Yes, what about music theory

[BosseJo]

BosseJo I think you must have had a bad childhood theory moment. This absolute complete hatred of Theory is just bad for your development. Sure ear training is a tangable and theory is just for "the uncool" people.
If Theory makes me un cool well so be it. I AM AN UN COOL THEORY FANBOY!!! I'll shout it from the hill tops. Save some money and get a theory therapist. Jackass.

Complete hatred of theory???????? What the hell is going on really??? I have studidied theory backwards and downwards and sidewaybackfreekininwards for 25 years, anyway you could possible imagine!!! Is there something you want to know? I STILL THINK THAT LISTENING TO MUSIC IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN READING ABOUT IT? OK? I know that my initial posting was not that well put..but this is really uncalled for................Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzze Jackass? wow.....

[BosseJo]

Thanks to BosseJo for introducing enough controversy to keep everybody going for a while!

I know you don't mean it but thanks anyway

[Adaerus]

Playing an instrument on itself is merely juggling.
Ear training on itself is merely music listening.
Musical Theory on itself is a bunch of math with no real use.

But put all of them to use and you have a pretty solid musicianship fundation. Missing any of these three dimentions renders musicianship a.... cartoon(?).

You've lost me now. I'll have to put it down to language difficulties and go back to my books, much as I'd love to learn direct from Leadbelly or Blind Lemon Jefferson.

Speaking of language:

They say "music is universal language" and it is a language that all have access to it (more or less) especially these days.
What would a writer do without grammar (the theory behind a language); ethimology to play with the meaning of words, and other aspects of language. Of course, one does not need to know all of that if he/she just wants to put entries in a journal or post a messages on a forum but still be able to get across an idea or create an interesting essay (cough - most - cough - music - cough - around - cough). But that does not automatically make that person an "Author" (composer - cough, cough).

[BosseJo]

There are no Lydian scales, or Phrygian scales - because modes are SYSTEMS like tonality is, and one either plays in modal structure or harmonic structure (by harmonic I mean the structural functional harmony system as defined by western music). Of course, this system was destroyed in its foundations in the 20th century, and nowadays, we see chordal progressions that have nothing to do with that structural harmony - but if they work, what the heel - who cares?
I could go on theorizing about this, but I think it's already more than enough.
Music is constant experimentation and innovation, and theory only can explain what is already done. That said, understand correctly what's in a piece of music never harmed me, and I believe it will not harm anyone. But when you play a sequence E/E in C major, don't say you are playing a Phrygian scale - just say you are playing a E/E sequence - that's it.

Finally something sensible. This is actually close to what I teach especially the last paragraph. Things evolve and so must theory.

[BosseJo]

Well most of this is due to people who are new to theory asking questions to aid their understanding. - Of course newbies get things wrong, you can't fault them for that, - everyone gets things wrong when they start. The smart thing to do is to correct them and help them get their heads round something, rather than just stating that they are wrong.

You are absolutely right
It was foolish of me to start like that. I should definitely known better.
I was probably "in affect" as the french would put I belivie. But I know that's not an excuse.

in order to be a good teacher, the 'experts' are going to have to dumb things down omit details, and generally simplify things in order for them to be understood.

Well, I have to disagree here. I belivie that if a person can play well based on listening abilities that's something very valuable. And if they don't know the theory behind it, well that's the easy part.

So, yes, technically, some of it may not be up to your standards of precision,

My standards are not that high

but as a basic introduction, they serve very well. So, something like "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" may not be 100% correct from a technical point of view, but if it helps the new comer, where is the harm?

The ambiguity. It's this "limboland" reasoning I think is actually harmful and confusing, especially to beginners.

And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz my bias is definitely towards the classical approach,

This I don't really understand but nevermind

and so I personally would recommend forgetting about modes, and just concentrating on major/minor scales for now.

So would I.

[fmr]

some of your examples come from posts by people trying to explain things to people with no (or very little) musical education. - The problem with that is, in order to be a good teacher, the 'experts' are going to have to dumb things down, omit details, and generally simplify things in order for them to be understood. So, yes, technically, some of it may not be up to your standards of precision, but as a basic introduction, they serve very well. So, something like "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" may not be 100% correct from a technical point of view, but if it helps the new comer, where is the harm?

Well I disagree with that. Is like if you just give people the vowels and tell them: "You have other letters, but they more or less are like these". Will they ever learn to read like that?

You can and should simplify to newcomers, but there are limits. Teaching wrong things is not simplifying. Telling that playing from A to A is the same thing as playing from C to C is deadly wrong, and will not help anyone understand better whatever they want to understand.

And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz my bias is definitely towards the classical approach, and so I personally would recommend forgetting about modes, and just concentrating on major/minor scales for now.

I don't agree with this either. We moved from that since 200 years from now, and you told you are involved in classics. If with "classics" you mean Mozart and Haydn, you are correct, if you mean the western educated music, you are not.
And even popular music is much more than just major/minor - which, BTW, is a very narrow universe, compared with modes.

Of course, we'll agree if what you mean is to first get a strong base about structural harmony, and only then move on to something else. But putting it simply as you did is oversimplifying things again. And what the hell are major/minor "scales"? Scales are nothing - the base of tonality is I V I, or I IV V I, or I ii V I, etc. Scales are just finger exercises.

[Toxikator]

And what the hell are major/minor "scales"? Scales are nothing - the base of tonality is I V I, or I IV V I, or I ii V I, etc. Scales are just finger exercises.

I don't know who told you that but it's not true. familiarize yourself with nonharmonic tones, polyharmony, etc. The scale dictates far more about the melody than the chords its based on (at least in homophonic music)

[JumpingJackFlash]

some of your examples come from posts by people trying to explain things to people with no (or very little) musical education. - The problem with that is, in order to be a good teacher, the 'experts' are going to have to dumb things down, omit details, and generally simplify things in order for them to be understood. So, yes, technically, some of it may not be up to your standards of precision, but as a basic introduction, they serve very well. So, something like "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" may not be 100% correct from a technical point of view, but if it helps the new comer, where is the harm?

Well I disagree with that. Is like if you just give people the vowels and tell them: "You have other letters, but they more or less are like these". Will they ever learn to read like that?

You can and should simplify to newcomers, but there are limits. Teaching wrong things is not simplifying. Telling that playing from A to A is the same thing as playing from C to C is deadly wrong, and will not help anyone understand better whatever they want to understand.

Just to clarify, I was not the one originally who said that "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" (or whatever the exact words were). Of course that's wrong. But, it depends on context. - And, I forget the original context, but, if for example the subject was key signatures, then C major and A minor share the same key signature. - Both consist of the white notes on the piano. - Now, in this context, a comment like that might be permissible?

And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz my bias is definitely towards the classical approach, and so I personally would recommend forgetting about modes, and just concentrating on major/minor scales for now.

I don't agree with this either. We moved from that since 200 years from now, and you told you are involved in classics. If with "classics" you mean Mozart and Haydn, you are correct, if you mean the western educated music, you are not.
And even popular music is much more than just major/minor - which, BTW, is a very narrow universe, compared with modes.

My exact quote was "And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz vs. classical harmony." Although I suppose I meant to say 'teachings' rather than 'harmony'. Certainly in my experience this is true. Throughout all my classical education; classical piano, classical theory, even my degree, I can't actually recall ever being sat down and told the various modes. - However, the minute I started doing Jazz, it was one of the first things I was taught, along with how to improvise over chords etc. I guess other people's experience may differ though.

Scales are just finger exercises.

Now who's over-simplifing?
Scales make up a key, and key is important for many different reasons.

Oh, and by the way, I agree than ear training is (also) very important. - I don't really want to get into a debate about whether ear training or theory is most important, because such a debate would be futile, and they are clearly both important.

[fmr]

And what the hell are major/minor "scales"? Scales are nothing - the base of tonality is I V I, or I IV V I, or I ii V I, etc. Scales are just finger exercises.

I don't know who told you that but it's not true. familiarize yourself with nonharmonic tones, polyharmony, etc. The scale dictates far more about the melody than the chords its based on (at least in homophonic music)

I don't understand exactly what you are meaning with nonharmonic tones (can you elaborate?). Polyharmony is something I know (although not very keen of). Nevertheless, I remember some examples of Ravel where polyharmony is used that sound great - but not tonal anymore, although very rich harmonically - and definitley much more complex than the dicotomy major/minor, in spite of being harmonic language
Homophonic music - again I'm not sure what you mean - chorales, or vocal "a capella" music maybe? Anyway, the way I view things it's the melody that reveals everything, not the scales it's based on. That's perhaps because, when I work with notes, i tend to think of music more in terms of linearity than verticality, and even chords (or aggregates, as I prefer to call, because not all aggregates are chords), for me, are like poly-melodies.

Anyway, scales, by themselves are meaningless, the way I see them. C Major is just the same thing as E Major, as A Major, as A flat Major, etc (although, don't know why, I have some kind of predilection by flats - but I hardly use plain tonality, anyway).

This leads us to what I began with. Modes have different "moods". Constraining to Major and Minor, we end up with just two moods. That's why the romantics started to modulate, until full chromatism, pan-tonalism, and in the end, atonality. That's the way I view it, anyway.

[Caleb]

I am sorry about that Caleb, I truly am. I did not mean to pick on anybody.

Don't mention it - I don't mind being called out when I'm wrong.

I hope you're going to hang around this forum to help add more expertise in the learning of music theory. The problem I'm finding from the perspective of a less-experienced guy is that the "experts" seem not to always agree amongst themselves here. It makes it difficult for everyone else to get a firm grasp of anything.

And then people will make us feel worse when they tell us that you can learn all this theory in 2 weeks and that it's easy. If it's so easy, why can't people even agree what a mode is?

I agree with you about the ear training. I'm hoping theory might help me a bit with understanding better ways to compose progressions etc.., but really it should only be there to explain what I've already done. I'm probably going in reverse.

Do you have any advice about ear training?

Regards
Caleb

[Barf]

The problem I'm finding from the perspective of a less-experienced guy is that the "experts" seem not to always agree amongst themselves here. It makes it difficult for everyone else to get a firm grasp of anything.

And then people will make us feel worse when they tell us that you can learn all this theory in 2 weeks and that it's easy. If it's so easy, why can't people even agree what a mode is?

It just proves you shouldnt take theory too seriously

[fmr]

some of your examples come from posts by people trying to explain things to people with no (or very little) musical education. - The problem with that is, in order to be a good teacher, the 'experts' are going to have to dumb things down, omit details, and generally simplify things in order for them to be understood. So, yes, technically, some of it may not be up to your standards of precision, but as a basic introduction, they serve very well. So, something like "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" may not be 100% correct from a technical point of view, but if it helps the new comer, where is the harm?

Well I disagree with that. Is like if you just give people the vowels and tell them: "You have other letters, but they more or less are like these". Will they ever learn to read like that?

You can and should simplify to newcomers, but there are limits. Teaching wrong things is not simplifying. Telling that playing from A to A is the same thing as playing from C to C is deadly wrong, and will not help anyone understand better whatever they want to understand.

Just to clarify, I was not the one originally who said that "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" (or whatever the exact words were). Of course that's wrong. But, it depends on context. - And, I forget the original context, but, if for example the subject was key signatures, then C major and A minor share the same key signature. - Both consist of the white notes on the piano. - Now, in this context, a comment like that might be permissible?

No. What about from D to D? E to E? G to G? Are we still in C Major? A minor? What? As I said, you can only tell that you are in C Major if and when you have the structural functions to C Major (harmony) present. On of the things one could do to try this is to harmonize a C Major scale using other chords (of A minor, of F Major, whatever fits). Will you dare to still say you are in C Major? This is the type of exercise I sometimes do, just as a kind of compositional study. You'd be amazed to what we can learn with such exercises.

And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz my bias is definitely towards the classical approach, and so I personally would recommend forgetting about modes, and just concentrating on major/minor scales for now.

I don't agree with this either. We moved from that since 200 years from now, and you told you are involved in classics. If with "classics" you mean Mozart and Haydn, you are correct, if you mean the western educated music, you are not.
And even popular music is much more than just major/minor - which, BTW, is a very narrow universe, compared with modes.

My exact quote was "And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz vs. classical harmony." Although I suppose I meant to say 'teachings' rather than 'harmony'. Certainly in my experience this is true. Throughout all my classical education; classical piano, classical theory, even my degree, I can't actually recall ever being sat down and told the various modes. - However, the minute I started doing Jazz, it was one of the first things I was taught, along with how to improvise over chords etc. I guess other people's experience may differ though.

Well - didn't you ever played Debussy, at least? Not to mention Satie, Bartok, Messiaen? Well, my degree is in Composition, so, I guess that's why I studied these things deeply. But most of my colleagues don't, and you are right. There aren«t many capable of teaching this, and those who can, usually, aren't all in the same path. Modes are a very polemic part of the musical knowledge, and a lot of what I know have grown from my own study and research, sometimes outside of the main scholar environment.

Scales are just finger exercises.

Now who's over-simplifing? [/quote]

Me, of course

Scales make up a key, and key is important for many different reasons.

Don't agree with that, scales, by themselves alone, don't make up nothing - read what I said about harmonizing a scale. But I don't claim to have the absolute true.

Oh, and by the way, I agree than ear training is (also) very important. - I don't really want to get into a debate about whether ear training or theory is most important, because such a debate would be futile, and they are clearly both important.

This is something I subscribe entirely. I'm with you on this 100%

[JumpingJackFlash]

Just to clarify, I was not the one originally who said that "The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale" (or whatever the exact words were). Of course that's wrong. But, it depends on context. - And, I forget the original context, but, if for example the subject was key signatures, then C major and A minor share the same key signature. - Both consist of the white notes on the piano. - Now, in this context, a comment like that might be permissible?

No. What about from D to D? E to E? G to G? Are we still in C Major? A minor? What? As I said, you can only tell that you are in C Major if and when you have the structural functions to C Major (harmony) present.

Yes, I agree. Obviously, C major is not the same as A minor. I never said it was, I just provided a possible explanation for why someone said it was. I agree with you that teaching this to a new comer is not a good idea.

My exact quote was "And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz vs. classical harmony." Although I suppose I meant to say 'teachings' rather than 'harmony'. Certainly in my experience this is true. Throughout all my classical education; classical piano, classical theory, even my degree, I can't actually recall ever being sat down and told the various modes. - However, the minute I started doing Jazz, it was one of the first things I was taught, along with how to improvise over chords etc. I guess other people's experience may differ though.

Well - didn't you ever played Debussy, at least? Not to mention Satie, Bartok, Messiaen? Well, my degree is in Composition, so, I guess that's why I studied these things deeply. But most of my colleagues don't, and you are right. There aren«t many capable of teaching this, and those who can, usually, aren't all in the same path. Modes are a very polemic part of the musical knowledge, and a lot of what I know have grown from my own study and research, sometimes outside of the main scholar environment.

Yes, but Messiaen's 'modes of limited transposition' and stuff aren't really the same thing as the modes we are talking about here. The only thing I can think of in classical training that comes close to modality is the study of the old folk music. My memory is probably failing though, it is entirely possible I was taught about them somewhere in my classical education, but certainly they are a lot more prominent in jazz.

Scales make up a key, and key is important for many different reasons.

Don't agree with that, scales, by themselves alone, don't make up nothing - read what I said about harmonizing a scale. But I don't claim to have the absolute true.

Well, how would you define 'key' then? - It is true that scales are not the be-all and end-all of key, but they are certainly the building blocks.

[fmr]

My exact quote was "And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz vs. classical harmony." Although I suppose I meant to say 'teachings' rather than 'harmony'. Certainly in my experience this is true. Throughout all my classical education; classical piano, classical theory, even my degree, I can't actually recall ever being sat down and told the various modes. - However, the minute I started doing Jazz, it was one of the first things I was taught, along with how to improvise over chords etc. I guess other people's experience may differ though.

Well - didn't you ever played Debussy, at least? Not to mention Satie, Bartok, Messiaen? Well, my degree is in Composition, so, I guess that's why I studied these things deeply. But most of my colleagues don't, and you are right. There aren«t many capable of teaching this, and those who can, usually, aren't all in the same path. Modes are a very polemic part of the musical knowledge, and a lot of what I know have grown from my own study and research, sometimes outside of the main scholar environment.

Yes, but Messiaen's 'modes of limited transposition' and stuff aren't really the same thing as the modes we are talking about here. The only thing I can think of in classical training that comes close to modality is the study of the old folk music. My memory is probably failing though, it is entirely possible I was taught about them somewhere in my classical education, but certainly they are a lot more prominent in jazz.

Modes in Jazz are not the same thing as modes in "modal music" (except when, as Toxicator mentioned, they are playing "modal" jazz). Debussy (can't believe you never noticed the modality in Debussy), and Messiaen modes are more related to what modes really are than jazz modes.

Scales make up a key, and key is important for many different reasons.

Don't agree with that, scales, by themselves alone, don't make up nothing - read what I said about harmonizing a scale. But I don't claim to have the absolute true.

Well, how would you define 'key' then? - It is true that scales are not the be-all and end-all of key, but they are certainly the building blocks.

Simple: V - I, or Dominant - Tonic. That's it. Someone once said that a sonata is just a long preparation for the final cadence. It's a "boutade" and again oversimplification, but it's true, in a way.

Key is defined byt the harmonic functions inherent to it. Withdraw them and you no longer have key. Of course, you can build a melody in a way that it contains the functions in itself, but nevertheless, if you don't harmonize it, it will always be week in tonal terms. Harmonize it in other ways, and you will destroy it's tonality. Bach is a very good example of how we can play with tonality, and about what tonality really IS. He takes those wonderful choral melodies, which, sometimes, are more modal than tonal, and twist the harmony to fit them, transforming the whole in a perfectly tonal piece. To do that, he creates sometimes amazing chord progressions - but everything fits so well that a less attentive listener don't even notice that. However, looking carefully at some melodies, you would have a hard time saying what "key" they are.

[aaastronomer]

I've read some of the postings about theory here the last weeks and I can't keep silent anymore. There is so much missleading info a lot a people must totally confused by now. I mean where do you get all this from? Such as: minor can't be harmonized but major can? The A natural minor scale is the same as the C major scale? Melodic and harmonic don't have modes? Melodic minor is not a minor scale??? Scales always has X number of notes??? 1st Inversion=root position? Inversion not a voicing? Every chord you could imagine played on any instrument is voiced. Some of them are played more often than others so they have their own names. Period.

Modes, modes, modes I don't know if I dare to go near them....I think modes is probably one the most confusing things in music theory and also not that interesting when it comes to actually play. I think some metal and fusion guitarist are to blame here, going up and down the fretboard thinking: Oh now I playing in the dorian mode! Then they want to teach us all about it. Joe Pass once said this at a clinic:

"don't ask me anything about modes 'cos I know nothing about that stuff"

If he did not know why should we? If you REALLY want to know about modes you in for some heavy reading and I suggest you play instead.

To get things really going theory wise - what about the blues? Should it be outlawed?

Be also aware of the fact the music theorist (terrorists?) do not always agree. Don't trust everything as facts just because it's on the net.

Theroy has it's place but do yourself a favor and download this free program - the functional ear trainer at:
http://www.miles.be/
Pick the basic version. The advanced it's not better, on the contrary even if already have good ears.

It does more for your music than any theory ever can. If you choose between doing some ear training or some reading about theory, pick ear training. If you can't hear it there's no point reading about it. I don't know if people will hate me for posting this, if so I will not post here again, no hard feelings from my side (and hopefully not too much of that from yours), but if someone is interested I can give some advice about ear training and also some pointers how to use theory as an aid to ear training.

PS. If someone tells you that your music theoretically wrong, look real smart and say : "Well it's an interupted cadence!" and then put on some Zappa;)

goebbels had a theory about the blues...