Avoid clash notes when composing

[nuffink]

Thanks. That's a truly profound, and all too little voiced, thought.

[Tony Ostinato]

ahhh but if you know nothing at all you can still mistake yourself for a genius.

the more you learn the more you can see what is lame.

[jancivil]

Bass Ab. Go up an M6 and get that F covered. C up a P5th from that. E, the M3 above. Put the B up a P5. Then go up to Eb. (Spell it D# and call it part of a 'C Maj7 #9', part of the polychord here, wtf). A M7 up to that D.

Ab, F, C, E, B

Voiced with the E above the F forming a Major 7th rather than the minor 2nd.

You do have a point here? Or are you attempting to make me look good?

In this particular example, there might be (spice according to taste of course) too much going on for ALL the 'avoid-worthy' chromatic neighbors to be minor 2nds. As a mere abstraction, it's total bullshit to say that a Major 7th is 'more consonant' than a Minor 2nd. Depending on what the instrumentation is, they might sound pretty much equivalent. EG: On my guitar through a clean amp sound, one doesn't noticeably BEAT more than the other.

Lookit. I live in the real world of music. You get information from books, and this thread is really tantamount to me arguing with a religious person. I don't buy your scripture, and this really bugs you.

This example - I left out the G, btw, because until I tried it out, I wasn't sure WHICH G was The Best One, for this structure. I found out that ANY G sounds really really nice in this, because it's a damned well-conceived structure. {which: HEY, I have you to thank for, thank you for giving me some notes to AVOID! }

Proceeding vertically, up from the bass, at bottom here, these Gs are the best SOUNDING (you will note that the LOWEST one, creating the one 'dissonance' that would be the most avoid-worthy, I chose to be, that's right! DEFINITELY a minor second; it enhances the mood of this sonority best; to my ear, which is what actually matters to me. Depending on the actual effect, in context, I may or may not want to hold that little pungency):

C#
D
(G)
D#
B
(G)
E
C
F
Ab - the one a M10th below middle C -
(G)

Having tried it out, as air molecules vibrating, I found that the E-F minor second was totally bitchen, also.

I found that this vertical structure was beautiful enough, based on your don't even try this at home prescription, that I explored horizontally for some time.

I came up with a raga behind that. Now, in that composition, I got A LOTTA RULES. Definitely some Never Do This going on!! You betcha. Because that is because certain combos of notes, against that E DRONE - NB: I still had in mind the SOUND OF E MINOR when I made this thing - are the best, and certain things sound not good at all. And, it's my composition, a particular, real object in sound, so my rules are what is valid.

Your idea of rules, in abstraction, as if they actually have meaning in themselves, doesn't appear to be based on anything but your system of belief in The Book what they gave you somewhere along the line, and something in you that makes you stick to that Book at all costs... I can't see that you make music by the stuff that you say, Not Even. You are free to prove me wrong, money where the mouth is.

And I have Violated that scripture or what-have-you, and created something that sounds pretty good.

THAT, is my POINT.

[nuffink]

You do understand what a straw man is?

[jancivil]

Yeah, and that structure ain't it. Your argument isn't even as sturdy as straw, I can't even see that it's anything but a lot of hot air. You're repeating yourself, over and over. What have you said? I've got a structure up, that sounds awfully good. It's real. It's not a lot of talk. Which talk, you really are clinging to desparately, aren't you.

Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
looked at the dog, and he said
Sort of staring in disbelief
"You can't say that"
he said
"It doesn't, and you can't, I won't, and it don't
it hasn't, it isn't, it even ain't, and it shouldn't
it couldn't"
He told him, "No, no, no"
I told him, "Yes, yes, yes"
I said, "I do it all the time
Ain't this boogie a mess"?)

[jancivil]

You do understand what a straw man is?

Have you burned it down yet, or are you still trying to light that match in the dark.

Have you tried these sounds out???

I'm not bullshitting, it's really good. It's the mysterioso chord, you could hold it forever.

Get over it. Try it out! You could learn from a practicing musician, really and truly.

But, you probably won't.

[nuffink]

Lookit. I live in the real world of music. You get information from books, and this thread is really tantamount to me arguing with a religious person. I don't buy your scripture, and this really bugs you.

It really isn't. It's about you reading some absolutes into a very generalised post I wrote and getting a bit overwrought about it. Then coming back every day at about this time, correcting your mistakes from the previous day before pitching in another shovel load of bullshit.

Most amusing. Thanks for keeping it real.

[jancivil]

Oh dear, we are in a tizzy.

No, it's called an argument, dear.

[Tony Ostinato]

weather reports "birdland" features a section of this voicing descending chromatically:


C# F G C

C#maj7#11


i love it and it sets up wayne shorters sax solo nicely.

[herodotus]

You know, when I lobbied for this forum I had no idea how much controversy there was going to be in it.

"i dont want to have anything to do with physics im just gonna play catch with my son"


you cant avoid theory in music anymore than you can avoid physics in reality, even if you play random junk theres theory to it, ignorance of theory isnt gonna change that anymore than the effects of gravity on dads throw.


knowing the theory helps save you the time of going into the neighbors yard to get the ball over and over, and your son wont lose patience with you.

The notion that theory is to music what physics is to physical reality is mistaken.

The explanatory power of music theory is actually quite limited, and there is a great deal of musical practice that is in fact beyond it's scope.

[jancivil]

Lookit. I live in the real world of music. You get information from books, and this thread is really tantamount to me arguing with a religious person. I don't buy your scripture, and this really bugs you.

It really isn't. It's about you reading some absolutes into a very generalised post I wrote and getting a bit overwrought about it. Then coming back every day at about this time, correcting your mistakes from the previous day before pitching in another shovel load of bullshit.

You can frame it like that, why not. That's your style.

The original poster, at a certain point in this, sure appeared to be asking about something like 'what happens if the CMaj7 and, the FMaj7 happened at the same time, what's problematic?'.

Typically, you bring the rule book out, with some abstractions, which don't necessarily apply.

Like the time you told the class that (to be concrete) *a C# is basically a note you don't use in blues in E*.
That shows me, you don't be playing no blues with nobody, cause you'd know that ain't right.

Absolutely, I do think this is wrong. I don't think it helps. I think it always serves the function of pointing to yourself as a 'music theory expert'. So, I'm on an overwrought crusade, wtf.

As for my 'mistakes', obviously you mean that I used a Major 7 - 'proving your point' - in lieu of the minor 2: If you go back to a Previous Point I made, that it depends on the overall context/environment, whether or not such an abstraction applies, or not.

My vertical structure, if you hear it, you will find that these two versions of the chromatic neighbor, G>Ab, E>F, examples given, are interchangeable, that you get the same mood either way, in an actual working out in a piece of actual music, you can play with that, and A LOT of other possibilities, in this rich sonority.

There would be reasons in an E blues, 12 bar or otherwise, to avoid the C#. (Same as in a raga, only perhaps less so, because it's a simpler requirement usually.) But to say, my rule book says this is what you do, instead of actually going out and practicing the craft of music to see about this, is what you do.

It's bullshit. It's dishonest.

[vurt]

plus, id like to see the majority of world class sportsmen explain the physics behind their greatest goals/putts/trys/or given scoring moment.
beckhams would be awesome n like.

[nuffink]

Lookit. I live in the real world of music. You get information from books, and this thread is really tantamount to me arguing with a religious person. I don't buy your scripture, and this really bugs you.

It really isn't. It's about you reading some absolutes into a very generalised post I wrote and getting a bit overwrought about it. Then coming back every day at about this time, correcting your mistakes from the previous day before pitching in another shovel load of bullshit.

You can frame it like that, why not. That's your style.

The original poster, at a certain point in this, sure appeared to be asking about something like 'what happens if the CMaj7 and, the FMaj7 happened at the same time, what's problematic?'.

Typically, you bring the rule book out, with some abstractions, which don't necessarily apply.

Like the time you told the class that (to be concrete) *a C# is basically a note you don't use in blues in E*.
That shows me, you don't be playing no blues with nobody, cause you'd know that ain't right.

Absolutely, I do think this is wrong. I don't think it helps. I think it always serves the function of pointing to yourself as a 'music theory expert'. So, I'm on an overwrought crusade, wtf.

As for my 'mistakes', obviously you mean that I used a Major 7 - 'proving your point' - in lieu of the minor 2: If you go back to a Previous Point I made, that it depends on the overall context/environment, whether or not such an abstraction applies, or not.

My vertical structure, if you hear it, you will find that these two versions of the chromatic neighbor, G>Ab, E>F, examples given, are interchangeable, that you get the same mood either way, in an actual working out in a piece of actual music, you can play with that, and A LOT of other possibilities, in this rich sonority.

There would be reasons in an E blues, 12 bar or otherwise, to avoid the C#. (Same as in a raga, only perhaps less so, because it's a simpler requirement usually.) But to say, my rule book says this is what you do, instead of actually going out and practicing the craft of music to see about this, is what you do.

It's bullshit. It's dishonest.

Hold on. One rant at a time.

[Tony Ostinato]

well, there isnt anything that can be done musically that cant be charted, merely because notation is an open language and you can create your own symbols for anything that hasnt been covered.

music theory expands all the time just like physics as well so i think if you went to a good music college and talked to some professors youd be suprised how much is in fact covered, certainly enough to substantiate my anology.

the thing im illuminating, hopefully, is the drove of guys who know no theory at all yet think that the 4 chords theyve strung together has never been done before and is proof they are a genius, where one week of theory lessons would immediately show them theyre playing heart and soul.

and as far as even relatively mainstream pop and rock etc theory absolutely covers everything being done quite easily. if it didnt it certainly wouldnt be popular because people are not very tolerant of new excursions in tonality.

people would assume jazz goes beyond theory because its so out there and yet you can pick up jazz fake books and see it all charted out. theres tons of transcriptions of coltrane for instance. miles too. id be a little sceptical if you were saying youre doing stuff that goes beyond miles much.