-
Was wondering for you theorists if you think chord progressions or sequences (especially ones that can smoothly connect remote or "distant" 'Keys" or distant "chordal areas" ) work because of the roman numeral functions primarily OR when you really get down to a SPECIFIC Series of chords and voicings- is it really working because of common tones and stepwise motion- Voice Leading ?
Sometimes it seems like some things just "work" or flow together and the theory comes afterwards, where the Standard Roman Numeral progressions work no matter HOW you voice them, sometimes careful voice leading is REALLY what connects the more remote keys.
What do you guys think of this, I hope it makes sense..... and here I'm talking about new composition NOT reharmonization.Last edited by Robertkoa; 12-31-2010 at 03:55 PM.
-
12-31-2010 03:51 PM
-
Theory is better at analysis than composition. Theory is for the eyes, composition is for the ears. Both can be used, but only one is absolutely essential.
-
WOW- you said so much in so few words-brilliant, lot of truth to that when I think of how I really compose.
Originally Posted by Stackabones
If I hear the next chord in my mind or 5 possible chords for the next opossible one - cool I don't need theory for those I just "har " the top note and the lowest and fill 'em in.
What I use theory for is to suggest a different avenue of approach - something I would not ordinarily do.........which is why I'm here- to bleed you Jazz Guys dry of knowledge - just kidding ......and Jazz Guys usually have LOTS of approaches.Last edited by Robertkoa; 01-12-2011 at 09:27 PM.
-
Yes, theory is an attempt, after the fact to explain why something sounded good to us (at our point in history, in our culture, with out aesthetic values.) As I always say, it is descriptive, not proscriptive or even prescriptive. That being said, it can however be great training wheels when you're starting out. Once you've advanced, it can suggest things and be a great organizing tool. But if it is "telling" you what to do, then the cart is pulling the horse. Originally Posted by Stackabones
As to the original question. I think that chord changes work because of voice leading. I don't think that the root movement is that important. We tend to focus a lot of circle of fifths, but I don't think that that has as much to do with the the strong root movement as it does with the voice leading of the guide tones. Every time I've come up with a cool non-standard chord change, there has been some interesting voice leading that made it work. Maybe that's just how my ears work.
Peace,
Kevin
-
If you get into acoustics, the science that describes the physical basis of music, you'll find that there are also very physical reasons why music does what it does. But I've also noticed over the years that great players or composers can make all most anything sound great and not so great players and composers can make the best music sound pretty bad... There are many methods to make chord progressions as you said "connect", voice leading can be one, so can root motion, constant structure... or lack of resolution can also work. Simple rhythmic ideas ...there are an unlimited number of methods to connect chords...Our ears become comfortable or uncomfortable hearing different progressions, which influence what we hear as "good"... As far as performance and composition...it usually comes down to the use of.... the method of connecting. Reg
-
I'm going to have to disagree here. Acoustics can tell us the physics of how the waves propogate. We can argue that that paired with math, we can offer an explanation of why certain intervals and chords sound good. But there is nothing in a acoustics or math that can tell us why certain voice leading sounds good. If musical aesthetics were solely the product of physical laws, then all cultures around the world would have come to the same conclusions about what sounds good. But as anyone who has studied ethnomusicology knows, that is not the case - quite the opposite. Even within our own musical culture, within different time periods there have been different ideas. Originally Posted by Reg
For an example, consider Gagaku, the court music of imperial Japan:
To my ears, this is a painful listen. But this was at one time the music of one of the most sophisticated cultures on the planet. To them, I'm sure that what we play would sound barbaric.
Beyond the basics of interval and rhythmic ratios, much of what makes music sound good is very culturally based. We are trained to hear certain things as "good" from a young age. There may be a few things that are universally programmed into it our DNA, like a sense of rhythm. You can build an evolutionary argument for them (or divine, if you are so inclined.) But most of the things that make music sound good are due to cultural conditioning.
I think that in the West, we tend to get a distorted perception of what else is out there. Part of this is that we tend to be ignorant of other musical cultures. The other problem is that as the cultural influence of the West spreads, other cultures integrate or even adopt aspects of our culture - a kid growing up in India is more likely to learn to play Metalica than Hindustani raga. This is nothing new - throughout history dominant cultures have spread their influence and wiped out other cultures (actively or passively.) I guess we should be happy that at least now there is a movement to study and understand these cultures.
But back to the original question - what makes our music work is entirely subjective and culturally based. Music theory, even though it often looks like science and math is really just an attempt to explain why it sounds good to our ears. Given the basic facts of acoustics but no knowledge of music, a person could not build modern music theory from these basic postulates, like Euclidean geometry does - something that we would expect it to do if it were more "scientific." There are far, far, far too many arbitrary aesthetic choices that have to be made. One could argue that music is a "soft science," but I'm not even sure that it reaches that level. Of course, in Medieval times was considered "scientific" and was part of the quadrivium along with math, astronomy, and geometry. Of course, they felt that these were all evidence of the divine logic of the universe. But there is a reason why we don't categorize music along with science - it doesn't belong there.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Hey Kevin... I didn't say acoustics determine what sounds "good"... Please don't quote and give your meanings to short clips of my posts. If your going to disagree, at least disagree with what I say. We obviously have different "cultural conditioning" and I don't want to waste our time arguing... Best Reg
-
Originally Posted by Reg
That is the full sentence. (The next sentence diverges.) I don't think that your meaning was quite clear and I think that I represented it fairly. If you can show me where in your quote you said the opposite of what I quoted you, I would be much obliged. But having reread the quote in question, I still come to the same conclusion as to your meaning, and I still disagree. Originally Posted by Reg
You were stating a physical/Newtonian/mechanistic view of music and what makes it work and I was arguing that the opposite is true. 99% of what makes music work is entirely psychological and/or cultural. The idea that mechanisms of music is some physical phenomenon was accepted a priori throughout much of history, but has died out quite quickly and thoroughly over the last few centuries. The production of sound is a physical phenomenon, but the meaning of that and the structure that we infer from it (i.e. music) are entirely psychological, definitely not physical.
For the record, "acoustics" doesn't really have anything to do with music - it deals with the propagation of waves. As such, it deals with sound, and therefore is useful for musicians worried about sound fidelity, but tells us almost nothing about music itself.
I agreed with the rest of what you said, but just took issue with that one idea.
Regards,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-02-2011 at 01:05 AM.
-
I have a few things to add. Please take them as you will and don't beat my post to a pulp.
Science has made a lot of progress in cognitive musicology. This pulls culture, biology, acoustics, current technology, and more, into a big pool of data that has come up with some fascinating results. Physics and the mind converge for music. There IS in fact a lot of data stating that humans will NOT become culturally conditioned to replace tonal music with completely atonal music. Therefore, a scientific music theory prediction HAS been made and there is empirical evidence to support it. Read up, if you dig that stuff. I am no scientist, but it really pulls my perspective together in a nice naturalistic way.
This is nearly sci-fi. Something like AI creates classical music??? Really, look into this and hear some examples!!! It's pretty thought provoking.
Virtual composer makes beautiful music—and stirs controversy
**************
"Intuition guides knowledge; it cannot stand out there on its own" - Bill Evans on Music Theory (from McPartlad interview)
**************
And lastly, I play original music 95% of the time now. I've got three full albums worth of tunes ready to record. I use theory as a launching point when composing. I think of a device that I want to exploit, and then I'm off! I might think, "I want to use three keys with no cadences", "A slow melody over a very fast BPM", "A song in 5/4 time", or something like that. Even an exploration of a chord, mode, or interval can inspire me. I have a song built with Perfect 5ths: the bass, chords, and melody are all 5ths used in very clever ways. Upon hearing it, you wouldn't ever guess. It all goes together smoothly and the form sounds natural.
It's fun, really. It's why I play.
Happy 2011!
-
Yes, there are something that seem to be biologically wired into our brains. But that is talking about how our brains are perceiving music. Yes, are brains are wired with notions of rhythmnicity, a sense of pitch, a sense of transposition, a complex innate sense of the overtone series, etc. But that is a discussion of of how we perceive these physical phenomenon. That is not physics, but psychology and perhaps neurobiology. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Well, that really depends on what we define as "tonal." Some theorists define it as having the characteristics of tonal harmony. By that definition, "So What" is not tonal music since it lacks functional harmony. A lot of music would fall into this category. Even if we expand it to include non-functional harmony, there is a lot of music in the world that has no harmony. If you mean "atonal" in its broadest sense of "not being centered on a pitch," then perhaps you are right. I'm not aware that there is any music in the world that has no pitch center, except for experimental Western music. But I still maintain that that is a psychological phenomenon. It's not music until it is understood by someone's ears. It isn't even really sound until and ear hears it - it's just longitudinal pressure waves moving through the air. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Interesting, but it still isn't "music as phenomenon of physics." These computer programs are starting by analyzing music and starting with some pre-programed models of music. This would be the computer equivalent of "cultural conditioning" - absorbing what came before and using that as a starting place for what is "correct." Originally Posted by JonnyPac
The computer did not start with a blank slate as to what music was. For this to support the idea that music is a physical phenomenon, the computer would have to be programed with only the laws of physics and mathematics and from that only, be able to build up (alla Euclid) and entire system of music. That is not what is happening with Cope's computer. He is starting with the notion of what music is and his computer is analyzing terrabytes of musical data.
It is analogous to Mozart's dice game to compose minuets. On the surface it may appear that the dice are composing, but really it is Mozart. In the design of the game, Mozart "programmed" in the basic qualities of the minuet and basic music theory. There is some randomness involved, but the game is designed not to allow the result to get too un-minuet-y. True, Cope's experiment is much more sophisticated, and the AI allows it to absorb much more musical data and to interpolate ideas together and a much more sophisticated, but it is still bounded by its programming and the data put into it. Really, the computer isn't composing, but it is Cope and his skill as an AI programmer - the computer doesn't even know what music is other than a mathematical model. It is not being programmed with the the definitions of "pitch," "volume," "note duration," "rhythm" (and other fundamental concepts of music) and from that it is extrapolating all of music. And to be a truly physical phenomenon, the computer would just have to be programmed with the basic laws of acoustics and from that it could write a symphony. That isn't even close to what is happening here.
For the curious:
http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/
Yes, Johnny, there is a lot of data showing that many of the basic qualities of music are programmed into are brains, perhaps with masked evolutionary roots. But that is not the same thing as saying that the more complex issues of musical aesthetics are based in the laws of physics.
The OP was talking about chord progressions. Clearly the Western idea of chord progressions cannot be rooted in human biology (let alone physics) since no other culture on the planet came even close to doing what we do with chord progressions - most don't even have true harmony. True, no doubt some aspects of our perception of chord progressions build on other simple principles that do have a biological basis (but that's still a long way from them springing from the basic laws of physics and mathematics like some kind of musical cogito.)
If the perception of harmony were are universal, then you should be able to play it for anyone in the world and they will perceive it as good. But ethnomusicologists have shown that the opposite is true. If you go play Mozart Symphony 40 for some nomadic Mongolian horse-head fiddle player, his eyes do not light up, "Ah! That is what our primitive music has been missing all along!" No, they simply won't understand it. Perhaps with time he could, just as we would need to take time to understand what he does. This is the result of cultural conditioning, not genetics and not physics. Countless studies have shown that people not raised in exposure to Western music do not have some gravitational pull to it once they hear it. If the children are exposed to it, they often grow up appreciating it and sometimes end up preferring it, as has happen with cultural dominance and diffusion since the beginning of recorded history - the culture of the dominant society tends to spread. Culture has always spread through empires, and for the first time in history, a culture can reach around the planet, leading us closer to the frightening prospect of cultural homogeneity. And if we're not careful, we might mistakenly perceive that our culture is spreading because it is more advanced.
True, there are some universals. To the best of my knowledge all major musical cultures (of which we have sufficient record) have some concept of rhythm. Most have a concept of meter, beat, and subdivision. Most have a concept of pitch and melody. Most have a concept of scale. From this data we can infer that these things are probably pre-programmed into our brains
We cannot say that for a concept of harmony since many cultures do not have it. Very few could have any concept that could be defined as chord progression and I think that we are the only ones with the concept of modulation. How can say that these are pre-wired into are brains if they are so rare? And we certainly cannot think of them as an innate property of physics. We might say that the 12-tone scale is innate, but we could also explain it as cultural diffusion - but it's current ubiquity does speak to some innateness.
But there is a big difference between that and saying that the ii-V-I can be derived from the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with physics but with cultural conditioning. The notion that the laws of music were somehow programmed into the laws of the universe was an idea that the Greeks accepted a priori and Western thinkers inherited it without questioning it. It was very popular in Medieval times, Music of the Spheres, et. al. It has been slowly dying out since the Renaissance - even by then it was often just getting lip service Rameau for example used these ideas more as after the fact support of is ideas rather than in their derivation. Sure, some musicians and artists like to make the occasional grandiose theory on the subject, but "real" scientists (to the best of my knowledge) had pretty much abandoned the idea by the end of the 19th century. But I guess it's not as dead as I thought.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-02-2011 at 04:04 AM.
-
Interesting approach JohnnyPac. I like it. Regardless of the lengthy strawman argument that precedes, there are definitely physical laws that govern the construction and application of the musical scale and rhythms to make them work. Aesthetics is another discussion, which is influenced by culture and conditioning, but the raw material of music is derived from the science of harmonics.And lastly, I play original music 95% of the time now. I've got three full albums worth of tunes ready to record. I use theory as a launching point when composing. I think of a device that I want to exploit, and then I'm off! I might think, "I want to use three keys with no cadences", "A slow melody over a very fast BPM", "A song in 5/4 time", or something like that. Even an exploration of a chord, mode, or interval can inspire me. I have a song built with Perfect 5ths: the bass, chords, and melody are all 5ths used in very clever ways. Upon hearing it, you wouldn't ever guess. It all goes together smoothly and the form sounds natural.
-
Looking forward to hearing your tunes Johnny Pac... I see your in Placerville, I'm in SF area, I play Moody's in Truckee a couple times a year. I know it's the other freeway, but any time I play there your welcome to sit in. It's usually an organ trio... way fun, either Derlbert Bump or Tim Cambell on organ. I would gladly come sit in with what ever in or play in placerville for no charge to help educate guitarist or promote Jazz just for fun... Reg
-
I'm sorry, but there is no strawman. I was responding to what people said. If you can show me where I misrepresented someone's position, please show me. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
Reg tried to argue that, "If you get into acoustics, the science that describes the physical basis of music, you'll find that there are also very physical reasons why music does what it does." I disagreed with that and built an argument against it.
I agreed with JonnyPac that "science has made a lot of progress in cognitive musicology." But I took issue with statements like, "Physics and the mind converge for music." Again, what Johnny was talking about was research into the psychology and neurobiology of music, not the physics. The physics of music has been well understood for hundreds of years and really hasn't changed much. Again, his example of computer generated music does not speak to the physics but to the skill of AI programmers. I just think that Jonny was making the mistake of conflating physics and these other disciplines.
It is easy to throw around words like "strawman." But you fail to show where it is. If you are going to accuse me of rhetorical malfeasance, then please do so responisbly. I was not rude in my replies, please show me the same courtesy. It seems like whenever I disagree with someone I get accused of some random logical fallacy. I may have gone a little afield in my defense of my position, but I didn't misrepresent what anyone said.
But if that were true, every culture (or at least most) would come to similar conclusions about what a scale is. But that is far from true. If you include temperament in your definition, then it is even more untrue. True there is some ubiquity of the 12-tone scale, but that may have to do with cultural diffusion. Similarly many European languages have word roots in common. But this is not due to some universal linguistic law, but due to cultural diffusion of Indo-European languages. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
Please, explain these "physical laws that govern the construction and application of the musical scale and rhythms." What are they? Words are easy to throw around. Can you show me a single "physical law" that defines a musical principle without an overlay of a priori, arbitrary, or aesthetic assumption?
Again, please show me the equation that is derived solely from physics that defines some musical universal (if you can even find a musical universal.) In order to do so, you need to make some arbitrary aesthetic assumptions. True, the math of harmonics will show that the harmonic ratios of a just tuned 5th form a nice simple, aesthetically pleasing ratio. But that starts with the assumption that "simple ratios are more aesthetically pleasing." Where do we get that "fact" - from our ears. There is nothing in the laws of physics that says that simple ratios are "better." That is an a priori assumption that we simply accept because our ears say that it is right. But that is a completely arbitrary assumption. You cannot do that in science, ever. When scientists do that, bad science results. I challenge anyone to explain why simple ratios sound better and not the opposite with math and physics. Men much smarter than us have tried and failed. To the best of my knowledge they gave up trying hundreds of years ago. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
If we argue that "simple ratios sound better" is a musical universal (why not), then you have learned something about psychology and neurobiology - that we appear to be pre-programmed to hear that way. I have yet to see anyone build any kind of a scientific argument. If there is a scientific argument, please make it.
I agree that 90% of aesthetics is culturally conditioned. Science has showed that some of aesthetics is pre-programmed into us, being the result of evolutionary psychology and neurobiology. Similarly, the perception of color is entirely a result of psychology and neurobiology - physics may define how photons move and their energy, but the fact that the brain perceives these as colors is entirely in our brains. Different animals perceive colors differently. I expect that if we ever meet aliens, they will have a very different concept of "color," if they even have one at all. And the decision about how these colors relate to each other again has nothing to do with physics, but with psychology and neurobiology, and to some extent cultural conditioning.
But I have yet to see any current science trying to say that these musical principles are innate physical properties of the universe. Having been a engineering major, I read a lot of science stuff for fun. If someone does of someone digging up and reanimating these medieval concepts, please let me know, I would find it fascinating.
So, I think the danger here is in assuming that anything scientific is "physics." I think that trying to find a scientific explanation of why we perceive music the way we do is fascinating. There is a lot of research in this area. But it has little to do with physics and is more the province of psychology and neurobiology with an over-masking of cultural conditioning.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Three things I said.... Originally Posted by JonnyPac
1. You beat it to a pulp. Thanks. You are even more OCD than I am. That's impressive. Good info though.
2. Physics = sound waves. Right? Mind = perception. Right? How completely wrong is that? Don't answer, please.
3. I am no scientists. If I mix my isms and ologies, sorry. I was just offering a perspective that embraces a theory-first model of inspired composition.
As, I posted on my book thread. I think I'm out for now. This forum is not fun for me. It has become a source of anxiety. Peace. Enjoy yourselves.
***
Reg, if you ever want to gig or jam in my town, I'd be happy to see that happen. I can get you booked at any coffee shop or venue on main st. I'd like to jam for sure. Thanx!
-
Dude, relax. Everyone is so touchy here. It seems like half the time when I disagree with someone they take it as a personal attack. This is a forum. Ideas get discussed, opposing viewpoints are expressed. I was not attacking you personally, but I simply disagreed with the point that you were trying to make. It's not that big of a deal. I'm not aware that anything I wrote was insulting - if it was I apologize. But I simply disagree with what you were asserting. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I'm not sure what some of you guys think a discussion is. Someone says something and no one is allowed to disagree? Someone is allowed to make an assertion and no one is allowed to challenge their facts or their logic? That is not a discussion, that is a bunch of people making speeches and no one is listening to each other.
If we were sitting in a bar somewhere, I hope that you wouldn't walk out just because I disagreed with you. For some reason, these internet forums seem to create an artificial air of hostility. (My direct manner doesn't help.) But sincerely, we're just having a friendly debate here.
Sorry, but I'll answer anyway. You ask a question and then expect me not to answer. You obviously don't know me very well. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Yes, physics (and acoustics) explains how waves propagate through air. Physics and math define how these waves interact. But, at that point they are just physical phenomenon. It is our ears that sense these as sound. It is only sound if we hear it. Waves that are beyond our ability to hear are not classified as sound. "Man is the measure of all things." It is the fact that our ears can hear it that makes it sound. True, you can get down to a molecular level and define hearing as physics (as you could with anything) but hearing is usually defined as a biological/neurological process. (The same with color - there is nothing inherently "blue" about 650THz, it's just how our brain perceives it.) The fact that our brains organize these sounds in certain ways and infer structure from them is an entirely psychological and neurological phenomenon. The fact that we define certain sounds as pleasing is not physics. To some extent some of the lower levels of how perceive pleasing sounds is wired into us (as evidenced by mountains of research in neurology and psychology) and most of the higher aesthetics come from cultural conditioning (as evidenced by mountains of research in anthropology and ethnomusicology.)
Cool. There's nothing wrong with not being a scientist. And there is nothing wrong with the "theory-first model of inspired composition" - I think that it is a valuable weapon in the arsenal. I was not challenging that. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I was just trying to get people (not just you) away from this notion that music is someone a physical phenomenon of the universe (and ultimately divine perfection.) It is an outdated idea that is currently considered dead and buried by most scientists. Again, I know of no real science suggesting this. There is a lot of great science being done now on how the brain perceives music. Check out This is Your Brain on Music by Levitin for a great introduction. (Actually I found some of his explanations of the science to be a little iffy, but the conclusions are good.)
I don't know why some music teachers still teach their students that music is a physical phenomenon. Perhaps it's easier. You just explain that simple ratios of frequencies sound good and tell them that it's all physics and it shuts them up. But that begs the question why these simple ratios sound good - physics offers no answer, for that we'd have to look in the brain. And it doesn't explain why with out equal temperament and complex harmonies, we still think it sounds good even though we've left simple ratios far behind. I think that the perception of music comes so naturally to us that we assume that it music be some universal attribute. Greek philosophers assumed that it was some window into the perfection of the universe, like they thought of geometry. Medieval thinkers thought that it was a window into the perfection of God. Modern thinking recognize that how we perceive music is quite arbitrarily wired into us or is culturally learned.
But I'm not trying to attack anyone. But when I am in a discussion with someone and they point out something that I feel is factually incorrect or misleading, I feel the need to point it out. To the best of my knowledge, that is how discussions are supposed to work. If someone can show me that the information I am inserting is wrong, I will happily shut up and defer to someone else's better knowledge on the subject. But so far all that's happened is that I've been accused of strawman attacks and people keep asserting statements that are contradicted by accepted research. If people (I'm not aiming this specifically at Jonny) want to contradict the current scientific research on the subject, it's going to take more than, "Because I say so."
And in the end, I think that the idea of music as a psychological/neurological phenomenon is much more interesting than just attributing it to some unspecified law of physics.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Kevin, I always like your posts to some degree. I think you are extremely intelligent and a great player. I also think your willingness to contribute to many topics is valuable. I just don't have the time and facility to post as clear versions of my ideas as you. I type with one finger, and I do not always feel like searching the web for data to support what I say, though I know I have read it somewhere over my long course of heavy self-study.
I read lots of stuff about the brain and sound. You are accurate with what you say. I never stated that music was intrinsic in physics, or something transcendental. I have piles of books on it, have watched videos, and listened to programs, etc. I don't just make things up, or believe everything that I breathe. I just suck at explaining on your level, I guess. Good thing my book had a great editor! lol.
I think an ideal forum would have members contributing ideas in a supportive friendly way... adding possible colors to the musical palette, as it where. Not just someone asking a simple question like, what kind of "harmonic glue" can I use? And then it ends with the vets beating each other the head over the misuse of a word or two. Strawman this, physics that, modal interchange, who cares. Lets try to add something useful for musicians who are seeking advice, etc. I know it is difficult with conceptual arts, but it is possible. Hell, throw in a emoticon after you pwn someone at least! Keep it light-hearted for those of us who are typical "sensitive artists", not hardened formum debaters heady to slay the burliest of trolls.
Anyhoo, I'm out for now. I may save up my load for an essay and post here in the future. Take care, and enjoy your new year.
-
Ok, my big post is over on the book thread I started. Gotsta go! Peace, we outa here!
-
Well, I shoot for quantity,, maybe you can shoot for quality. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Sorry if I misunderstood. Sometimes in these threads, there are many voices going on and it is difficult to figure out who is agreeing with whom and to what people are responding. Plus, I may not always be responding to just what you've said but also what others have added. Or even responding to common arguments on the subject. Of course, these forums are not always the ideal places for complicated discussions and it is easy to make a mistake. If I implied that you said something that you didn't, I apologize. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
In the words of Stuart Smalley, "It's easier to put on a pair of slippers than to carpet the entire world." If you discuss theory on the internet, then you're just going to have to accept that there will be people that disagree with you. Some of these guys that will be jerks that beat you down just because they like to. And some these guys are not trying to be jerks but in their zeal in stating their opinions they may come off as jerks because the internet cannot convey their sincerity ( Originally Posted by JonnyPac
). There are also a lot of guys who are reading and enjoying listening to the the debate even though the choose not to pipe in.
But I don't think that you're going to have any luck teaching manners to the entire internet. It's easier just to grow thick skin.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by Robertkoa
it's both.
the functions of the chords in tonal harmony remain even if the voice leading isn't close, the "smoothness" factor will be less and less the further you take 2 chords from each other but the function will be the same.
Voice leading only works if you voice two chords in the same register after all.
as far as a physical reason.... of course there is a physical explanation to all of this. If you're argument against that is that all cultures would have arrived at the same conclusions, that is completely misguided.
All cultures didn't invent the airplane at the same time, it's not as if all cultures even had the ability or desire to create harmonic instruments or a musical notation system.
I personally believe that the reason western music has taken over the world is because it's better and more complete in terms of pleasing the human ear. not because of american imperialism.
Lastly, if you don't think there is a physical reason why these things in music happen, read more about it.
I suggest "the craft on musical composition" by Paul Hindemith he goes in depth as to why intervals sound the way they do, where they come from, and how to measure their constanance and dissonance levels, this is science, however, it is really useless if you wanna bring a tear to someone's eye.
if that's your goal, put down the theory book and put on Revolver, that's all the education you'll ever need.
-
I hope your joking. Maybe you're just trying to get my goat. Originally Posted by timscarey
...I personally believe that the reason western music has taken over the world is because it's better and more complete in terms of pleasing the human ear. not because of american imperialism....
Every empire has felt that their culture was spreading because it was the best. The Chinese, the Hindus, the Persians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Muslims, the Romans, the Italians, the French, the English. Everyone thought that their empire would last forever and that the spread of their culture "proved" it was the best. Now it is the Americans turn, but really, it is a cultural imperialism of Western European and American culture. Unfortunately, now culture can wrap around the planet and there is a real threat of it wiping out other cultures, creating a rather boring cultural homogeneity. Fortunately, over the last two centuries, there has been growing interest in nurturing and preserving these other traditions. Let's hope they succeed.
I realize you may have been joking, but there are a lot of people who truly believe what you said. Some believe it outright and others just believe it subconsciously. People seem to just assume it tacitly without any thought. We can't blame them too much - history shows that it is a common weakness. But we can fight it.
Sorry for another boring, quixotic speech.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Some excellent responses and things I will read 2 or 3 times to fully digest.
I don't think the debates detract from the creativity and flow of the threrad and you guys seem helpful in your responses.
"Revolver" by the Beatles was mentioned- cool, in my little History of Rock, and just opinion, not worth debating but I'm sure that most of you will see some truth to this- I feel that the most gifted composers were probably The Beatles and the most SKILLED Composers were probably Steely Dan.
The idea of this thread of mine is fairly selfish - to improve my Harmonic /musical concept and give me more places to "go" when composing.
Thanks for responding- I see some similarities to Johnny Pac's approach in myself( but I suspect he has more knowledge/resources)- and there is some good stuff on here- Thanks to all.Last edited by Robertkoa; 01-04-2011 at 04:24 AM.
-
Dude, Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I was basically just talking about tempered 12 tone tuning, and more specifically the piano.
Both inventions of "western culture" whatever that really means. I'm not talking about pop tunes. or anything other than music.
but I was pretty sure someone would say something about it.
feel free to argue with me on that point, I would love to try and defend it.
-
hmmm, Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
are you suggesting that there may be a culture out there that would not hear an octave? or would not hear a fifth?
Clearly intervals can be measured as ratios, and all people hear intervals the same right? not to say they "effected" the same way by them, but they hear them the same way, right?
so couldn't you say that music can be understood through physics and it's cultural implications come second. Like, a universal language for music that could apply to all music.... like physics?
-
Well, I still say it's a mistake to think that these are "improvements." Everyone tends to assume that things are getting better. We live in a technological world, which does improve over time, but art is not the same thing. The art of one age is not better than the other. CS Lewis called this something like "chronological snobbery." It's not surprising that every age feels that they are the apex. Originally Posted by timscarey
The two things that you mention are only better because of how we think of music.
On the subject of temperament, every "advance" was met with resistance. Equal temperament has been traced to at least the late 16th century and yet took almost two centuries to catch on. People were not saying, "Yes! That's it! Why didn't we hear it before! Finally we know how to tune!" No, many people didn't like them. Even after they began to be accepted it wasn't uncommon for people to "sweeten" their thirds. Still today, it's common for singers and horns to tune their 5ths and 3rd to with the overtone series, i.e. un-equal temperament. Temperament is always a compromise - do you want perfectly in-tune 5ths and 3rds, or do you want to be able to modulate freely?
Modern people assume that the fortepiano was an improvement over the harpsichord. But actually, the fortepiano was slow to be accepted. Many people preferred the harpsichord. Harpsichord were built and sold regularly into the 19th century - someone was buying and playing them. I'm looking for a quote, but I remember reading some period documents of people complaining about the fortepianos, in preference to the harpsichord.
In both cases, there was significant resistance. Why were they eventually accepted? Because they were a better fit for the music that was being made. Harpsichord was perfect for the Baroque era, but in the Classical (and especially Romantic) era they wanted the greater expressive potential of control over the dynamics that the fortepiano offered. That being said , it's well documented that Mozart still preferred fortepianos with a thinner, more brittle tone (like a harpsichord.) And in temperament, mean-tone tuning was perfect when in-tune 5ths and 3rds were a priority. In the Baroque, most didn't modulate more than a 5th or a 4th (or its relative) so mean-tone was fine. But it couldn't handle the remote modulations that new composers were doing. That had become the priority, and the "ever so slightly out of tune" 3rds and 5ths were considered a small price to pay.
Art does not get better, it merely adjusts to fit the aesthetics of the time. Classical music is not better than Baroque, it just better fit the times. Bebop is not better than swing, it just better fit the times. And as art changes, sometimes the technology (whether temperament or instruments) just change to fit it. Picasso was not not better better than El Greco, he just fits the times better.The new Battlestar Galactica is not better better than the old one, it just fits the times better. (OK, maybe I'll give you that one, but it is subjective. Actually, I think it you played the new BSG to some kid back in 1978, his head might have exploded - I know mine would have.)
Equal temperament is only better if your aesthetics demand the qualities at which equal temperament excels, so youa ccept the trad-offs. Piano is only a superlative instrument if you are playing music that is suited for the piano - a Hindustani ragaist would find it completely unsuitable. It is cultural chavinism to assume that because we prefer them that they must be better.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-05-2011 at 02:59 AM.
-
Hey, I posted my original tunes in the Showcase forum. I made some comments about the theory that inspired each song. Check 'em out if you like! Thanks! https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/showc...positions.html
Reply With Quote
Raezer's Edge Cab 2x8 Tower cabinet Eminence...
Today, 12:49 PM in For Sale