# Tonality of popular music



## Dim7

How much does it differ from CP tonality? How "functional" (whatever that means!) it is? I don't think the V-I cadence is actually all that important for "establishing tonality" in popular music. I mean, I guess it's fairly common to end a piece/section with those chords but I think that's more likely just a consequence of them both being major chords in the key (and major chords are popular). According to this, it is equally common to precede the I chord with the IV chord (actually a bit more common in fact!).

Also in the minor keys, while the major V chord and the leading tone is certainly common, my intuition says that it is also common to use only natural minor through the song. That would be quite un-CP. Am I wrong?


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> How much does it differ from CP tonality? How "functional" (whatever that means!) it is? I don't think the V-I cadence is actually all that important for "establishing tonality" in popular music. I mean, I guess it's fairly common to end a piece/section with those chords but I think that's more likely just a consequence of them both being major chords in the key (and major chords are popular). According to this, it is equally common to precede the I chord with the IV chord (actually a bit more common in fact!).
> 
> Also in the minor keys, while the major V chord is certainly common, my intuition says that it is also common to use only natural minor through the song. That would be quite un-CP. Am I wrong?


If you check the revised ToS you'll see that any reference to tonality is no longer permitted (nor is atonality).


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> If you check the revised ToS you'll see that any reference to tonality is no longer permitted (nor is atonality).


I don't that's the correct solution. Tonality/atonality debates will instead become cryptic and impossible to moderate. What we need is regulated (a)tonality debates.


----------



## isorhythm

Dim7 said:


> I don't that's the correct solution. Tonality/atonality debates will instead become cryptic and impossible to moderate. What we need is regulated (a)tonality debates.


The problem is that certain viewpoints are hierarchically privileged over others. What we need is a method of debating using all viewpoints equally, related only to one another. This will ensure the supremacy of TalkClassical for the next hundred years.

Most top 40 stuff is better described as modal than tonal. About half the interchangeable dance pop-type stuff on the radio at the moment is all i-VI-III-VII, for some reason. Not sure when that started.

My sense is that R&B uses more interesting blues/jazz-inflected harmony, but I haven't studied it closely or anything.


----------



## Dim7

Speaking of modality, I think it's a pretty incoherent concept.....


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Speaking of modality, I think it's a pretty incoherent concept.....


Stop that right now.


----------



## Mahlerian

To my ears, most pop, jazz, and rock music is not CP tonal. I'd describe it as modal, but not in the traditional sense.

By that I mean that the music is diatonic, but avoids reference to tonal function.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> The problem is that certain viewpoints are hierarchically privileged over others. What we need is a method of debating using all viewpoints equally, related only to one another. This will ensure the supremacy of TalkClassical for the next hundred years.


Would this involve 12-viewpoint conversations or viewpoint-rows?


----------



## norman bates

I suspect that there's a bit of everything, from the microtonal intervals of the blues to bitonality (even in mainstream pop, Beyonce's Single ladies is an example), modality, atonality, diatonic and chromatic stuff (metal for instance).


----------



## Dim7

Modality, tonality and atonality - none of these really exist. There's just diatonicism, pentatonicism, chromaticism, wholetonism, octatonicism, someweirdscaleism etc. Plus triadism and.... weirdchordism.


----------



## Dim7

isorhythm said:


> About half the interchangeable dance pop-type stuff on the radio at the moment is all i-VI-III-VII, for some reason.


VI - VII - i is also a very common natural minor progression in pop music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> To my ears, most pop, jazz, and rock music is not CP tonal. I'd describe it as modal, but not in the traditional sense.
> 
> By that I mean that the music is diatonic, but avoids reference to tonal function.


I HATE it when Taggart and Mahlerian make this distinction. ESPECIALLY when Mahlerian says that modal music has "no tonal function."


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> How much does it differ from CP tonality? How "functional" (whatever that means!) it is? I don't think the V-I cadence is actually all that important for "establishing tonality" in popular music. I mean, I guess it's fairly common to end a piece/section with those chords but I think that's more likely just a consequence of them both being major chords in the key (and major chords are popular). According to this, it is equally common to precede the I chord with the IV chord (actually a bit more common in fact!).
> 
> Also in the minor keys, while the major V chord and the leading tone is certainly common, my intuition says that it is also common to use only natural minor through the song. That would be quite un-CP. Am I wrong?


Yes, tin-pan-alley popular songs are tonal; Yale music theorist Alan Forte frequently uses "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" as an example of tonality and good song construction.

~
Here is a link to Forte's thoughts on this, and please bear in mind that he is the most respected music theorist of our time.

~http://forte.music.unt.edu/archive/allenforte/popmus.html


----------



## Dim7

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, tin-pan-alley popular songs are tonal; Yale music theorist Alan Forte frequently uses "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" as an example of tonality and good song construction.
> 
> ~
> Here is a link to Forte's thoughts on this, and please bear in mind that he is the most respected music theorist of our time.
> 
> ~http://forte.music.unt.edu/archive/allenforte/popmus.html


"in recent years I have cultivated an interest in exploring the repertoire of what I call classic American popular song, the very large corpus of music created during the *1920s, 30s, and 40s* by such household names as George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Richard Rodgers"

Modern pop may be quite different.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I HATE it when Taggart and Mahlerian make this distinction. ESPECIALLY when Mahlerian says that modal music has "no tonal function."


http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=summer_research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> "in recent years I have cultivated an interest in exploring the repertoire of what I call classic American popular song, the very large corpus of music created during the *1920s, 30s, and 40s* by such household names as George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Richard Rodgers"
> 
> Modern pop may be quite different.


You said, in the opening post, "popular music."

Are you going to amend that?


----------



## Dim7

It's just that study, though not irrelevant, clearly doesn't tell the whole story.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=summer_research
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function


It's going to be the same old thing. Mahlerian, and I'm bored with it. The articles are using the academic definitions of both tonality and modality. I don't think this shows an understanding of what the OP was asking.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> It's just that study, though not irrelevant, clearly doesn't tell the whole story.


What's missing, then, Iron Maiden? You're the one asking the questions, aren't you? It can all be easily explained. It's probably got to do with heavy metal root movement, right?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Most top 40 stuff is better described as* modal *than tonal.


Don't say that, or Mahlerian will think that you mean "top 40 sounds like Gregorian chant."


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> I HATE it when Taggart and Mahlerian make this distinction. ESPECIALLY when Mahlerian says that modal music has "no tonal function."










See this on modal "harmony". The point is that a tonal piece uses functional harmony usually the V I or IV V I to define a tonal centre whereas a modal piece tries to emphasise the "feel" of the mode without resolving to a tonal centre. If you really want it weird try a bagpipe "scale" . (lots of lovely cents!)

Back to the OP - most pop music tends to use standard progressions which end up as some variant of IV V I so they are basically tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> See this on modal "harmony". The point is that a tonal piece uses functional harmony usually the V I or IV V I to define a tonal centre whereas a modal piece tries to emphasise the "feel" of the mode without resolving to a tonal centre. If you really want it weird try a bagpipe "scale" . (lots of lovely cents!)
> 
> Back to the OP - most pop music tends to use standard progressions which end up as some variant of IV V I so they are basically tonal.


The problem with Taggart and Mahlerian is that they have never actually thought about what "function" is, where it came from, or what it does. They just use these terms out of habit.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> See this on modal "harmony". The point is that a tonal piece uses functional harmony usually the V I or IV V I to define a tonal centre whereas a modal piece tries to emphasise the "feel" of the mode without resolving to a tonal centre. If you really want it weird try a bagpipe "scale" . (lots of lovely cents!)
> 
> *Back to the OP - most pop music tends to use standard progressions which end up as some variant of IV V I so they are basically tonal.*


*

*I agree; popular music is basically tonal. What did you expect it to be, "atonal?"


----------



## millionrainbows

Any scale has functions, resulting from the triads built on the scale steps. That's such a simple concept, yet Mahlerian refuses to accept it, for some obscure academic reason he has shown, but never explained.


----------



## millionrainbows

Let's hear your explanation of hard rock music. If you guys are so smart, then explain the thinking behind "Smoke On the Water" by Deep Purple.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Don't say that, or Mahlerian will think that you mean "top 40 sounds like Gregorian chant."


It's a continuum.

I object strongly to the idea that 16th century harmony is not "functional."

However, some contemporary pop music is so harmonically simple that we are really just looking at two or three chords in the same scale with no real functions.

I'll leave contemporary pop for a moment and take a song that I actually like, the Velvet Undeground's "Heroin." It has only two chords, I and IV. Do we think IV has a "subdominant" function in that song? What would that even mean in that context?


----------



## Torkelburger

Taggart said:


> See this on modal "harmony". The point is that a tonal piece uses functional harmony usually the V I or IV V I to define a tonal centre whereas a modal piece tries to emphasise the "feel" of the mode without resolving to a tonal centre. If you really want it weird try a bagpipe "scale" . (lots of lovely cents!)
> 
> Back to the OP - most pop music tends to use standard progressions which end up as some variant of IV V I so they are basically tonal.


Your link to modal harmony is about vamps, those are not really chord progressions. You can actually have vamps in major and minor harmony as well, such as I IV V IV in major (this popular vamp has its own nickname, what jazzers call "Cornbread"). What is more, you can also have functional harmony in modes. For example, you can have a cadential chord progression in Aeolian of VI VII i which is very strong and final. Also, even in vamps there must be resolution to a tonal centre. Take Phrygian. If you end on the flat II it will sound unresolved. The half-stepwise motion of flat II to i is very similar to the half-stepwise leading tone resolution of V to I in major. It must be resolved to the tonal centre.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Any scale has functions, resulting from the triads built on the scale steps. That's such a simple concept, yet Mahlerian refuses to accept it, for some obscure academic reason he has shown, but never explained.


Simple, and wrong.

Wrong because the diatonic function of functional tonality is related to chord progressions with reference to a central triad. Modal music is not built around triads, even though later modal music uses constructions that are equivalent to our modern triad.


----------



## norman bates

Just to understand better (because until now it's all a bit vague) I'd to know from those who have a good knowledge of theory how this pieces can be harmonically defined. No jazz, only few rock/folk and pop musicians:


__
https://soundcloud.com/gavezdois%2Fp23-amor-bom
 (it starts at 1:43)











the track swords of gold
http://citizenfreak.com/titles/317971-copeland-beverly-st


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> How much does it differ from CP tonality? How "functional" (whatever that means!) it is? I don't think the V-I cadence is actually all that important for "establishing tonality" in popular music. I mean, I guess it's fairly common to end a piece/section with those chords but I think that's more likely just a consequence of them both being major chords in the key (and major chords are popular). According to this, it is equally common to precede the I chord with the IV chord (actually a bit more common in fact!).
> 
> Also in the minor keys, while the major V chord and the leading tone is certainly common, my intuition says that it is also common to use only natural minor through the song. That would be quite un-CP. Am I wrong?


I no nuffin' 'bout popular music but wot I do know is that the "classical" V-I cadence (functioning as the "full stop" punctuation) has been replaced by the "fade out", this being the most prevalent gesture in such genres.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mahlerian said:


> Simple, and wrong.
> 
> Wrong because the diatonic function of functional tonality is related to chord progressions with reference to a central triad. Modal music is not built around triads, even though later modal music uses constructions that are equivalent to our modern triad.


But in modern modal music, there is such a thing as diatonic function related to chord progressions with reference to a central triad, and modern modal music can be built solely around triads alone if you wish. For example, there is a tonic triad in Aeolian (i minor) and it functions as the central triad. There are functional chord progressions related to that tonic that are diatonic (built from stacking thirds on the scale degrees). The same for Dorian, Phrygian, etc. The first paper you sited does not address modern modes and the Wikipedia page you sited does not dispute this.


----------



## Mahlerian

Torkelburger said:


> But in modern modal music, there is such a thing as diatonic function related to chord progressions with reference to a central triad, and modern modal music can be built solely around triads alone if you wish. For example, there is a tonic triad in Aeolian (i minor) and it functions as the central triad. There are functional chord progressions related to that tonic that are diatonic (built from stacking thirds on the scale degrees). The same for Dorian, Phrygian, etc. The first paper you sited does not address modern modes and the Wikipedia page you sited does not dispute this.


True, and by "later modal music" I meant music of the 16th century, not the neo-modality of the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is true that there are certain probabilities of some progressions/cadences etc. over others in the new modal music, but can this really be said to be the same thing as the hierarchical function of the common practice era?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Modern modal music (via Fauré and Ravel) is only called 'modal' because it uses material derived from the modern church modes (which are really just scales and not the whole mode package of the old times), its otherwise in tonally thought. 

Pure modality is all melody and so, from a harmonic view point, is just one chord consisting of all the notes of the chosen mode (ie all the notes of the melody, taking which ones are emphasized into account and born from heterophony). The sonority of that chord is the overall sonority of the mode and that's why its generally so static or even tensionless. 

The chord/mode gets broken into smaller units (which may be just the same chord with omitted or rearranged notes (Japanese music), triads, fifths chords (Georgian music) or other) depending on cultural preferences and tradition. Modal music goes tonal when those subsets appear ordered in hierarchy and that serves as a mayor structural support.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Am I wrong?


I don't know. You might be. I thought we were talking about 'popular music' but you make it sound so much more complex than I ever thought it was...

...maybe my idea of 'popular' is wrong?


----------



## norman bates

MacLeod said:


> ...maybe my idea of 'popular' is wrong?


it's a huge simplification. It's like to pretend that all classical music is like the pachelbel's canon and Bach, Debussy, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Webern, Messiaen etc did not exist.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mahlerian said:


> True, and by "later modal music" I meant music of the 16th century, not the neo-modality of the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> It is true that there are certain probabilities of some progressions/cadences etc. over others in the new modal music, but can this really be said to be the same thing as the hierarchical function of the common practice era?


Yes, I believe so. But the hierarchical function is not determined by the circle of fifths. In modern modal music, the "musical tension would be eased (resolved) towards the stability of returning to the tonic chord, note, or scale (namely, function)." (from your link) is achieved the most strongly by a circle of seconds (and thirds much less often as not as strong).


----------



## millionrainbows

Ted Greene says the importance of modes is harmonic more than melodic. In Dorian, the IV chord is major; that's why it's used in pop songs like Evil Ways by Santana, Venus by Shocking Blue, and others.


----------



## Dim7

Michael Jackson's Thriller is in Dorian as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, I believe so. But the hierarchical function is not determined by the circle of fifths. In modern modal music, the "musical tension would be eased (resolved) towards the stability of returning to the tonic chord, note, or scale (namely, function)." (from your link) is achieved the most strongly by a circle of seconds (and thirds much less often as not as strong).


You guys make no sense to me at all. Any hierarchy of any scale or modal scale is determined by the tonic note. A V is still a V, and is a dominant. In jazz they call them "altered dominants" because they function that way. In fact, one of the basic things you learn in jazz is that there are three kinds of chords: major, minor, and dominant b7.

All scales are inherently hierarchical. That's where the function is "built-in," and it takes no procedure of fifths or other constructs to have this. It's already there.

That is, unless you guys are talking in some kind of deliberately obscure "CP lingo," which I don't doubt. Mahlerian made an obscure statement about modes which he had to clarify later using the term "neo modal." Apparently, clear answers are not on the agenda here.

Insurance:

Scales are traditionally displayed with a starting note, and cover an octave. The starting note is assumed to be the tonic.

From WIK:

_A specific scale is defined by its characteristic interval pattern and by a special note, known as its first degree (or tonic). The tonic of a scale is the note selected as the beginning of the octave, and therefore as the beginning of the adopted interval pattern. Typically, the name of the scale specifies both its tonic and its interval pattern. For example, C-major indicates a major scale in which C is the tonic.
_


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> Michael Jackson's Thriller is in Dorian as well.


That's true, and probably due to Quincy Jones' jazz background.

Jazz musicians and producers like Quincy Jones know about music on a very practical, hit-the-ground-running sort of way, and have to come up with practical, musical solutions under pressure.

They can not be encumbered by archaic, outdated, CP definitions of "modality" and "function" and "tonality." They go by their ear, and their ears are usually very good.

The responders I've seen here are too immersed in notions of CP tonality to be able to give any cogent answers about popular music. If you really want to learn about music in a practical, useful way, then study jazz.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> That's true, and probably due to Quincy Jones' jazz background.
> 
> Jazz musicians and producers like Quincy Jones know about music on a very practical, hit-the-ground-running sort of way, and have to come up with practical, musical solutions under pressure.


it's true in many cases, but actually Quincy Jones was a student of Nadia Boulanger


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> Just to understand better (because until now it's all a bit vague) I'd to know from those who have a good knowledge of theory how this pieces can be harmonically defined. No jazz, only few rock/folk and pop musicians:


Some really odd stuff in there. A few of them seem to be using altered chords in place of "regular" harmonies, while some of them just sound like diatonic music with "wrong notes."


----------



## Torkelburger

> A V is still a V, and is a dominant.


This is not true in "any scale or modal scale". The V is minor in Dorian, Mixolydian, and Aeolian, for example.


> In jazz they call them "altered dominants" because they function that way.


In jazz, an altered dominant means the fifth is flattened.


> In fact, one of the basic things you learn in jazz is that there are three kinds of chords: major, minor, and dominant b7.


Technically it's major7, minor7, and dominant7. But that is in non-modal jazz. In modal jazz there is no dominant b7. For example, in all the C Major key signature modes, D dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, they all share G7 as the diatonic dominant b7 structure. If that chord was played in each mode it would resolve to C, not to the tonic of the mode. The G must be played as a triad, ignored, or used only with tensions (9, 13).


> All scales are inherently hierarchical. That's where the function is "built-in," and it takes no procedure of fifths or other constructs to have this. It's already there.


I agree that any hierarchy of any scale or mode is determined by the tonic note. But if the above is based on your statement that a V is still a V, and is dominant, then the above is false.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> This is not true in "any scale or modal scale". The V is minor in Dorian, Mixolydian, and Aeolian, for example.


But V still functions as a V, regardless of its quality (major/minor).



Torkelburger said:


> Technically it's major7, minor7, and dominant7. But that is in non-modal jazz. In modal jazz there is no dominant b7. For example, in all the C Major key signature modes, D dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, they all share G7 as the diatonic dominant b7 structure. If that chord was played in each mode it would resolve to C, not to the tonic of the mode. The G must be played as a triad, ignored, or used only with tensions (9, 13).


You are ignoring the blues influence. In blues, and much rock, I, IV, and V are all b7 chords. They don't need to resolve. This is based on African scales which used a flatter, more stable-sounding "harmonic seventh" which did not need resolving. This carried over into blues and jazz.

I agree that any hierarchy of any scale or mode is determined by the tonic note. But if the above is based on your statement that a V is still a V, and is dominant, then the above is false.[/QUOTE]

If you equate the function-term "dominant" with b7, that is a problem. I ALWAYS say "dominant b7" because "dominant' by itself does not have to specify a flat-seven chord.

1. (_music_) The fifth major tone of a musical scale (five major steps above the note in question); thus G is the dominant of C, A of D, and so on. (It's a tone first; i.e. a root station)

2. (_music_) The triad built on the dominant tone.(it can be any kind of triad; "dominant" refers to the root station, not the triad quality of maj/min)

Look up the term "dominant."


----------



## Torkelburger

> But V still functions as a V, regardless of its quality (major/minor).


No it doesn't. Play through the modes and you'll see. They don't function that way. Anyone who has written modal music would never make such a statement. The V does not always resolve to the I as its function is in the major scale. Phrygian, for an extreme example, would present a huge problem. The V is diminished and wants to resolve to VI, not i. Going V to I in Phrygian sounds incredibly silly.


> You are ignoring the blues influence. In blues, and much rock, I, IV, and V are all b7 chords. They don't need to resolve. This is based on African scales which used a flatter, more stable-sounding "harmonic seventh" which did not need resolving. This carried over into blues and jazz.


No, I said non-modal music. Again, modal music does not use dominant b7 structures. That was in my harmony book/classes at Berklee College of Music. Where did you study modal jazz besides the internet?


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> No it doesn't. Play through the modes and you'll see. They don't function that way. Anyone who has written modal music would never make such a statement. The V does not always resolve to the I as its function is in the major scale. Phrygian, for an extreme example, would present a huge problem. The V is diminished and wants to resolve to VI, not i. Going V to I in Phrygian sounds incredibly silly.


 _"Modal jazz?" with restrictions that it must be totally diatonic, with no dominant flat 7 triad, in any mode, except G7 (in C)?
_
What kind of weird, academic monstrosity is this?

Once again, we see the use of a restricted academic term, "modal jazz," which is so specific and derived from the academic definition of "modal" that it is used to confuse the issue! This is purposeful misuse of such useless terms.

"V" is just a root station. It is also the closest relation, in terms of sonance, to the tonic (2:3 and 1:1, respectively).

Miles Davis' composition* Nardis *is in phyrgian, and it has a very strong V-I at the end of the bridge, which takes you back in to the main theme on the tonic. There's a good example. Another one, so obvious and clear: Santana's_* Evil Ways*_ (dorian) has a strong V7 on the phrase "This can't go on."

(sarcastically) Oh, but I forgot: Miles davis is not "modal jazz." He's_ non-modal jazz. _Ha ha haa! Even though he's in Phrygian! LOL



Torkelburger said:


> No, I said non-modal music. Again,* modal music does not use dominant b7 structures.* That was in my harmony book/classes at Berklee College of Music. Where did you study modal jazz besides the internet?


If you want a mode that uses, for example, only the diatonic C major scale, then you are correct; *but where did this condition come from, and how is this relevant to establishing a sense of tonality, or to the common use of modes in jazz??
*
I think you are using this restricted sense of the term "modal" to muddy the waters, in the same way the term "neo-modal" was used. And you are applying it to jazz! Ha ha haa!

That does not make sense to me in any way. What kind of specialized "modal jazz" music are you using to say such a preposterous thing? Build a "A7" chord in D dorian.like Miles davis did.

You must be talking some kind of obscure academic lingo.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> Some really odd stuff in there. A few of them seem to be using altered chords in place of "regular" harmonies, while some of them just sound like diatonic music with "wrong notes."


Thank you, I obviously don't pretend a technical analysis of those pieces, but often it's frustrating to see that a lot of stuff seems to exist in a no man's land, not easily describable in technical terms. Or maybe it's just very difficult to find analysis of that kind of music.


----------



## Torkelburger

> That makes no sense to me at all. "V" is just a root station. It is also the closest relation, in terms of sonance, to the tonic (2:3 and 1:1, respectively).


I'm not convinced. Please post one of your own compositions utilizing the chord progression V - I at least 3 different times in a piece in Phrygian then, and we'll see how ridiculous it sounds. Put your money where your mouth is.


> Miles Davis' composition Nardis is in phyrgian, and it has a very strong V-I at the end of the bridge, which takes you back in to the main theme on the tonic. There's a good example. Another one, so obvious and clear: Santana's Evil Ways (dorian) has a strong V7 on the phrase "This can't go on."


Wrong. These are examples of what is called "Modal Interchange" http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/introduction-to-modal-interchange--audio-14142. Nardis is actually ii-V-I in the key of C at the end of the bridge to a tune that is mostly in E Phrygian. You don't analyze that progression in Phrygian. Before you take issue with that, please be advised that I had to analyze that tune in college and I last performed Nardis on piano in a professional jazz quartet setting in front of about 75 patrons at a restaurant last Saturday.


> If you want a mode that uses, for example, only the diatonic C major scale, then you are correct; but where did this condition come from, and how is this relevant to establishing a sense of tonality?
> I think you are using this restricted sense of the term "modal" to muddy the waters, in the same way the term "neo-modal" was used. And you are applying it to jazz! Ha ha haa!
> That does not make sense to me in any way. What kind of specialized "modal jazz" music are you using to say such a preposterous thing? Build a "A7" chord in D dorian.like Miles davis did.


Modes being constructed of diatonic pitches comes from its very definition. I'm not muddying anything. It makes perfect sense as has already been explained. And your Miles Davis example was in error as explained above.


----------



## Tedski

Don't mind me. I'm here for the popcorn.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> Thank you, I obviously don't pretend a technical analysis of those pieces, but often it's frustrating to see that a lot of stuff seems to exist in a no man's land, not easily describable in technical terms. Or maybe it's just very difficult to find analysis of that kind of music.


In order to get the kind of analysis you are after, you have to use general definitions of tonality, and modality, and completely discard the specialized lingo and definitions that are used in describing CP tonality. Forget all of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> I'm not convinced. Please post one of your own compositions utilizing the chord progression V - I at least 3 different times in a piece in Phrygian then, and we'll see how ridiculous it sounds. Put your money where your mouth is.


Please try to stay composed (ba-da-bing!)

You are probably right in an academic sense, but I don't see the purpose in such hair-splitting, if it's not to clarify and expedite the process of analysis in a practical way. Miles Davis was probably not worrying about 'modal correctness' when he wrote the tune.



Torkelburger said:


> Wrong. These are examples of what is called "Modal Interchange" http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/introduction-to-modal-interchange--audio-14142. Nardis is actually ii-V-I in the key of C at the end of the bridge to a tune that is mostly in E Phrygian. You don't analyze that progression in Phrygian. Before you take issue with that, please be advised that I had to analyze that tune in college and I last performed Nardis on piano in a professional jazz quartet setting in front of about 75 patrons...etc.


I wouldn't analyze it like that. I see the bridge as just a bridge, not a modulation to C. That sounds like a way of avoiding having a B7 in E phrygian; but E phrygian could also be seen as very similar to E minor, and minor keys often use a V7 with the altered leading tone. You could just as easily analyze it as borrowing from E minor. You could also consider the phrygian note F as just an alteration of E minor, ans analyze it in that key. It's all academic, and irrelevant to the reality of the tune. Your analysis is a possibility, and my analysis might be a possibility, but I don't see how this clarifies anything. Jazz is done by ear, and analysis is secondary, the way I see it.



Torkelburger said:


> Modes being constructed of diatonic pitches comes from its very definition. I'm not muddying anything. It makes perfect sense as has already been explained. And your Miles Davis example was in error as explained above.


I do think you could be accused of obscuring things with the use of overly-strict definitions, such as your hair-splitting distinction between "modal jazz" and "non-modal jazz." I know that when I think of "modal jazz," I think of John Coltrane and Miles Davis, and they, as you pointed out, are "in violation" of your strict modal rules. Poor Miles davis had to go borrow a dominant seven chord from a major key, because his mode would not allow him to use one. Like him, I'm only interested in what works to the ear.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think this entire "thrilling" interchange underscores the incompatability of academia and practical music-making. Academic definitions and concepts are self-serving, and are not general enough, or flexible enough, to be applicable to most popular music, or especially music which was composed "by ear" or in the recording studio, without written score.


----------



## tdc

I've often thought that the flat II chord functions more or less like the V in phrygian. 

Isn't the flat II also used as a possible chord substitution for V (ie F7 in the key of E) in tonal jazz?


----------



## Torkelburger

> I think this entire "thrilling" interchange underscores the incompatability of academia and practical music-making. Academic definitions and concepts are self-serving, and are not general enough, or flexible enough, to be applicable to most popular music, or especially music which was composed "by ear" or in the recording studio, without written score.


Oh? You mean like my original modal jazz compositions here from my commercially-released albums?:
Aeolian:




Mixolydian (with Modal Interchange):




Dorian (with Modal Interchange):




Dorian again:




Lydian:




I think most here would call the above practical music making. I've commercially released two jazz albums of my compositions, many of them modal, and one album available on itunes. How many jazz albums have you released of your "practical music making", pray tell? I play over 50 events per year in a professional jazz quartet in which a third of our set is modal. What group do you play in? I've been writing modal jazz for over twenty years, how about you? Can we hear them? Post them and let's let people here compare them to mine and see how your "practical music making" stacks up to "academia", eh? Oh, let me guess. You don't have any. We're just gonna hear crickets chirping just like we did when I asked you for the simple task of posting a short example of how your "practical music making" skills can show how V to I in Phrygian doesn't sound ridiculous. 
Adam Torkelson


----------



## Torkelburger

tdc said:


> I've often thought that the flat II chord functions more or less like the V in phrygian.
> 
> Isn't the flat II also used as a possible chord substitution for V (ie F7 in the key of E) in tonal jazz?


You are correct. The flat II7 is called a "substitute dominant". The reason that this substitution works is because it shares the same tritone resolution as the B7 (the notes a and d# in B7 and a and eb in F7 resolve to g# and e in E).


----------



## Torkelburger

Torkelburger said:


> You are correct. The flat II7 is called a "substitute dominant". The reason that this substitution works is because it shares the same tritone resolution as the B7 (the notes a and d# in B7 and a and eb in F7 resolve to g# and e in E).


tdc, this tune here I wrote is a great illustration of the substitute dominant. It has a lot of them in it. The very first bar of music (after the drums) for example is ii-bII7-I in C. Some of them later on may be difficult to hear as this is a bebop tune and so some of the ii chords are ii-7(b5) and some of the bII7 chords are altered (b5) but those substitute dominants are there (in "academia" that's what we sometimes do to those chords in "bebop").


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> "in recent years I have cultivated an interest in exploring the repertoire of what I call classic American popular song, the very large corpus of music created during the *1920s, 30s, and 40s* by such household names as George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Richard Rodgers"
> 
> Modern pop may be quite different.


Modern pop may be different, but we need to discuss American popular song, especially for its connection to jazz, in the use of 'standards' which are used as vehicles for jazz improvisations. Examples are Cole Porter's _What is This Thing Called Love,_ Gershwin's _I've Got Rhythm, _and many others.

Most popular music like this can be analyzed in CP tonal terms. There are differences, but more similarities.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> It's just that study, though not irrelevant, clearly doesn't tell the whole story.


You will see, as this thread progresses, the need for looking at American popular song. To point out that it does not tell the complete story is counter-productive, unless clarity and answers are secondary to whatever motivated you to make this observation.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> See this on modal "harmony". The point is that a tonal piece uses functional harmony usually the V I or IV V I to define a tonal centre whereas a modal piece tries to emphasise the "feel" of the mode without resolving to a tonal centre. If you really want it weird try a bagpipe "scale" . (lots of lovely cents!)
> 
> Back to the OP - most pop music tends to use standard progressions which end up as some variant of IV V I so they are basically tonal.


I agree. Most pop music is tonal, and can be analyzed in general CP terms.

Your thoughts on modality are spot-on, especially when applied to the folk and ethnic genres.

There will be problems with this, however, when we attempt to discuss "modality" and try to apply it to American popular song and jazz. These composers thought differently about modes and scales, as I shall point out.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> It's a continuum.
> 
> I object strongly to the idea that 16th century harmony is not "functional."
> 
> However, some contemporary pop music is so harmonically simple that we are really just looking at two or three chords in the same scale with no real functions.
> 
> I'll leave contemporary pop for a moment and take a song that I actually like, the Velvet Undeground's "Heroin." It has only two chords, I and IV. Do we think IV has a "subdominant" function in that song? What would that even mean in that context?


I hear Lou Reed's "Heroin" as basically a simple folk song. It only has 2 chords, D and G, but this estabishes the key of D to my ear. It's not ambiguous in this. There is no "minimum number" of chords needed to establish a key, as has been done here with 2 chords.

Folk music is not really concerned with "function" per se, but it can, and does, establish a tone center and a sense of tonality. If one analyzed it in CP terms, though, I would call G the subdominant, because that's how it functions in the key of D major, and in this song. The song does not start or end on G, or stay there as long as it stays on D. There are "rest points" in the song, after the speeded-up parts, which further reinforce this; it "comes to rest" on D after the speed-ups.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> Any scale has functions, resulting from the triads built on the scale steps. That's such a simple concept, yet Mahlerian refuses to accept it, for some obscure academic reason he has shown, but never explained.





Mahlerian said:


> Simple, and wrong.
> 
> Wrong because the diatonic function of functional tonality is related to chord progressions with reference to a central triad. Modal music is not built around triads, even though later modal music uses constructions that are equivalent to our modern triad.


This shows a misapplication of modes to modern usage. Your response is true for "proper" modality, but does not apply to modern usage of modes as scales.

In jazz, modes are just scales, and are used in harmonic contexts which would be "foreign" to the mode, such as in Miles Davis' Nardis, where we hear hints of phrygian, yet we have a major third at the end of the melody. Plus, Nardis uses an altered dominant 7, which is not found in phrygian.
So, it is a mistake to think that modal scales must be used harmonically, because in modern jazz, they are not; they are just scales. (modes can be used harmonically, in modern times, if one wishes)

This is why jazz theory categorizes _qualities_ of chords as major, minor, dominant b7, diminished, and half diminished, and determines which scales, many of them modal, are appropriate _in function _for that given chord (which may be unrelated to a mode-generated chord).

In other words, modes in jazz are almost always used as scales, not harmonically, as generators of tonality and function derived from building triads on them.

*So, yes, Mahlerian is correct* that older, traditional modal music is not really harmonic, or functional, but is more melodic.

However, this observation will tend to muddy the waters, since it does not apply to American popular song or the jazz which uses these songs as harmonic vehicles.

My observation still holds true, though. Any scale or mode can be used to build triads on, and create a "tonality," complete with functions. This is not your grandpaw's modality, though.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> True, and by "later modal music" I meant music of the 16th century, not the neo-modality of the 19th and 20th centuries.


I encourage all participants to please emerge from this time-warp and enter the context of modernity of this thread. Such observations and articles presented are old-school, and will only obscure the issue.



Mahlerian said:


> It is true that there are certain probabilities of some progressions/cadences etc. over others in the new modal music, but can this really be said to be the same thing as the hierarchical function of the common practice era?


Probably not, and if there are differences, it's not necessary to point them out. We are talking about the modern era of popular music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Modern modal music (via Fauré and Ravel) is only called 'modal' because it uses material derived from the modern church modes (which are really just scales and not the whole mode package of the old times), its otherwise in tonally thought.
> 
> Pure modality is all melody and so, from a harmonic view point, is just one chord consisting of all the notes of the chosen mode (ie all the notes of the melody, taking which ones are emphasized into account and born from heterophony). The sonority of that chord is the overall sonority of the mode and that's why its generally so static or even tensionless.
> 
> The chord/mode gets broken into smaller units (which may be just the same chord with omitted or rearranged notes (Japanese music), triads, fifths chords (Georgian music) or other) depending on cultural preferences and tradition. Modal music goes tonal when those subsets appear ordered in hierarchy and that serves as a mayor structural support.


Yes, that's all good, accurate information.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> Any hierarchy of any scale or modal scale is determined by the tonic note. *A V is still a V, and is a dominant. *In jazz they call them "altered dominants" because they function that way. In fact, one of the basic things you learn in jazz is that there are three kinds of chords: major, minor, and dominant b7...All scales are inherently hierarchical. That's where the function is "built-in," and it takes no procedure of fifths or other constructs to have this. It's already there.





Torkelburger said:


> This is not true in "any scale or modal scale". The V is minor in Dorian, Mixolydian, and Aeolian, for example.
> In jazz, an altered dominant means the fifth is flattened.
> Technically it's major7, minor7, and dominant7. But that is in non-modal jazz.* In modal jazz there is no dominant b7. *For example, in all the C Major key signature modes, D dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, they all share G7 as the diatonic dominant b7 structure. If that chord was played in each mode it would resolve to C, not to the tonic of the mode. The G must be played as a triad, ignored, or used only with tensions (9, 13). I agree that any hierarchy of any scale or mode is determined by the tonic note. *But if the above is based on your statement that a V is still a V, and is dominant, then the above is false*.


Ahh, I discovered the glitch in this interchange!

I never said "dominant 7."

I said "*A V is still a V, and is a dominant."*

*This refers to the fact that the fifth scale degree is the most consonant and related step to the tonic. I never said it had to be a seventh chord.*
If you look up the definition of dominant, it refers to the fifth scale degree, not a triad of a certain quality.

There is nothing in my above statement that requires that "V" be a seventh chord. My point is that there is an inherent functionality built-in to any scale or mode, due to the scale step's relation to tonic, and its position in the scale hierarchy.

If your definition of "V" or "dominant means "a seventh chord," then it is false, because "dominant" refers only to the scale step.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> But V still functions as a V, regardless of its quality (major/minor).





Torkelburger said:


> No it doesn't. Play through the modes and you'll see. They don't function that way. Anyone who has written modal music would never make such a statement.


The triad built on V in E phrygian is B-D-F, a diminished triad. B is still is the most related scale step to E, and if we consider B-D-F to be an E7 flat-nine with no root, it reinforces E without any need to resolve or behave as a normal dominant. We ARE talking about an inherently dissonant mode, after all, so why should we require that its "V" triad behave as a dominant 7? After all, I never said that. I simply stated that 'V' is the modst closely related step to i, and B-D-F as an E7b9 does reinforce the tonality, although it pulls to A; but in blues, all functions are b7, so this would sound perfectly normal as an E7b9 on I, as a minor/major interchange.
We do a similar thing with the diminished chord on vii (B-D-F) in the key of C, by considering it as an incomplete G7b9.


Torkelburger said:


> The V does not always resolve to the I as its function is in the major scale. Phrygian, for an extreme example, would present a huge problem. The V is diminished and wants to resolve to VI, not i. Going V to I in Phrygian sounds incredibly silly.


But using the V scale degree as an E7b9 would not sound silly. I admit it's unusual, but as I said earlier, if we start using modes harmonically, rules might be bent. 
Be sure to bear in mind the blues influence. In blues, and much rock, I, IV, and V are all b7 chords. They don't need to resolve. This is based on African scales which used a flatter, more stable-sounding "harmonic seventh" which did not need resolving. This carried over into blues and jazz.


Torkelburger said:


> No, I said non-modal music. Again, modal music does not use dominant b7 structures. That was in my harmony book/classes at Berkl ee College of Music. *Where did you study modal jazz besides the internet?*


That was rude, and unnecessary. Would you like to see my copy of "The Jazz Language" autographed by its author, Dan Haerle?

Again, in jazz, modes are used as scales, not harmonically as chords with functions. Function is assigned as appropriate to scales as independent entities. The chord progression or harmonioc context may be totally foreign to the triads built from the mode.
When I think of modal jazz, I think of Miles davis, who ushered it in with _Kind Of Blue._ The other artist who comes to mind is John Coltrane. In Coltrane's* Impressions *and *India,* yes, this is modal, in that they are playing over a basically static drone, with little or no harmonic movement. But a tune like Nardis is using "phrygian" as a scale, not harmonically.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> That makes no sense to me at all. "V" is just a root station. It is also the closest relation, in terms of sonance, to the tonic (2:3 and 1:1, respectively).





Torkelburger said:


> I'm not convinced. Please post one of your own compositions utilizing the chord progression V - I at least 3 different times in a piece in Phrygian then, and we'll see how ridiculous it sounds. *Put your money where your mouth is.*


 You sound angered. Calm down.



millionrainbows said:


> Miles Davis' composition Nardis is in phyrgian, and it has a very strong V-I at the end of the bridge, which takes you back in to the main theme on the tonic. There's a good example. Another one, so obvious and clear: Santana's Evil Ways (dorian) has a strong V7 on the phrase "This can't go on."





Torkelburger said:


> Wrong. These are examples of what is called "Modal Interchange" http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/introduction-to-modal-interchange--audio-14142. Nardis is actually ii-V-I in the key of C at the end of the bridge to a tune that is mostly in E Phrygian. You don't analyze that progression in Phrygian. Before you take issue with that, please be advised that I had to analyze that tune in college and I last performed Nardis on piano in a professional jazz quartet setting in front of about 75 patrons at a restaurant last Saturday.


I think your thinking is wrong on this. In jazz, as I said earlier, modes are used as scales, not as harmonoc frameworks, so there can be an altered dominant in it. Plus, the melody of Nardis itself is not strictly phrygian; there is a major third at the end of the main melody. This makes it sound more 'exotic' or Egyptian than strictly phrygian. I don't think a "modal interchange" applies here, or is even needed.



Torkelburger said:


> Modes being constructed of diatonic pitches comes from its very definition. I'm not muddying anything. It makes perfect sense as has already been explained. And your Miles Davis example was in error as explained above.


I think you are in error. Jazz does not use modes as harmonic frameworks, but as scales.


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> Ahh, I discovered the glitch in this interchange!
> 
> I never said "dominant 7."
> 
> I said "*A V is still a V, and is a dominant."*
> 
> *This refers to the fact that the fifth scale degree is the most consonant and related step to the tonic. I never said it had to be a seventh chord.*
> If you look up the definition of dominant, it refers to the fifth scale degree, not a triad of a certain quality.
> 
> There is nothing in my above statement that requires that "V" be a seventh chord. My point is that there is an inherent functionality built-in to any scale or mode, due to the scale step's relation to tonic, and its position in the scale hierarchy.
> 
> If your definition of "V" or "dominant means "a seventh chord," then it is false, because "dominant" refers only to the scale step.


Oh no, by all means, post an the example of V to I in Phrygian using triads, thanks.


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> You sound angered. Calm down.
> 
> I think your thinking is wrong on this. In jazz, as I said earlier, modes are used as scales, not as harmonoc frameworks, so there can be an altered dominant in it. Plus, the melody of Nardis itself is not strictly phrygian; there is a major third at the end of the main melody. This makes it sound more 'exotic' or Egyptian than strictly phrygian. I don't think a "modal interchange" applies here, or is even needed.
> 
> I think you are in error. Jazz does not use modes as harmonic frameworks, but as scales.


No matter how many times you assert this over and over and over again, it does not make it correct.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> Oh no, by all means, post an the example of V to I in Phrygian using triads, thanks.


I think a triad built on B (B-D-F) in E phrygian sounds fine. It sounds minorish because it's a diminished, and the F is kind of b9-ish, and wants to resolve down to E; the D is heard as a b7 that wants to resolve up to E. It just sounds like a minor V to me, more than anything else.
You're welcome.


----------



## millionrainbows

My whole purpose in bringing up the harmonic use of modes is because it demonstrates that just about any scale or mode can be made to behave harmonically if triads are built on the scale steps. There are probably exceptions, or cases where this does not work as well.

Still, the tonal hierarchy exemplified by a scale, based on a harmonic model of internal relations of the scale members to tonic, which is where harmonic function is derived, has functions which are built-in. The fifth scale step, in relation to one, is still 2:3, and this is the closest, most consonant interval of our octave.

If the purpose of this thread is to clarify popular music, harmonically, then the strict modal thinking exhibited here is distracting from this purpose, and creating complicated, long-winded explanations which are actually counter to this purpose of clarity.

Oh, well, let 'em eat cake and listen to Metallica.


----------



## Torkelburger

Nevermind. It's no use.


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> I think a triad built on B (B-D-F) in E phrygian sounds fine. It sounds minorish because it's a diminished, and the F is kind of b9-ish, and wants to resolve down to E; the D is heard as a b7 that wants to resolve up to E. It just sounds like a minor V to me, more than anything else.
> You're welcome.


Doesn't sound near as good as the flat II, or even flat VII for that matter. Something doesn't sound quite right about it to my ears anyway. I think it's the B common tone.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> Except there is no g# in the mode. Also that is pretty over-reaching considering you are missing two chord tones. My vote is that it is not reinforced. Too bad your "practicality" doesn't allow to blow us all away with a sequenced example. Probably because it doesn't work.


Why on earth would I want to submit an actual example of music to you, after the way you have reacted to my previous posts?


Torkelburger said:


> I disagree that Phrygian is "dissonant".


Comparatively speaking, of course. Sonance is always relative, not absolute. In E Phrigian, there are the intervals E-F and B-C. In fact, the major scale itself is dissonant. "F" clashes with a C major chord, and C is dissonant if you are on a C major seventh chord. Avoid those notes in those contexts.


Torkelburger said:


> You were the one that made the statement "But V still functions as a V, regardless of its quality". I can only take your words at face value (shrug).


Yes, I did say that, and I still think that the scale step on the fifth scale degree is the most closely related of any possible interval to tonic, in terms of sonance.


Torkelburger said:


> Again, you said, "But V still functions as a V, regardless of its quality"
> Well, yes, because "dominant" refers to the fifth scale step, not a triad. I should have said "A dominant is still a dominant." The Roman numeral "V" does refer to a triad. But not necessarily a major or dom 7 triad. See my point?
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with that over-reaching theory.
> You're permitted to disagree with anything I say. Analysis of such things is not always a precise matter.
> 
> _millions said: "We do a similar thing with the diminished chord on vii (B-D-F) in the key of C, by considering it as an incomplete G7b9."_
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, well you're missing an extra chord tone in the first example (two total), so...no I'm not letting it slide.
> But this treatment of vii as an incomplete G7b9 (in C) is common knowledge. It's in Schoenberg's _Harmonlehre, _and also in Walter Piston's _Harmony._
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This only proves my initial point further. My initial point of there being a hierarchal function being achieved in modes to which you had a problem with. But the only way you can rebut it is by cheating and breaking the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me there. It's unclear what you are referring to.
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one to talk. You have the arrogance and nerve to post post #51 and then call me rude and unnecessary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think my post #51 was at all rude. I'm not even sure which part of it you are referring to. Your post #45 was rude before that.
> _At this point, Torkelburger's post appears to have been deleted. The posting format which Torkelberger is using, which does not include the normal "quote" info with my name, makes it necessary for me to search for my quotes in my original posts, in order to copy and paste them, for the sake of clarity. Otherwise, the responses to my posts would have no reference._
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's *quite* the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are used as chords (see Taggart's post earlier) and some of them, as I've given examples of already, serve a function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, but not always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Torkelburger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Milestones is a tune that has melody and chords strictly from a mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> Doesn't sound near as good as the flat II, or even flat VII for that matter. Something doesn't sound quite right about it to my ears anyway. I think it's the B common tone.


I agree that it's not the best solution, or the one I would use in a composition, but I am working within the restrictions of your assertion that a triad built on V in phrygian is unthinkable.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> My whole purpose in bringing up the harmonic use of modes is because it demonstrates that just about any scale or mode can be made to behave harmonically if triads are built on the scale steps. There are probably exceptions, or cases where this does not work as well.
> 
> Still, the tonal hierarchy exemplified by a scale, based on a harmonic model of internal relations of the scale members to tonic, which is where harmonic function is derived, has functions which are built-in. The fifth scale step, in relation to one, is still 2:3, and this is the closest, most consonant interval of our octave.
> 
> If the purpose of this thread is to clarify popular music, harmonically, then the strict modal thinking exhibited here is distracting from this purpose, and creating complicated, long-winded explanations which are actually counter to this purpose of clarity.
> 
> Oh, well, let 'em eat cake and listen to Metallica.


_As I said, my purpose is to assert that modes, or almost any scale, can be made to behave harmonically, if we build triads on each step, and that the functions of these triads are essentially the same as CP functions, generally speaking._


----------



## norman bates




----------



## Guest

Excellent! If I could have given a double-or-triple-like I would have done so.


----------



## Dim7

I'm disappointed. I expected him to say something like:

"Completely non-hierarchical music, as is implied by the term atonal, does not exist, never will, and never has, outside of music constructed without tones.

Any music that rests on the basis of organization, whether serial, tonal, modal, or anything else, will generate centricity and hierarchy by means of emphasis and repetition. "


----------



## millionrainbows

A major scale contains 6 fifths: C-G/D-A/E-B/F-C/G-D/ and A/E. 
The scale step/mode Torkelburger wants to dispute is the only exception, since the triad built on it is the tritone B-F. This is not a good candidate to build a triad on, since it is unstable; and it does not exhibit a tendency to 'resolve' to any particular chord, since it is diminished.
Still, this does not completely invalidate or negate my assertion that, generally speaking, triads can be built on the scale steps of any mode, and be given a function.
Peter Schat has already done this with his Tone Clock. if you are not bothered by dissonant triads (it probably wouldn't work in a restaurant setting).
This is a typical internet strategy; to invalidate a general truth by pointing out the one exception.


----------



## Che2007

To return to popular music and the way harmony works within it...

The theorizing in the academic field is pretty ***** - there was a fad of applying Schenker which shows nothing interesting. There are a few simple paradigms you just learn (like I bVI III bVII) that are used as signposts. It very much depends on the style though. Functionality in heavy rock is totally different from bluegrass.


----------



## norman bates

it's strange to notice that while our ear can often feel the harmonic language of popular music as "natural" and perfectly understandable at the same time on a theoric level everything seems complex, vague and uncertain like the discussion was about string theory or something like that.


----------



## Che2007

norman bates said:


> it's strange to notice that while our ear can often feel the harmonic language of popular music as "natural" and perfectly understandable at the same time on a theoric level everything seems complex, vague and uncertain like the discussion was about string theory or something like that.


I don't think it is that it is theoretically complex. I think it just a bit simple, so the need for theorizing is limited. Often if you look closely at popular music styles everything is explainable up front without much recourse to a deeper comparison with other logical outlets. That is why the academic work in that area often sucks, it tries to over compensate for the paucity of compositional wit.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> To return to popular music and the way harmony works within it...


Yes, I apologize for that lengthy diversion.



Che2007 said:


> The theorizing in the academic field is pretty ***** - there was a fad of applying Schenker which shows nothing interesting. There are a few simple paradigms you just learn (like I bVI III bVII) that are used as signposts. It very much depends on the style though. Functionality in heavy rock is totally different from bluegrass.


There is not much purpose in doing harmonic analysis of rock or bluegrass. Transcribing solos would be a much more rewarding and meaningful pursuit.

Tell us some more about 'functionality in heavy rock.'


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> it's strange to notice that while our ear can often feel the harmonic language of popular music as "natural" and perfectly understandable at the same time on a theoric level everything seems complex, vague and uncertain like the discussion was about string theory or something like that.


Applying this to what has happened in this thread, yes, the analysis of popular and jazz music should be straightforward and understandable. The problem is that in the context of this classical music forum, we have two conflicting sets of definitions and paradigms.

If you will recall, the question in the OP was "inviting" comparisons of popular music to CP tonality, and asking to analyze popular music in terms of CP tonality. As you can see, this always leads to endless debates over definitions of basic terms like tonality and modality, since these terms have very specific historical and academic meanings which apply only to those historic genres.

Here is the OP, in case anyone forgot:



Dim7 said:


> How much does it differ from CP tonality? How "functional" (whatever that means!) it is? I don't think the V-I cadence is actually all that important for "establishing tonality" in popular music. I mean, I guess it's fairly common to end a piece/section with those chords but I think that's more likely just a consequence of them both being major chords in the key (and major chords are popular). According to this, it is equally common to precede the I chord with the IV chord (actually a bit more common in fact!).
> 
> Also in the minor keys, while the major V chord and the leading tone is certainly , my intuition says that it is also common to use only natural minor through the song. That would be quite un-CP. Am I wrong?


In order to properly analyze or assess popular music or jazz, the strict CP definitions have to be set aside, and the more generalized definitions of tonality and modality, which are perfectly legitimate (see Harvard Dictionary of Music) need to be used, or endless debates over "string theory" (as you put it) will emerge.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Tell us some more about 'functionality in heavy rock.'


OK! In a paper I wrote about Nirvana's Tourettes I drew on some research which basically argues that the distortion of the guitar is providing a similar social effect as that of the over extended voice. It mediates performer's expression of barely controllable emotion/power/affect. So that distortion is an overblowing of the system. As far as functionality goes, the power chord really isn't just a root 5th, there is a lot more going on in its high energy frequency profile. Instead it is a unit in its own right. To my mind this unit is like a filling out of pitch, so the melodic context of a riff is more important than the harmonic. HOWEVER, a major caveat to this is the use of chord extensions (9th, 11ths, 13ths etc.) which do find there way into some styles. Generally this is an effect (playing with the spectrum of the sound to suggest more pronounced richness i.e. a fatter sound) but in some cases there are resolutions of these tones which again should lead our attention to counterpoint... However, the riff is generally the most important touchstone and these often fall into particular paradigms like I mentioned, or they emphasize affective intervals (tritone, minor third and semitone) while making hints toward sequences.

There is another whole element to think about (particularly in bands that consider themselves to be virtuosic) there is often recourse to CP tonality for example 80s hair metal bands, shred acts like Paul Gilbert or retro acts like Symphony X.

Aside from heavy rock and metal I find bands like Radiohead, My Bloody Valentine or Dirty Projectors interesting. However, if you look closely you generally find the chordal language is pretty prosaic with typical melodic embellishments providing passing interest.


----------



## norman bates

Che2007 said:


> I don't think it is that it is theoretically complex. I think it just a bit simple, so the need for theorizing is limited. Often if you look closely at popular music styles everything is explainable up front without much recourse to a deeper comparison with other logical outlets. That is why the academic work in that area often sucks, it tries to over compensate for the paucity of compositional wit.


well, I've put some examples in the previous pages of pieces that I find interesting so if you want to help me I'd really appreciate it. Anyway I have the impression that even apparently simple stuff has aspect that are not so obvious (at least to an ignorant like me), for instance the microtonal intervals of the blues. Here in the first part of this video an idea of what I'm saying, and perfectly clear in the example at 2:00 where he plays the same lick with and without microtonal bendings.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> OK! In a paper I wrote about Nirvana's Tourettes I drew on some research which basically argues that the distortion of the guitar is providing a similar social effect as that of the over extended voice. It mediates performer's expression of barely controllable emotion/power/affect. So that distortion is an overblowing of the system. As far as functionality goes, the power chord really isn't just a root 5th, there is a lot more going on in its high energy frequency profile. Instead it is a unit in its own right. To my mind this unit is like a filling out of pitch, so the melodic context of a riff is more important than the harmonic..


I agree with you here. Lots of hard rock is riff-based, usually outlining the blues-derived pentatonic scale; so all the "progression" is really doing is outlining a melodic riff. This is more melodic and rhythmic based than it is harmonic. Still, many times there is a skeletal harmonic framework, which, while outlining a melodic figure or riff, is also going to diffferent root stations ans implying chord changes. The fifth is often used to give the riff some stability and "harmonic meat."

I see rock music as sharing characteristics (in a harmonic sense) from these sources, depending on the species of rock:
*American popular song and folk, country:* conventional harmonic song structures derived from folk or pop, gives us The Beach Boys, Elto John, The Beatles (when they are folky), light rock, melodic, and usually traditionally harmonic. 
*Blues:* use of the pentatonic blues scale, gives us Chuck Berry, harder rock like The Rolling Stones, Lerd Zeppelin, highly rhythmic.
Hard rock eventually took the pentatonic/blues influence and removed itself from the blues connection, morphing into Deep Purple, Spooky Tooth, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, etc.


----------



## Che2007

norman bates said:


> well, I've put some examples in the previous pages of pieces that I find interesting so if you want to help me I'd really appreciate it. Anyway I have the impression that even apparently simple stuff has aspect that are not so obvious (at least to an ignorant like me), for instance the microtonal intervals of the blues. Here in the first part of this video an idea of what I'm saying, and perfectly clear in the example at 2:00 where he plays the same lick with and without microtonal bendings.


Nice example! I have seen Guthrie Govan live, he is a really accomplished player! I saw him just after he had released Erotic Cakes, it was super fun!

As far as the microtonal inflection goes, I think it is just that - inflection. The underlying pitch structure is still pentatonic but the bends add colour. It is a bit like a jazz player pushing ahead of or dragging behind the beat - it is an expressive means. I don't think the blues really has some extra theoretical underpinnings to its micro-tonal language... There has been some articles suggesting that the blues inflections might better represent the flat 7th: I am not sold on that at all. But I do think it is an enjoyable expressive form! I will check out your examples!


----------



## Che2007

norman bates said:


> __
> https://soundcloud.com/gavezdois%2Fp23-amor-bom
> (it starts at 1:43)


So this one is taking advantage of dominant tonic sequences. The added extensions give colour and take part in some chromatic voice leading. It is very nice to listen to - I particularly enjoy the augmented triad sonority at the beginning of the song! If you are a guitarist you can go about making progressions like this quite simply - learn your ii V I progressions, then embellish them with 7ths, 9ths, etc and look for voice leading connections between the extensions! It sounds great and is a fun musical exercise!



>


Same as above... It is mostly elaborated cadence progressions and sequences. Nice tune, I like his voice!



>


For me there isn't a great deal of functional harmony going on here. A lot of the chords you are hearing may be thought of as elaborations of a melodic line rather than arising from the implicit counterpoint of harmony. I think that is part of the humorous/satirical effect however, to juxtapose sounds against each other in that manner. Zappa must have been proud of those guys!



> the track swords of gold
> http://citizenfreak.com/titles/317971-copeland-beverly-st


I think we are starting to stray away from pop! Sounds like an early Debussy song to me... These progressions are pretty tonal, a lot of use of the French Augmented 6th sonority to my ear (I may be mistaken on one listening). Take a listen to the very beginning and the end, I would say these are both examples of melodically elaborated augmented triads. Again, good example!



>


Broken link.



>


The overt experimentation here leads me to think Buckley isn't thinking of harmony or tonality at all! If you want to have a think about analytical methodologies for this kind of music you might look into the recent rash of published articles updating Pierre Schaeffer's theories, for example the work of Lasse Thorensen or Dennis Smalley.



>


One of my professors at my first uni did his PhD on Stevie Wonder - a guy called Tim Hughes. The main riff is standard fare, an A minor pentatonic grove (A,G,E,E,A,G,G,D,E,E). The "Too high, Too high, I never want to come down" melody is actually a descending whole tone scale starting on F and leading us back down toward A on which the main riff resumes. To my mind this an elaboration and prolongation of F as a cover tone to E (the upper fifth of A). The whole tone scale works because it has the common tone of A (the tonic) with the A minor riff. On to the chorus "her worlds a superficial paradise" the harmony there is something like i7add6, I6/5, bVII, I, #vi4/2, iv4/2, V/IV (<-- by ear through a laptop don't hate me if I am wrong!). That all seems pretty sensible to me, you get the bVII as is common in pop, plus you get the chromatic 3rd relations in the second iteration though a bit concealed by the roman numerals. From the #vi to iv is a chromatic 3rd (an M in Kopp's notation) and when we move onto V/IV the top three voices move down to a diminished triad on C# (a pseudo M) but the bass drops down to A which might be unexpected. It is taking advantage of the backwards relating dominant relationship to iv. Again we can note the symmetrical descent from a cover tone of E to the resumption of the riff (this time from F# #vi).



>


There is very little going on here that isn't melodic, it is almost totally tonally inert ie. it just stays in place around C major. At 1.46 you hear a very prosaic sequence and then it returns to C. All the noodling around with semitone relations and microtonal shifts are just embellishments to my ear. Nothing is really happening.

I hope you found all that interesting! Ask me if you have any questions...


----------



## norman bates

Che2007 said:


> There is very little going on here that isn't melodic, it is almost totally tonally inert ie. it just stays in place around C major. At 1.46 you hear a very prosaic sequence and then it returns to C. All the noodling around with semitone relations and microtonal shifts are just embellishments to my ear. Nothing is really happening.
> 
> I hope you found all that interesting! Ask me if you have any questions...


thank you! Anyway I'm less convinced about what you're saying about this last one (I have to say that I hear something microtonal going on also in the Residents's piece). Sure there aren't modulations but that means that microtonal music in general does not deserve any further explaination? I'm not really satisfied by the idea that a change of pitch like in the blues it's only a banal embellishment. Do you mean that also traditions like Maqam music does not deserve a serious analysis?


----------



## Che2007

norman bates said:


> thank you! Anyway I'm less convinced about what you're saying about this last one (I have to say that I hear something microtonal going on also in the Residents's piece). Sure there aren't modulations but that means that microtonal music in general does not deserve any further explaination? I'm not really satisfied by the idea that a change of pitch like in the blues it's only a banal embellishment. Do you mean that also traditions like Maqam music does not deserve a serious analysis?


Full disclosure: I am very interested in microtonal music as a research avenue, so it isn't that I don't take microtonality with due seriousness!

As for that last piece, the reason I say there isn't much going on is I am looking at it from a perspective of tonality/harmony etc. Of course, the slow glissandos are an important part of the music, and constitute most of what sets it apart as a unique piece. To my ear the glissandos mark progression from tonal pitch to another and don't set up any microtonal system particularly.

Listening again to the Residents piece, the inflections of the voice seem to be humorous replication of certain speech types. Most of the instruments are 12tone tuned, so I am again not sure the inflections really serve any structural/functional role other than distinction, elaboration and expression... You could study this further but it isn't really an area of research I am much interested in.

Both those pieces (and the blues) are very different to Maqams. The tuning of Maqams have a long history of explication and are a distinctive part of each players relationship to the past (this has been eroded however since 24edo was adopted at a great number of conservatories...) The selection of pitches has an intellectual history stretching back to Greek genera. Plus, the modulation throughout a performance dramatically sets tuning differences of single pitches against one another across a piece. In that way the tuning plays an active role in expression (just as in blues to some extent) but also plays a functional role in the music too (something I don't think blues inflection does).

As for a taster of what I find interesting when it comes to tuning and microtonality: I have written papers on La Monte Young, Ben Johnston (hopefully I will conference the Johnston soon!) and Gerard Grisey. I am currently working on a paper on Lee Fraser's piece Threws and Limbs which messes around with pitch space (along with every other parameter). I also find different approximations of just intonations interesting as well as Ancient Greek tunings and 18th Century temperaments.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Here is a link to Forte's thoughts on this, and please bear in mind that he is the most respected music theorist of our time.


Lewin, Perle, Schachter, Hepokowski, Cone, Krebs, Caplin, Aldwell, Babbitt, Clough, Sethares, Lerdahl, Harrison, THE LIST COULD GO ON

I have read plenty of articles by Allan Forte which weren't worth the paper they were written on...


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> In blues, and much rock, I, IV, and V are all b7 chords. They don't need to resolve. This is based on African scales which used a flatter, more stable-sounding "harmonic seventh" which did not need resolving. This carried over into blues and jazz.


Have you got a citation for this? I am not sure I believe you and would like to see the paper/book/article/whatever this came from.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> I think this entire "thrilling" interchange underscores the incompatability of academia and practical music-making. Academic definitions and concepts are self-serving, and are not general enough, or flexible enough, to be applicable to most popular music, or especially music which was composed "by ear" or in the recording studio, without written score.


You might like to sit down with some of the professors who have taught me about pop and try to convince them of that...


----------



## Che2007

Torkelburger said:


> The flat II7 is called a "substitute dominant".


Most often it is called a tritone sub...


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> *American popular song and folk, country:* conventional harmonic song structures derived from folk or pop, gives us... ...Elton John,


Interestingly enough Elton John studied at a young age at the Royal Academy of Music in London. His songs obviously have a lot of american influence but you also get a whiff of the romantics in some of his pieces.


----------



## norman bates

Che2007 said:


> Full disclosure: I am very interested in microtonal music as a research avenue, so it isn't that I don't take microtonality with due seriousness!
> 
> As for that last piece, the reason I say there isn't much going on is I am looking at it from a perspective of tonality/harmony etc. Of course, the slow glissandos are an important part of the music, and constitute most of what sets it apart as a unique piece. To my ear the glissandos mark progression from tonal pitch to another and don't set up any microtonal system particularly.
> 
> Listening again to the Residents piece, the inflections of the voice seem to be humorous replication of certain speech types. Most of the instruments are 12tone tuned


yes, I was thinking more of the part with the sax, like at the end of the piece. Anyway thank you very much for your very kind and interesting reply, I'm tempted to ask something more about some jazz piece (I'm not sure if that "tonality of popular music" includes jazz music) but I don't want to bore you more.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Have you got a citation for this? I am not sure I believe you and would like to see the paper/book/article/whatever this came from.


Ok, che2007, I did some work for you. I really don't have time for this kind of research, since I already know this information, and I do not feel like arguing about it, just in case.

I don't know of any explicit references which state "in one short sentence" that this is why blues progressions use flat sevenths on I, IV and V; this is my own conclusion, gathered from the sources you see below. Look up in WIK:

1. harmonic seventh

2. blue notes

3. harmonic seventh chord

The WIK entry under "blue notes" has a reference to "harmonic seventh" at the bottom.

Unlike the CP 7th chord, which wants to resolve down the harmonic seventh does not exhibit the need to resolve, and is recognized as stable.

From Wik, under "harmonic seventh:"

When this flatter seventh is used, the dominant seventh chord's "need to resolve" down a fifth is weak or non-existent. This chord is often used on the tonic (written as I7) and functions as a "fully resolved" final chord.
Wik, "harmonic seventh chord:"

The *harmonic seventh chord* is a major triad plus the harmonic seventh interval (ratio of 7:4, about 968.826 cents[SUP][1][/SUP]). This interval is somewhat narrower (about 48.77 cents, a septimal quarter tone) and is "sweeter in quality" than an "ordinary"[SUP][2][/SUP] minor seventh, which has a just-intonation ratio of 9:5[SUP][3][/SUP] (1017.596 cents), or an equal-temperament ratio of 1000 cents (2[SUP]5/6[/SUP]:1). Frequent use of this chord is one of the defining characteristics of blues and barbershop harmony; barbershoppers refer to it as "the barbershop seventh". Since barbershop music tends to be sung in just intonation, the barbershop seventh chord may be accurately termed a harmonic seventh chord. The harmonic seventh chord is also widely used in "blues flavored" music.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] As guitars, pianos, and other equal-temperament instruments cannot play this chord, it is frequently approximated by a dominant seventh chord. As a result it is often called a dominant seventh chord and written with the same symbols (such as the blues progression I7 - V7 - IV7).


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> You might like to sit down with some of the professors who have taught me about pop and try to convince them of that...


I think it's great that you had professors who were flexible and open to discussion. If you would read the earlier parts of this thread, you will see that this is not the case in this forum.

The discussion was constantly bogged-down by inflexible definitions of modality, and a general tendency to be argumentative.

One's approach to music theory and analysis, notions of function, and definitions of modes and tonality must be flexible and general enough to apply to popular music.

I'm sure I wouldn't have had the same problems with them, so consider yourself lucky in this regard.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, che2007, I did some work for you. I really don't have time for this kind of research, since I already know this information, and I do not feel like arguing about it, just in case.
> 
> I don't know of any explicit references which state "in one short sentence" that this is why blues progressions use flat sevenths on I, IV and V; this is my own conclusion, gathered from the sources you see below. Look up in WIK:
> 
> 1. harmonic seventh
> 
> 2. blue notes
> 
> 3. harmonic seventh chord
> 
> The WIK entry under "blue notes" has a reference to "harmonic seventh" at the bottom.
> 
> Unlike the CP 7th chord, which wants to resolve down the harmonic seventh does not exhibit the need to resolve, and is recognized as stable.
> 
> From Wik, under "harmonic seventh:"
> 
> When this flatter seventh is used, the dominant seventh chord's "need to resolve" down a fifth is weak or non-existent. This chord is often used on the tonic (written as I7) and functions as a "fully resolved" final chord.
> Wik, "harmonic seventh chord:"
> 
> The *harmonic seventh chord* is a major triad plus the harmonic seventh interval (ratio of 7:4, about 968.826 cents[SUP][1][/SUP]). This interval is somewhat narrower (about 48.77 cents, a septimal quarter tone) and is "sweeter in quality" than an "ordinary"[SUP][2][/SUP] minor seventh, which has a just-intonation ratio of 9:5[SUP][3][/SUP] (1017.596 cents), or an equal-temperament ratio of 1000 cents (2[SUP]5/6[/SUP]:1). Frequent use of this chord is one of the defining characteristics of blues and barbershop harmony; barbershoppers refer to it as "the barbershop seventh". Since barbershop music tends to be sung in just intonation, the barbershop seventh chord may be accurately termed a harmonic seventh chord. The harmonic seventh chord is also widely used in "blues flavored" music.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] As guitars, pianos, and other equal-temperament instruments cannot play this chord, it is frequently approximated by a dominant seventh chord. As a result it is often called a dominant seventh chord and written with the same symbols (such as the blues progression I7 - V7 - IV7).


None of that explains why you wrote that the harmonic 7th chord was a descendent of "African scales". I don't think that is true.

Also, I am not convinced that a justly tuned 7 chord complete negates the need for resolution. I don't really see why that would be so? It isn't the beats in a chord that makes us want it to resolve, it is our conceptualization of expectation. For example a maj7 harmony can very well behave as a harmonic goal in late romantic music or later but that should be beaty as hell. Also, the dom7 harmony that is treated as a consonance in blues is most often tempered so it acts as a place of repose but it is beaty and not justly tuned. I don't see why justly intoning a dom7 chord is going to make it innately a place to rest.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> None of that explains why you wrote that the harmonic 7th chord was a descendent of "African scales". I don't think that is true.


I said that this was my own conclusion, and cited my sources. I never said that these sources explicitly prove my conclusion. You are free to come to whatever conclusion you want.


Che2007 said:


> Also, I am not convinced that a justly tuned 7 chord complete negates the need for resolution. I don't really see why that would be so?(sic)


It's not my job to convince you of that. It says so in the Wik entry. I can't do more.



Che2007 said:


> It isn't the beats in a chord that makes us want it to resolve, it is our conceptualization of expectation.


Dissonance is what calls for resolution. Dissonance is beats. Concepts are ideas in your brain.

Conversely, what makes a chord _'not want to resolve' _and be stable is its harmonic consonance.

Additionally, the African pentatonic used this harmonic seventh. Are you saying that the blues is not derived from African music? Good luck with that theory.



Che2007 said:


> For example a maj7 harmony can very well behave as a harmonic goal in late romantic music or later but that should be beaty as hell.


That's an unclear response. Dissonance does matter. That's why we have resolution. The maj seventh chord in jazz treats "8" or the tonic as a dissonance, and it resolves down to the maj 7. (See Dan Haerle, The Jazz Language).



Che2007 said:


> Also, the dom7 harmony that is treated as a consonance in blues is most often tempered so it acts as a place of repose but it is beaty and not justly tuned.


You must not have read my post. Our tempered scale made this dom 7 substitution necessary.



Che2007 said:


> I don't see why justly intoning a dom7 chord is going to make it innately a place to rest.


 It's already been explained.

I'm not going to go over these citations twice and explain them to you again.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> (I said this doesn't give evidence that African Scales lead to use of dom7ths as a stable harmony)I said that this was my own conclusion, and cited my sources. I never said that these sources explicitly prove my conclusion. You are free to come to whatever conclusion you want.


Here are some sources for you: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513185?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - Musical Scales in Central Africa and Java

"This apparent contradiction does not appear to be inherent in the Central African system or in the experimental results, but rather in a Western definition of consonance. This definition is refuted by the practices of these musicians [Central African Xylophone players], who tune their xylophones by following adjacent intervals, step by step. Our experimentation verified that "perfect" consonances are not a constituent of a Central African concept of the scale. These musicians do not judge a strict octave (1200 cents) to be better than a large major seventh (1150) or a small minor ninth (1250). On the contrary, the Banda Linda musicians prefer the small "octave" (1150 cents) in any register, probably because of the roughness it creates on the octave that are always plays simultaneously with double sticks in each hand." (From the article)

So it seems that the idea of a harmonic 7th or even that sound wouldn't be privileged in the Central African system. Instead the roughness of an interval is prized, precisely the opposite of the aesthetic of blended 4:5:6:7 chord that you were saying are descendant from "African Scales".

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30249468?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - An Assessment of African Scales

Take a look at page 19 where it gives some African scales (of a range of local origins) in cents. I don't see that these scales have prominent b7s...



> Dissonance is what calls for resolution. Dissonance is beats. Concepts are ideas in your brain.


That is very positivist and naturalist of you. I don't agree. A justly tuned 4:5:6 chord on the 5th of the scale still wants to resolve. There are no audible beats there. I think it wants to resolve because of our practice, habit, learning and conceptualization.



> Additionally, the African pentatonic used this harmonic seventh. Are you saying that the blues is not derived from African music? Good luck with that theory.


Firstly, there is no one "African Pentatonic". In case you haven't noticed Africa is an enormous continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, to what scale you are referring is obscure to me. Secondly, I had a good read around and I couldn't find a single reference to the b7 as a distinctive interval of scales of an African source. I will be happy to climb down if you can show me an example, but as it stands I am unconvinced.



> Dissonance does matter. That's why we have resolution. The maj seventh chord in jazz treats "8" or the tonic as a dissonance, and it resolves down to the maj 7. (See Dan Haerle, The Jazz Language).


By that standard, it isn't discordance (beats) that creates dissonance then? (fair enough, I agree) Have you heard of the phrase "hoist by his own petard"?



> Our tempered scale made this dom 7 substitution necessary.


Yep, I was just pointing out that it isn't the concordance of the dom7 that makes it a resting place in that music if it is tempered.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> So, to what scale you are referring is obscure to me. Secondly, I had a good read around and I couldn't find a single reference to the b7 as a distinctive interval of scales of an African source. I will be happy to climb down if you can show me an example, but as it stands I am unconvinced.


From *Blues, Wik:*
Much of the time, some or all of these chords are played in the harmonic seventh (7th) form. The use of the harmonic seventh interval is characteristic of blues and is popularly called the "blues seven".Blues seven chords add to the harmonic chord a note with a frequency in a 7:4 ratio to the fundamental note. At a 7:4 ratio, it is not close to any interval on the conventional Western diatonic scale. For convenience or by necessity it is often approximated by a minor seventh interval or a dominant seventh chord.

~*Blues* is a genre and musical form that originated in African-American communities in the "Deep South" of the United States around the end of the 19th century. *The genre is a fusion of traditional African music *and European folk music, spirituals, work songs, field hollers, shouts and chants, and rhymed simple narrative ballads.

You seem to be trying to disassociate the blues from its African origins. What is your motivation to do this?


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Musical Scales in Central Africa and Java
> ...it seems that the idea of a harmonic 7th or even that sound wouldn't be privileged in the Central African system. Instead the roughness of an interval is prized, precisely the opposite of the aesthetic of blended 4:5:6:7 chord that you were saying are descendant from "African Scales".
> Take a look at page 19 where it gives some African scales (of a range of local origins) in cents. I don't see that these scales have prominent b7s...


In case you haven't noticed Africa is an _*enormous*_ continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, the specific scales you are referring which* do not contain b7s* applies *only* to this small area of Africa, I would assume.


Che2007; said:


> That is very positivist and naturalist of you. I don't agree. A justly tuned 4:5:6 chord on the 5th of the scale still wants to resolve. There are no audible beats there. I think it wants to resolve because of our practice, habit, learning and conceptualization.


You're trying to apply "resolve," a CP concept, to a "just" chord which doesn't exist in our system.

The only reason our seventh resolves is because of that b7's place in the scale hierarchy as a fourth, .which resolves to 3 (F to E in C).

A major pentatonic has no 4th degree. The 4th degree is an inherent, built-in dissonance of the C major scale.



Che2007; said:


> Firstly, there is no one "African Pentatonic".


I never said there was_* just one.*_ In case you haven't noticed Africa is an _*enormous*_ continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, the particular small, insignificant group of pentatonic scales you are referring which* do not contain b7s* probably applies *only* to this small area of Africa, unless you can prove it with sources.



Che2007; said:


> I had a good read around and I couldn't find a single reference to the b7 as a distinctive interval of scales of an African source. I will be happy to climb down if you can show me an example, but as it stands I am unconvinced.


Apparently, you have a problem with harmonic seventh chords being_* cited *_as being used in blues, and* it seems that you doubt the premise that the blues is traceable to African origins.* What on* earth *is your agenda for wanting to sever the African roots of blues and jazz? Do you think that the origins of these forms *do not rightlfully belong to the African Americans who developed these forms?*


Che2007; said:


> By that standard, it isn't discordance (beats) that creates dissonance then? (fair enough, I agree) Have you heard of the phrase "hoist by his own petard"?


What is a petard, some kind of thong?


Che2007 said:


> Yep, I was just pointing out that it isn't the concordance of the dom7 that makes it a resting place in that music if it is tempered.


But that's where the use of dom 7s in blues on I and IV, as well as V, came from. I7 and IV7 are not CP functions within a home key, unless you plan to modulate, possibly.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007: Do you think dom7s want to resolve because of consonance/dissonance, or because the 7th is the fourth scale degree in a major scale? Which one is more essential?


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be trying to disassociate the blues from its African origins. What is your motivation to do this?


Why do you say that? All I have demonstrated is that your statement "dom7ths are used as stable harmonies as a descendent of harmonic b7s in the African Pentatonic" is wrong. That has nothing to do with the origins of Blues.

For the record there is a very simple explanation for the planar use of dom7ths in Blues. In a great many sub-Saharan African music traditions triads are used as extensions of a melody and are used in parallel. So when the dominant 7th chord reached Blues (through whatever means but I think it is to do with the European influence in America) it was natural to those musicians to treat it in a planar way.

I was taught that at high-school. It is pretty common knowledge.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> In case you haven't noticed Africa is an _*enormous*_ continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, the specific scales you are referring which* do not contain b7s* applies *only* to this small area of Africa, I would assume.


Why don't you go and read about it instead of blindly ignoring those sources and just assuming they don't apply to what you are talking about?



> You're trying to apply "resolve," a CP concept, to a "just" chord which doesn't exist in our system.


Except it does - you hear it for example in the final two chords a acapella piece. Go listen to a choir! They will often justly tune chords that are held for a long time. It still sounds like a cadence. The dominant still resolves. I mean jeez! I can sit down at my keyboard and play a justly tuned V-I cadence. It is hardly completely alien.



> I never said there was_* just one.*_[African Pentatonic]


So how was a meant to take it when you said "the African Pentatonic"?



> So, the particular small, insignificant group of pentatonic scales you are referring which* do not contain b7s* probably applies *only* to this small area of Africa, unless you can prove it with sources.


Which small area? Have you read either of those articles yet? As I said, I will happily climb down if you can show me any evidence of what you claim. Yet to see any though... Strange.



> [/B] What on* earth *is your agenda for wanting to sever the African roots of blues and jazz? Do you think that the origins of these forms *do not rightlfully belong to the African Americans who developed these forms?*


I never said that and I would guess you know that. Get back to the substance of the discussion.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Che2007: Do you think dom7s want to resolve because of consonance/dissonance, or because the 7th is the fourth scale degree in a major scale? Which one is more essential?


Short answer, no one actually knows. My guess: since the b7 historically arose as a passing motion between the root of the V and the 3rd of the I it was a smoothing out of voice-leading. So I would say it resolves down because of counterpoint, instead of either discordance or its position as the 4th degree (although those are both important factors in this motion).


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Short answer, no one actually knows. My guess: since the b7 historically arose *as a passing motion between the root of the V and the 3rd of the I *it was a smoothing out of voice-leading. So I would say it resolves down because of counterpoint, instead of either discordance or its position as the 4th degree (although those are both important factors in this motion).


That's very vague, and tells me nothing. BTW, are you sure about that bolded part?


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> That's very vague, and tells me nothing. BTW, are you sure about that bolded part?


Yes, try reading one of the myriad of books about the history of counterpoint, harmony or theory that are available across libraries and book shops.


----------



## millionrainbows

All harmonic idioms in popular music are tonal, and none is without function.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> All harmonic idioms in popular music are tonal, and none is without function.


Do you consider bitonality as functional harmony?


----------



## millionrainbows

Bitonality is defined as the use of two keys at once. Whenever I've heard what I think is 'bitonality' was more an effect, such as a trumpet playing "taps" in one key, with a different tonality under it, to give the effect of a 'disconnect,' such as in Ives. Other than that, some theorists say that the concept itself is not that substantial, and I tend to agree. Check Darius Milhaud, they say he was bitonal.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Bitonality is defined as the use of two keys at once. Whenever I've heard what I think is 'bitonality' was more an effect, such as a trumpet playing "taps" in one key, with a different tonality under it, to give the effect of a 'disconnect,' such as in Ives. Other than that, some theorists say that the concept itself is not that substantial, and I tend to agree. Check Darius Milhaud, they say he was bitonal.


I know what it is, but since it's used often in popular music I'm asking if you consider it in some way functional harmony


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't know what it is. Yes, I suppose. They said The Beach Boys used bitonality, but I don't hear it that way.


----------



## millionrainbows

When analyzing jazz or popular music, use terms like "Dorian minor scale" instead of "Dorian mode" to avoid confusion.

Almost any scale can be 'harmonized' by building triads on the scale steps, and looking at the resulting function. Some scales might not be good for this, such as the Locrian scale, which has no major triad on I, or the Phrygian scale, which has no stable triad on V.


----------



## Tricky Fish

The answer to all your questions lies in this clip:


----------



## tdc

I wonder how the chord at the start of the Stone Temple Pilots song Vaseline would be correctly analyzed...

The notes are (from low to high): Bb,A,D,E,G the song seems to be in the key of F.

edit - probably some form of the V7 as all the notes are there other than the root.


----------



## Mahlerian

Looks like a half diminished seventh on vii in second inversion with an A added.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I wonder how the chord at the start of the Stone Temple Pilots song Vaseline would be correctly analyzed...
> 
> The notes are (from low to high): Bb,A,D,E,G the song seems to be in the key of F.
> 
> edit - probably some form of the V7 as all the notes are there other than the root.


This is my take, without a guitar, and I don't have a pitch reference, but the riff is not playable in a first-fret F position on guitar or bass; look at the video when it shows their hands, and they're around the second fret, in an F# position. If it sounds as F, they are tuned down. That's the first thing you should have noticed if you wanted to play the song.
The opening chord also appears at the end, which is where I got my bearings. Whatever key this is in, that opening chord is a minor third above the root; so if it's in F#, that chord's root is on A.
As in most rock, a lot can be attributed to the pentatonic scale, so I don't see this chord as having a harmonic function so much as having a melodic function, of outlining the minor pentatonic F#-*A*-B-C#-E.


----------



## millionrainbows

Here's a question which never fails to start conflict: what is the opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night?"


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> This is my take, without a guitar, and I don't have a pitch reference, but the riff is not playable in a first-fret F position on guitar or bass; look at the video when it shows their hands, and they're around the second fret, in an F# position. If it sounds as F, they are tuned down. That's the first thing you should have noticed if you wanted to play the song.
> The opening chord also appears at the end, which is where I got my bearings. Whatever key this is in, that opening chord is a minor third above the root; so if it's in F#, that chord's root is on A.
> As in most rock, a lot can be attributed to the pentatonic scale, so I don't see this chord as having a harmonic function so much as having a melodic function, of outlining the minor pentatonic F#-*A*-B-C#-E.


The chord is not played anywhere near the low F (1st fret position), I said _the song _ seems to be in the key of F (which I _think_ it is - or is it in G? It's definitely not in F#) - not that the chord is played in 1st position. The chord is easily played on guitar in the 6th position, the notes are played *(low to high) 
Bb-X-A-D-G-E 
or

E-0
B-8
G-7
D-7
A-x
E-6

Aside from that chord the song is quite easy to figure out, there is not a lot to it. I admittedly had a hard time figuring the first chord out by ear which is why I looked at videos - there are many such as this:






where you can see the guitarist fretting that chord in the positioning as I've shown.

The song then goes between F and G single notes (with an occasional bend on G) leading into the chorus which is Eb 5-D5-C5-F5 back to verse riff of F and G. The bridge and outro are the intro chord again.

*Except on guitar the higher G rings out before that open E, 'low to high' here just referring to the guitar strings ie. "low E to high E".


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Here's a question which never fails to start conflict: what is the opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night?"


We've been over this one...

http://www.talkclassical.com/23738-what-opening-chord-hard.html


----------



## norman bates

Since the thread is still going, can I ask to those who have a good knowledge of theory a brief description of these pieces?


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> Since the thread is still going, can I ask to those who have a good knowledge of theory a brief description of these pieces?


All fine sounding pieces, (I'll refrain from comment on the theory behind this music - not really my area of expertise) however isn't this thread supposed to be about the tonality of _popular_ music?


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> All fine sounding pieces, (I'll refrain from comment on the theory behind this music - not really my area of expertise) however isn't this thread supposed to be about the tonality of _popular_ music?


I guess that many consider jazz popular music and after all a lot of jazz music is based on the songs of the great american songbook, and at the same time jazz has been a great influence on popular music (I've posted some brazilian tunes before) so it's easy to find pop tunes with jazzy chord changes ( old: 



 and more recent 



).
So yes, maybe someone could disagree that this isn't popular music but actually all popular music is a big grey area where you can find all sort of influences, as I've said it's a oversimplification to reduce it to the three chords songs or variations on the pachelbel's canon.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I guess that many consider jazz popular music and after all a lot of jazz music is based on the songs of the great american songbook, and at the same time jazz has been a great influence on popular music (I've posted some brazilian tunes before) so it's easy to find pop tunes with jazzy chord changes ( old:
> 
> 
> 
> and more recent
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> So yes, maybe someone could disagree that this isn't popular music but actually all popular music is a big grey area where you can find all sort of influences


A lot of classical is based on simple tunes, some of it has influenced popular music. What you posted is basically complex heavyweight jazz music, the kind of stuff I don't think most would confuse for pop. If that is pop then Bach and Mozart are also pop. I agree that it is easy to find pop with jazzy chord changes, (like The Beatles and STP) that is what I consider "popular music".



norman bates said:


> as I've said it's a oversimplification to reduce it to the three chords songs or variations on the pachelbel's canon.


But I think this is an oversimplification of what pop music is, there is plenty of stuff that goes beyond "3 chord songs", and plenty of stuff that I think is interesting to look at from a theoretical standpoint, for example some things by The Beatles, Zeppelin, or Paul Simon etc. (I don't consider variations on Pachelbel's Canon pop music).

What you've posted would also certainly be interesting to dissect theoretically I just don't think it is pop music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I consult the sheet music whenever possible. If I had to transcribe the stuff and make a lead sheet, I could, but that's work you should do for yourself. Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Herbie Nichols, all fairly advanced harmonically.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title...898422&pdv=c&gclid=CLWe0d-J-scCFQgHaQod6aoAWA


----------



## tdc

I think its an art form in itself to write a catchy pop tune that manages to stay interesting and convincing on repeated listens, by perhaps using some unorthodox elements or modulations, interesting harmonies etc. - something to elevate it above the mundane.

Miles Davis wanted Nile Rodgers to write some pop music for him to perform, as he admitted he was no good at composing pop music - he was good at jazz only.

Here is another example of some pop I find interesting musically. To my ears the tonal center seems to float around during the intro before anchoring as the verse kicks in.

The Smiths - _Stop Me If You Think That You`ve Heard This One Before_


----------



## millionrainbows

Miles Davis covered this song.

~


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

EDIT: I didn't realize this debate has been going on for 9 pages and everything I had to add had already been covered.


----------



## drfaustus

> To my ears, most pop, jazz, and rock music is not CP tonal. I'd describe it as modal, but not in the traditional sense.
> 
> By that I mean that the music is diatonic, but avoids reference to tonal function


This music is absolutely tonal.

*Pop* music only extends over I-IV-V-I with any variants.

*Rock* uses Lydian, Phrygian, etc and pentatonic scales. Several chords have a corresponding scale. It is the same in Jazz music.

*Jazz* music uses a lot of secondary fifths until to resolve in I. this music uses a lot of tension and dissonances. The usual chords are like this: C7,b9,11,13.

I hope to miss something interesting.


----------



## Mahlerian

Tonality is not based on scales, it is based on harmonic relationships. Common practice tonality is centered around specific harmonic relationships and ways of treating dissonance. Any music which, as you imply, deviates from these is not tonal in the same sense as Bach and Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Tonality is not based on scales, it is based on harmonic relationships. Common practice tonality is centered around specific harmonic relationships and ways of treating dissonance. Any music which, as you imply, deviates from these is not tonal in the same sense as Bach and Mozart.


Refer to the thread title. "Tonality" is being used in a general sense. Otherwise, the term "tonality of popular music" wouldn't make sense.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms




----------



## Dim7

Richannes Wrahms said:


>


Why not let boring topics die?


----------



## norman bates

drfaustus said:


> This music is absolutely tonal.
> 
> *Pop* music only extends over I-IV-V-I with any variants.
> 
> I hope to miss something interesting.


yes, if this is your idea of pop music you are missing a lot of interesting things.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


>


...and "zzz" to obfuscation.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> Why not let boring topics die?


Or why not go along with the thread topic, "Tonality of popular music" instead of foisting rigid definitions (not you, the other guy)? I know what the topic means.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> yes, if this is your idea of pop music you are missing a lot of interesting things.


Yeah, like The Beatles; flat-nines in Glass Onion, Strawberry Fields Forever, She's So Heavy, just to name a few examples. Apparently, John Lennon had quite a fondness for dominant flat-nine chords.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> We've been over this one...
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/23738-what-opening-chord-hard.html


Yes, I remember, but somebody posted a link to a cookie-cutter article which purported to have the answer. I read it, and was not satisfied. When I posted the thread, I was asking for individual opinions and answers, not "expert" scholarly articles which are not accurate, and are unclear as well.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I remember, but somebody posted a link to a cookie-cutter article which purported to have the answer. I read it, and was not satisfied. When I posted the thread, I was asking for individual opinions and answers, not "expert" scholarly articles which are not accurate, and are unclear as well.


I thought that article was quite clear, down to which players were supplying which notes on which instruments. What inaccuracies are you referring to?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I thought that article was quite clear, down to which players were supplying which notes on which instruments. What inaccuracies are you referring to?


You're not getting me. I want to know what you think, and do not want to use the article as a reference. I already said what I thought the chord was, based on careful listening.


----------



## Dim7

Basically pop music really likes the same four chords, I, IV, V and vi, whether the key is minor or major. Only whether the emphasis is on I or vi changes.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Basically pop music really likes the same four chords, I, IV, V and vi, whether the key is minor or major. Only whether the emphasis is on I or vi changes.


This is the kind of bizarre thinking that convinces me that society no longer understands tonality as its natural language. To say that this:

vi-IV-I-V

Is a progression based on vi is just wrong.

The only way this can be understood tonally centered on that first chord is as:

i-VI-III-VII

And from a common practice perspective, that's an extremely odd progression that doesn't clarify the key very well.


----------



## Dim7

Apparently it is however a very popular chord progression. Somebody even made a blog about it. Lol.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Apparently it is however a very popular chord progression. Somebody even made a blog about it. Lol.


Yeah. I always think of it as that progression that swamped 2000s movie scores. Still, saying it's "based on vi" is wrong-headed from the perspective of tonal theory.


----------



## Dim7

If your objecting to me saying that in minor keys it is vi instead of I that is emphasized (rather than talking about say i, III, VI, and VII), I did that deliberately to make it clear that in both major and minor it is often the same exact scale and chords. No disagreement that i-VI-III-VII would be an unusual chord progression from the perspective of 17th, 18th and 19th century tonality.


----------



## Mahlerian

But they are neither the same chords nor do they use the same scale from a tonal perspective. Tonality is a system based on the relationships between harmonies, not the collection of notes used.

Put simply, you can no more say that something is "based on vi" from a tonal point of view than you can claim that in a C major song that never modulates C can be thought of as IV because from the perspective of G major, it's IV. There are in fact some pop songs that only ever use the I and IV chords, just as in classical music there are those simple pieces or sections which use exclusively the I and V chords. These chords may have the same names in the right pair of keys, but they necessarily have a different relationship to each other, and tonality is about that relationship, not the names of the chords.


----------



## Dim7

The scales of C major and A natural minor are the same collection of notes. The triads C major, F major and G major and A minor are in a sense the same chords whether the center is perceived as A or C (they are "the same thing from a different perspective"). This is not a sophistic point, particularly because the perception of a centre can often be ambiguous/subjective.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> The scales of C major and A natural minor are the same collection of notes. The triads C major, F major and G major and A minor are in a sense the same chords whether the center is perceived as A or C (they are "the same thing from a different perspective"). This is not a sophistic point, particularly because the perception of a centre can often be ambiguous/subjective.


I didn't disagree with any of that.

I'm just saying it's not relevant from a tonal perspective.

The scales are not the same, though they contain the same notes (assuming the natural minor only, of course).

Of course a G major triad is G major whether it's V, IV, I, or anything else. But whether it's a G major triad isn't as important to the tonal identity as its relative relationship to the tonic.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> I didn't disagree with any of that.
> 
> I'm just saying it's not relevant from a tonal perspective.
> 
> The scales are not the same, though they contain the same notes (assuming the natural minor only, of course).
> 
> Of course a G major triad is G major whether it's V, IV, I, or anything else. But whether it's a G major triad isn't as important to the tonal identity as its relative relationship to the tonic.


I think it's not just the relationship to the tonic that is important, but the collection of notes/chords it appears in. So it's not strange if one perceives the F major triad in A natural minor and C major as similar.


----------



## Stavrogin

If I ever get to fully understand what you guys are talking about, I'll be happy.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I think it's not just the relationship to the tonic that is important, but the collection of notes/chords it appears in. So it's not strange if one perceives the F major triad in A natural minor and C major as similar.


It's not strange, perhaps, and it's probably quite common, given what I see commonly on the internet, but it's completely antithetical to the nature of tonality.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

The girl doesn't care what the chord is.

She cares about how you use it.


----------



## Dim7

SeptimalTritone said:


> The girl doesn't care what the chord is.
> 
> She cares about how you use it.


I'm here to impress other nerds, not girls!


----------



## millionrainbows

I have no idea where that progression came from, unless its a typo. To clear this up, it is a well-known fact that the typical rock/pop progression is I-vi-IV-V, which is the typical "doo-***" progression. Does this clarify the issue?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I have no idea where that progression came from, unless its a typo. To clear this up, it is a well-known fact that the typical rock/pop progression is I-vi-IV-V, which is the typical "doo-***" progression. Does this clarify the issue?


It got really, really common in pop music in the last decade.

eg










I'm sorry about those songs.

They have now started rearranging these chords. You can look at the U.S. Billboard top 40 and see.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> It got really, really common in pop music in the last decade.
> 
> eg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry about those songs.
> 
> They have now started rearranging these chords. You can look at the U.S. Billboard top 40 and see.


The first link is Beyoncé's "If I were a Boy." The chords are (if it's in A minor) A min-F maj-C maj G maj, which makes perfect sense harmonically.

The second link is: Vivir mi Vida by Marc Anthony. The chord progression is the same.

I don't understand what the problem is.

However, there is a basic difference in this and the "doo-***" progression: this newer stuff starts on a minor chord.

If you wanted to call the first chord the home key, then functionally, it would be:

i (mediant or tonic in minor)-bvi (flatted submediant)-III (major mediant in minor keys)-b7 (subtonic in minor keys).

Like many pop songs (Message in a Bottle comes to mind) the progression is ambiguous, because it is a repeating circle of relationships, not extended as in CP tonality. So the prog could be seen as in C, being vi-IV-I-V.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> The first link is Beyoncé's "If I were a Boy." The chords are vi-IV-I-V, which makes perfect sense harmonically.
> 
> The second link is: Vivir mi Vida by Marc Anthony. The chords are vi-IV-I-V, which also makes perfect harmonic sense.
> 
> I don't understand what the problem is.


But they're not in major keys. They're both in minor, so the real progression is oriented towards what you're calling vi, and is thus i-flVI-III-flVII, not vi-IV-I-V.

As I mentioned above, this progression also became a cliche in film scores at around the same time.


----------



## Dim7

isorhythm said:


> It got really, really common in pop music in the last decade.
> 
> eg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry about those songs.
> 
> They have now started rearranging these chords. You can look at the U.S. Billboard top 40 and see.


That's the problem with mentioning any examples when talking about pop music here - they are often so embarrasing


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> But they're not in major keys. They're both in minor, so the real progression is oriented towards what you're calling vi, and is thus i-flVI-III-flVII, not vi-IV-I-V.
> 
> As I mentioned above, this progression also became a cliche in film scores at around the same time.


Whoops! You missed my edit!


----------



## Dim7

I think the deceptive cadence of major keys (V - vi) has become a normal cadence of minor keys (VII - i) in pop music.


----------



## isorhythm

There's so little sense of function in that chord cycle that I'm not sure they're really "in" anything.

The Marc Antony song ends on the minor chord so I'd say i - VI - III- VII makes most sense.

The Beyonce song ends on VII (or V), with a fermata, sounding like it wants to resolve to III (or I). So actually vi - IV - I -V might be a better description there.

What is more interesting to me is why the pop music industry began repeating this particular chord cycle so obsessively around 2006.

There are of course earlier examples. I'll cop to liking this song as an angsty Midwestern teenager.


----------



## Dim7

isorhythm said:


> There's so little sense of function in that chord cycle that I'm not sure they're really "in" anything.


*
They are atonal!!!*


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> *
> They are atonal!!!*


I would say they're _not_ tonal, which never has meant the same thing as atonal anyway.


----------



## EdwardBast

Dim7 said:


> I think the deceptive cadence of major keys (V - vi) has become a normal cadence of minor keys (VII - i) in pop music.


flat-VII to I has been a normal cadence in rock and pop for a half century. Whether it is tonal or not …


----------



## millionrainbows

Many pop songs are circular and repetitive, so they do not stand up to CP Tonal analysis as chord progressions, but instead are "successions" of chords which are circular and to not lead to a definite goal. This is not _*bad;*_ it's simply that pop music, or folk, does not need a goal, and it is repetitive by nature.

"Every Breath You Take" by the Police is a good example of an ambiguous succession of chords: G-Em-C-D-Em/G-Em-C-D-G. So is it in Em or G? _Who knows, who cares, let's just dance. Here, take a hit off of this. Don't worry, we're in Colorado.

_This is an example of how different forms of music embody different lifestyles , ideologies, and worldviews. To analyze pop music in terms of CP Tonality, and implying that it "makes no sense" or is somehow deficient only reveals the absurdity of such a criticism.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> [/I]This is an example of how different forms of music embody different lifestyles , ideologies, and worldviews. To analyze pop music in terms of CP Tonality, and implying that it "makes no sense" or is somehow deficient only reveals the absurdity of such a criticism.


I've never meant to say any such thing. What I have said is that the way people sometimes think about these things as if the prototype for one's harmonic language is always the major scale even when a different center is emphasized makes no sense, not that the music doesn't.

If the music made no sense to people, I doubt that they would make it so popular in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I've never meant to say any such thing. What I have said is that the way people sometimes think about these things as if the prototype for one's harmonic language is always the major scale even when a different center is emphasized makes no sense, not that the music doesn't.
> 
> If the music made no sense to people, I doubt that they would make it so popular in the first place.


What about "diatonic function" in WIK? This does little to clarify your distinction between major and minor.

~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function


"Harmonic function essentially results from the judgment that certain chords and tonal combinations sound and behave alike, even though these individuals might not be analyzed into equivalent harmonic classes," for example V and VII.

"Harmonic function is more about...similarity than equivalence".


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> What about "diatonic function" in WIK? This does little to clarify your distinction between major and minor.
> 
> ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function
> 
> 
> "Harmonic function essentially results from the judgment that certain chords and tonal combinations sound and behave alike, even though these individuals might not be analyzed into equivalent harmonic classes," for example V and VII.
> 
> "Harmonic function is more about...similarity than equivalence".


I don't see how that supports your or any point. Yes, certain chords can behave as dominant, predominant, or mediant, and some of them are interchangeable in that one respect. These are not interchangeable with respect to their relationship with the tonic, though, and the diatonic functions really are not designed for music using the aeolian mode.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I don't see how that supports your or any point. Yes, certain chords can behave as dominant, predominant, or mediant, and some of them are interchangeable in that one respect. These are not interchangeable with respect to their relationship with the tonic, though, and the diatonic functions really are not designed for music using the aeolian mode.


D'Indy summarizes:

There is only _one chord_, a _perfect_ chord; it alone is consonant because it alone generates a feeling of repose and balance;
this chord has two _different forms_, _major and minor_, depending whether the chord is composed of a minor third over a major third, or a major third over a minor;
this chord is able to take on _three different tonal functions, tonic, dominant, or subdominant_. - D'Indy (1903),

This does little to support your distinction.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> This does little to support your distinction.


What do you think my distinction is?

I'm really not sure what you're arguing against.


----------



## millionrainbows

Many pop songs are circular and repetitive, so they do not stand up to CP Tonal analysis as chord progressions, but instead are "successions" of chords which are circular and to not lead to a definite goal. This is not _*bad;*_ it's simply that pop music, or folk, does not need a goal, and it is repetitive by nature. To analyze pop music in terms of CP Tonality, and implying that it "makes no sense" or is somehow deficient only reveals the absurdity of such a criticism.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Many pop songs are circular and repetitive, so they do not stand up to CP Tonal analysis as chord progressions, but instead are "successions" of chords which are circular and to not lead to a definite goal. This is not _*bad;*_ it's simply that pop music, or folk, does not need a goal, and it is repetitive by nature. To analyze pop music in terms of CP Tonality, and implying that it "makes no sense" or is somehow deficient only reveals the absurdity of such a criticism.


Yes, and as I said, that's not what I am or have been arguing.


----------



## millionrainbows

I see the net result of your involvement on this thread as discussing popular music in terms of traditional CP Tonality, and I'm not interested in using that as a reference. I don't care what point it is you are trying to make, and I did not quote you in my statement (post #168); I was speaking generally, as the OP seemed to be asking for answers to pop music in CP terms. That's an area I'm simply not interested in pursuing.


----------



## isorhythm

A lot of pop music is basically modal.

I've always been fond of this very simple (Mixolydian?) chord sequence:


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> A lot of pop music is basically modal.
> 
> I've always been fond of this very simple (Mixolydian?) chord sequence:


Don't use the word "modal" around here, or you will get ensnared by the Gregorian Brotherhood of Darkness.

This is Wilson Pickett, "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love."

The chords are I-IV-b7-IV, in a repeating cycle or "succession" of chords which lead to no goal as a "progression" would do in CP Tonality.

So, the b7 could lead you to say it is based on a "mixolydian" scale, which in jazz terms is a major scale with a flatted seven, or the fifth "mode" of a major scale.

I hear his singing as being pentatonic, though, a majorish pentatonic, which I relate to blues music. There is no flat seven in his vocal line, just those "riffs" he is singing.

Blues can use both major and minor pentatonics, interchangeably, as you can hear in B.B. King's guitar playing. These combine into a blues "super-scale:" In C, the M pent is C-D-E-G-A, and min pent is C-Eb-F-G-Bb, which combines into C-D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb. Add the "blue note" of F#, and you have a very flexible scale, from which either majorish or minorish sounds can be derived.

I still insist that pentatonics were used in African music, and was brought over during the slave trade, and became blues and jazz, regardless of what my tormentors might say.


----------



## Jake

Nobody should agonise over the tonality of popular music.

It probably doesn't keep Nicki Minaj awake at night.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Blues can use both major and minor pentatonics, interchangeably, as you can hear in B.B. King's guitar playing. These combine into a blues "super-scale:" In C, the M pent is C-D-E-G-A, and min pent is C-Eb-F-G-Bb, which combines into C-D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb. Add the "blue note" of F#, and you have a very flexible scale, from which either majorish or minorish sounds can be derived.


Some good points, I'll add the exception is blues that is in a minor key which tends to use the pentatonic minor scale combined with various other minor based scales. A musical example could be shown by looking at the difference between Zeppelin's _I Can't Quit You Babe_ (maj/min Pent) and _Since I've Been Loving You _(minor key blues).

B.B King often used the major/minor Pentatonic approach effectively, and how about Clapton here:


----------



## millionrainbows

I think a point that anyone familiar with jazz should realize is that:

...music theory principles (such as tonality, scales, root functions) can be extracted from "proper Tonality" as a Western tradition, and abstracted and used to define 'tonality' in other forms of music.

This is especially true of the concept of "modes" used by jazz and pop music composers, such as 'the third mode of the melodic minor scale' and 'the dorian mode,' etc.

These are flexible, practical, useful ideas which should not be confused with traditional 'proper' notions used when referring to "Tonal" music or "modal" music.

I've seen in the past how Taggart and Mahlerian have used the traditional definitions and ideas of 'modality' and 'tonality' seemingly to confuse the issue, or to "be right and correct", but certainly not to clarify the issue. 

If you need practical knowledge and terminology in order to analyze and define 'popular' music (and much jazz is based on the "pop" songs of Gershwin, Mercer, Cole Porter and others), you should come from a flexible jazz perspective, and avoid being bogged down by academic thinkers & approaches.

I'm not trying to offend anybody, but if your real interest is in clarification and reaching a true flexible understanding, you will agree with what I am saying. If you just want to 'play', debate, or obfuscate, it's a waste of everyone's time who are seeking real answers to the OP's query.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Have you got a citation for this? I am not sure I believe you and would like to see the paper/book/article/whatever this came from.


It's more complicated than standard analysis. See Bourdon, Blue Notes, and Pentatonicism in the Blues: An Africanist Perspective by Gerhard Kubik.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*  I think this entire "thrilling" interchange underscores the incompatability of academia and practical music-making. Academic definitions and concepts are self-serving, and are not general enough, or flexible enough, to be applicable to most popular music, or especially music which was composed "by ear" or in the recording studio, without written score.



Che2007 said:


> You might like to sit down with some of the professors who have taught me about pop and try to convince them of that...


That sounds like a losing proposition, since the blues concepts I am speaking of defy Western analysis. Kubik's hypothesis would even confound earlier blues specialists who would be more sympathetic, but his ideas make perfect sense to me, especially in light of the mouth bow.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> None of that explains why you wrote that the harmonic 7th chord was a descendent of "African scales". I don't think that is true.


But you do not say why, you only refute. This kind of reply has no cred.



> Also, I am not convinced that a justly tuned 7 chord complete negates the need for resolution. I don't really see why that would be so? It isn't the beats in a chord that makes us want it to resolve, it is our conceptualization of expectation. For example a maj7 harmony can very well behave as a harmonic goal in late romantic music or later but that should be beaty as hell. Also, the dom7 harmony that is treated as a consonance in blues is most often tempered so it acts as a place of repose but it is beaty and not justly tuned. I don't see why justly intoning a dom7 chord is going to make it innately a place to rest.


You are on the wrong track, as far as 'resolution' goes. The harmonic seventh is not used because of issues of resolution. But even so, since it is a natural harmonic, it creates less dissonance than a tempered seventh, so that directly corresponds to resolution, in the same way a dissonance translates to restlessness or a need to resolve. The point you fail to see is that the natural seventh was there despite any issue of resolution, which does not exist in the African system from which blues was derived.

But there are too many aspects of your argument which are too tedious to address, since you are attempting to use Western concepts to analyze music which is based on different principles.

Also, I disagree with your entire fundamental concept of resolution when you say "... It isn't the beats in a chord that makes us want it to resolve, it is our conceptualization of expectation." I think that is incorrect. I think you must at least acknowledge the importance of 'beats' in the idea of resolution. If not, I have no further need to discuss any issue with you.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Here are some sources for you: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513185?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - Musical Scales in Central Africa and Java
> 
> "This apparent contradiction does not appear to be inherent in the Central African system or in the experimental results, but rather in a Western definition of consonance. This definition is refuted by the practices of these musicians [Central African Xylophone players], who tune their xylophones by following adjacent intervals, step by step. Our experimentation verified that "perfect" consonances are not a constituent of a Central African concept of the scale. These musicians do not judge a strict octave (1200 cents) to be better than a large major seventh (1150) or a small minor ninth (1250). On the contrary, the Banda Linda musicians prefer the small "octave" (1150 cents) in any register, probably because of the roughness it creates on the octave that are always plays simultaneously with double sticks in each hand." (From the article)
> 
> So it seems that the idea of a harmonic 7th or even that sound wouldn't be privileged in the Central African system. Instead the roughness of an interval is prized, precisely the opposite of the aesthetic of blended 4:5:6:7 chord that you were saying are descendant from "African Scales".


Gerhard Kubik's essay directly contradicts this, and he also mentions these xylophone tunings.

"Mangwilo players...often tune their instruments to scales derived from higher partials of a nonobjectified single fundamental. The harmonic series is definitely used up to the 11th partial as a model for the emerging intervals, possibly in some cases up to the 13th partial, jumping harmonics that are simply duplications of lower partials..."

"...any two notes hit together with some emphasis emit a very deep tone that can be faintly heard and which is identical with the fundamental of the series..."


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Firstly, there is no one "African Pentatonic". In case you haven't noticed Africa is an enormous continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, to what scale you are referring is obscure to me. Secondly, I had a good read around and I couldn't find a single reference to the b7 as a distinctive interval of scales of an African source. I will be happy to climb down if you can show me an example, but as it stands I am unconvinced.


But the b7 is a natural harmonic, and any system based on harmonics will have this 7th. Mouth bows are the best example of the pervasive use of a fundamental and its partials.

That is because you are operating from a conceptual glitch in your thinking. The five-note 'scale' I refer to is derived from placing two fundamentals a fourth apart, as a template, and then deriving the complete scale from correspondences which occur. But they don't think in terms of scales. Any similarities are due to attempts to accommodate to Western song structures and instruments.

You can't use Western analysis to answer these questions. The system is totally different, and non-Western.

So when Charlie Patton sings 'Banty Rooster Blues,' Western theorists have tended to hear the notes he sings as being derived from one scale, as Westerners think of scales, as covering an octave. But actually, when he goes to a "V" chord or root station, he is actually shifting the entire harmonic root. This is not a "chord change" but a shift to a new fundamental, with its own set of harmonics. It was a way to adapt the African harmonic system to Western influences.

Listen to all the early country blues artists, like Charlie Patton or especially Skip James, and it is obvious that their musical ideas and sound is based on the drone-like quality of a single fundamental and its partials.

This also reinforces my earlier thread meta-concept, "All sound is harmonic." As you can see, a whole musical system can be derived from a single fundamental and its partials.


----------



## norman bates

I was listening to a great song of Randy Newman, In Germany before the war, and even if it's harmonically a simple song there's a passage where he uses bitonality (well I guess it's bitonality, I hear minor and major together at 1:30 on "A little girl has lost her way") that gives to the song that unsettling mood


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> I was listening to a great song of Randy Newman, In Germany before the war, and even if it's harmonically a simple song there's a passage where he uses bitonality (well I guess it's bitonality, I hear minor and major together at 1:30 on "A little girl has lost her way") that gives to the song that unsettling mood


Yeah, that is a good song; that's the first time I've heard it. I wouldn't call that 'bitonality,' I'd say he was doing it, as you said, to unsettle us.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, that is a good song; that's the first time I've heard it. I wouldn't call that 'bitonality,' I'd say he was doing it, as you said, to unsettle us.


I wasn't sure actually. Anyway how would you call that effect? Even if it's just a chord I hear minor and major together that is something that I associate to bitonality, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I wasn't sure actually. Anyway how would you call that effect? Even if it's just a chord I hear minor and major together that is something that I associate to bitonality, but maybe I'm wrong.


The "Jimi Hendrix chord" (E7#9) is a pretty common chord and contains both a major and minor third. As far as I know just the presence of those notes used together doesn't necessarily make something bitonal. A piece of music has to have two melodies or chord progressions going on simultaneously in different keys.

Otherwise something like _Purple Haze _ would be classified as being bitonal.


----------



## ST4

popular music is usually heavily reliant on the repetition of chord progressions, other common features include a "groove" underneath the chord progression. 
But if we're talking metal, heavy chromaticism over usually a tonic, often Eminor or Dminor.
Not that hard to understand :tiphat:


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> The "Jimi Hendrix chord" (E7#9) is a pretty common chord and contains both a major and minor third. As far as I know just the presence of those notes used together doesn't necessarily make something bitonal. A piece of music has to have two melodies or chord progressions going on simultaneously in different keys.
> 
> Otherwise something like _Purple Haze _ would be classified as being bitonal.


I know that chord but the effect in this song is different for some reason. It does not have the bluesy effect of Purple haze. Maybe it's the fact that the in this song the minor/major is on the same octave (so there's just a half tone), I don't know but it's something else, more eerie, that is something that one can't say of Purple haze or Mas que nada.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I know that chord but the effect in this song is different for some reason. It does not have the bluesy effect of Purple haze. Maybe it's the fact that the in this song the minor/major is on the same octave (so there's just a half tone), I don't know but it's something else, more eerie, that is something that one can't say of Purple haze or Mas que nada.


I think because of the slower tempo of the song and the phrasing and style the dissonances stand out more and it has more of an eerie effect. (Harsh dissonances over a 'children's song' kind of tune).

More so than the Hendrix I think it 'hints towards' bitonality as we think of it in the Western Classical sense, but over-all I think this is just a case of dissonance added for effect.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> I wasn't sure actually. Anyway how would you call that effect? Even if it's just a chord I hear minor and major together that is something that I associate to bitonality, but maybe I'm wrong.


I don't know how to classify it, except to call it artistic license. The only other time I've heard that chord is in Stravinsky's "The Star King." I first heard it on a DG lp, and it also had The Rite on it. Sometimes it's called The King of the Stars, and sometimes as LE ROI DES ÉTOILES.

It's funny that I would remember that chord after all these years. I remember the piece affected me, and still does, with a sort of awe and fear of the immensity of the universe, in kind of a 'musical vertigo.'

In Stravinsky's case, I think it is 'bitonality' we are hearing, not so much as in 'two keys' or 'two tonalities,' but in the effect of two chords sounding at once, getting a kind of harmonic shimmer. This would be harder to do than is apparent, and required careful, precise orchestration to pull it off. Kudos to a musical genius.

BTW, this is a cantata.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> The "Jimi Hendrix chord" (E7#9) is a pretty common chord and contains both a major and minor third. As far as I know just the presence of those notes used together doesn't necessarily make something bitonal. A piece of music has to have two melodies or chord progressions going on simultaneously in different keys.
> 
> Otherwise something like _Purple Haze _ would be classified as being bitonal.


That's not quite the same. In the Stravinsky (and Randy Newman song) we are hearing a minor third right next to a major third, which is a jarring dissonance, and scary sounding.

In the "Hendrix chord," also heard in jazz, the "minor third" (here called a #9) is in the octave above, well away from the major third, so it doesn't clash as much.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> I know that chord but the effect in this song is different for some reason. It does not have the bluesy effect of Purple haze.


You're right, norman.



> Maybe it's the fact that the in this song the minor/major is on the same octave (so there's just a half tone)…


That's exactly right. You're hearing it right, and apparently you have a very good ear.



> I don't know but it's something else, more eerie, that is something that one can't say of Purple haze or Mas que nada.


Yes, it's that sense of awe. You are very artistically sensitive to hear that, and be able to describe it.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I think because of the slower tempo of the song and the phrasing and style the dissonances stand out more and it has more of an eerie effect. (Harsh dissonances over a 'children's song' kind of tune).
> 
> More so than the Hendrix I think it 'hints towards' bitonality as we think of it in the Western Classical sense, but over-all I think this is just a case of dissonance added for effect.


Whatever you say, TDC. 

Listen to all those other polychords. That's more than just a "hint," whatever you call it. I call them polychords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychord


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Whatever you say, TDC.
> 
> Listen to all those other polychords. That's more than just a "hint," whatever you call it. I call them polychords.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychord


I said the Newman piece 'hints' towards bitonality *more* than the Hendrix - would you agree with that statement? I only brought up the Hendrix chord in response to norman bates comment that major and minor qualities in a chord signifies bitonality - not to suggest the Hendrix chord was exactly the same chord as what was in the Newman piece.

Your objection is apparently towards my use of the word 'hint', aside from that as far as I can tell we are in agreement. You also suggested that the Newman piece was _not_ bitonal. So what word would you suggest? "Artistic license"? Fine with me.

From the link you posted: _The use of polychords* may *suggest bitonality or polytonality_ (emphasis mine).

I don't see how the information in the link you posted or any of your posts on the topic contradict anything I've said.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I said the Newman piece 'hints' towards bitonality *more* than the Hendrix - would you agree with that statement? I only brought up the Hendrix chord in response to norman bates comment that major and minor qualities in a chord signifies bitonality - not to suggest the Hendrix chord was exactly the same chord as what was in the Newman piece.
> 
> Your objection is apparently towards my use of the word 'hint', aside from that as far as I can tell we are in agreement. You also suggested that the Newman piece was _not_ bitonal. So what word would you suggest? "Artistic license"? Fine with me.
> 
> From the link you posted: _The use of polychords* may *suggest bitonality or polytonality_ (emphasis mine).
> 
> I don't see how the information in the link you posted or any of your posts on the topic contradict anything I've said.


No, we mostly agree. We seem to be on the same page. However, I don't hear even a hint of bitonality in the Randy Newman song. The major/minor quality of the chord is confined to the use of thirds in a single chord. To me, bitonality would have to involve two parallel chord progressions, or some way of establishing a tonality, or progression of chords leading to a goal.

The Newman chord is not a "polychord," but only a dissonance. The Stravinsky I cited to show another case of this "major/minor" chord in use, just for the sound of the chord, not its context, or whether or not it is bitonal.

The "use of polychord*s*" might indicate bitonality, but in Newman's case, it is only a single isolated chord.


----------



## millionrainbows

I've been listening to Doo-*** music. This is an interesting area of popular music, because the harmonic models are all consistent in all the songs, with a few variations; it is usually I-vi-IV-V7.


...and this is based on Western progressions, not blues or pentatonic. This is also seen in jazz, with its ii-V7-I progressions.


----------



## ST4

millionrainbows said:


> I've been listening to Doo-*** music. This is an interesting area of popular music, because the harmonic models are all consistent in all the songs, with a few variations; it is usually I-vi-IV-V7.
> 
> ...and this is based on Western progressions, not blues or pentatonic. This is also seen in jazz, with its ii-V7-I progressions.


Yes, I adore doo-*** too, regardless of how harmonically uncreative it might be.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

Jazz harmony is something I'd like to get a better handle on, but I can't find anything on the subject in my local library. Can anyone recommend any good online resources?


----------



## millionrainbows

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Jazz harmony is something I'd like to get a better handle on, but I can't find anything on the subject in my local library. Can anyone recommend any good online resources?


Forget the internet. Too many potential distractions, not enough consistency, too much change.
You should use a book, with your instrument at hand. Keep theory books by the bed, and read every night to fall asleep. Libraries are not good sources of sheet music and books on music, music stores are, and used bookstores.

You're going to end up like all the rest of the internet generation: inconsistent, impatient, distracted, unfocussed, with no drive.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

millionrainbows said:


> Forget the internet. Too many potential distractions, not enough consistency, too much change.
> You should use a book, with your instrument at hand. Keep theory books by the bed, and read every night to fall asleep. Libraries are not good sources of sheet music and books on music, music stores are, and used bookstores.
> 
> You're going to end up like all the rest of the internet generation: inconsistent, impatient, distracted, unfocussed, with no drive.


I will thank you *not* to tell me how I am going to "end up", sir.


----------



## millionrainbows

Retrograde Inversion said:


> I will thank you *not* to tell me how I am going to "end up", sir.


Ok, go ahead and do what you want to, instead of what's right.


----------



## kinzopiano

Che2007 said:


> Here are some sources for you: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513185?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - Musical Scales in Central Africa and Java
> 
> "This apparent contradiction does not appear to be inherent in the Central African system or in the experimental results, but rather in a Western definition of consonance. This definition is refuted by the practices of these musicians [Central African Xylophone players], who tune their xylophones by following adjacent intervals, step by step. Our experimentation verified that "perfect" consonances are not a constituent of a Central African concept of the scale. These musicians do not judge a strict octave (1200 cents) to be better than a large major seventh (1150) or a small minor ninth (1250). On the contrary, the Banda Linda musicians prefer the small "octave" (1150 cents) in any register, probably because of the roughness it creates on the octave that are always plays simultaneously with double sticks in each hand." (From the article)
> 
> So it seems that the idea of a harmonic 7th or even that sound wouldn't be privileged in the Central African system. Instead the roughness of an interval is prized, precisely the opposite of the aesthetic of blended 4:5:6:7 chord that you were saying are descendant from "African Scales".
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/30249468?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - An Assessment of African Scales
> 
> Take a look at page 19 where it gives some African scales (of a range of local origins) in cents. I don't see that these scales have prominent b7s...
> 
> 
> 
> That is very positivist and naturalist of you. I don't agree. A justly tuned 4:5:6 chord on the 5th of the scale still wants to resolve. There are no audible beats there. I think it wants to resolve because of our practice, habit, learning and conceptualization.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, there is no one "African Pentatonic". In case you haven't noticed Africa is an enormous continent of many sovereign nations, local traditions and diverse intellectual/social/economic situations. So, to what scale you are referring is obscure to me. Secondly, I had a good read around and I couldn't find a single reference to the b7 as a distinctive interval of scales of an African source. I will be happy to climb down if you can show me an example, but as it stands I am unconvinced.
> 
> 
> 
> By that standard, it isn't discordance (beats) that creates dissonance then? (fair enough, I agree) Have you heard of the phrase "hoist by his own petard"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I was just pointing out that it isn't the concordance of the dom7 that makes it a resting place in that music if it is tempered.


I think the knowledge of "Top 6 Scales in African music will also be of help here. Please see the link below for further study.


----------

