diatonic functionality

[sammy24]

It is harder for most people to hear chromatic music, and chromatic tones, than diatonic. And by that I am referring to notes that are chromatic to the major scale. ( You may have different terminology here, but we can have that conversation a different time.)

You may argue and say 1) this is not true, chromatic music is not harder for people, or 2) that it is because of conditioning.

To that I would respond, firstly , that in my teacher Dick Grove's 20 years of teaching over 20,000 students, he consistently found this to be the case. That is quite a sample size.

As far as conditioning, while there is a tiny chance that this is responsible, it would hard-pressed to account for the fact that so many students from many different countries, and vastly different conditioning, still had the same results.

Also, really hearing chromatic music with changes of key, e.g.. jazz is so much more difficult for most people, to the extent that it often takes years and years of training, would suggest that it truly is more difficult. And chromatic harmony and dominant chords with many altered tones is one of the areas students find difficult. Conditioning alone cannot account for the level of difficulty, IMO.

All this would suggest that diatonic major scale tones are most basic to the human ear, seeing as they are easier to learn to sing and hear.

[JumpingJackFlash]

It is harder for most people to hear chromatic music, and chromatic tones, than diatonic.

Before I respond to anything else, I think you need to elucidate exactly what you mean here.
"Harder to hear"? - What does that mean?

Secondly, you will have to clarify exactly what you mean by "chromatic" music, since probably about 99% of all music contains at least some chromaticism at some point (the word should be used to mean notes not belonging to the current key, mode or scale).

All this would suggest that diatonic major scale tones are most basic to the human ear, seeing as they are easier to learn to sing and hear.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[NKF]

It is harder for most people to hear chromatic music, and chromatic tones, than diatonic. And by that I am referring to notes that are chromatic to the major scale. ( You may have different terminology here, but we can have that conversation a different time.)

You may argue and say 1) this is not true, chromatic music is not harder for people, or 2) that it is because of conditioning.

To that I would respond, firstly , that in my teacher Dick Grove's 20 years of teaching over 20,000 students, he consistently found this to be the case. That is quite a sample size.

As far as conditioning, while there is a tiny chance that this is responsible, it would hard-pressed to account for the fact that so many students from many different countries, and vastly different conditioning, still had the same results.

Also, really hearing chromatic music with changes of key, e.g.. jazz is so much more difficult for most people, to the extent that it often takes years and years of training, would suggest that it truly is more difficult. And chromatic harmony and dominant chords with many altered tones is one of the areas students find difficult. Conditioning alone cannot account for the level of difficulty, IMO.

All this would suggest that diatonic major scale tones are most basic to the human ear, seeing as they are easier to learn to sing and hear.

Most chromaticism at least until the late romantic period before you started to get more voiceleading movements rather than tonal progressions are diatonic but in a temporary foreign key. You could easily construct a progression with a chromatic bassline that is completely tonal ( lets say early romantic period).

I find one of the biggest hurdles in music pedagogy is that jazz and classical are separated in most universities. I think if you learned in a historical fashion, these chromaticism were a natural extension. Even most jazz until the modal stuff following the swing period.

I think people just don't have the necessary background to parse the sounds they here which makes sense given that most people don't listen to music the way one would learning it.

Regarding what you said about dissonance, i do agree in that it is perception but like humans are naturally prone to like sugar, we are naturally prone to like simple intervals were the harmonics line up. It takes exposure to appreciate dissonance as it is an acquired taste. This is my theory. Just like people like the taste of beer. There is no kid that tries beer and thinks it is great.

[sammy24]

Regarding what you said about dissonance, i do agree in that it is perception but like humans are naturally prone to like sugar, we are naturally prone to like simple intervals were the harmonics line up. It takes exposure to appreciate dissonance as it is an acquired taste. This is my theory. Just like people like the taste of beer. There is no kid that tries beer and thinks it is great.

yeah, that's why pop music is the way it is, too. Kids would have candy every night for dinner if they could. But they can come to appreciate the finer things in life, as you said.

I have found that smaller kids (@5-10 years old) respond very well to jazz and classical, but once they have some pre-conceived notions about the music they like, it can be harder to get them to listen with an open mind. "When are the words gonna start?"

[jancivil]

You're totally missing my position here.

I don't think dissonance necessarily equates with a desire to resolve. Dissonance just as a certain sound to it. As I discuss later, it is humans who sometimes want or expect it to resolve.

You seemed to be arguing with the very notion that certain intervals are more dissonant than others. The greatest minds in music over the last few centuries beg to differ. Maybe that was not what you meant, but that's sure what it sounded like.

the major seventh or minor ninth vertically has a certain tension, similar in quality as two notes a semitone apart sounding at the same time.

Why is the minor third sounded at the same time more consonant than a minor seventh? Objectively, tell me about some physics!

Whatever, I hear your physics-based argument, but in all honesty, like I said earlier, music comes down to human perception. Amplitude isn't the ear factor in music, it's loudness that matters. Frequency isn't the factor that matters, it's pitch perception. When differences arise between the physics and the perception, perception is what wins out from the standpoint of making musical decisions.

are you basically just skimming and cherry-picking here? Your reading of what I said is simply deficient. It's hard to begin to address some of the stuff you're saying now. You want to confuse the general by the specific 'why do 'orchestrators not harmonize with the M2 below 'in the second voice''. That is a specific idea of what to do. What are you showing me, your belief about dissonance. I grew up with odd things by orchestrators. My conditioning is different than yours. I seem to be less prone to bullshit for whatever reason.

You can't tell me why the minor seventh is more dissonant than the minor third. You were trying to fly this very kind of thing up til these particular challenges, which are forcing you to revise your position:

a tone has no desire to resolve. The very connection of two or more consecutive tones into a meaningful whole is based upon human perception!

and human opinion.
But then we're back to begging the question by a new tack:

I maintain that humans have certain natural perceptions regarding music that they are born with, and that has perhaps been strengthened by conditioning. Biologically, and possibly caused at least in part by our perceptions of the OT series.

you seem to believe a person is predisposed naturally - by biology and some stuff they are exposed to in the womb? what. - to the diatonic ways. I think you have zero evidence for that.

[sammy24]

"Harder to hear"? - What does that mean?

In other words, it consistently takes the students significantly more ear training practice and repetition to learn to hear, recognize, identify, and sing scale degrees such as b2, #1,#2, b3, #4, b5, b6, #5, b7, #6 (with b3, b6, and b7 probably being the easiest of those) as compared to those scale degrees that are found in the major scale, 1, 2, 3,, 4, 5, 6, and M7.

Much more ear training practice and time is required before those scale degrees are generally integrated, possibly years (with some being easier than others). In other words,it simply takes a better ear to hear these tones, such as b9 , #9, b13, #5, #11, b5 of a dominant chord, for example.

Once learned, no scale degree is harder than any other. When you've got, you've got it. But it takes much more practice and repetition to nail down those altered scale degrees.

Even singing minor scales by ear gives beginning students more trouble than major. All the more so recognizing chords in minor, such as mi7(b5) or half-diminished (I'm covering my terminology bases here), or altered dominant chords, diminished 7 chords.

[jancivil]

"Harder to hear"? - What does that mean?

In other words, it consistently takes the students significantly more ear training practice and repetition to learn to hear, recognize, identify, and sing scale degrees such as b2, #1,#2, b3, #4, b5, b6, #5, b7, #6 (with b3, b6, and b7 probably being the easiest of those) as compared to those scale degrees that are found in the major scale, 1, 2, 3,, 4, 5, 6, and M7.

Much more ear training practice and time is required before those scale degrees are generally integrated, possibly years.

which students? where? speak for yourself.

I remember music theory 101. He taught interval recognition by relating it to a moment in a song you knew.

'Maria', L Bernstein/S Sondheim fr. West Side Story: Ma RI a. Aug. 4th. Lesson learned.

You have a marked predisposition to the major scale which is the easiest for you. this is you, this is not the truth in a wider sense. You have sold this to yourself (you reach for things such as 'major scales in children's songs = more natural'. it's totally cultural, this is not true everywhere on the planet), but the sales pitch is a bit flat for us.

[sammy24]

You can't tell me why the minor seventh is more dissonant than the minor third

The simple fact that it takes longer for students to learn to sing minor sevenths shows this is the case. Maybe your ear was so advanced that you skipped this stage of training, so you don't know. I've seen people struggle with the most basic and easiest scale degrees and intervals. Minor 7th for these people comes way after minor third, in terms of level of difficulty in identifying and singing, etc.

I didn't say anything about the womb....

It is equally hard to prove that conditioning alone is responsible for how we perceive things. There are countless functions that our bodies and minds do that is built in to the system. Certainly conditioning plays a role. But how can one prove that conditioning alone is the answer for everything? You can't.

Yes, for instance, I believe that the way I perceive the color blue is completely biological and has nothing to do with conditioning. Why on earth should music be any different?

Just because 5 year olds in certain cultures are more advanced rhythmically than most people, playing 5 over 4 and the like, doesn't mean it's just as easy to play 5 over as it is to play 4 over or 2 over 4. That, is indeed ludicrous. They're just surrounded by these rhythms so much that they are able to advance quickly. But I can guarantee that the babies aren't playing 5/4 yet.

How many kids do you know said three-syllable words as their first word? Doesn't this tell you that one syllable words are easier to learn than three-syllable words? So one syllable is more basic, three syllables is a bit more advanced. Same with music -- people have more trouble identifying certain scale degrees, and certain intervals, than others. This means certain ones are more basic, and certain ones are more advanced.
Just as no one would be so crazy to assert that the reason monosyllabic words are easier for a child is based on conditioning, so too it is logical that the easier aspects of music are biologically so, and have nothing to do with conditioning.

If for you, all scale degrees and intervals were equal in terms of integrating them by ear (i.e. you learned to integrate them all at precisely the same time), you should know that you are the exception. Ask any student who attended Berklee or any other school that teaches this sort of ear training, and you will consistently see that they struggled over particular ones, and funny enough, it's the same culprits every time. Particularly, #1, b5, #5, and #6 are among the hardest.

[jancivil]

You can't tell me why the minor seventh is more dissonant than the minor third

The simple fact that it takes longer for students to learn to sing minor sevenths shows this is the case.

it does_not. that shows a predisposition owing to culture and conditioning. This addresses 'dissonance' NOT AT ALL.

Like I said, you're sold. You're not convincing IME.

[sammy24]

that's very nice.

nevertheless, when I say learning these notes by ear, I mean to do so consistently in musical contexts. A lot more practice is necessary to identify that same interval when it is going by at a tempo of 190; there is simply not enough time to think of your favorite interval song.

Tricks like that are only helpful to get the integration process started. Now that you can sing it successfully, you can begin the practice necessary to get it second nature.

[sammy24]

Actually, IME PM'd me and let me know that he was completely convinced.

[jancivil]

It is equally hard to prove that conditioning alone is responsible for how we perceive things. There are countless functions that our bodies and minds do that is built in to the system. Certainly conditioning plays a role. But how can one prove that conditioning alone is the answer for everything? You can't.

this is completely fallacious argumentation. the burden of proof is on you for asserting the nature of human hearing leads a person to recognize things in the diatonic major scale as if there is some law at work.

I think there are general things to draw from acoustics, such as the major triad. Seems rather easily evident. But I think if we're going there, we must conclude the minor seventh is natural. the mixolydian mode turned out to be what I found easiest to sing and improvise on over a drone.

You have the major scale; which is historically quite novel.

[sammy24]

Are you a music teacher? Have you ever taught ear training, may I ask?

Perhaps calculus is just as easy as addition; we just find it more difficult due to culture and conditioning.

Also, were it not for our unfortunate cultural upbringings, we would all be fantastic major league hitters.

You have just as little basis for your assertions. Prove that it is pure conditioning. My own assertions are based on my own experiences, together with that of my own students, as well as my teachers, their own experiences, and studies.

My goal was never to convince you, in fact I have never yet entertained the hope of convincing you of anything. I should indeed be so fortunate!

[jancivil]

How many kids do you know said three-syllable words as their first word?

Samuel L Jackson's was 'motherf**ker'.

Doesn't this tell you that one syllable words are easier to learn than three-syllable words? So one syllable is more basic, three syllables is a bit more advanced. Same with music -- people have more trouble identifying certain scale degrees, and certain intervals, than others. This means certain ones are more basic, and certain ones are more advanced.
Just as no one would be so crazy to assert that the reason monosyllabic words are easier for a child is based on conditioning, so too it is logical that the easier aspects of music are biologically so, and have nothing to do with conditioning.

Again you're confounding general with particular. I reckon there are particular intervals that are easier to sing. However this whole line of argument came out of you trying to push the major scale and things that are not the first thing for everyone around the world to have been exposed to, as the most natural things. If someone is buying that, they're coming from the same position as you.

When I pose something that stops the argument you were trying up til then in its tracks: 'why is the minor seventh, the P4 a dissonance to be handled', you start dancing and making straw men out of the points

If for you, all scale degrees and intervals were equal in terms of integrating them by ear (i.e. you learned to integrate them all at precisely the same time), you should know that you are the exception. Ask any student who attended Berklee or any other school that teaches this sort of ear training, and you will consistently see that they struggled over particular ones, and funny enough, it's the same culprits every time. Particularly, #1, b5, #5, and #6 are among the hardest.

and this is because of what again? some notion you have of nature? which you are now supporting with 'multisyllabic words are harder'. Why is a semitone this hard? I really don't know. If you're exposed to things early, by the time you are challenged to bring them, they come more naturally. You seem to be asserting that we're coming into the world with a predisposition to a cultural affect you know. As a general principle.

[jancivil]

Perhaps calculus is just as easy as addition; we just find it more difficult due to culture and conditioning.

Also, were it not for our unfortunate cultural upbringings, we would all be fantastic major league hitters.

My goal was never to convince you, in fact I have never yet entertained the hope of convincing you of anything. I should indeed be so fortunate!

"Perhaps calculus is just as easy as addition; we just find it more difficult due to culture and conditioning." Why the need for such a far reach as to reduce to the absurd? or argument from sarcasm. do you know what a logical fallacy is? you would do well to make a search for a list of them.

Are you a music teacher? Have you ever taught ear training, may I ask?

are you 24 years old? is that what that is in your sig?
you are now bringing an overconfidence and obtuseness appropriate for that age.

I have taught music, yes. First in 1976. I wouldn't want you for ear training because you evidently think it's really hard and could take years to learn the hard intervals. I was lucky and had people that knew I was on a faster track.