Easy Diatonic Standards

[Christian Miller]

So if a tune only used plagal cadence (which is basically a dorian vamp) to go back to the tonic, you wouldn't consider it a proper key?

I’m talking about the specific language of common practice music. If a piece contains only a plagal cadence it wouldn’t be part of that idiom.

[James W]

Posts #116 and #129. I never said they used the same mechanism to establish the reference pitch.

The trouble this whole time has been that you say both modal music and tonal music are tonal. That just caused a load of confusion because in one moment you distinguish between the two, even though simultaneously saying they're both tonal. So, whatever.

[pamosmusic]

I’m talking about the specific language of common practice music. If a piece contains only a plagal cadence it wouldn’t be part of that idiom.

Yerp. This would be a trick question on a theory test. In the (only somewhat useful) classroom framework, there are tests on whether things are true modulations to a new key center or just temporary tonicizations, based on the strength of the cadence. Again — of limited practical usefulness, but there are distinctions out there.

Also, on the topic of all this stuff being evolving and codified after the fact — We still hear most of this stuff as being established in a tonal context. Plagal Cadence sounds sort of passive and floaty because it’s not what you expect from the clear dominant cadence. Deceptive cadences are deceptive because … well … they’re not what “should be happening.” So to ears trained on a couple centuries of western music, so much of what we hear is based on that tonal/functional framework, even if it seems to be something different.

Can we call this Schoenberg’s Trap?

[Tal_175]

I’m talking about the specific language of common practice music. If a piece contains only a plagal cadence it wouldn’t be part of that idiom.

Maybe that's the cause of the disagreement. I'm not talking about tonality as a historical jargon. I'm talking about tonality (aka key center) as a musical phenomenon. A compositional mechanism (used consciously or intuitively) where the melodic and harmonic content are interpreted in relation to an established home base. The home base relationship can also be made flexible in expressive ways. As I said earlier, would it be accurate to exclude modal music from the continuum of tonal music and consider it a separate compositional mechanism that doesn't rely on a pitch center as a melodic reference? I don't hear most modal music that way. I hear them as part of the tonal spectrum.

[pamosmusic]

Maybe that's the cause of the disagreement. I'm not talking about tonality as a historical jargon. I'm talking about tonality (aka key center) as a musical phenomenon. A compositional mechanism (used consciously or intuitively) where the melodic and harmonic content are interpreted in relation to an established home base. The home base relationship can also be made flexible in expressive ways. As I said earlier, would it be accurate to exclude modal music from the continuum of tonal music and consider it a separate compositional mechanism that doesn't rely on a pitch center as a melodic reference? I don't hear most modal music that way. I hear them as part of the tonal spectrum.

Thats what I’ve been trying to say. You’re talking connotation, but arguing with denotation. The word has a “dictionary” meaning, even if the practical application of that meaning is way more flexible. Which is fine. You should hear me talk about modes in a lesson—I have my own idiosyncratic understanding of how they work based on how they’re useful in jazz but they’d make a theory professor lose it.

[Tal_175]

The trouble this whole time has been that you say both modal music and tonal music are tonal. That just caused a load of confusion because in one moment you distinguish between the two, even though simultaneously saying they're both tonal. So, whatever.

I don't know, I ran out of ways trying to articulate the difference. I guess in such long threads, it's not reasonable to expect that people actually pay attention to every thing one posts.

[James W]

Oh - idle thought, I don’t see why non tertian harmony couldn’t have a type of cadential functionality as well

Well, quartal harmony doesn't seem to exhibit the same feeling of functionality as thirds does it? But there are cadences in Medieval music, the early polyphony of which was based on fourths and fifths, rather than thirds.

[Christian Miller]

The trouble this whole time has been that you say both modal music and tonal music are tonal. That just caused a load of confusion because in one moment you distinguish between the two, even though simultaneously saying they're both tonal. So, whatever.

yeah it’s a bit confusing. Sometimes it seem a discussion about terminology, sometimes more about the nature of musical perception.

Tonality of some type is probably hard wired into the way we perceive music. I find that a distinct subject from the way musical idioms express tonality, modality and so on. Even the same scale can be used in very different ways from culture to culture. And as for western tonal harmony and its use in the western tradition that’s a very specific area within all of that.

An important aspect is form - an ostinato can suggest a central tonality through sheer repetition, while the extended formal structures of c18-c19 music required consideration of key based tonality at a formal level alien to most pop/rock or jazz composers dealing with song structures. (Otoh I suspect there may be some analogies with Middle Eastern improvisation.)

[Tal_175]

Is the notion of key a general musical phenomenon or is it a historical idiomatic construct of Western music that describes the use of V going to I?

[James W]

Tonality of some type is probably hard wired into the way we perceive music.

I would also say that atonality of some type is probably hardwired into the way we perceive music. But then I would say that.

Anyway it's a bit late to start debating this, but I don't think tonal music springs from nature more than any other kind of music. I recall reading Anthony Storr debunking the argument as made by Leonard Bernstein, pointing out that the overtone series doesn't really exactly follow the major scale. And it's not like Storr is a card-carrying serialist...

[pamosmusic]

Is the notion of key a general musical phenomenon or is it a historical idiomatic construct of Western music that describes the use of V going to I?

Well it sounds a bit goofy when you put it like that, but also 7,981 posts ago, we weren’t talking about a “key.” We were talking about “tonal music,” which is most definitely is a historical idiomatic construct of western music that describes the use of V going to I.

Which is why I kept saying, in my legal-disclaimers-at-the-end-of-a-car-commercial-voice, that tonal music has a tonal center **and functional harmony**

But over 9,870,999 posts, it’s understandable that the goalposts do tend to move.

[Tal_175]

Well it sounds a bit goofy when you put it like that, but also 7,981 posts ago, we weren’t talking about a “key. We were talking “tonal music,” which is most definitely is a historical idiomatic construct of western music that describes the use of V going to I.

I was literally saying key 700 posts ago also. I swear, lol. But nevermind, so are you saying that tonality is an idiomatic construct and key is a different thing altogether?

[pamosmusic]

I was literally saying key 700 posts ago also. I swear, lol. But nevermind, so are you saying that tonality is an idiomatic construct and key is a different thing altogether?

Right but you said modal music is tonal because it has a key. We’ve been over this territory, and we agreed to disagree 698 posts ago.

As for the tonal harmony thing—yes?

Key is maybe not a different thing altogether, but a component of tonal harmony. In a theory classroom, they would probably say you can’t actually really be in an established key without functional harmony to do the establishing, but I’m not sure. It’s been a while. But you and Christian have established that there are a lot of common usages of “key.” A piece can have a melody that comes straight from a scale and not have functional harmony, so it depends on how you’re using “key.”

[Tal_175]

Right but you said modal music is tonal because it has a key. We’ve been over this territory, and we agreed to disagree 698 posts ago.

The post we agreed to disagree literally never said modal music is tonal. It said it has a key. I keep reposting it because I feel it's been a moving goal post:

I guess we will agree to disagree.
My take is:
- Modal harmony also has a key center. Otherwise there wouldn't have been distinct musical phenomena such as C major, D dorian, and E phrygian. Moreover listener hears C, D and E as the home respectively in these situations but the key centers of D and E would be more understated.
- Since these modal keys can be established by only using certain harmonic devices and combinations there is a sense of harmonic function in modal music. A harmonic function doesn't have to be only V-I. Modal vamps also rely on functions of chords to establish a sense of home.

[pamosmusic]

Modal music is also tonal music.

… and …

For example a dorian modal tune would have a key. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even call it dorian. Since there is a key, it's tonal. In other words, it has a home. But that home is established using more understated functional relationships than the V-I cadence

You said modal music has a key and therefore is tonal.

I said several times that tonal music requires functional harmony.

The discussion eventually morphed into what a key is and whether or not a modal tune can be said to have one, but even still. The definition of tonal harmony hasn’t changed.

Has all the quoting officially run the thread into the ground?

If not, can someone tell me how?

[Tal_175]

… and …



You said modal music has a key and therefore is tonal.

I said several times that tonal music requires functional harmony.

The discussion eventually morphed into what a key is and whether or not a modal tune can be said to have one, but even still. The definition of tonal harmony hasn’t changed.

I don't know why you say it eventually morphed into what a key is when (as I quoted in the previous post) it was my position from the beginning.
Anyway, the confusion might be that I use having a key and being tonal (ie having a tonic) synonymously at times. But I think I was clear that by tonality I don't mean a historical idiom but I mean having a tonal center. Perhaps you consider having key center and being tonal as distinct musical phenomena (one is a musical event, the other is a idiomatic artefact).

Has all the quoting officially run the thread into the ground?

If not, can someone tell me how?

I don't know you tell me. Someone bet me that I wouldn't be able to out-marathon Christian. It think I won that bet. Kidding

[pamosmusic]

Anyway, the confusion might be that I use having a key and being tonal (ie having a tonic) synonymously at times. But I think I was clear that by tonality I don't mean a historical idiom but I mean having a tonal center.

That would definitely be the confusion. Tonal music is a specific musical term, with agreed-upon meaning. When I was trying to describe what “tonal” harmony was before this part of the whole discussion, I made that harmonic motion part of the “definition” for that reason.

Modal music generally consists of single chords or repetitive vamps, but I can’t say that the four measures of F major in Take the A Train are modal, because modal harmony is more than just “a static chord for a while.” There is some established language here.

I don't know you tell me. Someone bet me that I wouldn't be able to out-marathon Christian. It think I won that bet. Kidding

Remember he’s on UK time. He’ll be back.

[Tal_175]

That would definitely be the confusion. Tonal music is a specific musical term, with agreed-upon meaning. When I was trying to describe what “tonal” harmony was before this part of the whole discussion, I made that harmonic motion part of the “definition” for that reason.

Modal music generally consists of single chords or repetitive vamps, but I can’t say that the four measures of F major in Take the A Train are modal, because modal harmony is more than just “a static chord for a while.” There is some established language here.

I was disagreeing with a post way in the beginning that said something along the lines of: tonal music has a key, modal music by definition doesn't have a key.
That's been the core of my disagreement.

Remember he’s on UK time. He’ll be back.

He might since based on his earlier posts, his view seems to be that key is an idiomatic notion that indicates V-I cadence.

[Bobby Timmons]

I don't know how else to say modal music is non-functional. Doesn't matter if there's a home base because the chords don't have functions.

I think this is the key distinction. Modal can have a home base and therefore resembles a tonal center, but the harmony isn't functional.

[ragman1]

I wouldn’t describe a form of music as diatonic unless it was completely diatonic.

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's convenient to separate the tune from the chords but the whole thing is really one sound.

[pauln]

My first impression was that the request for suggestions of diatonic music was meaning not just that all the chord harmony roots were in the key, but that all the notes of all the chords were in the key, and likely all the melody notes as well, and that the key would be C major / A minor... That is to say, I think what was being sought are songs based strictly on the harmonized scale.

Yep! Can only play vanilla stuff in C.

How is he on RHYTHM?

No comment.....

The main complaint about pianists is that they play too much. They typically learn to play with music where the piano is the whole song. Playing with others, the pianist needs to break from that and play less, much less. I am surprised that no one has seen this as an encouragement. In my old jazz records the piano hardly ever plays more than three notes at the same time, their hands close together, and one or two of those notes may be the melody.

AI asserts these songs only use the notes of the key (if that's true, they might be transposed to C or Am and just played with the white keys). Disclosure: I've never played any of these and don't trust AI...


"Blue Monk" - Thelonious Monk
"Straight, No Chaser" - Thelonious Monk
"Birk's Works" - Dizzy Gillespie
"Bag's Groove" - Milt Jackson
"Cantaloupe Island" - Herbie Hancock
"Watermelon Man" - Herbie Hancock
"Footprints" - Wayne Shorter
"Little Sunflower" - Freddie Hubbard
"Chameleon" - Herbie Hancock

[Christian Miller]

Maybe that's the cause of the disagreement. I'm not talking about tonality as a historical jargon. I'm talking about tonality (aka key center) as a musical phenomenon. A compositional mechanism (used consciously or intuitively) where the melodic and harmonic content are interpreted in relation to an established home base. The home base relationship can also be made flexible in expressive ways. As I said earlier, would it be accurate to exclude modal music from the continuum of tonal music and consider it a separate compositional mechanism that doesn't rely on a pitch center as a melodic reference? I don't hear most modal music that way. I hear them as part of the tonal spectrum.

Even I sleep sometimes haha

You seem to be getting a bit hung up on that word when actually I might be an idea to just specify ‘modal tonality’, ‘common practice tonality’, ‘pop/rock tonality’ and I think that would make it perfectly clear.

As I say I probably would tend to avoid the term on its own.

I don’t think I disagree with you in any substantive way apart from what I’d understand ‘tonality’ to mean if I saw it in a music theory book which is that I would assume they were talking about CP tonality, but tbh you can usually work it out by context. the language usage is not especially rigorous - the encyclopaedia Brittanica seems to share this ambiguity -

tonality, in music, principle of organizing musical compositions around a central note, the tonic. Generally, any Western or non-Western music periodically returning to a central, or focal, tone exhibits tonality. More specifically, tonality refers to the particular system of relationships between notes, chords, and keys (sets of notes and chords) that dominated most Western music from c. 1650 to c. 1900 and that continues to regulate much music.

So I suppose we can both be right? And maybe it’s best to be more specific when talking about rules of harmony…

[Christian Miller]

Btw i do think there’s value in defining your terms - by ‘x’ I mean this.

The pattern however is that people end up debating your definition in terms of their definition, rather than seeing it as clarification of what you mean in support of some other point. I think we all do it.

[Christian Miller]

Oh god not another post haha… interminable footnote #587438

as both James w and I pointed out tonality as an area of theory tends to deal with analysis of pre-existing music. So an obvious example is functional analysis of chords in Bach for example, using theoretical ideas that did not exist in Bach’s era.

In jazz, there are papers seeking to understand Wayne Shorter’s harmony from the point of view of a more developed theory of tonality (Dmitri Tymoczo et al). But I never got the impression from Wayne that his choice of chords was made on the basis of a worked out theory.

It depends to what extent you think these theorists are uncovering stuff that’s really there in the music, or not. I tend to be skeptical of such claims, but if a new theoretical tool seems to be useful, why not use it?

In general think in terms of idiomatic gestures and typical ‘moves’ - V-I and Gallant Schemata in CP music, II V ii licks in bebop, and in Wayne it’s more elusive but you get repeated ideas like a m7 or #9 moving up a half step to a major seventh under a pentatonic melody (Deluge, Speak no Evil, ESP) for example.

The repeated use of these sorts of gestures help establish a musical language - how they work is of less interest to me than identifying what they are, how they sound and learning to use them/improvise on them etc. I actually think most jazz musicians are more focussed on this than ‘how things work.’

[Christian Miller]

Yerp. This would be a trick question on a theory test. In the (only somewhat useful) classroom framework, there are tests on whether things are true modulations to a new key center or just temporary tonicizations, based on the strength of the cadence. Again — of limited practical usefulness, but there are distinctions out there.

Also, on the topic of all this stuff being evolving and codified after the fact — We still hear most of this stuff as being established in a tonal context. Plagal Cadence sounds sort of passive and floaty because it’s not what you expect from the clear dominant cadence. Deceptive cadences are deceptive because … well … they’re not what “should be happening.” So to ears trained on a couple centuries of western music, so much of what we hear is based on that tonal/functional framework, even if it seems to be something different.

Can we call this Schoenberg’s Trap?

there’s an interesting one. For me I hear two consecutive thirds for example in the plainsong ‘Credo in unum deum’ and I instantly hear a triad. This is music that predates triadic harmony by several hundred years so the association has to be a result of my cultural upbringing.

Also arpeggio like figures and descending melodic sequences in (mostly) monodic Ottoman music suggest chord progressions to the western ear. the melody seems to spell out the Im and V triads on several occasions

and of course modern jazz musicians and so on playing this music lean into this, also contemporary Middle Eastern musicians who are aware and influenced by Western music and play chord progressions and bass lines to these songs… see also modern Indian popular music and so on.