released this as "The Frank Zappa Guitar Book," with all the nested tuplets and odd groupings, so his "head" ideas would be notated; I don't think he could do it, or had the time. Vai was much faster and better at notation.
Zappa said "I'm a musician who happens to play guitar." The guitar, and especially the electric guitar, was not accepted as an instrument in universities. until Berklee and GIT came along. Electric guitarists had to learn classical guitar to major in guitar, like Rick Beato.
The net point is that the entire notation system and CP system is biased towards the diatonic system and the layout of the piano keyboard which reflect this. The guitar is a chromatic instrument, obvious by looking at it. Pat Martino has more to say about this, and I can paste a thesis that was written about this.


----------



## starthrower

Can't you take a lighthearted joke? You feel the need to type out a half page rebuttal in response. Go get some fresh air.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Can't you take a lighthearted joke? You feel the need to type out a half page rebuttal in response. Go get some fresh air.


A totally ad hominem reply, meaning nothing. "I was just joking" is a response used to mask humor as an aggressive gesture. People frequently use humor in this way. Of course, _you_ don't have a dark side, do you?

My "half page rebuttal" summarizes my attitude towards our archaic music idea/notation system.


----------



## starthrower

It means just what I implied. You have no sense of humor.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> First of all, my reply to EdwardBast had a general application, not just pertaining to this particular question, but a request to *lighten up on the CP rhetoric.*


Yes, telling the OP it's probably in D minor, not C major, is heavy CP rhetoric.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, telling the OP it's probably in D minor, not C major, is heavy CP rhetoric.


I mean lighten up in general, as I told Woodduck. I'm only asking you to change your way of thinking, that's all. 

P.S. It's dorian, not D minor. D natural minor has 1 flat. But "dorian" doesn't exist in strict CP, does it? "Dorian" in CP is a church mode, and modes don't have tonics. They are not scales or tonalities. How do you justify it? See? This stuff will come back to bite you, or alienate someone.

This is just like the "Baroque has no chords" thread. It exposes these great chasms in thinking, when "ideologies" are worshipped, instead of letting our ears do it.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> It means just what I implied. You have no sense of humor.


You sound very serious. :lol:

I do have a sense of humor; I LOL at The Three Stooges. But not about important ideas.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I mean lighten up in general, as I told Woodduck. I'm only asking you to change your way of thinking, that's all.
> 
> P.S. It's dorian, not D minor. D natural minor has 1 flat. But "dorian" doesn't exist in strict CP, does it? "Dorian" in CP is a church mode, and modes don't have tonics. They are not scales or tonalities. How do you justify it? See? This stuff will come back to bite you, or alienate someone.
> 
> This is just like the "Baroque has no chords" thread. It exposes these great chasms in thinking, when "ideologies" are worshipped, instead of letting our ears do it.


What are you talking about? Church modes have finals, which perform the function of tonics. And virtually no one writing in Dorian today is actually using a "Church mode." They've adopted the term for a church mode and applied it to a modern variant of the minor mode.

More to the point, since the OP didn't use the 6th or 7th degrees in his melody, we have no idea whether he is writing in Dorian mode or in some form of D minor (without using a key signature).


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> You sound very serious. :lol:
> 
> I do have a sense of humor; I LOL at The Three Stooges. But not about important ideas.


Especially your own erroneous ideas which you will defend to the ends of the earth instead of learning from others.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Especially your own erroneous ideas which you will defend to the ends of the earth instead of learning from others.


Would you care to discuss those ideas you refer to? Feel free to jump in and show us what you know, instead of boring old ad hominems.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> What are you talking about? Church modes have finals, which perform the function of tonics.


"Tonic" is a harmonic term which refers to a chord/root function. Church modes don't have chords or functions. What are _you _talking about?



> And virtually no one writing in Dorian today is actually using a "Church mode." They've adopted the term for a church mode and applied it to a modern variant of the minor mode.


So, you're still not ready to call it a "dorian scale?"



> More to the point, since the OP didn't use the 6th or 7th degrees in his melody, we have no idea whether he is writing in Dorian mode or in some form of D minor (without using a key signature).


Like I said, the computer probably made him think it was supposed to be in C (absence of sharps and flats), so that is the reason it's probably D dorian. In this case, it DID have a key signature of C major. But nobody knows, do they?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "Tonic" is a harmonic term which refers to a chord/root function. Church modes don't have chords or functions. What are _you _talking about?


EB said that church modes have "finals, which perform the FUNCTION OF tonics" [emphasis mine]. Tonics function as tonal centers - points of departure, gravitation and/or resolution - which are the defining characteristic of tonal music of all sorts, not just harmonic music. I think you actually agree with this.


----------



## Guest

Why is the tonic so important? Because the gin isn't always of the first quality?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> EB said that church modes have "finals, which perform the FUNCTION OF tonics" [emphasis mine]. Tonics function as tonal centers - points of departure, gravitation and/or resolution - which are the defining characteristic of tonal music of all sorts, not just harmonic music. I think you actually agree with this.


Yes, I agree with that part. What you omitted is that church modes have no harmonic content, and therefore no tonic function. "Tonic", the term I used, refers to a triad with a harmonic function. I think *you* actually agree with this. How does it feel to have this point used as _my rebuttal,_ not as_ your bludgeon?
_
Besides, the *context* was that some academic replies, in some situations, tended to emphasize the differences, not the similarities, between scales and church modes, in keeping with the practice of presenting conceptual obstacles and squelching ideas that can be invalidated.

Context, gentlemen, context!


----------



## millionrainbows

Christabel said:


> Why is the tonic so important? Because the gin isn't always of the first quality?


Oh, my God, another Gin & tonic joke. Is the quinine on tonic water related to the anti-malarial drug said to be effective in fighting the coronovirus? If so, then drink on!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's like bending over backwards to make a point. *I'm not impressed.*


A helpful comment that will go a long way to building up a rapport with me.



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I'm glad I know what I know about the CP system and its notation. but I put it in perspective. *It's an archaic ststem which has to be constantly accommodated for. I'm not afraid to criticize it*.


No, CP is not an archaic system, it continues to this day in many guises. You are a big brave man. As if there is nobody else out there offering insightful critique. Pff.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> A helpful comment that will go a long way to building up a rapport with me. *No, CP is not an archaic system, it continues to this day in many guises. You are a big brave man. As if there is nobody else out there offering insightful critique. Pff.*


Pat Martino, the brilliant jazz guitarist & theorist, says this:



> *"The communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano." *-Pat Martino


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The language of scales, theory, and intervals that we use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano.

If only my piano had a whammy bar string bender . More pedals , please .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> The language of scales, theory, and intervals that we use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano.
> 
> If only my piano had a whammy bar string bender . More pedals , please .


No, Pat Martino doesn't have a whammy bar. I figured you for a piano-playing pedant in disguise, anyway. 

And you'd best attribute that quote to Pat Martino. It's from a book.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

millionrainbows said:


> No, Pat Martino doesn't have a whammy bar. I figured you for a piano-playing pedant in disguise, anyway.
> 
> And you'd best attribute that quote to Pat Martino. It's from a book.


I did not like the full quote . And I do appreciate the micro-tonalities . Get ye down in the holler
and a mossy old fretless banjo will sho ya the way home .

I don't know why anyone would try to standardize micro-tonal theory .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I did not like the full quote.


Ahh, a clever technicality! But is it immune to search engines? If I try it, and find that it isn't, you could be sued for hundreds of fortune cookies.



Tikoo Tuba said:


> And I do appreciate the micro-tonalities . Get ye down in the holler
> and a mossy old fretless banjo will sho ya the way home .


I suppose that next you'll be waxing poetically about eating fried okra in the moonlight.



Tikoo Tuba said:


> I don't know why anyone would try to standardize micro-tonal theory .


...unless your name is Harry Partch or Ben Johnston. Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone would try to standardize a potato.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Look , say the saxy leader of the band , my blue note does not exist on the piano so , friend , stay clear
of it and dance around it . Furthermore , be minimal with that perfect 5th interval .

Don't shoot the piano player .

_As for the quote , you gave adequate reference . Bugger off ._


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> _As for the quote , you gave adequate reference . Bugger off ._


 Ah, so the REAL Tikoo Tuba emerges, and he's British! And I'm disappointed in his _mean_ reaction, I thought he liked me.



Tikoo Tuba said:


> Look , say the saxy leader of the band , my blue note does not exist on the piano so , friend , stay clear of it and dance around it . Furthermore , be minimal with that perfect 5th interval .Don't shoot the piano player .


If you listened to much blues piano, you'd know that the blue notes are 'hinted at' by playing two adjacent keys on the piano, such as C: Eb/E for the "third" blue note, and A/Bb for the "flat seventh" blue note, and stop the complaining.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

millionrainbows said:


> If you listened to much blues piano, you'd know that ...


Blues piano at its best is a one-man band . It doesn't argue with itself inverted-ly .


----------



## Guest

*MillionRainbows*: Pat Martino, the brilliant jazz guitarist & theorist, says this:
*"The communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano."
*Says a jazz guitarist who, it seems, knows sweet fcuk all about electroacoustic genres where composers, since the 1940s onwards, have been thinking outside of the box, outside the notation-based pitch-time paradigm you seem to favour. You're old-hat MR.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> *Pat Martino,* the brilliant jazz guitarist & theorist, says this:
> "The communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano."





TalkingHead said:


> Says a jazz guitarist who, it seems, knows sweet fcuk all about electroacoustic genres where composers, since the 1940s onwards, have been thinking outside of the box, outside the notation-based pitch-time paradigm you seem to favour. *You're old-hat MR.*


Wow, that is a weird reply. I "cleaned it up" and made the quotes look better.
Pat Martino has some synthesizer things he's never released, but one of his more electronic albums is "Starbright."

If you really want to argue the point, notation is superfluous to both electro-acoustic music and jazz performance/improvising, and in many ways defy it, because they are based on the ear and following the dictates of the ear.

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying? Not much, because my point, like Martino, is that I beleve we need to be aware of the "nature" of the CP diatonic system, especially as creators or players who have been made to feel "outside" that system.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Blues piano at its best is a one-man band . It doesn't argue with itself inverted-ly .


Did you say _Bugger off? _Wow, that's weird.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I have a piano-tuning wrench . Now I shall make blue notes . Which tone is logical for the root ? A.I. suppose .
Aha ... (twenty minutes later) ... done . 

Shall there still exist 12 tones in an octave ? maybe


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Shall there still exist 12 tones in an octave ? maybe


Eleven tones seem fine . This piano is a Blues in A machine .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Eleven tones seem fine . This piano is a Blues in A machine .


Talkin' to yourself again, Sir Tikoo? Twelve tones is the primacy of the fifth . The piano is the primacy of the diatonic scale . Let's pretend there are only seven . Got to work around that primitive pentatonic, you know . Unfortunately, they forgot to leave out the tritone ; this is Lucifer's triumph and Man's downfall.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Nope . With this piano there is really only one root tone and the 5th is tweaked a tiddly flat ;
like-wise the 7th . Anyway the C# keys have been removed for redundancy . Eleven .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Nope . With this piano there is really only one root tone and the 5th is tweaked a tiddly flat ;
> like-wise the 7th . Anyway the C# keys have been removed for redundancy . Eleven .


That reply wasn't very "Tikoo". It sounds more British. *Bring back Tikoo!*


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Dominance can be subverted , not that I want it . I saved this old piano
from a crazy piano tuner who was about to smash it with a giant hammer .
This is a freedom piano without a destiny . Tikoo , though , has a destiny 
without schiz . Tikoo the Tooner . Bye .


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Dominance can be subverted , not that I want it . I saved this old piano
> from a crazy piano tuner who was about to smash it with a giant hammer .
> This is a freedom piano without a destiny . Tikoo , though , has a destiny
> without schiz . Tikoo the Tooner . Bye .


He wasn't crazy, he was John Cale!


----------

