here is a fun one for those who studied music

[Volitions Advocate]

I find this a little bit confusing, and I'm a 2nd year theory student.  We've been focusing a lot on diatonic harmony and haven't yet gone into the really interesting stuff.  I know how to play a pentatonic scale on my guitar but tonally I don't really know what is going on there.  I've never tried to analyze it.  I also don't really have an answer for you but I do have a question that is related to the debate about modes.

i've never considered modes by their diatonic tonal centre. I doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Probably because I learned about modes in history and oral skills before i learned about them in theory.

if an Ionian mode is a major scale and aeolian is a minor scale, when we are talking about modes why do we default to one of them?  Technically modes have little to do with diatonic harmony because they really were 2 different systems entirely.  Modal music was the norm for a long time because people didn't understand harmony, even when harmony was first introduced, for the longest time it was mostly parallel fourths slapped onto a chant, this is one step up from gregorian chant, but its still super old.  Most of todays diatonic theory came from people analysing Bach chorales and fugues, and he never really wrote in modes, at least not in any of the really famous stuff that the theoreticians of the time wrote about.  It doesn't make sense to me to say Mixolydian in F Major.  It's like running an apple IIe emulator on your Windows 7 64-bit i7. (yeah. im a computer scientist too so I can nerd out in either direction )  If you're trying to play something around a mixolydian mode but acting as though the ionian scale degree 1 is your tonic, then really you're just playing some sort of .... hypo-ionain aren't you?  Maybe I just haven't learned it yet but I dont understand how modal harmony works.  Because when modes were used there was no harmony.  What is a dominant chord in mixolydian? is it still V  V 7or VII 6?  If you're playing C mixolydian, which is the first transposed mode, then you're playing with the same key signature of diatonic F major, but V in F is a C chord, which is supposed to be your tonic in C mixolydian.  So if you're viewing your mode by its diatonic centre.  doesn't that basically just mean you're playing the relative ionian of your mixolydian?  meaning why are you playing in modes anyway? you're obviously using diatonic harmony.

I find this a little confusing.

Lately I've been taking on the viewpoint that it's all moot anyway because we're using the equal temperament of the piano which is all screwed up and only actually works on a piano anyway.  The theoreticians took Bachs Well tempered clavier and use it to push their agenda of using equal temperament, but Bach used "Well" temperament while composing them.  Lucky for me as a Digial Audio student rather than a conservatory student, I'm taking the scientific approach and beginning to think in terms of Hz rather than pitch, which helps me bypass the confusion of different temperaments on different instruments anyway.  That was a tangent, but this stuff is on my mind. sorry.

 

[Jusatele]

I find this a little bit confusing, and I'm a 2nd year theory student.  We've been focusing a lot on diatonic harmony and haven't yet gone into the really interesting stuff.  I know how to play a pentatonic scale on my guitar but tonally I don't really know what is going on there.  I've never tried to analyze it.   I also don't really have an answer for you but I do have a question that is related to the debate about modes.

i've never considered modes by their diatonic tonal centre. I doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Probably because I learned about modes in history and oral skills before i learned about them in theory.

if an Ionian mode is a major scale and aeolian is a minor scale, when we are talking about modes why do we default to one of them?  Technically modes have little to do with diatonic harmony because they really were 2 different systems entirely.  Modal music was the norm for a long time because people didn't understand harmony, even when harmony was first introduced, for the longest time it was mostly parallel fourths slapped onto a chant, this is one step up from gregorian chant, but its still super old.  Most of todays diatonic theory came from people analysing Bach chorales and fugues, and he never really wrote in modes, at least not in any of the really famous stuff that the theoreticians of the time wrote about.  It doesn't make sense to me to say Mixolydian in F Major.  It's like running an apple IIe emulator on your Windows 7 64-bit i7. (yeah. im a computer scientist too so I can nerd out in either direction )  If you're trying to play something around a mixolydian mode but acting as though the ionian scale degree 1 is your tonic, then really you're just playing some sort of .... hypo-ionain aren't you?  Maybe I just haven't learned it yet but I dont understand how modal harmony works.  Because when modes were used there was no harmony.  What is a dominant chord in mixolydian? is it still V  V 7or VII 6?  If you're playing C mixolydian, which is the first transposed mode, then you're playing with the same key signature of diatonic F major, but V in F is a C chord, which is supposed to be your tonic in C mixolydian.  So if you're viewing your mode by its diatonic centre.  doesn't that basically just mean you're playing the relative ionian of your mixolydian?  meaning why are you playing in modes anyway? you're obviously using diatonic harmony.

I find this a little confusing.

Lately I've been taking on the viewpoint that it's all moot anyway because we're using the equal temperament of the piano which is all screwed up and only actually works on a piano anyway.  The theoreticians took Bachs Well tempered clavier and use it to push their agenda of using equal temperament, but Bach used "Well" temperament while composing them.  Lucky for me as a Digial Audio student rather than a conservatory student, I'm taking the scientific approach and beginning to think in terms of Hz rather than pitch, which helps me bypass the confusion of different temperaments on different instruments anyway.  That was a tangent, but this stuff is on my mind. sorry.

think Jazz
you know, experimenting with music

think improvisation and breaking out of a box

think blues and a 5 tone scale

now think 9 tones to use while improvising

now give me those 9 tines, the experiment is design to give you 4 new tones, and learn when to use them, not to answer the question

If you noodle around on the guitar for a few hours,  playing the tones over the said chords and finding when each is harmonic to what, then in the fly of the moment we have changes our way of improv. That is the point of the experiment.

Theory, which many are well versed in, is not something we learn to teach a rigid platform
theory we learn for structure so we can expand in music
Only those who cannot understand theory, teach theory as a rigid base, those who understand it know that all music evolves and so does theory.
Before Philippe Ramue wrote his article on Chords, and organizing them, In the early 1700s, How was theory organized then, Can you imagine music without chord progression? Well Classical music was written without it.
Now we consider chord progressions the foundation of a song. If we had dismissed Ramue, such as Bach did, How would music have evolved into what it is today?
Now sit back and read the OP to know why we default to the Dominant mode, Go back and read it again to why he is asking us to change that, and then go play with the tones over the chord changes, and see if suddenly the bell goes off and your next improve over those chords expands passed the prison of the Pentatonic minor C scale

I offered a study here to add to many a players improv , everyone at the workshop agreed it was a great study and they got a lot out of it by noodleing around with the question and playing the tones for a few hours
Seems many here wants to question the theory rather than use the study to expand their playing.

 

[Jusatele]

"Mixiolodian"  is spelled "MIXOLYDIAN"

:icon_thumright:

sorry but i had to.

Sorry, I cannot spell my name without a spell checker, and it is not in the one on my computer

 

[drewfx]

I think some of the confusion may be viewpoint - if you are relating modes to diatonic harmony (or classical modal music) in music that doesn't obey the rules of diatonic harmony, it doesn't seem to make sense.

But if you're familiar with the jazz chord-scale improvisation perspective - where scales used for improvisation are identified that are "compatible" with the individual chords in a progression, and where the modes are really used as "scales" (i.e. just as a sequence of intervals), it may make more sense. Much jazz, even if it started with "proper" harmony, features altered chords that are never resolved (according to classical theory), and chord substitutions, and isn't just modulating key centers, so you can't just improvise according to the major or minor key.

So modes end up as a reference point - each mode has a readily identified sound we are familiar with - but it references the chord, not the diatonic harmony - because in jazz progressions, a dominant seventh chord may not be a V chord, and the V chord might not be a V7 chord.

In the OP's case, we are given a progression of 3 different dominant seventh chords, which, if you combine the 3 corresponding mixolydian modes, you end up with the 9 note scale. Then, as an exercise, we are asked to drop 2 notes to produce a new 7 note scale. It's a way of combining 2 ideas - we want a scale that functions over each chord, so we start with an appropriate scale/mode for each chord (in this case mixolydian), but we also want a single scale that can be played linearly across the entire progression (rather than changing the scale we are playing with each chord change). The tricky part is to pick 7 notes with the most appropriate tensions/dissonances for the style of music being played.

 

[Jusatele]

Bingo, Finally someone gets it

 

[Volitions Advocate]

I wasn't debating using theory as an avenue to expand your playing. not at all.  My question was just one of clarifying things.  I'm not familiar with jazz at all.  I listen to it sometimes, but I'm not familiar with any specific artists or styles or the mechanics behind any of it.  I AM familiar with modes and diatonic harmony however.  And I was just confused about calling something a mode when somebody is so focused on diatonic harmony.  I just couldn't wrap my head around it.  Like I said.  I also don't really know what the pentatonic scale actually is.  I can play one on guitar because somebody showed me once to get me noodling, but I never focused on it or cared to learn more about it because I'm not much of a noodler and get bored quickly when I'm asked to "just jam".  I do enjoy exercises and I'm sure i'd follow this one more closely if I even knew what some of these things sounded like.  As it is I've been so engrossed in my studies that I haven't actually touched my guitar in months, aside from the odd gig.  I've been focusing on the science behind things a lot more.  I guess some of us that have no improvisational technique and that don't come near to approaching a virtuosic skill/talent level are going to be a little left behind.

Drewfx's first sentence in his last post basically summed up what I was talking about in my last post, because that's what I thought everybody was doing, was comparing the 2 things that don't mix.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Bingo, Finally someone gets it

Aren't you an electrician?

 

[drewfx]

I also don't really know what the pentatonic scale actually is.  I can play one on guitar because somebody showed me once to get me noodling, but I never focused on it or cared to learn more about it because I'm not much of a noodler and get bored quickly when I'm asked to "just jam".  I do enjoy exercises and I'm sure i'd follow this one more closely if I even knew what some of these things sounded like.

The way I like to think of pentatonic (and why it's so popular with guitarists) is:

If you take the three major modes (ionian, lydian and mixolydian) and leave out the notes that differ between them (the 4th and 7th), you get pentatonic major. This allows you to play the same exact patterns starting on the root of each major chord of the key.

Pentatonic minor consists of the common notes from the minor modes aoelian, dorian and phrygian (leaving out the 2nd and 6th that differ). Again, this allows you to play the exact same patterns starting on the root of each minor chord in the key.

 

[hannaugh]

Drewfx's first sentence in his last post basically summed up what I was talking about in my last post, because that's what I thought everybody was doing, was comparing the 2 things that don't mix.

I think that was a problem I was having.  The funny thing though was after trying to figure thing out yesterday, I got to the advanced harmony chapter in my theory book and some of what you guys were talking about made more sense to me. 

Honestly though, in real life, I would play some stuff over the proposed chords using the proposed scale and figure out what notes I could leave out and have it sound good to me.  I could try to explain with theory why I chose what I did, but in the end I'll always go with what my ears like.  Music is meant to be heard, not quantified.  I'm not knocking theory or anything, I think it's important and should be studied, but I do think that if you follow the rules too closely, you end up missing something. 

 

[drewfx]

Honestly though, in real life, I would play some stuff over the proposed chords using the proposed scale and figure out what notes I could leave out and have it sound good to me.  I could try to explain with theory why I chose what I did, but in the end I'll always go with what my ears like.  Music is meant to be heard, not quantified.  I'm not knocking theory or anything, I think it's important and should be studied, but I do think that if you follow the rules too closely, you end up missing something. 

But one problem many people have is their ears like best what they are accustomed to - which is mostly the same stuff they've been hearing over and over since they were young children.

I like to look at theory (including the exercise that started this thread) as a means to open new doors and try new ideas. You don't have to look at it "rules to be followed"; I look at it not as "Don't play this note!", but as "If you play this note it will create dissonance and tension". From my POV, theory doesn't tell where you have to go, it shows you all kinds of different places you can go. Then you can try them out and let your ears decide.

 

[Jusatele]

Bingo, Finally someone gets it

Aren't you an electrician?

is my day job

 

[Volitions Advocate]

I like to use theory as a way to explain the things I've been listening to my whole life.  Kind of the opposite of using theory to determine my music.
But like I said, I'm not just a music student... I'm an audio student, and i've been thinking of things a lot more in terms of the harmonic series and physics equations, and how different temperaments work.  Diatonic theory may be the king of the classical period and the classically trained musicians focus on that, but there are so many more interpretations of music by so many cultures over different time periods. 

 

[hannaugh]

But one problem many people have is their ears like best what they are accustomed to - which is mostly the same stuff they've been hearing over and over since they were young children.

That's why you should listen to lots of different things.  I've always liked "weird" music, probably because I listen to such a wide variety of music.  

I get what you're saying though.  I had this friend who wrote a lot of songs, and I thought she knew a lot (or at least more than I did) about theory.  I didn't particularly enjoy her music, but I wanted to learn anything I could from her.  I told her I wanted to learn about theory so I could write and be more confident in my playing, and she actually told me that theory didn't matter and that "music should be felt, not written."  I thought about it for a while and then realized that her music was freaking boring because every song was the same rhythm and in A minor.  Now I think she probably didn't actually know much other than how to read music and what the diatonic chords were for A minor.  I still think about that sometimes because it was like she didn't want me to learn theory or something.  It was odd.  

 

[bagman67]

But one problem many people have is their ears like best what they are accustomed to - which is mostly the same stuff they've been hearing over and over since they were young children.

That's why you should listen to lots of different things.  I've always liked "weird" music, probably because I listen to such a wide variety of music.  

I get what you're saying though.  I had this friend who wrote a lot of songs, and I thought she knew a lot (or at least more than I did) about theory.  I didn't particularly enjoy her music, but I wanted to learn anything I could from her.  I told her I wanted to learn about theory so I could write and be more confident in my playing, and she actually told me that theory didn't matter and that "music should be felt, not written."  I thought about it for a while and then realized that her music was freaking boring because every song was the same rhythm and in A minor.  Now I think she probably didn't actually know much other than how to read music and what the diatonic chords were for A minor.  I still think about that sometimes because it was like she didn't want me to learn theory or something.  It was odd.  

You've just described about fifty singers I heard in the course of about six months going to a weekly open mike night at a joint in San Francisco called the Owl & Monkey (rather snarkily referred to as the Howlin' Monkey).  Alas, the bulk of them were female singers, and the topic of the songs was usually some really artlessly expressed very personal pain - and always, ALWAYS accompanied by a very repetitive strumming pattern in A-minor.  The dudes were another story - they were usually very earnest about something political, and in E-minor/G.

Now, I know it's insensitive to laugh in the face of others' misfortunes, but it really did get to a point where you could spot the latest emotionally-shattered-lesbian-dirge practitioner, and pretty much guess who this week's eco-warrior white-boy-with-dreads would be during sign-ups, and \go out for a little fresh air or go get a fresh cup of tea as they tuned up (when they bothered).

I know Stereotyping Is Wrong.  Really I do.  But sometimes folks give you no choice but to giggle a little at how rigidly they jam themselves into to the pigeonhole they abhor you for claiming they fit in.

Separately, it's really an interesting thing to see how someone can become insecure in the face of an intimate friend exceeding them in some way.  Sabotage is such a bizarre response to someone succeeding at something, when ostensibly one should be happy to see one's friend succeed - but it's also a very common response.    Your friend didn't have a problem with you learning theory, per se - she had a problem with you exceeding her in ability and commitment to your art. and defining your art in a way that did not allow her the comfort of her platitude - "felt and not written," indeed.  Total bogus self-serving laziness.    She saw you as winning a race you probably didn't even know you were running, and her response was not to bring her game up, but to try and convince you not to.

Dunno what any of this has to do with music theory, but hey, an armored cavalry division could pass through the gaps in my own theoretical knowledge.  At least I know my failings are my own, and I don't rationalize them with some new-age/hippy claptrap.  Good on you for pursuing your craft diligently.  Also, I dig your purple guitar.

Peace

Bagman

 

[Cagey]

Separately, it's really an interesting thing to see how someone can become insecure in the face of an intimate friend exceeding them in some way.  Sabotage is such a bizarre response to someone succeeding at something, when ostensibly one should be happy to see one's friend succeed - but it's also a very common response.    Your friend didn't have a problem with you learning theory, per se - she had a problem with you exceeding her in ability and commitment to your art. and defining your art in a way that did not allow her the comfort of her platitude - "felt and not written," indeed.  Total bogus self-serving laziness.    She saw you as winning a race you probably didn't even know you were running, and her response was not to bring her game up, but to try and convince you not to.

Interesting is right. It seems many artists and craftsmen regard the sharing of their knowledge as a zero sum proposition. And it's not just artists - many people seem to feel that if they share some obscure knowledge, truth or "trick of the trade" that it somehow diminishes them. They don't seem to understand that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that their own lives and/or the lives of others are improved overall by the dissemination of their knowledge, which feeds the body of knowledge and improves the state of the art for everyone. It's the old "reap what you sow" concept that it's almost illegal to teach anyone anymore.

 

[clewnii]

"Mixiolodian"  is spelled "MIXOLYDIAN"

:icon_thumright:

sorry but i had to.

Sorry, I cannot spell my name without a spell checker, and it is not in the one on my computer

Did'nt mean to be an ass. Interesting discussion, anyway.


Don't know how relevant you think this might be, but for all the people wondering "what ARE they talking about"

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKwMIqviZn4[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QUi221YQYI[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AIatShIsA[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVX1yxjUYRA[/youtube]

 

[Jusatele]

I am at a good bye party for a good friend so I will check that 30 minutes O Mixo out later. Plus I do not think my Droid has that much battery left,  Damn 6:30 in the morning, Wonder when this gig is going break up, I have the keys to the hall.

 

[hannaugh]

You've just described about fifty singers I heard in the course of about six months going to a weekly open mike night at a joint in San Francisco called the Owl & Monkey (rather snarkily referred to as the Howlin' Monkey).  Alas, the bulk of them were female singers, and the topic of the songs was usually some really artlessly expressed very personal pain - and always, ALWAYS accompanied by a very repetitive strumming pattern in A-minor.  The dudes were another story - they were usually very earnest about something political, and in E-minor/G.

Now, I know it's insensitive to laugh in the face of others' misfortunes, but it really did get to a point where you could spot the latest emotionally-shattered-lesbian-dirge practitioner, and pretty much guess who this week's eco-warrior white-boy-with-dreads would be during sign-ups, and \go out for a little fresh air or go get a fresh cup of tea as they tuned up (when they bothered).

I know Stereotyping Is Wrong.  Really I do.  But sometimes folks give you no choice but to giggle a little at how rigidly they jam themselves into to the pigeonhole they abhor you for claiming they fit in.

Separately, it's really an interesting thing to see how someone can become insecure in the face of an intimate friend exceeding them in some way.  Sabotage is such a bizarre response to someone succeeding at something, when ostensibly one should be happy to see one's friend succeed - but it's also a very common response.    Your friend didn't have a problem with you learning theory, per se - she had a problem with you exceeding her in ability and commitment to your art. and defining your art in a way that did not allow her the comfort of her platitude - "felt and not written," indeed.  Total bogus self-serving laziness.    She saw you as winning a race you probably didn't even know you were running, and her response was not to bring her game up, but to try and convince you not to.

Dunno what any of this has to do with music theory, but hey, an armored cavalry division could pass through the gaps in my own theoretical knowledge.  At least I know my failings are my own, and I don't rationalize them with some new-age/hippy claptrap.  Good on you for pursuing your craft diligently.  Also, I dig your purple guitar.

Peace

Bagman

Thanks, Bagman.

Well, there is a reason she isn't my friend anymore.  She ended up getting totally flakey and ultimately let me down in a pretty big way, and then added insult to injury by telling me I was uptight because I recognized her self-serving hippie "I'm a free spirit, therefore I can't be reliable to anyone" attitude as a bunch of BS to make hurting my feelings sound cool.  Then she told all her friends (all 2 of them) that I was some sort of creepy groupie that only hung out with her because I was a die hard fan of her music, which is ridiculous because I always secretly thought her music was lame.  I just went to her shows because that's what a good friend does, shows support. 

Oh well, I use a little of that annoyance with her to fuel my own drive to be a better musician and songwriter than she ever was.  I'm pretty sure at this point I know more theory than she does, and I know I practice more than she does.  Now I kind of feel sorry for her because I know that breaking out of her box to write interesting music is going to have to involve her getting over her arrogance and realizing that there are still things she could learn, and I don't see that happening.  I tried to show her new ways to do things in watercolor once, and she basically told me that her style was her style and she was never going to change it, which I thought was incredibly closed-minded for that fact that she is a teacher.  I guess she doesn't understand that challenging yourself and learning new things is the only way you progress as an artist, which is what I tell my students practically every day. 

I actually used to think she was cool, and I kind of looked up to her because she was doing a lot of the things I wanted to do.  Now I see her come to work with a service dog to help her with her PTSD and I just realize how screwed up she really is.  Part of me thinks she has a legitimate reason for the dog, and part of me thinks she's doing that to call further attention to herself, because that's the reason for about 95% of the things she does in life.  I would bet good money that she will never understand why she constantly drives friends away and can't keep a non-abusive boyfriend.  She's not on speaking terms with anyone in her family either. 

She hurt my feelings pretty bad, but I have been able to turn it around and use her as an example in my mind to count my blessings.  I feel very lucky that I have an amazing husband and a family that is there for me (even if sometimes they drive me nuts) and that I know I am open to learning things and I don't take myself so seriously that I can't take constructive criticism.  Without those things, I don't think I could write, play music, or do any sort of art that was actually good.  I also never let friends walk all over me anymore the way she did. 

Anyways, sorry for this sudden thread hijack.  Back to the topic at hand.

Should we start a music theory thread for people who want to learn?  This thread has been great, but I was thinking we start one with a more recognizable name and have it just be general question and answer for people who need help, plus a good place to post videos and websites with good information.  Some of you guys who have been writing on this thread clearly know a lot more than I do, and it would be great if you guys could be around to help out other forum members.  Anyone game for that?  I'll start it if you guys wish to participate.

 

[Tempest]

I just want to say something, as a blues guy.  Blues is more about feel than knowing a bunch of theory. Just saying.

Theory is good, I know a bit, but in the end the genre of blues is about making a emotional rather than technical statement, to me anyways....just my 2 cents

Sorry if this has already been said I've only skimmed this thread

 

[Jusatele]

Should we start a music theory thread for people who want to learn?  This thread has been great, but I was thinking we start one with a more recognizable name and have it just be general question and answer for people who need help, plus a good place to post videos and websites with good information.  Some of you guys who have been writing on this thread clearly know a lot more than I do, and it would be great if you guys could be around to help out other forum members.  Anyone game for that?  I'll start it if you guys wish to participate.

I am not much of a teacher, you can see that by the confusion I caused in the beginning of the thread and I started it
But I have studied music most of my life and have picked up a lot of theory and a good working knowledge of it
Knowledge is power, and here it is the power to create.

If you start one, you will find about 4 types of guys going for it

there will be the guys who know nothing, and will say you do not need it as they , without the knowledge, do not know why you do, they will end up around a campfire at 45 playing the same Led Zepplin songs they played in High School and satisfied with their life as a musician, they will tell you that you do not need to know the stuff

there will be the guy who studied music to the nth degree and has a stiff rod up his butt acting like a college professor teaching those who want to learn the stuff he could not apply. They will correct any little nuance that is wrong just to show off what they know

there will be the working musicians who know a ton of theory from using it all the time, they are a great group to learn from as they really know how to use theory, these guys are willing to show you theory and how to apply it in a practical sense

and then guys like me, who have spent their lives being a part time musician, who study the stuff all the time and really get off on these type of exercises because of some sick sense of humor. actually I think it is because we are fascinated with it, just it is not our jobs. We kind of play around with the stuff.

and then if you start a thread all these guys come in and before you know it there is an arguement over spelling or the correct way to address something

Just ask guys questions in pms about the stuff you do not understand from Theory web sites would be my suggestion, this thread proved that to me.