We have scales but why??

[jancivil]

If you can say that I - IV lacks a home key, the "needs a V to be a home key" is reasonable! Obviously it is not. Case closed methinks. Should we now discuss the definition of 'ridiculous'?

The Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression is what FZ thought to call a guitar solo he published on Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar, taken from City of Tiny Lites. i - IV, perfect for dorian playing.

Traditionally, if you are working with strictly tonal music, then V is needed (at some point) to establish the key.

Sometimes a composer might not want to establish the key though (at least not straight away), and this is a perfectly valid approach - creating a tonal ambiguity to keep the listener guessing. But if a piece of music in C major never has a G chord, then you cannot really say with certainty that it is in C major!

If a piece of music is supposed to be tonal, and it just keeps alternating between a G major triad and a C major triad for example, then it would more likely be perceived as C major (V and I) than G major (I and IV).

But tonal music has to work a certain way, otherwise by definition it isn't really tonal music!

so I to IV, vamp, I is completely obvious, is just atonal then! this is utterly absurd. There are things you can do 'in a piece of music' to give weight and establish 'tonic', such as rhythm, such as melody... it's shocking to me you can't see that. I can absolutely say that The Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression is i IV, i IV and not v I, v I. Period. end of story. you'd have to be completely deficient to get it wrong.

this is a terrible case of putting the cart of 'chord progression' (historically speaking rather vacuous), in front of the horse of musical action.

[JumpingJackFlash]

so I to IV, vamp, I is completely obvious, is just atonal then!

No, I never said it was atonal, just that you can't say for certain that it's definitely in that one key.

There are things you can do 'in a piece of music' to give weight and establish 'tonic', such as rhythm, such as melody...

Yes, of course. But in tonal music, one of the the main sources of tonality is the harmony (or, at least the implied harmony). It's not the only way, but it's certainly important.

this is a terrible case of putting the cart of 'chord progression' (historically speaking rather vacuous), in front of the horse of musical action.

There are many other valid ways to approach music other than traditional tonality. If you don't want it in a particular key, you don't have to!

[jancivil]

so I to IV, vamp, I is completely obvious, is just atonal then!

No, I never said it was atonal, just that you can't say for certain that it's definitely in that one key.

There are things you can do 'in a piece of music' to give weight and establish 'tonic', such as rhythm, such as melody...

Yes, of course. But in tonal music, one of the the main sources of tonality is the harmony (or, at least the implied harmony). It's not the only way, but it's certainly important.

I can say with absolute certainty that what I mean has, and many many cases of music where NO 'V chord' occurs that do have a solid tonic. It's 'tonal'. If you want, say '20th century academic analysis of tonal functional harmony of x period in common practice in western europe' to delimit 'tonal', fine. I can't see the use of that. But we are in reality talking concepts and you are trying to support a laughable assertion, 'establishment of a home key' 'depends on the dominant V', if not there is no home. I can't even believe I saw this in the first place.

one thing that accrues here is that 'key signature' = 'key'. That cart pulls that horse for 'traditional harmony' does it? really?

We could look at say Schubert and I think I can make that insistence on 'key' = 'key signature' vanish.

If I say "Let's do the Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression in 'G minor'" - it's dorian, would be one flat - only a severe classical pedant has a problem getting the meaning.

[jancivil]

Sometimes a composer might not want to establish the key though (at least not straight away), and this is a perfectly valid approach - creating a tonal ambiguity to keep the listener guessing. But if a piece of music in C major never has a G chord, then you cannot really say with certainty that it is in C major!

WHY? If the weight rhythmically is on G, the melody is contoured to insist on G...

for functional harmony, granted the idea is that 'C major' contains the note 'F' which has implications.
Chords = 'G to C', & if the lines end up analysed as 'heptatonic scale, no flats/sharps', G tonic, that's 'mixolydian' which is nearly absent in your common practice as 'defined'.

I do not grant that the word 'tonal' by your severe definition per se defines 'home key'. I would never call G mixoydian 'ok this is in C, people'.

[herodotus]

so I to IV, vamp, I is completely obvious, is just atonal then!

No, I never said it was atonal, just that you can't say for certain that it's definitely in that one key.

There are things you can do 'in a piece of music' to give weight and establish 'tonic', such as rhythm, such as melody...

Yes, of course. But in tonal music, one of the the main sources of tonality is the harmony (or, at least the implied harmony). It's not the only way, but it's certainly important.

I can say with absolute certainty that what I mean has, and many many cases of music where NO 'V chord' occurs that do have a solid tonic. It's 'tonal'. If you want, say '20th century academic analysis of tonal functional harmony of x period in common practice in western europe' to delimit 'tonal', fine. I can't see the use of that.

The thing is that the whole idea of 'tonality' along with 'chord' and 'key' and 'mode' and 'scale' as we use them today came from that period of 'common practice in western europe'.

The word 'tonality' has a huge amount of baggage. And most of that baggage derives from its European common practice period origins. The contemporary American usage of the terms mentioned above tends to ignore all of this baggage, using all of these terms in a rough and ready way that tends to obscure some of the deeper nuances of meaning. But while 'chord' and 'key' and 'mode' and 'scale' all have objective correlatives that you can define precisely, 'tonality' does not. This is where I think that the confusion is taking place. Jazz theorists simply do not obsess over 'tonality' the way Europeans like Schoenberg and Schenker did.

'Tonality' as a concept is very much a product of the European common practice period. Ignoring this can only lead to confusion.

[jancivil]

The word 'tonality' has a huge amount of baggage. And most of that baggage derives from its European common practice period origins. The contemporary American usage of the terms mentioned above tends to ignore all of this baggage, using all of these terms in a rough and ready way that tends to obscure some of the deeper nuances of meaning. But while 'chord' and 'key' and 'mode' and 'scale' all have objective correlatives that you can define precisely, 'tonality' does not. This is where I think that the confusion is taking place. Jazz theorists simply do not obsess over 'tonality' the way Europeans like Schoenberg and Schenker did.

'Tonality' as a concept is very much a product of the European common practice period. Ignoring this can only lead to confusion.

I'm a contemporary American, I don't require that baggage. It's not that I'm unaware of it. I just think bringing it to talk of concepts, insist on that kind of narrow definition for HOME KEY - remember that is my objection - is not too useful for musicians today.

I think I did not once use the term 'tonality'. Tonal. Has a solid tonic. Home Key.

[jancivil]

The thing is that the whole idea ... 'mode' [comes] from that period of 'common practice in western europe'.

in fact that idea does not come from that period but earlier periods before 'tonality' was established. the 'modal counterpoint' practice was part of the formation of that idea, eventually 'tonality', but I think the modes were arrived at before then.

[herodotus]

I'm a contemporary American, I don't require that baggage. It's not that I'm unaware of it. I just think bringing it to talk of concepts, insist on that kind of narrow definition for HOME KEY - remember that is my objection - is not too useful for musicians today.

It depends on what they are trying to do. It depends upon what music they find interesting. It depends upon how their mind works. And you might be American, but there are many people here who aren't. The people who created this forum aren't.

Look, all I am really trying to get across is that good music can be written by people who are willing participants in the tradition that you are disparaging.

Personally, I think it is high time that theorists of contemporary music came up with new terms that aren't derived from ancient traditions. That's why I like theorists like John Rahn, who talk precisely in terms of the modern 12 tone equally tempered scale and its possible permutations, rather than of 'chords' and 'keys'.

[Gillman]

I'm a contemporary American, I don't require that baggage.

Do you read figured bass? Because there is a lot more in the common *practice* thingy than determining if a floaty vamp of two suspended chords is subsumed under the concept of tonal or not.

Just play the game. You will learn a lot in the process, musically and philosophically. Play the game, even if it seems cumbersome at some times, you will not regret it, you will be changed and you will change your music and the world once you've got it, that's the best advice I can tell you.

[fmr]

I'm a contemporary American, I don't require that baggage. It's not that I'm unaware of it. I just think bringing it to talk of concepts, insist on that kind of narrow definition for HOME KEY - remember that is my objection - is not too useful for musicians today.

I think I did not once use the term 'tonality'. Tonal. Has a solid tonic. Home Key.

So, by your own words, a composition in what you call G dorian, or G mixolydian, is still tonal music? I cannot agree.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I think there is some confusion of terms here.

Modal music is not tonal, at least not in the strictest sense. If it's mixolydian or dorian or whatever, those are not keys, they are modes. Strictly speaking, tonal music means the music has tonality, meaning key. (Though not necessarily the same key all the time of course).

Tonal music, by definition, has a tonal hierarchy which is based on the circle of fifths. The dominant wants to go to the tonic and so on. Ignore these principles and you obscure the tonality (and I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing).

(Also note that a dominant-function chord such as vii can sometimes function as V to establish the key).

The word 'tonic' is also problematic. In a tonal sense, it means the 1st note (or chord) of the key. Strictly speaking, if the piece is not tonal then the word 'tonic' is meaningless (so too is dominant, subdominant etc.). However, I know that some people use it to mean other things (for which, words like Final would often be more appropriate).

It is certainly possible to establish some kind of "home" without using a dominant chord, but the music is unlikely to be strictly tonal, or certainly the tonality would be ambiguous.

I never mentioned key signature at all. The key signature often reflects the home key of the music, but certainly it does not mean that ever single bar of the music is written in that key. "Key signatures" can also be used for modal music, atonal music or even other types of music.

To all intents and purposes however, music of the style of the common practice period and tonal music are roughly interchangeable.

If you don't want to bother with tonality that's fine, but by you can't start redefining ancient terms to suit your own purpose; you are going to confuse and mislead a lot of newbies.

[fmr]

Completely agree with JumpingJackFlash. I am tired of seing terms designating modes mixed with chord figures and with terms like dominant and tonic. All that makes the speach a complete nonsense. If people want to talk about "scales", they have to understand that a "scale" is just a succession of notes, not necessarily separated by tones and semitones. The pentatonic is a scale, but it doesn't produce tonal music. The hexatonic (whole tone) is also a scale (a mode used by Debussy, and also Messiaen), but again, you would have a hard time trying to "harmonize" it. Sure you can superimpose chords on melodies built around it, but the tonal logic cannot be followed, without hurting something.

Modes are systems. Tonality is also a system. Making music intuitively, like what's normal in pop, is very much a "anything goes" business, with people most of the time not even thinking why they do what they do.

Problem is whern some people start to try rationalizing what wasn't a product of reason in the first place, rather a product of feeling.

All those explanations mixing terms like: "Chords = 'G to C', & if the lines end up analysed as 'heptatonic scale, no flats/sharps', G tonic, that's 'mixolydian'...", all in the same sentences, are just plain rubbish, IMO. I mean: does that really makes sense to someone?

[izonin]

In modal jazz/fusion you play scales/modes over chords. It's a pretty simple concept.

[james_mcfadyen]

Please understand that harmony is actually many SYSTEMS of harmony.

It is basic (1st year harmony!!) tonal harmony that in order for the home key to be properly established, chord V must be present, particularly at cadences.

Now this is not to assert any rule that IS the defacto way to do it. In fact, I NEVER use tonal harmony because it is so limiting. I use modal harmony, and very rarely write a key signature because there is no 'home' key as such.

The same is true of 12-tone harmony and chromatic harmony.

So, if all your interested in is establishing the home key, even a 1st year degree student can tell you how to do that-USE THE DOMINANT-but the question is loaded, it assumes that music SHOULD have one specific home key. That is an entirely different subject.

[JumpingJackFlash]

In fact, I NEVER use tonal harmony because it is so limiting. I use modal harmony, and very rarely write a key signature because there is no 'home' key as such.

Indeed, and this is a perfectly valid choice. As long as you are aware you are using modality rather than tonality. One is not better than another, both are equally valid.

So, if all your interested in is establishing the home key, even a 1st year degree student can tell you how to do that-USE THE DOMINANT-but the question is loaded, it assumes that music SHOULD have one specific home key. That is an entirely different subject.

I never said music should have one specific key, just that if you want it to have one key, then the easiest and most definitive way to establish it is to have some kind of dominant to tonic progression.

If you're writing tonal music, then you're using tonality. If not, you're free to do whatever you want. Like I said above, both are valid choices.