Yes, what about music theory

[nuffink]

I teach this stuff everyday

So how about positive contributions rather than general "you're all wrong" posts?

Did you read my original post (to the end)?

I did. Twice. And apart from the bit about ear training which, as MotorMind pointed out is a false dichotomy, I saw nothing positive in it.

I like this theory forum. I think it's the most interesting thing to have happened on kvr for a long time. And if there's a bit of misinformation going about there are plenty of people willing to correct it. Hopefully you'll be one of them.

I'm always looking to learn so, since you're a teacher, maybe you could tell me why you seem to consider the blues beyond the scope of theory. Because I've read a fair bit of blues theory.

[Toxikator]

and they this shit believe me better than you and me combined times 10

"Okay, 421, a couple questions:

How do you value your what you contribute of to at the workforce.

Uh, second part: Which do you most can't the least?

...Skwisgaar, did you write these questions?"

[BosseJo]

and they this shit believe me better than you and me combined times 10

"Okay, 421, a couple questions:

How do you value your what you contribute of to at the workforce.

Uh, second part: Which do you most can't the least?

...Skwisgaar, did you write these questions?"

Ska vi ta det på svenska?

[BosseJo]

I teach this stuff everyday

So how about positive contributions rather than general "you're all wrong" posts?

Did you read my original post (to the end)?

I did. Twice. And apart from the bit about ear training which, as MotorMind pointed out is a false dichotomy, I saw nothing positive in it.

I like this theory forum. I think it's the most interesting thing to have happened on kvr for a long time. And if there's a bit of misinformation going about there are plenty of people willing to correct it. Hopefully you'll be one of them.

I'm always looking to learn so, since you're a teacher, maybe you could tell me why you seem to consider the blues beyond the scope of theory. Because I've read a fair bit of blues theory.

Once and for all; I am NOT against theory. I am not against the theory forum. Have you done any ear training? If not do that for a couple of months. If you have done some serious ear training don't you think the ability to instantly hear chord progressions, intervals, inner vocings is very valuable - more valuable than reading about them in a book? I am against the fact that theory is often presented as THE thing to learn and I was not trying to create/advocate a dichotomy. Sorry if it sounded like that. And to all- yes english is not my first language so perhaps I can't express myself as clearly as I would like to sometimes. If there's some ambiguity people could just ask. I was just trying to show a different perspective.

[Barf]

EDIT: Just saw this after hitting "submit"

(awaiting reply from The Toxikator)

Sorry, I should have said "awaiting reply from The Toxikator which I'm not gonna read"...

[sonarman]

How are you going to improve your written English? By listening?

[BosseJo]

I'm always looking to learn so, since you're a teacher, maybe you could tell me why you seem to consider the blues beyond the scope of theory. Because I've read a fair bit of blues theory.

I did not mean that blues is beyond the scope of theory. Since have read about blues then you know that the major/minor duality (perhaps I am not using the correct english description here but I think you what I mean) is not easily explianed in words. This scenario is not uncommon:

You show someone the basic, the major scale, how chords are built, a major chord has major third etc. What is bound to happen is that after a while they come asking: I saw this "rock scale" (the blues scale) but that is not a major scale? And the chords are all major?

And they look like I have been lying them or something. How should you respond? I think it's better to take the "hearing" approach instead. An what about the "blue notes". I have never seen a good theoretical explaination, one that helps more than it hurts about this things. And if ever have the chance to talk to some these old blues guys (hurry there are not many of them left) about theory well... If you want blues theory fine,but I think maybe, just maybe we should give the guys who invented the stuff some respect. Perhaps we could ask them, their way may not be so bad after all?

[nuffink]

I'm always looking to learn so, since you're a teacher, maybe you could tell me why you seem to consider the blues beyond the scope of theory. Because I've read a fair bit of blues theory.

I did not mean that blues is beyond the scope of theory. Since have read about blues then you know that the major/minor duality (perhaps I am not using the correct english description here but I think you what I mean) is not easily explianed in words. This scenario is not uncommon:

You show someone the basic, the major scale, how chords are built, a major chord has major third etc. What is bound to happen is that after a while they come asking: I saw this "rock scale" (the blues scale) but that is not a major scale? And the chords are all major?

And they look like I have been lying them or something. How should you respond? I think it's better to take the "hearing" approach instead. An what about the "blue notes". I have never seen a good theoretical explaination, one that helps more than it hurts about this things. And if ever have the chance to talk to some these old blues guys (hurry there are not many of them left) about theory well... If you want blues theory fine,but I think maybe, just maybe we should give the guys who invented the stuff some respect. Perhaps we could ask them, their way may not be so bad after all?

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.

btw. Blue notes are notes which sit outside the common scale divisions of 12TET. For instance a blue third sits between the intervals of a major and minor third.

Two sentences. Not too difficult to explain.

[JumpingJackFlash]

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.

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.

Also, 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?

Finally, on a personal level, I have found that some posts do not agree with *my* way of doing things. - I may think that they over-simplified concepts or whatever, but then people go on to say how good the post has been. - That's one of the good things of a place like this, you can get lots of opinions for free. - People have different ways of doing things, there is often no right or wrong way, just different methods of achieving the same results. - Just because I do not agree with a particular method doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid (which is why I have refrained from chipping in on said topics).

And, about the modes vs. scales thing, I think that's a product of jazz vs. classical harmony. - If you are classically trained, you aren't really taught modes until very late on, but if you do jazz, it's one of the first things you learn. Although I have the advantage of having been taught both jazz and classical, 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. However, for someone whose background is mostly in jazz, I can fully understand why they would recommend modes much more.

Don't trust everything as facts just because it's on the net.

This is probably the most important sentence in your entire post.

I don't see how moaning about any of this is going to help anyone. If you have found any particular statement to be factually wrong, then by all means correct it. Now, we're just going to get back into that debate on theory, which is just pointless. - Whether you think theory is valuable or not is only relevant to you. The fact is, to some people it is valuable, and they have a right to learn it.

[me109]

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

I think some of the frustration is that there is no consistent terminology. Somebody reads a book by one author and thinks that that's all there is to it. Or a teacher has invented his own way of explaining things - which may work fine - but then to communicate on an international forum like this, nobody knows what the other one is talking about. I mean, people on both sides of the pond can't even agree on what to call a quarter note, so when we get into the more abstruse topics, it's bound to be confusing.

[fmr]

As someone involved for long time with Music Theory, and specially regarding modes, allow me to add something to this discussion.
Modes are more than just scales. Modes are "moods", in the way that they reflect a special behaviour and character, and (theoretically) the music made with modes will reflect that character.
This was already understood by the Greeks, and was like that ever since. In the Middle Ages, music was made with eight modes (or tones - from which was derived the word tonality). They were eight, but worked in pairs, making just four tones (authentic and plagal - don't know if this last word is the correct term in English). Some idiot gave greek names to these in the XIX century - they never had those names. The names commonly known (Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian), are wrong names, never used in those times, and not even related to the Greek modes of the same name. In Middle Ages, the modes were just designated as 1st Tone, 2nd Tone, 3rd Tone and 4th Tone. The first tone began in D (authentic) or in A (plagal) and always ended in D. The "repercusas" (again, don't know if this is the correct word in English), which were the most important notes of the mode, were, respectively, A and E. These were the notes around which the melodies were constructed.
This 1st Mode (or 1st Tone) was the origin of the modern "minor" mode (tonality eliminated all the modes, keeping just major and minor). The natural D minor has a B flat. The flat was the first alteration of the natural notes, done to avoid the augmented fourth between F and B (diavolus in musicae). Lately, with the advent of tonality (which started as cadences, where the 7th is raised, to attract the 1st note), appeared the alteration of c#, which led to the harmonic minor. Take note that melodically, the augmented second never appear, since the seventh is raised only to lead to the finalis (current tonic), and the melody usually coms to seventh from the 1st degree, and then turns back to it. If melody goes down, the seventh is no longer raised, and therefore, there is no augmented second. Bach, which had a very strong harmonic background, but respected very much the laws of counterpoint, started raising the sixth also, when approaching tonic from downwards, and that's how the melodic form appeared.
The 2nd mode begins in E (plagal in B), 3rd mode in F (plagal in C) and that's where current major mode comes from, and the 4th mode in G (plagal in D). This was the system in Middle Ages.
There are other modes (Indian, oriental, gypsy, Hispanic-arab, etc.). There are modes created by composers (hexatone, by Debussy, Modes de Transpositions Limitées, by Messiaen) and great composers used modes in their compositions (Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith, Orff, Messiaen, etc.). What I want to say is that modes are systems, and when someone says that he/she is playing a Lydian scale in C, or whatever, they are talking basically nonsense. 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.

[cheul]

So when can you say you're composing in a given mode, and how do you go about harmonizing it ? That's the main point I'm missing lately I think.

[fmr]

So when can you say you're composing in a given mode, and how do you go about harmonizing it ? That's the main point I'm missing lately I think.

By analyzing the music, of course. Regarding harmonization, since modes are not supposed to work in harmony way, anything goes, really. For a good example of this, you have the famous Gymnopedie for piano, by Satie, or several of the piano pieces of Debussy (Cathedrale Engloutie, for example).

Or you can check the opening Promenade of "Pictures at an exhibition" by Mussorgsky. Even if this one still pays great attention to harmony, the ambiguous melody makes it behave a little like a mode.

My personal approach is like working with two tonalities, making chordal progressions depending on the way the melody progresses. Remember to avoid strong cadences, and also remember that you do not have sensible in a mode (except in the third). And, of course, instead of chords, you can always use aggregates of seconds and fourths, like Bartok does sometimes.

Or just use pedal notes or fifths, and let the melody live on its own.

Modal music tend to be very fluid, almost ethereal, because of the lack of tonal attraction. If you place tonal chord progressions you will destroy it's "mood".

[mothman]

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.

[nuffink]

So when can you say you're composing in a given mode, and how do you go about harmonizing it ? That's the main point I'm missing lately I think.

Just to add to Fernando's excellent post...

In jazz theory modes are normally used for generating chord scales. e.g. dorian, phrygian and aolian can be played over minor chords and which one you chose determines both the mood of the melody and which tensions can be added to the chord.
In the early sixties people like Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock and John Coltrane started to play "modal jazz" in a manner like Fernando described - minimal chord changes (because chord progressions in modes tend to be ambiguous at best) and a concentration on exploring melody within a mode.