-
Well this is a whole vibe, now isn’t it?
I went back to my old jazz theory text book for good measure (Jazzology, Robert Rawlins).
A couple interesting things.
1. Modal and tonal are indeed treated separately. That’s consistent with basically every other standard textbook definition.
2. Interestingly, they’re discussed in the section on tune forms, which backs up ragmans notion that “diatonic is about notes and tonal is about structure.”
3. They spend the previous 126 pages working through harmonic analysis, that is to say, analysis of function as it relates to key center.
… and the definition of modal music, as distinct from tonal music:
”In addition to its slower harmonic rhythm (the speed at which the chords change), much modal jazz incorporates unexpected or sudden shifting and displacement of chords, including planing and side-stepping. Such harmonic motion is governed by color, not function, resulting in chord sequences that sometimes appear not to be related to one another.”
(emphasis, mine.)
Again … it’s okay to have a definition that differs from then common practice definition, but it’s a bit weird to argue that the common practice definition is wrong because it doesn’t line up with yours.
Im glad your definition works for you, and it makes sense to me when you describe it to me. But most people most of the time will not consider modal music tonal or functional when you describe it using those terms, because those terms have different meanings to most people most of the time
-
07-26-2023 11:46 AM
-
I didn't say that the common practice definition is wrong. I said modal music also has a tonal center. I didn't see anything in your post that contradicted that.
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Excellent.
-
Bach wrote out his G minor violin partitas in one flat. Just sayin…. Originally Posted by ragman1
In the 18th century Italy, they used to solfege the minor scales from Re, so they were thinking of them as being Dorian in some sense. There was a connection stretching back to plainsong via the church. But that’s all with the hexachord system. Nothing really worked the way we take for granted today.
otoh I was looking at a Durante partimento (late c18) in A written out in 2 sharps (mixolydian)
bear in mind this is the era that is the core of tonal music and they hadn’t worked out the theory yet. That came later and C19 editors tidied up all the editions.
Thats one reason I say tonality is kind of relatively recent idea that post dates allegedly tonal music. I mean it makes sense to write the partitas in Gm in two flats, but that’s not the way Bach wrote it down, weirdly.
-
I don't think I can make it clearer, Dawg. You'll have to wrestle with it :-) Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Does that mean diatonic refers only to melody regardless of non-diatonic chords? Or does it include the chords? Or the whole thing all together? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
No theses, keep it simple :-)
-
it’s not simple. Nothing is when you get to definitions. That’s why it’s best to stay away from definitions haha. See also ‘what is jazz?’ Originally Posted by ragman1
it’s bloody hard to define a key for instance. For example, when is a secondary dominant and actual dominant? It’s a grey area. A lot of jazzers tend to play more key changes than the composer wrote in the standard. Does just friends change key for example*?
For HB I would say the melody is diatonic and the chords are not.
I wouldn’t describe a form of music as diatonic unless it was completely diatonic. Some people use that term for old school changes - I think mostly jazzers. I always find it a bit confusing. It’s more of a slang usage.
There is such a thing as pan diatonic music. It is not conventionally tonal.
*I would say not, but I use several non diatonic chords/scales to negotiate the harmony.
-
I agree with Tal that most modal musica kind of still has a tonal center. I think saying all modal music isn't tonal is kind of a college theory rule that isn't really accurate. There may be differences such as the music feels more vague because it drifts between modes and there are less functional chords or chord progressions. But it's extremely obvious that D dorian is the tonal center in So What for example. It isn't like it's atonal music where all the notes in the tune are designed to obscure any hint of a key.
-
yeah the textbook answer is that is a key area is established when it is confirmed by a clear cadence (usually V-I). This never happens in So What, so it can’t be said it be a key in the traditional sense. In modal and post-modal music the tonal area of the given chord is established by having the chord sit around. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
(You could of course play a cadence in your line.)
-
(Also the jazz idea modes is very different from the medieval/renaissance conception.)
-
I think the common denominator for the concept of key is that it is the pitch that a piece of music revolves around and establishes as its base.
V-I is one way to establish the key. But I'm not aware of any universally accepted source that equates the notion of key with the perfect cadence.
-
You can think that but I don’t thinks it’s the widely held definition. From the perspective of a wider sense of harmony I think most would avoid the term ‘key’ because it associated with conventional common practice tonality. Originally Posted by Tal_175
In classical harmony 101 you are told that Perfect cadences are a defining feature of conventional tonality and therefore, keys. It’s the main reason why music moved towards a raised leading tone in minor for instance, and why the church modes where gradually altered over the c16 and c17 to resemble the modern major and minor scales (even if this wasn’t always reflected in key signatures.)
Harmony 101 is not the be all and end all - and one can argue sometimes that music that doesn’t fit into this bracket may still establish a key - I saw an interesting example from Brahms the other day - and any discussion of tonality is going to be more complex and nuanced, but you aren’t going to find many c18 pieces without clear V-I cadences. Or for that matter, early century jazz standards. Not all, though, there are examples of key ambiguity being explored for musical effect; Haydn’s representation of the chaos springs to mind for instance.
Schoenberg iirc argued that the I IV and V chords were all necessary to establish a major key unambiguously (he might have said ii v I haha). A major V7-I cadence would have much the same effect because it unambiguously establishes the two semitones in the major key.
In fact I prefer to look at tonality from the point of view of the melodic semitones and ignore the functional harmony stuff - mi and fa as Bach put it.
-
For those wishing to nerd out about how it all came about
a startlingly different way of looking at it from modern theory I must say.
-
Who said that? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
No I won't. I'm never asking a damn theory question here or anywhere else again tbh. Originally Posted by ragman1
Allen was right. Waste of damn time.
-
Never asking a theory question again is a terrible idea. Please continue asking theory questions. Originally Posted by DawgBone
Never asking another theory question here might be a pretty good idea though. Wheat from chaff, etc.
EDIT: You seemed like you understood forty or fifty posts ago, which means you probably still understand.
-
Probably me. Modal organization is different than tonal. It’s fuzzy in the real world with a section of a tune feeling very modal and another section of the same tune feeling functional (something like Yes or No, for example). But the harmony works differently. Originally Posted by James W
Anyway … Christian’s on point about definitions, so I should probably stop checking in on this.
-
It was never 100% clear which is why I asked in the first place which also tells me it's mostly a bunch of bs and conjecture, just like Allen stated. "Theory". I should've taken his advice and will do so now. I appreciate your efforts as well as ragman's but it's just giving me a headache at this point. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
I don't have anywhere else to ask theory questions and I play blues so I guess I didn't really need to grasp it anyways. I was just trying to understand the conversation better. Sometimes that's what you get for trying.
-
Yes I'm aware that modes and tonality are different ways of organising music - obviously I was arguing this very point with Tal. But you are right in saying it's fuzzy in the real world, there are large grey areas and loads of music that escapes easy categorisation. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Just for some back of the napkin input:
Tonal harmony:
1. Presence of tonal centre (pitch class that provides a centre of gravity)
2. Tertian
3. Presence of functional harmony.... chords have functions (Roman numerals, sub dom, Dom, tonic etc). Each chord is part of a macro movment towards a goal.
4. Some say has to be based on maj and min scales. I'll say this is a soft requirement.
Non functional harmony:
Individual chords do not take part in a movement towards a defined tonic. Does not necessarily lack a feeling of purpose or forward motion. This concept began in jazz with modal music (I assume).
In other words, that D that felt like home over a Dmin is not home on Ebmin, therefore non functional.
A vamp is a vamp, don't use it as an example that modal (non-functional) = tonal music. Fair enough, the vamp has a strong central sonority but now we're getting pedantic... maybe that ship sailed a number of posts back.
-
That's called a key change (assuming you're referring to So What). Tonal center can change in different parts of a piece of music. Originally Posted by bediles
Originally Posted by bediles
The concept of strong central sonority is kind of a big deal in how a piece of music works and is heard. That's not getting pedantic at all.
-
TBH I would end to go more on common usage than definition.
While I can't think of clinching reason why it would be wrong if Tal's determined to die on that hill, all power to him - I'm sympathetic to a wider interpretation of tonality. That said, I don't think I've heard anyone talk about a tune being in the key of 'D dorian' or a blues in 'F dominant' for example. Apart from Tal, maybe. Key is major or minor.
The word Key has a lot of baggage, but then it's the baggage that makes it a key.
For instance, you have C C7 F Fm. It's not a move to F because we are used to seeing that happen in C major. You learn the things that songs and pieces do by exposure. Theoretical definition tends to be unsatisfying - either too loose, or too narrow.
-
What key is the first 16 bars of So What in? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
We’re honestly kind of at the point where we’re arguing with a person about whether or not Sprite is a “cola.”
It would be weird to tell someone that Sprite is not a cola and they’re totally wrong, because that’s a particular regionalism that people use and it’s useful to them and that’s fine.
It would also be weird for the person who called Sprite a cola to insist that they are objectively correct and the correct definition of cola includes Sprite. It would be helpful to acknowledge that their usage is not in line with the wider common one.
Tal’s stuff has its own internal logic, but it’s also inconsistent with the common definition. Which is fine, assuming there’s space to acknowledge that. So at this point that’s the argument we’re having. Which is not really much of an argument.
-
That’s right. We’re talking SOFT DRINK REGIONALISMS.
Did I officially run it into the ground?
If not, do tell me how.
EDIT: I’m joking. But for real, the argument now is about how people use a term. Not about theory.
Reply With Quote
New LEDs Day
Yesterday, 07:28 PM in Other Styles / Instruments