diatonic functionality

[sammy24]

I didn't assert it, I said that's what I believe. I may have brought up some arguments that pointed in that direction, but that's it.

Since neither position can be proven, at this point, I am going with the one that a) fits with my own real-world experiences and 2) is echoed by many authors and great musicians of yesterday and today

You really think you're so much smarter than the great masters who have written in detail about dissonance of specific intervals, etc.? Have a little more respect, I think. Hard as it is to believe, I am more inclined to be convinced by people whose musical credentials I am aware of, than someone on an internet forum whose manner could possibly become yet more congruous with the latter half of their user name.

[jancivil]

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.

Your assertions show a marked propensity to begging the question, here. I hope you do not teach people some of this, because I think it could stifle them. Teach them a semitone is hard to identify?

I have not said it is pure conditioning. I think that there are things such as the minor third falling that is natural to people around the world. I don't think the major scale is natural per se. That wasn't my experience. it isn't difficult to see how we got there, but in my experience - almost surely broader than yours - it doesn't appear to be all that primary.

You have danced around things I've put to you directly. A minor seventh is 'dissonant' because it's harder to sing. That confounds two things; that isn't the question.

you're pretty invested in this area. I don't have an overarching thesis I have to support, that's you here.

[jancivil]

I am going with the one that a) fits with my own real-world experiences and 2) is echoed by many authors and great musicians of yesterday and today

You really think you're so much smarter than the great masters who have written in detail about dissonance of specific intervals, etc.? Have a little more respect, I think. Hard as it is to believe, I am more inclined to be convinced by people whose musical credentials I am aware of, than someone on an internet forum whose manner could possibly become yet more congruous with the latter half of their user name.

you should show me more respect for that matter. again, you will do well to make a search for a list of logical fallacies, or fallacies in argument.

one of them is the appeal to authority. It is clear that you have a couple of people to place in support of your contention, belief, or assertion, as if there is overwhelming authority to bring to bear. This does nothing for *your* argument. And, you have yet to pose their writings as if to address my points. You dance around them, change the subject, make straw men, pose reduction to the absurd, in frustration as you beg the question of your premise in these numerous attempts. I agree with some of it. But your wider position is just a belief. that with more and broader experience you may move away from.

[jancivil]

Hard as it is to believe, I am more inclined to be convinced by people whose musical credentials I am aware of, than someone on an internet forum whose manner could possibly become yet more congruous with the latter half of their user name.

so since I have an issue with your arguments, I am uncivil. Yeah, you sure showed me with this shit.

I won't waste another second of time with you.

[sammy24]

Why the need for such a far reach as to be absurd?

If the point was to disprove you, then indeed it is an absurd argument. But that was not the point at all. It was simply to get you to admit that some things are just harder for people, or for most people, than others, conditioning aside. The next step is, if we can determine that most people have a harder time with A as compared to B, then we can say that A is harder than B (for humans, anyway). Now, you are maintaining that minor 7 is no harder for people than minor 3rd. But my teacher maintained the opposite based on over 20 years of teaching thousands of students of all walks of life. Now, I cannot prove that to you either, because I have to take his word on that, and you would need to take mine. But his word is enough for me (combined with my own experiences, both learning and teaching).

P4, btw, is a bit of a unique interval, in my mind, and is not unequivocally dissonant. In fact, I don't really find it dissonant, but rather that it has its own unique quality/effect. Classical harmony books say it is sometimes dissonant and sometimes not. But that's the basic idea, it is a unique effect. Hal Crook considers it a mild dissonance. It's just another way of saying the same thing, I think.

But b7 harmonic interval? I dunno, man. Let's forget about the physics, please. If you don't hear it, then you don't hear it. But I hear it.

So if it's echoed by all the literature, and my own teachers, and I hear it too, I am just not going to have a problem teaching that to others.

[sammy24]

OMG take a joke, please. You had it coming with your sammy24 line. I was only returning the favor.

[sammy24]

Teach them a semitone is hard to identify?

When did I say this, exactly?

[sammy24]

Ok, let me restate please, yet again. Because you are not getting it. this "over-arching theory" you speak of, as though it were my own theory (which it's not), is just that, a theory. It is hard to prove, if not impossible. I never asserted it as fact. There are facts that support it, like any theory, but this does not prove it.

To me, these theories have little to no value in and of themselves. I care about music, and could practically care less about the reasons why we hear the way we do, unless of course it has an impact on musical improvement or on music itself. This particular theory is an excellent vehicle to explain minor, modes, modulation, harmony, and more, in the easiest, most concise way I have ever come across. Therefore, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It works. It certainly is not stifling. If it comes across that way, maybe that is because there is not enough time or space in this forum to explain the whole method, but you would see that it is not limiting in any way.

Secondly, it works incredibly well with the ear training that goes with it. Thousands of musicians have benefited from this method of self-improvement.

It might be possible to develop a similar method, all starting from mixolydian. But until you do, this is a nice, comprehensive way to understand tonal music, that gets right to real ear training.

If I was trying to prove this to you or anyone else, all your "logical fallacy" arguments would be valid. But all I was ever doing was putting forth the theory, and bringing some supporting facts that give it some credence. This was attacked repeatedly, meaning that you must have been trying to disprove the theory completely. Which is impossible, as well.

This is also why the appeal to authority is totally not applicable here. In order to prove a theory's truth, appeal to authority is meaningless. But in bringing forth a theory's credence, the fact that well respected individuals said it does add credibility.

I did say I tend to believe in this theory, at least until someone can make a more compelling case for their own. But since I cannot prove every aspect of it 100%, indeed those aspects I'm taking on faith, from people who never steered me wrong in the past. And again, it doesn't matter at all if it's wrong, because the whole point wasn't about right and wrong. It was about developing a way of thinking about music that neatly ties together the concepts of scales, chords, voice leading, scale degrees, major, minor, modes, and ear training in a simple method that reduces confusion and helps the student get to training the ear in the most efficient manner possible. In fact, if mixolydian is indeed the most basic scale, or if no scale is the most basic, the goal of ear training and understanding all those concepts has still been accomplished. This is, in my mind, the value of the theory as far as I'm concerned, and that's good enough for me. And since no music I have come across has contradicted this theory,that removes any qualms I would have about teaching it to others.

In fact, the slight modification of "think of it as if a major scale is your most basic scale" would solve any issues. It is an effective organizational tool, and right or wrong, that's worth something when it comes to music pedagogy.

[sammy24]

Regarding b7, I wish you would clarify your point. There is b7 as a melodic interval, b7 as a harmonic interval, and b7 the scale degree. to which are you referring?

I was talking about b7 as a harmonic or melodic interval, and thought you were, too.

As far as the scale degree is concerned, indeed b7 has basis in the overtone series, and does sound pretty natural. It is certainly not a hard scale degree to learn.

I dunno that it is more natural than maj7, but maybe so.

But regarding intervals, I definitely hear some tension in both harmonic M2 and m7 intervals, and in melodic m7 intervals. Whether this can be proven in physics, no idea. But my ear hears it as more "tension" or dissonance, certainly, than a m3.

[jancivil]

Teach them a semitone is hard to identify?

When did I say this, exactly?

you said your Berklee experience showed you that the "#1" was harder to identify. the major scale bits are natural and #1 (an usual expression itself), #4, "#6" etc are hard. you said it could take years!

it's not feasible for me to argue with you at this point. you really seem to skim and cherry-pick things as if it helps what you have said. You are misrepresenting my statements willfully or at least with great haste.

Don't be implying I don't hear something.

I'm too old for this shit.


thanks for clarifying a couple of things. maybe you'll see what I meant with more reflection and less reaction.

[jancivil]

OK, I will clarify:

This particular theory
...
If I was trying to prove this to you or anyone else, all your "logical fallacy" arguments would be valid. But all I was ever doing was putting forth the theory, and bringing some supporting facts that give it some credence. This was attacked repeatedly, meaning that you must have been trying to disprove the theory completely. Which is impossible, as well.

I have only your statements to work with. I think I won't disabuse you of them. I didn't have any idea at all what this 'theory' entails. We have been engaged in a disagreement about fundamental CONCEPTS. I'm not interested in that theory personally.

in bringing forth a theory's credence, the fact that well respected individuals said it does add credibility.

You seem to be advocating for ideas. I don't think what you have said here is so good for people new to music. I don't know how much of this is me, but I feel like this is basically the way you have stated things. Now this argumentation was really in support of your belief in something holistic, but it's not overarching or any assertion.

It was about developing a way of thinking about music that neatly ties together the concepts of scales, chords, voice leading, scale degrees, major, minor, modes, and ear training in a simple method that reduces confusion and helps the student get to training the ear in the most efficient manner possible. In fact, if mixolydian is indeed the most basic scale, or if no scale is the most basic, the goal of ear training and understanding all those concepts has still been accomplished.

How are we supposed to have this from this 'conversation'. You start out arguing that the diatonic way of life is natural (this is something I have an aversion, like an allergy to). You have made some absurd statements. You want to seize on me demanding 'physics'; you brought in the overtone series in support of... something. I just have that to work with and some of your bases are things that don't really work.

Now you don't want to have asserted any facts, but they looked like they were stated as though they were. You're being argumentative the same as I am. You have a belief, you even mention faith and I think you are invested in some ideas and behaving a bit religiously here. So you feel attacked. I should know better.

[jancivil]

Regarding b7, I wish you would clarify your point. There is b7 as a melodic interval, b7 as a harmonic interval, and b7 the scale degree. to which are you referring?

it's dissonant [a vertical conception], did you not say that? But you can't sing vertically. It's dissonant because it's hard to sing, I forget exactly what you said. I don't know why these things are hard. Is a perfect fourth hard to arrive at? But isn't the major scale the most natural thing in the world? You actually have these notions, a major third is easier to hear than a minor second. I don't get why; this prioritizes things purely out of a belief, which I'm allergic to. that's why I say 'begging the question'. I'm actually trying to teach you critical thinking which I feel you're lacking in; based in your argumentation.

I developed strategies, following a couple of eureka moments from a really great teacher. Minor seventh; what is it in music I would do? You go down a whole tone and the note one octave up is a m7. It isn't hard to do. 'Maria, I just met a girl named Maria'. I know that tune. I can sing all kinds of these intervals, I could then. I don't know what's hard about this, or unnatural. I perfectly understand, you are immersed in a sound and it becomes natural.

I guess I didn't much care for major scale musics as a young person. I grew up with hipper sounding shit than that. It makes me an alien? Maybe that I'm just very skeptical and a LOW tolerance for BS is abnormal? The things YOU say are strange to ME.

[sammy24]

Well, that's quite alright. We all have our own experiences, etc. and you are entitled to your own as well.

Regarding the "difficulty of ear training" -- People's abilities in the areas of ear training vary greatly. The ability to hear these scale degrees and intervals is simply to arrive at a point where, along with an understanding of rhythm, a person can know and identify music they hear, even complex, and be able to write it down correctly (or at least clearly know what you've heard), and vice versa. This is an extremely valuable skill. No, you don't have to know music notation to be good, but being able to write music down is a good litmus test to see if one can do so accurately, find out how well they hear (rhythm, correct notes, articulation, dynamics, etc.) Many people who can do this accurately with pop and rock type music take much longer to get to the point where they can do so with complex music like jazz, with its use of all 12 notes, modulations, etc. So I'm not talking about being able to sing a scale degree correctly, so much as to be able to really integrate these sounds into hearing, reading, and playing music. As far as I know, there are much fewer people in the world who can play jazz well (I mean professional level) than rock music.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I've only skimmed the posts since last time I was on here, apologies if I have taken anything out of context.

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).

This is a bit misleading.
Something can't be both chromatic and diatonic, they are mutually exclusive.

It's true that early tonal music used chromaticism quite fleetingly; probably the earliest (tonal) examples were things like the secondary dominant, where chords are taken from another key. But usually (unless there is a definitive key change), the music is still analysed with respect to the tonic key, so such chords are considered "chromatic".

A chromatic bassline could certainly be tonal, but it is unlikely to be diatonic. The only diatonic example would be something like 6-#6-7-#7-8 of the natural minor, which is found quite a few times in early tonal music (see J. S. Bach).

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.

In relation to what?!
Very few people have perfect pitch, so getting a student to sing "the third of d minor" in isolation is futile. Once the key is aurally established, it is possible, but then the note is worked out in reference to another, usually the tonic. I therefore assume you are talking about intervals rather than scale degrees per se.

And I don't agree with your statement, in fact, I could argue that the opposite is true.
Most students find it easier to identify a minor seventh than a major seventh, probably because it is used so often in the dominant seventh chord.

Also, many beginners have trouble with the major third, perfect fourth, perfect fifth and octave because they all sound rather bland - too close to each other, nothing is distinctive. Many times I have seen students confuse a perfect fifth with an octave for example. It depends on context of course, some contexts are naturally easier than others.

More distinctive intervals like the augmented fourth for example is immediately recognisable because of its characteristic sound (again though, it depends on context).

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.

Again I don't agree. Identifying half-diminished chords can be easier than identifying major or minor chords because they are so distinctive.

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.

One very easy way is to take your theories to a Sitar player in India, or a drummer in Africa, or a Gamalan player in Indonesia and see if they hold true there. I guarantee you they won't.

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?

It is fairly easy to prove that 3-syllable words are harder than 1-syllable words because it takes three times as much effort to articulate. - They is an objective, graduated learning curve there.

But you can't prove that the note G is harder to sing than the note F because they are completely unrelated to each other. It would be like saying the colour red is harder to recognise than the colour blue!

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

Yes to both questions, quite successfully I might add. I also have a masters degree in music and am the author of textbooks used in education institutions throughout my country.

You really think you're so much smarter than the great masters who have written in detail about dissonance of specific intervals, etc.?

It's not necessarily their words that we are disagreeing with, it is your interpretation of them.

Trust me, jancivil and I come from very different musical backgrounds. It's not often we agree on something

[sammy24]

Very few people have perfect pitch, so getting a student to sing "the third of d minor" in isolation is futile. Once the key is aurally established, it is possible, but then the note is worked out in reference to another, usually the tonic

Yes, that is what I'm talking about, not absolute pitch. Technically, you could call identifying tones in relation to tonic "intervals", but here's the difference: Learning to sing or identify a P5 up from tonic, 1-5, has a certain sound. But when one does the same with 2-6, besides the actual interval P5 between 2 and 6, they also need to identify 2 as a M2 from tonic, and 6 as a M6 from tonic. So this "sound" of an interval, specifically from tonic, is what I'm referring to as scale degrees. And actually, once they identify 2 as M2 from tonic, and 6 as M6 from tonic, they won't really have to measure a P5 from 2 to 6, but their ear can just jump from one to the other, since it can hear those tones in relation to the tonic.

When we hear a melody in the key of C, the interval from each tone to tonic is more important, musically, than the interval between every tone. Trying to hear each tone in relation to the tone before would require the person to keep changing their point of reference, which would be very similar to a momentary modulation (modulation being in essence simply a change of reference from one tonic to another). Tryng to hear the opening melody of the Star Spangled Banner in C, for instance, consisting of the notes G, E, C, E, G, C, E, D, C, E, F#, G, would require the listener to use G, E, C, D, and F# as points of reference. Besides the unnecessary difficulty compared to simply identifyng each tone in relation to C, the tonic, it would also sort of miss the "point" of the melody (similar to misconstruing a statement somebody makes by overanalyzing each word in relation to the last, and thereby missing the overall meaning). While it is possible for an advanced listener to hear each new melody note as a new tonic, that's clearly not the musical intent here. If it were, I'd feel bad for the composer, because 99.9% of people would have missed it.