Any Schoenberg guys here? I Need help

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

Is pure Atonality a spent force?

Listen to Hilary Hahn playing his violin concerto and tell me what you think. It's firmly set in his 12 tone period. http://www.universalmusicclassical.c...864bbdc12f.jpg

[Krenwin]

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

So I've been reading Arnold Schoenbergs 'structural functions of harmony' and shamefully have only really digested the first and second chapters, after that it gets a bit hard to understand as he talks about things but does not say why he uses them as he does.


(All of these examples are in relation to C major)
As an example he starts with the simple idea of raising the 6th and 7th of A minor ascending and then flattening descending. That's easy to grasp and is basic classical theory.

I see he has also said we can substitute the G in E phrygian for a G#, then I thought to myself "yer that makes sense since its the raised 7th of A minor'.

THEN, he goes on to suggest we flatten the fourth of lydian??

He also suggests raising the 7th in Dorian ascending and then making it natural and flattening the 6th descending, this is where I begin to get confused.

And finally he suggests raising the 7th of mixolydian, again a standard major scale.

My question is (more of a command) can someone explain the theory behind the alterations to the scale degrees that aren't the 6th and 7th of A minor to me?

Schoenberg....Where do you get off?




p.s. sorry if that's hard to read/understand for anyone, I needed to ask before it's out of my head

Hey Joe,
Very interesting question. Schoenberg is o.k.
first read the whole book and forget what you've learned in the past.

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

So I've been reading Arnold Schoenbergs 'structural functions of harmony' and shamefully have only really digested the first and second chapters, after that it gets a bit hard to understand as he talks about things but does not say why he uses them as he does.


(All of these examples are in relation to C major)
As an example he starts with the simple idea of raising the 6th and 7th of A minor ascending and then flattening descending. That's easy to grasp and is basic classical theory.

I see he has also said we can substitute the G in E phrygian for a G#, then I thought to myself "yer that makes sense since its the raised 7th of A minor'.

THEN, he goes on to suggest we flatten the fourth of lydian??

He also suggests raising the 7th in Dorian ascending and then making it natural and flattening the 6th descending, this is where I begin to get confused.

And finally he suggests raising the 7th of mixolydian, again a standard major scale.

My question is (more of a command) can someone explain the theory behind the alterations to the scale degrees that aren't the 6th and 7th of A minor to me?

Schoenberg....Where do you get off?




p.s. sorry if that's hard to read/understand for anyone, I needed to ask before it's out of my head

are you referring to chromatic passing tones in a melodic line, or chords with these altered tones?

[Joe_Reynolds]

I was referring to what Schoenberg alters in the modes, the alterations (such as the natural 4 in lydian etc...) are there primarily for the sake of the melodic line, the natural 4 in lydian is a descending leading tone to the 3rd and the #4 in lydian is an ascending leading tone to the 5th. the other modes have alterations for similair reasons

[Krenwin]

Hey Joe,
First I want to say that I'm not defending Arnold. But how does it sound to your ears Joe? Have you played it and listen how it sounds. This is pure classical music, but I'm sure Joe, you can make it sound jazzy. As long as the note belongs the chordmode, it's there to play, but how do you cover and recover it.

In the mixolydian the F# is setbetween parentheses, I use it as an option to play a triplet in the scale, it sounds very jazzy to my ears and it's still a G7
The same with F lydian
Bye

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

I was referring to what Schoenberg alters in the modes, the alterations (such as the natural 4 in lydian etc...) are there primarily for the sake of the melodic line, the natural 4 in lydian is a descending leading tone to the 3rd and the #4 in lydian is an ascending leading tone to the 5th. the other modes have alterations for similair reasons

[Reg]

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

I was referring to what Schoenberg alters in the modes, the alterations (such as the natural 4 in lydian etc...) are there primarily for the sake of the melodic line, the natural 4 in lydian is a descending leading tone to the 3rd and the #4 in lydian is an ascending leading tone to the 5th. the other modes have alterations for similair reasons

Hey Joe... the alterations are an attempt to expand and use an already establishes method or system of explaining non-diatonic notes which created non-diatonic harmonies. The goal was to be able to relate a complete composition to one tonal center... as is 12 tone or serial music.
It obviously didn't work... but at least helped open some eyes and ears.Reg

[Revelen]

Originally Posted by Reg

The goal was to be able to relate a complete composition to one tonal center... as is 12 tone or serial music.
It obviously didn't work... but at least helped open some eyes and ears.Reg

I would argue that it did and does work, he satisfactorily created a way to describe the relationship of nearly every (or maybe every every, I'm not savvy enough to know) traditional harmony to any given tonal center. It's not necessarily a very practical method of analysis, and I think it contradicts what our brain-ears get ass a vibe, but it nevertheless does function as the descriptive device he seems to have intended. I think it is actually a pretty good description of the mindset "start in c minor, end in c minor" era.

...or maybe I jut like it 'cause it's nifty!

[Revelen]

Originally Posted by Krenwin

In the mixolydian the F# is setbetween parentheses, I use it as an option to play a triplet in the scale, it sounds very jazzy to my ears and it's still a G7

That, my friends, is the Dominant Bebop scale: G A B C D E F F# G
If you play strictly linear eighths, starting with a chord tone on a downbeat, you can go for an eternity over a given harmony without hitting anything but Root, 3, 5, 7. Useful if you hate extensions, or want to sound "period" or very inside.
ex.
v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v...
G A B C D E F F#G A B A G F#F E D...

There's also a Minor(Dorian) version. This one is identical to the Mixo version, they are modes of each other: Note, same downbeat pitches.: D E F F# G A B C D (Root, 3, 4, 6)

There's also a Major/Minor version: C D E F G G# A B C (gives you Root, 3, 5, 6 of Cmaj6) or (Root, 3, 5, 7 of a-7). Some people will blast it over minor ii-Vs as well, and with an E tonic it is a very traditional Spanish scale (though usually the three adjacent pitches are not played in a row in this context). Fun to play around with.

There's a melodic minor version too, but I don't remember it... probably cool too!

I guess that was off topic, but, but, but...

[Krenwin]

Maybe everything is in lydian, the fifth mode of C lydian the G, where the F =F#, A minor is already in C lydian, so we skip the melodic theory

Originally Posted by Reg

Hey Joe... the alterations are an attempt to expand and use an already establishes method or system of explaining non-diatonic notes which created non-diatonic harmonies. The goal was to be able to relate a complete composition to one tonal center... as is 12 tone or serial music.
It obviously didn't work... but at least helped open some eyes and ears.Reg

[Krenwin]

Greetings jazzguitar.be
Thanks for reminding me abouth the scales
G-A-Bb-C-D-D#-E-F#-G (bebob melodic)

Originally Posted by Revelen

That, my friends, is the Dominant Bebop scale: G A B C D E F F# G
If you play strictly linear eighths, starting with a chord tone on a downbeat, you can go for an eternity over a given harmony without hitting anything but Root, 3, 5, 7. Useful if you hate extensions, or want to sound "period" or very inside.
ex.
v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v...
G A B C D E F F#G A B A G F#F E D...

There's also a Minor(Dorian) version. This one is identical to the Mixo version, they are modes of each other: Note, same downbeat pitches.: D E F F# G A B C D (Root, 3, 4, 6)

There's also a Major/Minor version: C D E F G G# A B C (gives you Root, 3, 5, 6 of Cmaj6) or (Root, 3, 5, 7 of a-7). Some people will blast it over minor ii-Vs as well, and with an E tonic it is a very traditional Spanish scale (though usually the three adjacent pitches are not played in a row in this context). Fun to play around with.

There's a melodic minor version too, but I don't remember it... probably cool too!

I guess that was off topic, but, but, but...

[Reg]

So how does SFOH deal with Modulation,Modal interchange, multi tonic harmony, metric harmony, modal harmony, non functional harmony. Sorry this is a trick set of questions... Reg

[Revelen]

Yeah, but for the couple centuries of western harmony in the tradition with which he was dealing, I still think it's a pretty good description. Modulation and MI, etc. seem to be pretty well named by means of the regions non functional harmony could just be particularly colorful roving harmony from Harmonilehre. Though I admit he would probably have put Giant Steps in a single key with excursion in particularly far-flung regions, like Mediant major, or even Mediant Major's Mediant Major, a bit cumbersome, and inelegant, to be sure. Actually, most standard modal jazz seems like it could be described quite well as interchange or a stagnant harmony, although modality is really more of a linear than a harmonic concept anyway... I still think it is an interesting and reasonably functional analytical system, but I do cede (yet again) that it can be frequently clumsy, especially in a modern jazz context... Not a SFOH fan, sir Reg?

[Reg]

hey Revelen... Thanks , Actually I have and still admire Schoenberg, I did some of my grad studies and taught at UCLA. Totally love how he tried to put everything in one box, somewhat get to that point of understanding to be able to move on and compose. Or as many traditional theorist did, in the style of scientology, build on one understanding and move on... I'm not sure the analysis reflects the music. I still go through SFOH... It covers most classical and earlier concepts... but Romantic harmony... it may fit in the box but it remind me of how many traditionally educated musicians hear jazz. I'm not trying to knock... but somewhat like trying to understand all art in B&W, can be very cool, but there can be more. Sorry about analogy...
But I also do like and think it is a very reasonable and functional analytical system and could shed some new light on compositional concepts and possible analysis. Reg

[mdenney10]

i think Schoenberg is trying to show that tonalities are not fixed, and that any tone can function as an extension of any scale, mode, or key. in his later chapters he explains this more, and talks about this in terms of key and harmonic function, talking about how there is only ever one key or tonal; center, and all other keys function to either move the upper harmonies further from or closer to that original key. this is all based around overtone, and also formed the basis for later theoretical ideas like the Lydian Chromatic Concept, and the principals of free jazz. the whole idea of free moving tonality and extreme alterations is fascinating, and this really changed the way he world viewed the rules of music theory. i love that there are other jazz guitar players interested in this

[mdenney10]

just a quick little thing about that Giant Steps bit. in Coltrane's mind, there is one key, and the three major chords used in the piece (Gmaj7, Bmaj7, and Ebmaj7) are all extensions of each other which are based on dividing the octave into equal parts. he dis this in almost all of his improvisations from that period. Countdown, for example, is simply the application of this idea to Miles Davis's Tune Up. this is really difficult to get through, it took Coltrane more than a year of practice to work it out, and it is deadly in the right hands

[Krenwin]

Hi jazzguitar.be
and all the other gentlemen.. I'm still watching (reading.) In the mean time
I'll go back to J.P. Rameau, the inventor of the harmonic analysis
Bye