Modal Harmony vid series

[fmr]

According to Wikipedia, Mann was using here the
term "Aeolian cadence" is when a major key song resolves on the vi chord, which is the tonic chord of the relative minor key. The term derives from the fact that the Aeolian mode is rooted on the sixth step of the major scale.

The way I was taught, the name is "Interrupted Cadence". I never knew what "Aeolian Cadence" is. That's another example of misused terminology. I searched the term, and here is the definition:
"INTERRUPTED CADENCE is a progression which seems to tend towards the final Tonic chord of a perfect cadence through the usual Dominant harmony, but is abruptly deflected; so that the promised conclusion is deferred by the substitution of other harmony than that of the Tonic, after the Dominant chord which seemed to lead immediately to it."

The most used chord is, naturally, the "vi", because only one note has to be replaced. This cadence was used abundantly since the baroque, so, it's no surprise that any person that listened to some music, like for example church music (chorales), like the Beatles probably did, has this cadence in their memory. No big deal, IMO.

BTW, Lennon & MacCartney are of course a textbook example of the self made composers who used almost all the most sophisticated classical music "tricks" or "methods" without knowing the names of what they did, without even reading notes. There are interesting article published based on that kind of analysis.

Don't forget that they had the "patronage" figure of George Martin, which may have teached them a few things And exactly what kind of «classical music "tricks" or "methods"» are you referring to? For what I know, their music is pretty simple.

[jancivil]

BTW, Lennon & MacCartney are of course a textbook example of the self made composers who used almost all the most sophisticated classical music "tricks" or "methods" without knowing the names of what they did, without even reading notes. There are interesting article published based on that kind of analysis.

That is something. I say it's all about the ear and deep involvement (w. extant music) before trying to compose (besides the whole talent problem).

[jancivil]

We received 'deceptive cadence' in my classes.

'Aeolian' don't enter into it.

[Harry_HH]

Well, regardless of who Mr. Mann s'posed ta be, the term is bullshit and Macca had no use at all for such even if it was legit. "Major key Aeolian cadence" really illustrates the fatuousness*, it sounds more knowledgeable than the (boring?) fact so it's better for the writer.
*: quite on point, tonality lingo forced on the modal term = nonsense

Sidebar, again reminded of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Yeah, I saw this coming, that's why I did't claim anything, I was just referring some history facts. (L&M talent evaluation was my own).
Its a pitty Professor Mann has passed away years ago, he had been thrilled how much better some people know these things in the future.

[jancivil]

He was a lucky man indeed, then. I'm disappointed in the future in precisely this regard.

[zethus909]

its basically letting your hands express the energy that is in the ether at the time, your mood, and your perception of reality, this is what gets expressed. thats how i look at it. sometimes it will be really disjointed and dissonant, well most of the time....because thats usually how it feels, in the air, it feels like randomness, with just a bit of order. but the more you play, the more order starts to come from it.

Good. It means you are entering in the logic of the piece. Study the score too. It helps.

what do you mean by studying the score....?

how can C Major come from something that didn't exist?

i know, it can't theoretically, youre right there. i am just saying, that the intervals are the same in the C Major scale as they are in the Ionian Mode. You aren't disputing that i hope... And I am also saying that the intervals themselves are what is actually relevant, not what people decide to call the intervals using human language. ie. if i was teaching someone, i would care WAY more that they actually understand what the intervals are, how they sound and how to manipulate them, compared with knowing what the right "modern day" nomenclature is to describe them.

Some people care more about formalities and the intangible. I care more about the tangible, in terms of music, knowing the real architecture of sound, as opposed to an abstract description of it.

But i still value the abstraction, in an analytic capacity. Just not in a creative capacity. And it is absolutely disasterous, to see someone start to "depend" on music theory(abstraction), rather than their musical instincts with respect to music creation. You can disagree with that fine. I just dont think that it is ever stressed nearly enough that music and videos like this one are completely descriptive, they arent Prescriptive. And its way to easy to fall into that trap, and its actually detrimental in some ways also. It's never bad to learn more theory, but it can also cause complete musical paralysis. The only ultimate way to approach music creation is by doing, not by thinking about what to do.

Thinking about what to do, is death, paralysis and abstraction. Doing is about life, and movement, and will.

That being said, a good quote by van gothe is
"Thought expands, but paralyzes; action animates, but narrows."

[zethus909]

Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such

exactly, its on a tone to tone basis, its all just intervals, and there is no doctrine involved in what your next step is "allowed" to be. there is no rule, when you are making music. rules destroy it. it's faulty to think in terms of "chords", that "belong in keys". etc.

there is simply certain principles, that work, and are effective. but it's not even their manfestation that creates effective music, it's all the stuff in between. the chromaticism etc. music should be an expression of life, not an establishment of order. that being said, life includes much order. society is based on order. and if/when you really want to nail home certain ideas musically, it's always good to use the "strong" stacks, the triads and simplistic dominant, tonic, sub dominant motifs. it's when you want to create space and infiniteness that you employ suspended chords etc.

[fmr]

Good. It means you are entering in the logic of the piece. Study the score too. It helps.

what do you mean by studying the score....?

The score is the written piece. You know, that thing where you have two systems of five paralell lines, with clefs, and little dots with handles and flags It's what's used to learn music and to know what we are supposed to play. I posted a link to it.

how can C Major come from something that didn't exist?

i know, it can't theoretically, you're right there. I am just saying, that the intervals are the same in the C Major scale as they are in the Ionian Mode. You aren't disputing that i hope... And I am also saying that the intervals themselves are what is actually relevant, not what people decide to call the intervals using human language. ie. if i was teaching someone, i would care WA5. Y more that they actually understand what the intervals are, how they sound and how to manipulate them, compared with knowing what the right "modern day" nomenclature is to describe them.

Okay, several problems in your thinking:
1. The fact they have the same intervals means nothing.
2. I already explained that Ionian isn't something that ever existed or have ever been used, so, it doesn't matter what notes it has or had.
3. Even admitting it has the same notes of C Major, so does the plagal of the third mode (Mode of F or Tritus - also called Hypolydian, although I don't like to use the greek names) starts in C, and goes from C to C, although the Finalis is F. So, what does that mean?
4. I also explained that it is more or less established and accepted that, although the notes aren't the same, the mentioned Third Mode has the same intervals (since, in fact, the B was played B Flat) of C Major, and IS IN FACT where the modern Major modes come from (that and the Mode of G, which, in "musica ficta", was played with an F# in cadences).
5. To know the intervals, students/musicians don't have to know what Ionian (or anything else) is. In fact, I learned the intervals way before I even knew what a mode is. I was taught what they are and how they sound, and what makes a chord major or minor, or diminished or augmented. This is Music 101. This is the basis of tonal music. Adding anything else is complicating. People have to know what is a second (major or minor) a third (major or minor) a fourth (perfect, diminished or augmented), a fifth (perfect, diminished or augmented), a sixth (major or minor) and a seventh (major or minor). They also have to know that past fourth, the intervals can be inverted, therefore a fifth is a fourth inverted (and vive-versa), a sixth is a third inverted (and vice-versa), and a seventh is a second inverted (and vice-versa). Anything past the octave is an octave plus something. Therefore, a ninth is an octave plus a second (therefore, a second transposed), A tenth is an octave plus a third (a third transposed). An 11th is an octave plus a fourth, therefore, a fourth transposed. There. It's just first grade arithmetics.

So, I would say: Start teaching things as they are, and ever been, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. It's the same wheel - there's no other.

Some people care more about formalities and the intangible. I care more about the tangible, in terms of music, knowing the real architecture of sound, as opposed to an abstract description of it.

But i still value the abstraction, in an analytic capacity. Just not in a creative capacity. And it is absolutely disasterous, to see someone start to "depend" on music theory(abstraction), rather than their musical instincts with respect to music creation. You can disagree with that fine. I just dont think that it is ever stressed nearly enough that music and videos like this one are completely descriptive, they arent Prescriptive. And its way to easy to fall into that trap, and its actually detrimental in some ways also. It's never bad to learn more theory, but it can also cause complete musical paralysis. The only ultimate way to approach music creation is by doing, not by thinking about what to do.

Thinking about what to do, is death, paralysis and abstraction. Doing is about life, and movement, and will.

That being said, a good quote by van gothe is
"Thought expands, but paralyzes; action animates, but narrows."

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
These quotations mean nothing to me. I always defended, through my all life, that information is knowledge, and knowledge is freedom - "Knowledge doesn't hurt". The more we know and are informed, the freer we are. So, knowing the theory doesn't mean I am tied to anything. Because when I am creating, I don't give a shit about theory, I only care about the intrinsic sense I have in my head and the sense I feel in the music I am working on. Maybe later, if I'm in the mood, I can perform some theoretical analysis, to seek for incoherences (or if I feel there are incoherences in the work). That's where knowledge of theory helps a lot.

Theory doesn't exist to be prescriptive, it's simply descriptive. We all agree on that, and I never said anything opposite. But if you are teaching it, or something related to it, you owe to you and anyone that listens to you, to teach it the right way. It doesn't change the fact that theory will not teach you how to compose, and how to make better music. It simply helps you to find the flaws, and understand WHY they are flaws (through analysis).

Music theory is the support for musical analysis. And musical analysis is what explains why something works, or may work, and something doesn't, or may not work. So, saying that knowing music theory can lead to creative paralysis is bullshit.

[fmr]

Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such

exactly, its on a tone to tone basis, its all just intervals, and there is no doctrine involved in what your next step is "allowed" to be. there is no rule, when you are making music. rules destroy it. it's faulty to think in terms of "chords", that "belong in keys". etc.

Yet, it's what you do, and what was being "teached" in the video we have been discussed.

there is simply certain principles, that work, and are effective. but it's not even their manfestation that creates effective music, it's all the stuff in between. the chromaticism etc. music should be an expression of life, not an establishment of order. that being said, life includes much order. society is based on order. and if/when you really want to nail home certain ideas musically, it's always good to use the "strong" stacks, the triads and simplistic dominant, tonic, sub dominant motifs. it's when you want to create space and infiniteness that you employ suspended chords etc.

Chromaticism is either tonal or atonal. Most of the times its tonal. And you felt in the same old mistake (look at the bolded text). It's always good why? Because you know nothing else where you feel comfortable?

And to create space and infinitness, you don't need to employ suspended chords. Suspended chords can't be there "ad infinitum". At some point, you'd have to get out , and when you do, you go to... "dominant, tonic, sub dominant". It's as advanced (musically speaking) as the work of any opera composer of 1700s (listen to Monteverdi). And probably not so well written.

Bear in mind that I'm not defending that we can't make tonal music. I'm just saying that there is a way broader universe outside tonlaity and tonal music, and that even tonal music has to be understood with more personal views. Strvinsky wrote some tonal music. Prokofiev wrote tonal music too. Debussy, in some works. Ravel (many times). And Shostakovitch. Rachmaninoff and Barber even expressed themselves in a language that was already "outdated", but they did it in a very well done and personal way, so, their works were celebrated. And Copland (to quote some composers that may be more familiar to you). But they also used other musical languages, and when they wrote tonal music, they looked for a personal way to do that, not simply reproducing some established formulas. Messiaen, IMO, was the last of the biggest "systematic" composers, at at level that, in the XXth century maybe only Bartok and Stravinsky are. He also chose to work "outside" of the tonal system, and created order without needing "dominant - tonic".

Other composers, like Ligeti, Boulez, Stockhausen, Varese, Xenakis, Berio, Takemitsu, Lutoslawsky, Penderecky, chose other ways to express themselves musically. They were no more dealing with (or not just with) notes and chords or even modes. They were dealing and working with sound itself, and several other sound realities. Some even mixed electronics with acoustic instruments. They also had order in their works, although that order is not so immediatelly apparent and understood as the tonal order. It demands more effort from the listener. More attention, and more involvement.

[jancivil]

Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such

exactly, its on a tone to tone basis, its all just intervals, and there is no doctrine involved in what your next step is "allowed" to be. there is no rule, when you are making music. rules destroy it. it's faulty to think in terms of "chords", that "belong in keys". etc.

Good grief. What terms do you think in? This is a matter of basic coherence. Now, your writing tends to fail here so, seriously, what terms do you have to replace "chords" "belonging" to "keys"? EG: B minor 'belongs' to a number of keys. If we know that it's ii in A major, and we know that ii in major tends to be subdominant, we understand something of the grammar of tonality. Do you somehow fear that this will be an obstacle to your freedom?

there is simply certain principles, that work, and are effective. but it's not even their manfestation that creates effective music, it's all the stuff in between.

NB: some do not need all this info. McCartney had no problems. But in You Never Give Me Your Number

(I) any jobber
(V) got the sack
(vi) Monday morning
(iii) turning back
(IV) yellow lorry slow, no
(I) where to go...

He works with the principles that are known to work, and knows how they work. Thru osmosis? Could be, but if we want to convey WHAT IT IS as I'm doing here, this is the language we use. Macca speaky the lingua franca, no doubt. Here's it's the manifestation of (the wholly conventional) I V vi iii IV I, and, below bVII IV I that allows him to proceed.
SO. What are you fighting? Rebel without a clue.

but
(bVII) oh, that magic feeling
(IV) nowhere to
(I) go

So, here's a deviation. How do we teach it? What is your methodology?
The simple change of VII creates the possibility of "oh, that magic feeling" conveying the magic of that thought.
So.
Do you think to teach the stuff in between (the unteachable, I think) or convey coherent information and then examples follow which demonstrate knowledge.


and note well, do cease PM'ing me; if you want to justify what you wrote in here after the critique, do it here. seriously.

[jancivil]

let's give Lennon some

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZDR1ALvkVQ

[jancivil]

there is no doctrine

Who said there was?

space

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofr0tCzvlo

[JumpingJackFlash]

the intervals are the same in the C Major scale as they are in the Ionian Mode.

So what?
There is more to both than just their intervallic content.
The fact they happen to share the same notes isn't particularly relevant.

It's like when you have words in English which look the same yet mean very different things depending on context.

"The bandage was wound around the wound".
"The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse."
"When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes."
"The insurance was invalid for the invalid."
"They were too close to the door to close it."
(see Google for more)

Knowing how to spell the word is only the start, you need to know how to use it appropriately - that is, how it's used in context.

the intervals themselves are what is actually relevant

Relevant to what?
There is more to being "major" and "minor" (and so on) than just intervals.

if i was teaching someone, i would care WAY more that they actually understand what the intervals are, how they sound and how to manipulate them, compared with knowing what the right "modern day" nomenclature is to describe them.

If you can't teach people properly, then you shouldn't be trying to do so at all. In the long run, you'll do more harm than good.

it is absolutely disasterous, to see someone start to "depend" on music theory(abstraction), rather than their musical instincts with respect to music creation...

It sounds like you're trying to justify ignorance here, as though learning more is something to fear...

Humans have been creating fire since almost forever, but learning about fire, what causes it, how it works and so on eventually led to the capability of making fire more efficiently; fire that lasted longer, that was safer, that could be used for other things, etc. Knowledge is never a bad thing.

[jancivil]

- the "it is absolutely disastrous" rant presents a false dichotomy and addresses but a strawman. Unnecessary.

[zethus909]

i pmd you to try and have a friendly convo with you that i thought would be too tangential to this topic. but if you think it's topical to this thread then fine, here it is.
(i responded this quote of yours from the thread)

jancivil wrote:
For instance, this is a plugins/DAW forum. So lookit, I'm writing pitchbend in Cubase's controller lane: I know its resolution is 8192 steps. 0 (just a label!) to 4096 +/-.
So now the max. deviation, the interval (+/- 2 semitones by default generally) you want divides into 4096 & we know exactly what to indicate.
Now, I do a LOT of cute things in here even as I (a lot of which because I) have an extremely fine sense of pitch. Some things are unpredictable and need extra attention. And I may exceed 12tET. Knowing is good!

So you can remain in the dark and boldly say some shit as you like it, but quit advising it, show some restraint FFS.

>>>>>>my pm:

idk, i cant speak for your ears. only mine. they werent always so sensitive. but what i speak of is real. its not abstract. it might sound abstract, but its all based on understanding "what is"..and seeing reality "as it is"...not what is told to you, not what you "think" it is, not what you logically rationlize it to be, not what you wish it was. but "what is"....it is only one thing, there is only one true state of existence, there is no way to consciously understand it, this is all instinct. we are animals. with real nervous systems of billions of cells, culminating in our most highly specialized weaponry, our eyes, our ears...our mouths, we attempt to communicate using words, but this is all grunting, animals grunting.