About standing in key

[anomandaris1]

The melody doesn't have to be in major/minor mode/key/whatever you call it to be "tonal".

Rubbish. Tonality is related to chords and harmony and thus it certainly matters which key you are in and whether it is minor or major to be called tonal. Ionian and aeolian are main modes of tonal music, however, you can (almost) turn any church scale into a tonal framework, that is chord structures with the usual I, IV, V functions. Locrian scale is particularly troublesome because of its diminished fifth, which also makes it a diminished dominant in phrygian mode. In mixolydian, the dominant will lack the 1/2 step lead tone from its third to tonic, which otherwise is the trick of the dominant in major scales. Still the main functions are there to create a tonal framework. But 1600th century modality is mainly about polyphony in contrast to later harmony and that is the core of the difference.

Go to grove's article on tonality, then talk to me...
I see that other posters are also stuck in the last century with their understanding, so I can only recommend any modern music theory anthology - maybe something published by Springer in the last few years.

[jancivil]

I really don't think that shite deserves so much consideration. 'Vilified'. Yet you felt free to characterize someone as egoist and dismiss information and discussion as "babble". it all exceeds your grasp and your interest so it's egoist and it's babble. Is that vilification as well? I would say, based in experience the characterizations were just accurate. That's all I have to say on that bit.

As to egoism, I find someone coming in with a half-baked superficial grasp and talking big seeking to negate and dismiss rather off-topic as the 'vilified' person did is a pretty good example of it. I sorted it out. I provided a service to all readers in doing so. Yeah, it was a spanking, wasn't it. I actually sought to discourage it.

I'm self-critical; locating the correct answer to these issues is only possible when you know you don't know.


EDIT: actually the anomandaris1 trip here is more egotist than egoist. Egoist is more 'self-involved', it may not be that the person thinks they're superior to everybody; while egotism is a belief in one's superiority.

[jancivil]

"I see that other posters are also stuck in the last century"
You don't see any such thing. You have no idea who you're talking to with me, I can tell you that much.

You can't even make the argument, you point to some article in the aether and then something you can't be arsed to even specify.
You're waving your arms around like an idiot at this point.

[jancivil]

Stuck in the 20th century then?
What does that even mean. You can address points or you can't. We've seen your capacity to deal with the material and it's seriously lacking, son. Now it looks like all you can muster is 'go to blah blah, then talk to me'.

All hat and no cattle. I mean, do demonstrate this new understanding of tonality (which would seem to have been pretty much sussed a couple centuries ago rather than all being up for postmodern grabs or whatever you think you want to say). Or even grove's.

[IncarnateX]

The melody doesn't have to be in major/minor mode/key/whatever you call it to be "tonal".

Rubbish. Tonality is related to chords and harmony and thus it certainly matters which key you are in and whether it is minor or major to be called tonal. Ionian and aeolian are main modes of tonal music, however, you can (almost) turn any church scale into a tonal framework, that is chord structures with the usual I, IV, V functions. Locrian scale is particularly troublesome because of its diminished fifth, which also makes it a diminished dominant in phrygian mode. In mixolydian, the dominant will lack the 1/2 step lead tone from its third to tonic, which otherwise is the trick of the dominant in major scales. Still the main functions are there to create a tonal framework. But 1600th century modality is mainly about polyphony in contrast to later harmony and that is the core of the difference.

Go to grove's article on tonality, then talk to me...
I see that other posters are also stuck in the last century with their understanding, so I can only recommend any modern music theory anthology - maybe something published by Springer in the last few years.

20th century? You think that Gregorian chants even are without mode and that they do not have a root note? Oh, Dear.

Unbefriggenleaveable. How about you link that article then. Because “tonal melodies” without neither tonic (as base for tonality) , nor mode, minor nor major, sounds like something from outer space to me. Link plz, then we shall se if you even have understood what you have read correctly.

[jancivil]

which one is you

You have to ask, which is good since I left myself out of the short version.

Second iteration of Q never hsppened

what I wrote could have happened. He did come back. You missed that?

I actually wrote "never happens". As in the way these things tend to go.
I wasn't being argumentative, I was going along with 'KVR humour' such as it is there.

[anomandaris1]

How about you link that article then.

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovem ... 0000028102

Get a pass from the nearest university library or subscribe (which will be probably more expensive) to read it.

[jancivil]

"any modern music theory anthology"
is supposed to sort us on the definition of 'tonal'.

this is utterly incoherent blather

[jancivil]

Why don't you tell us in your own words?

X gave a normal account of what the word "tonal" means. Maybe he wants to read that article. I personally have zero need for it.

You postured and postured some more like you have this superior understanding of a common word; a term we can locate wide consensus on (to say the least), but have yet to show anything in the form of a statement. At all.

[IncarnateX]

How about you link that article then.

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovem ... 0000028102

Get a pass from the nearest university library or subscribe (which will be probably more expensive) to read it.

No I am not frigging going to get a pass to get this one. I can’t even see this should be a peer reviewed article and not just a net entry. What is the journal in question, name, year and number please? And that part of the abstract I can see does not suggest anything near tonal melodies without tonality:

A term first used by Choron in 1810 to describe the arrangement of the dominant and subdominant above and below the tonic and thus to differentiate the harmonic organization of modern music (tonalité moderne) from that of earlier music (tonalité antique). One of the main conceptual categories in Western musical thought, the term most often refers to the orientation of melodies and harmonies towards a referential (or tonic) pitch class. In the broadest possible sense, however, it refers to systematic arrangements of pitch phenomena and relations between them....

However, why don’t you fill us in with strict arguments and quotes from the article in the good old scholar way?

Here is what we are missing:

1. Under which definition can a tonal melody be without tonic?
2 Mode?
3. Root note?

Please state your arguments with quotes from the “article”.

[jancivil]

To recap: this is where this thing went off the rails into quicksand.

Melody can start on any note... Key, tonality,scale topics can get confusing, because of how much Western notation and theory is based on the diatonic scale and meantone temperament. I find the sharp vs flats debates ******** unless they actually are supposed to mean anything meaningful- unequal systems like just intonation and similar. Still, atonal integer notation is superior for any edo.

A non-sequitur followed by a stupid tautology. Sharps and flats in context here referred to actual meaningful statements. There is no non-meaningful discussion this messed-up sentence follows. There is no "debate" to be had about a seven-note scale in key having seven letter names. There is no "debate" that key of A# doesn't often appear. There is no question as to why that is, and I spelled it out.

Then "atonal integer notation is superior for any edo", which to me is kind of hilarious.
Meaningful contextual spelling is supposed to be negated in this postmodernesque, 100% bullshit statement.

[dellboy]

Yet you felt free to characterize someone as egoist and dismiss information and discussion as "babble". it all exceeds your grasp and your interest so it's egoist and it's babble. Is that vilification as well?

Personification.

Actually the word I used was "egotistic". And the application of it is to the abstract personification of music theory as having the potential to be egotistic. This is not to denigrate music theory in its basic form, as education in music is obviously advantageous. But taken to an extreme, as an abstract concept to be discussed at a high brow level, I find the idea of music theory divisive, egotistic.

The OP asked a pretty basic question, and yet reading through the answers I was no more enlightened than at the beginning. In fact, I was just plain confused. Another poster answered,and I have no idea if what he said is correct, but he was treated rudely. Maybe "vilified" is pushing it, I will ponder that.

[jancivil]

How about you link that article then.

grovemusic/abstract/

Get a pass from the nearest university library or subscribe (which will be probably more expensive) to read it.

A term first used by Choron in 1810 to describe the arrangement of the dominant and subdominant above and below the tonic and thus to differentiate the harmonic organization of modern music (tonalité moderne) from that of earlier music (tonalité antique). One of the main conceptual categories in Western musical thought, the term most often refers to the orientation of melodies and harmonies towards a referential (or tonic) pitch class. In the broadest possible sense, however, it refers to systematic arrangements of pitch phenomena and relations between them....

IE: evidently the article quite supports the contention you made which anomandaris1 would have us believe he was positing against. He never did, let's never forget that.

talk about incompetent, this is rich.

[dellboy]

Go to grove's article on tonality, then talk to me...
I see that other posters are also stuck in the last century with their understanding, so I can only recommend any modern music theory anthology - maybe something published by Springer in the last few years.

As a neutral bystander with limited ability in music theory, I have no idea if you are right in what you say, but I have a listening ear and am interested in your view. The article has a short definition to get started with........

"
A term first used by Choron in 1810 to describe the arrangement of the dominant and subdominant above and below the tonic and thus to differentiate the harmonic organization of modern music (tonalité moderne) from that of earlier music (tonalité antique). One of the main conceptual categories in Western musical thought, the term most often refers to the orientation of melodies and harmonies towards a referential (or tonic) pitch class. In the broadest possible sense, however, it refers to systematic arrangements of pitch phenomena and relations between them...."

[IncarnateX]

Yeah postmodernism and its endless fallacies. Language of X can be translated into this and that alternative language about Y therefore X does not exist. E.g. Apples can be thought of as fruits, therefore they are not apples. Sure, tonality can be translated into languages of mathematical relations, but this translation does not dissolve what is to be translated. It just decribes it from another angle, which should be consistent with the original description if it is a good description of any value.