functional harmony ear training ???

Post by Dan S
One thing I was wondering about is modulation vs. a cadence that
G Dm G7 C
vs.
C Dm G7 C
What is going on in terms of pitch function over Dm and G7 in these
two progression - it doesn't seem like the Dm and G7 are the same
between these two progressions. In one case you are in G...so the Dm
has F instead of F#. Is that note heard as a b7 in G? I don't think
you have modulated at that point. Where does the modulation take
place? i.e. when does the F sound like the 4th degree of C (and when
is C heard as the tonic instead of G)? The thing about modulations
is: from a theory standpoint it seems very straight forward to say the
G Dm G7 C is just G:I C:ii V7 I . But from a hearing standpoint you
can't tell the future of where the chords are going.

Chords are not mere objects; they're transformations or elements in a process.
So, it's true that you don't know what a chord necessarily means until it goes
somewhere.

Post by Dan S
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?

Right. But, in G, the D minor 7 might be part of a ii-V to the IV.

Post by Dan S
Another question I have is about the dominant chord in general. Should
all the notes of a functioning dominant be heard in relation to the
tonic or in relation to the root of the dominant? I assume in
relation to the tonic. Is this way of hearing the same in jazz with
altered chords?

Both are true. Many dominant extensions, such as the sharp 9 or sharp 11, make
little sense in relation to the overall tonic.

Orlando

Dan S

2010-08-27 13:00:13 UTC

Post by Orlando Enrique Fiol
Both are true. Many dominant extensions, such as the sharp 9 or sharp 11, make
little sense in relation to the overall tonic.
Orlando

This is an interesting comment. In tonal music everything relates to
the tonic right? I am use to playing altered dominant tones on my
instrument, but I have no idea how to sing them. I guess in these
cases, "little sense in relation to the overall tonic" means that they
are functioning harmonically as part of a dominant function, but that
their individual pitch function in relation to tonic is not how to
hear it. I guess this will be sorted out in time.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-27 15:22:01 UTC

Post by Orlando Enrique Fiol
Both are true. Many dominant extensions, such as the sharp 9 or sharp 11, make
little sense in relation to the overall tonic.
Orlando

I guess I kind of disagree with Orlando's statement above.
Any extension on a V7 chord has to be seen as being related to the
tonic. But some extensions imply a major tonic chord and some extensions
imply a minor tonic chord.

On G7 and V7:
Ab is the minor submediant in the key of C minor.
A is the submediant in C major.
A#/Bb is the subtonic in C minor.
C#/Db is the minor supertonic in C phrygian.
D#/Eb is the minor mediant in C minor.
E is the mediant in C major.

As far as classical music is concerned, the most exotic of the above
extensions are the A#/Bb and the C#/Db.
I won't say never, but it would be quite rare for them to use a chord
with both the leading tone and the subtonic contained within it.
And scale degree b2 only really found usage harmonically in the
Neapolitan chord. I.e. While classical composers borrowed freely from
minor key material (nat min, mel min and harm min) when writing in major
keys, they did not normally borrow from the parallel phrygian scale.
Of course both of these tones are present in the B diminished whole-half
scale and are available extensions on Bdim7. So a composer playing off
of the relationship between G7b9 and Bdim7 (i.e. G7b9 = Bdim7/G) is
bound to stumble upon these sounds eventually.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Orlando Enrique Fiol

2010-08-27 18:10:13 UTC

Post by Dan S
This is an interesting comment. In tonal music everything relates to
the tonic right?

Yes, but there isn't a single tonic. Different key centers can be tonicized
through various means at various times, some lasting only a few chords, others
lasting entire sections.

Post by Dan S
I am use to playing altered dominant tones on my
instrument, but I have no idea how to sing them. I guess in these
cases, "little sense in relation to the overall tonic" means that they
are functioning harmonically as part of a dominant function, but that
their individual pitch function in relation to tonic is not how to
hear it. I guess this will be sorted out in time.

Let me give you a couple of examples. The flat and sharp ninths can be heard
either as coming from a major tonic's parallel minor or as what Barry Harris
calls the tritone minor, which is a fifth above the tritone dominant. For
Barry, the important minor of a dominant is located a fifth above its root.
Thus, the tritone minor would be a semitone above the dominant root. So, if
you're playing C-sharp minor over C 7, what are the chances that you will hear
its pitches as relating to F major?

Orlando

Dan S

2010-08-27 18:20:04 UTC

Post by Orlando Enrique Fiol
Let me give you a couple of examples. The flat and sharp ninths can be heard
either as coming from a major tonic's parallel minor or as what Barry Harris
calls the tritone minor, which is a fifth above the tritone dominant. For
Barry, the important minor of a dominant is located a fifth above its root.
Thus, the tritone minor would be a semitone above the dominant root. So, if
you're playing C-sharp minor over C 7, what are the chances that you will hear
its pitches as relating to F major?
Orlando

Thanks Orlando, I will think it over. I haven't thought too much
about altered dominants. However I have been studying Harmonic
Experience...and one of the tasks is to get a better tolerance for
combinations of tones and functions relating to a tonic. So as to
your question "what are your chances"...they're getting better and
better as time goes on.

LJS

2010-08-30 01:40:27 UTC

Post by Orlando Enrique Fiol

This is an interesting comment. In tonal music everything relates to
the tonic right?

Yes, but there isn't a single tonic. Different key centers can be tonicized
through various means at various times, some lasting only a few chords, others
lasting entire sections.

I am use to playing altered dominant tones on my
instrument, but I have no idea how to sing them. I guess in these
cases, "little sense in relation to the overall tonic" means that they
are functioning harmonically as part of a dominant function, but that
their individual pitch function in relation to tonic is not how to
hear it. I guess this will be sorted out in time.

I am glad, Orlando, that you pointed this out. Although I prefer the
older (Nadia B.'s concept ) key area concept than that made up word
Tonicazation as the Key Area is more correctly stating what is usualy
going on. you are not really modulating and the the new KEY is really
just an emphasis on one of the other than tonic tones in the
progression so the concept of passing through a different Key Area
makes a lot more sense to me and is really very simple to understand.
But if you want to make money you write a book and make up new terms
to describe old ideas and presto change-o, there is another word for
Key Area and Tonicazation is born.

LJS

Dan S

2010-08-30 17:10:22 UTC

Ok I looked into this a little further. Mind you I haven't tried
singing altered dominants. I've played them on my instrument, and I
do not have a problem with how they sound. The thing is...I haven't
looked further into the sound of them. Once you try to sing them then
it seems you really have to know where they are in relation to
something.

So from a tonal standpoint, if we look a C#min as it relates to C7 and
Fmaj:
C#min is:
1 b3 5 7 9 11 13
C# E G# B D# F# A#
or
Db E Ab B Eb Gb Bb (more appropriate in this case I think)

From the standpoint of C7 its:
b9 3 #5 7 #9 #11 (or b5) b7

From the standpoint of Fmaj its:
b6 7 b3 b5 b7 b9 4

So for chromatic solfege I would sing (and hear) it:
le ti me se te ra fa

Its heard from the standpoint of C7, but the tonic remains F.

In Mathieu's book he talks about the altered scale. In the case of C
tonic, Ab Eb Bb and Db are borrowed from C phrygian. B remains from C
major. C is not included for the same reason its typically not
included in any dominant functioning harmony. Its the punch line and
you avoid that in the set up of a joke (paraphrasing Mathieu).

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-30 18:46:12 UTC

Ok I looked into this a little further. Mind you I haven't tried
singing altered dominants. I've played them on my instrument, and I
do not have a problem with how they sound. The thing is...I haven't
looked further into the sound of them. Once you try to sing them then
it seems you really have to know where they are in relation to
something.
So from a tonal standpoint, if we look a C#min as it relates to C7 and
1 b3 5 7 9 11 13
C# E G# B D# F# A#
or
Db E Ab B Eb Gb Bb (more appropriate in this case I think)
b9 3 #5 7 #9 #11 (or b5) b7
b6 7 b3 b5 b7 b9 4
le ti me se te ra fa
Its heard from the standpoint of C7, but the tonic remains F.
In Mathieu's book he talks about the altered scale. In the case of C
tonic, Ab Eb Bb and Db are borrowed from C phrygian. B remains from C
major. C is not included for the same reason its typically not
included in any dominant functioning harmony. Its the punch line and
you avoid that in the set up of a joke (paraphrasing Mathieu).

If I were singing solfege in F then the notes of C altered would be:
C Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb C
So Leh Teh Ti Rah Meh Fa So

The Gb can not be seen as being derived from C phrygian.
It must be seen as being borrowed from C locrian.

As far as Barry Harris' notions about C# minor being one of the two
"important minor scales" for C7...
I find his "important minor" idea to be a useful concept for certain
types of things. But they are things that generally go beyond the
confines of traditional maj/min key-based music.

And for me, when I'm playing C# minor-ish stuff in the key of F major
while the band sounds out a C7 chord, I have an obligation to learn to
hear those notes bi-tonally, as being both in F as well as being in C#
minor.
Bi-tonality is really not a general feature of traditional maj/min
key-based music. But it does find its way into modern key-based music,
like jazz.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-31 05:09:54 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
And for me, when I'm playing C# minor-ish stuff in the key of F major
while the band sounds out a C7 chord, I have an obligation to learn to
hear those notes bi-tonally, as being both in F as well as being in C#
minor.
Bi-tonality is really not a general feature of traditional maj/min
key-based music. But it does find its way into modern key-based music,
like jazz.

Thanks - This is good to know (if I ever get far enough to hear it bi-
tonally). I am still working on the basics.

LJS

2010-08-30 01:27:16 UTC

Post by Orlando Enrique Fiol
Both are true. Many dominant extensions, such as the sharp 9 or sharp 11, make
little sense in relation to the overall tonic.
Orlando

Altered dominant tones are most often melodic alterations. The melodic
alterations "sound cool" and people make them harmonic. You may not
be used to paying them on your instrument and that is the only reason
you might have problems with them. If you sing them as in a quartet or
choral style, they will be easy. They are simply melodic alterations
of the G7. It is the Root and the leading tone and the 7th that define
the V. The other alterations, as it happens, follow the historic
evolution of going up the Harmonic series! (yes the OTS again raises
its ugly head!) But in reality, the Ninth is simply lowered as if it
is an altered scale or melodic note (melodic in the context of part
writing, usually based on chormatic smoothing out of the part writing

LJS

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-27 05:50:27 UTC

Post by Dan S
I like to do ear training and I'm pretty good with functional pitch
recognition, and intervals. Not much practice with chords or
progressions in an ear training environment. I do have some
experience just playing and listening, but I am still unsure of some
things with regards to functional harmony from a aural standpoint.
One of the books I sometimes work with is called "performance ear
training". In this book chromatic solfege is used. Basically, all
tones in a progression are sung and heard in relation to the tonic of
the key.
The way I am training to hear a progression is for all notes to be
related to the tonic. For example a ii chord in C...the D is heard as
the second degree with respects to C. In other words, functionally
for a ii triad D F A in C, I hear 2 4 6 with D having a major 2nd
quality, F a P4 quality, and A is major 6 quality (in relation to C.
And C is not sounding - it is just the tonic).
I do not hear the ii chord as 1 b3 5 for the same triad D F A in C.
In both examples (2 4 6 and 1 b3 5) the triad is heard as minor,
however the functional quality of the notes has changed. I assume if
I hear D F A as 1 b3 5 then this would be a minor i chord.

It sounds like you are making this much more difficult than it is. Dm is Dm
regardless of key. In the key of C the Dm chord behaves differently than
that of the key of Dm.

You cannot recognize the two different Dm chords as being different. They
are the same chord. They simply are used different.

What you must be able to is say "Ok, we are in C and that's a Dm chord. They
progressed from Dm to G. This means it is acting like a ii in the key of C"
or "We are in the key of Dm and they played a an A7 and then a Dm so that Dm
is acting as a i".

There is no different between the Dm chord in Dm and C but only how they are
used. D F A is D F A no matter how you look at it. It is, of course, true
they are different relative to the tonic but once you establish the tonal
center you'll know that. If I just play a Dm chord by itself you can't hear
that any way than some isolated chord. It has no function. Only when you
progression from chord to chord does function come into play.

Learn to recognize the root's and the common patterns/progressions in
functional music and you'll learn functional harmony.

I am not saying what you are saying is wrong. But it seems a very long
winded way to explain it. Your ear, if you are used to functional music,
will automatically hear the tonic and all chords relative to it and it's up
to you just to recognize which steps on the scale those chords are and there
quality.

That is, I'm sure no matter what key you are in, you hear the V chord as a V
chord? It is most likely something ingrained in your brain by now. You may
not realize it is a V chord but if you recognize the root then you should
know "Hey, I've heard that before and I hear that root movement of a 5th".

What is important is that you recognize the tonic, the root, and the
quality. This will cover everything you need to know about progressions. If
you want to "learn" function then you can read about it in a book. It is
just common progressions used and not something you can "figure out" except
that they tend to feel natural in the first place.

Dm G7 C only exists in the key of C. It is 100% unambiguous. X Dm G7 C Y, X
and Y could be anything but that small fragment is undecidely in C. If It is
quick it may not destablize the current key in which cause it is called a
tonicization. The stuff that follows is in C then it might be called a
modulation.

The example you give is bad because it is undecidedly a C progression. There
are more ambiguous cases that are common. Sometimes they are simply that,
unambiguous.

You mention the tone F. We could have a progression in the key of G that
uses F but still is in G. If must be short.

G D7 G Dm G7 D7 G F Em Eb7 D7 G

This is all G. Theres nothing close to say it is any other key. The Dm G7
may start to look like C but we never get there. Instead we get right back
into G with the D7 G that follows(such a strong progression that focuses our
attention back to G).

Eb7 D7 is a strong dominant progression because of the potential quadruple
half-step resolution to the dominant of G. It focuses a tone of attention of
the D7 chord.

Every chord above is easily seen in some relation to G. The F chord looks a
bit out of place but it resolves strongly to Em which is part of G.

At any point in time we might not be completely aware where the progression
is going but the only key that stands out as the tonic is G. Your ear will
easily pick that up. Your ear also picks up the function. The function is
just what the chords are doing.

Dm in that progression is functioning as a dominant preparation to the G7
chord. The G7 chord is functioning as a IV7/V of the D7 chord.

Analysis would be

I V7 I ii/IV V7/IV V7 I bVII vi Ger+6 V7 I

which could be written as

I V7 I [ii V7]/IV V7 I bVII vi Ger+6 V7 I

Note the ii/IV IV7/IV are more related to the IV chord of G than G itself
but since they don't go outside of G they are still in relation to G. If we
changed it up every so slightly things could change drastically,

G C G Dm G7 C G F Em Eb7 C G

Changed the D7 chords to a C chord,

V I V ii V7 I V7 IV iii ? I V

In this case the progression now sounds more in C. Now there is a some
ambuguity in the Eb7 chord. This is a mediant relationship and is not as
common BUT since it doesn't seem to do anything it doesn't change the key.
It seemsly is a temporarily disruption but nothing to upset C's reign.

I Obviously changed a very important chord in the progression above as it
was enough to change the key even though all the other chords stayed the
same.

You ear tells you all the information you need to know. Function is just
what happens with a chord. That Eb7 chord is non-functional because it
doesn't behave any way it should. It's just kinda stuck in there but doesn't
make much sense because people normally did not do that kinda thing. If they
did then there would be some name for it.

Post by Dan S
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?

? D is not diatonic to C.

D is more related to G7.

the progression is

V/V ii V7 I

In fact it may be better to write this as

II ii V7 I

as the D chord seems to be acting as a true major II chord since it
immediately resolves to it's diatonic quality. D is still not diatonic to C
though as it is not directly related to it. This is very similar to the
above case. D is more related to G than C and therefore thats how we treat
it.

Post by Dan S
Another question I has is about the dominant chord in general. Should
all the notes of a functioning dominant be heard in relation to the
tonic or in relation to the root of the dominant? I assume in
relation to the tonic. Is this way of hearing the same in jazz with
altered chords?

I think you are trying to hear things in a strange way. In any case, no
matter which one you chose the goal is completely different.

You are trying to be able to understand the progressions. These generally
means naming the chords. If you can write out the progression then it
doesn't matter how you figure out the note relations.

Either method should give the same results. Functional harmony is more about
relations to the tonic and jazz is more about the current chord but thats
not the point of it all. The point is to be able to understand what is
going on so you can do something with it.

If you wanting to notate a song then you simply need to be able to hear the
chord roots in absolute pitch or at least relative to the tonic and then
figure out the tonic. If you want to solo over a chord progression then you
need to do the same thing. If it's easier for you to hear the notes relative
to the chord root then thats fine. If it's easier to hear them relative to
the "key" then thats fine. Both cases should lead you to the same result of
understand what is going on in a chord progression. Both have there merits.
For music that has a lot of ambiguity it may be much more difficult to hear
things relative to a tonic because no tonic may exist. In this case just
hearing stuff relative to the current chord would be better. If your more
into tonal music then it would be more advantagous to hear things relative
to the tonic.

Basically your mind does a calculation. Something like 3 + 4 = 7 = 4 + 3.
You can start with 3 and add 4 or start with 4 and add 3. Both methods,
ideally will lead you to the same result.

Function is different. Chords built on the b6th step were commonly used in
classical music and hence were given a name. Slightly different versions
existed and each given a separate name. You should be able to hear the
function quite easily. Eb7 D7 is totally different than Eb7 Ab. In fact, you
hear it. But if you can't give it a name then you can't understand it.

The goal is, if you hear an Eb7 D7 that you can say "Hey, that Eb7 is a
Ger+6" and "Hey that Eb7 is a V7". No one cares how you do it as long as you
can do it.

After all, whats the point of "training" your ear if you are not going to
communicate with people about the things you hear? Function is a higher
level concept and is more about learning "vocab" than ear training(but you
need to recognize intervals and quality of course).

Now, depending on what you want to eventually do with what you learn, you
might be best at choosing one method over the other.

Dan S

2010-08-27 13:41:41 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
Either method should give the same results. Functional harmony is more about
relations to the tonic and jazz is more about the current chord but thats
not the point of it all. The point is to be able to understand what is
going on so you can do something with it.

...

Post by Jeff Johnson
After all, whats the point of "training" your ear if you are not going to
communicate with people about the things you hear? Function is a higher
level concept and is more about learning "vocab" than ear training(but you
need to recognize intervals and quality of course).

Thanks Jeff for all of your comments. It will take a while for them
all to sink in. I am definitely working on the way of hearing you
describe! It is important to do that like you said.

Yes I want to know what's going on. But if you notice my post is
titled "functional harmony ear training". So that type of ear
training is about relating everything to the tonic. i.e. to learn
about functional harmony from a perceptual standpoint. Its an
interesting subject to me.

In the book "Performance Ear Training" this seems to be the method
employed - relating the harmony to the tonic.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Dm G7 C only exists in the key of C. It is 100% unambiguous. X Dm G7 C Y, X
and Y could be anything but that small fragment is undecidely in C. If It is
quick it may not destablize the current key in which cause it is called a
tonicization. The stuff that follows is in C then it might be called a
modulation.

My point on that was more from a listeners standpoint. If they are
hearing in G, and then all of a sudden there's a Dm chord...this is
different than if they were hearing in C and then there's a Dm chord.

But from a performers standpoint it is probably different. If you
already know what's comming your ear is making adjustments ahead of
time. Anyway I think this is more a question of what someone is
trying to study. In my case I'm trying to study perceptual affects of
functional harmony as opposed to the levels of musicianship in jazz.

Post by Dan S
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?

? D is not diatonic to C.

sorry about that I meant to write C Dm G7 C.

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-27 18:32:07 UTC

...

Thanks Jeff for all of your comments. It will take a while for them
all to sink in. I am definitely working on the way of hearing you
describe! It is important to do that like you said.
Yes I want to know what's going on. But if you notice my post is
titled "functional harmony ear training". So that type of ear
training is about relating everything to the tonic. i.e. to learn
about functional harmony from a perceptual standpoint. Its an
interesting subject to me.
In the book "Performance Ear Training" this seems to be the method
employed - relating the harmony to the tonic.

The tonic is sort of like the reference point. By learning to relate such
things to the tonic you have a certain perspective for understanding things.
Suppose you are a master at doing such things. You hear a piece of music in
the key of X(your ear tells you this). Your listening and everything is fine
and dandy and you hear everything in relation to the tonic. Then all of a
sudden you hear the most strange chord being played. You've heard it a
million times before but it is used so differently. Because you were hearing
stuff relative to the tonic you'll hear that chord relative to the tonic and
understand it that way. If you gave it a special name, then if you ever
heard it again you'll recognize it.

Both methods though have there merits so if your interested in functional
harmony then learn to recognize from the tonic. If your more interested in
non-functional harmony then you need to learn to recognize from the
momentary harmony. (the reason is pretty clear because in non-function
harmony you might not even have a tonic to work with)

I suppose you can think about it like this: One method is treating the what
sounds the most "stable" chord as the tonic chord and the other is treating
every chord as a tonic chord. If you have no "stable chords" then the tonic
is ambiguous or not well-defined so the first method would be confusing.

Again, both methods should work equally well if you master them and lead you
to the same spot. You may have to spend a little time learning about the
other one but it if you have one down really well learning the other should
be pretty easy. (they are almost two sides of the same coin)

My point on that was more from a listeners standpoint. If they are
hearing in G, and then all of a sudden there's a Dm chord...this is
different than if they were hearing in C and then there's a Dm chord.
But from a performers standpoint it is probably different. If you
already know what's comming your ear is making adjustments ahead of
time. Anyway I think this is more a question of what someone is
trying to study. In my case I'm trying to study perceptual affects of
functional harmony as opposed to the levels of musicianship in jazz.

Functional harmony is always recognized from what happened and not from
what's happening. The reason is you cannot figure out the function until it
has been completely expressed.

On example is of a song that says a simple phrase "I love X". Until X is
heard "I love" is rather meaningless. We expect something after love. Most
people will expect X = you. In fact I would say if you asked 1M people
you'll get 1M people saying X = you.

Of course "I" and "love" are two works that have meaning separately. But we
don't know how they are functioning in the phase until the complete phrase
is used.

Functional harmony is very similar. We don't know how any chord is used
until the final chord. Of course that means we would have to remember the
whole song to understand how all the chords were used relative to the final
chord.

Suppose I have a simple song that has the harmony

C G7 C G Am Dm G7 C B

Now if we have to think in terms of that last chord then the progression
doesn't make a whole lot of sense in B.

But our brains don't work that way and people don't compose that way. We
will hear that final chord as being odd and not being part of the main body.
Similarly when we read a book we can understand things paragraphs at a time
and get general ideas bout the plot over time. There may be a twist at the
end up the book that makes changes everything we though about what was going
to happen. It can be interesting if done well or can be anti-thematic.

In the above progression most people would be like "WTF is that B chord
doing there?? It doesn't make any sense!?

Now if you had something like

C G7 C G Am Dm G7 C | F#7 | B F#7 B F# G#m C#m F#7 B

Then now it would make more sense. Now more of hte story has been filled in
telling us how that B is functioning as a whole. It may be a little
confusing still. The first part was in C and the second in B with a tritone
linking chord. But now people won't say "WTF is that B chord doing there?".
The may way "WTF is that F#7 chord doing there?" but they might see how it
came about and once they realize we are in 2nd half they will realize what
it is.

So the first F#7 above is a V7 chord in B and not really related to C. Well,
it is related to C but distantly. It is much easier to understand it part of
the 2nd half because that is where it makes mose sense.

So, while the final chord technically determines the total function
generally composers do not play such games because our brains can't
comprehend that. Our brains can only remember the last few chords and so if
things get too whacky we'll just end up confused.

The first progression would technically be analyzed as

C G7 C G Am Dm G7 C B

bII bVI7 bII bVI bVII bIII bVI7 bII I

If you had an amazing memory could immediantly reconcile all the chords you
heard when that B chord came you would then hear that progression.

But since your memory is probably relatively shord what you would most
likely hear is

I V7 I V vi ii V7 I VII

or

C:[I V7 I V vi ii V7 I] B:[I]

Now as we are crusing along in the song we will hear the first part in C
because thats all we can do. Once we get to the B chord they we have to
update what we previously heard. This happens both locally and globally but
we can only remember so much.

A simple example:

C G7 C (hopefully stuff in C follows)

and

C G7 F#7 (hopefully stuff in B follows)

As we are listening to this progression we heard C and G7. They both sound
exactly the same.

BUT in the first we recognize the previous chords as being I V7 I while in
the second we see a IV/Ger+6 Ger+6 V7.

Note this first 2 chords are analyzed completely different even though
momemtarily we heard them as the same. Once we get to the 3rd chord we have
to update our thinking.

Now you could also hear this as

C:[I V7 I ....]

and

C:[I V7] B:[V7 ...] or B:[IV/Ger+6 Ger+6 V7 ...]

Before you reach the F#7 chord your mind is thinking of the first one, when
you reach the F#7 chord your mind switches to the 2nd one. There is always
ambiguity and we could be in some larger key.

You can't determine function from the chord you are hearing at that moment
because you haven't heard where it is going. Hence you have to determine
function from where the chord came from.

If your in some song in C and you hear a G7 chord YOU CANNOT SAY IT IS V7 in
C!!! Now you might expect it to be V7 in C and thats fine. Cadences tend to
help solidify function. So if the song cadences in C after that chord then
you can safely say it is a V7 in C.

Why? Because That G7 might not be a V7. You don't know until you hear what
happens next. A Ger+6 chord is a dom7 chord that resolves a step below to a
dom(7) chord. If F#7 follows that G7 chord then it looks like that G7 is a
Ger+6 of B. If a C follows that G7 chord then it would look like a V7 of C.

In some sense functional analysis is telling us what is going to happen
while we heard what has happened. You cannot functionally analyze the
current chord because you don't know what is going to happen.

Suppose your soloing in the key of C with your band. Your playing a common
song. But this time your band decides to play a trick on you. After that G7
chord they play an F#7 instead of the C chord. So your blazing along and
that G7 chord comes up and you play that lick you always play on it and
remembering that part that you play on the C chord. When that C chord
happens it turns out they played an F#7 instead. YOU SCREWED UP!! Now
everything was fine up to that C/F#7 chord.

Now normally that G7 was just plain old V7 chord. BUT when they pulled that
trick on you it changed!! It was no longer a V7 but a Ger+6 chord!. Even
though it sounded exactly the same up to that point. It's like someone hit
the transpose button right after that chord and screwed everything up.

Now we could simply say "Hey, that G7 is still a V7 chord in C" and it is.
But now it's also a Ger+6 in B. Since you were very familar with the song
you were expecting it to be a acting like V7(so that F#7 was totally
unspected). Now that they played that trick on you, you might expect it to
be an Ger+6 a little and prepare next time for it. You'll never known which
one until it happens though.

Dan S

2010-08-27 21:22:55 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
Functional harmony is very similar. We don't know how any chord is used
until the final chord. Of course that means we would have to remember the
whole song to understand how all the chords were used relative to the final
chord.

I think it depends on if you are the performer (or an educated
listener) or just someone who hasn't heard the song before. For
example in Satin Doll you have:
Dm G7 | Dm G7 | Em A7 | Em A7 |

So do you hear this as 4 measures in C or 2 measures of C and 2
measures of D? When the Em chord comes up, if you are doing "key
center playing", then I assume the Em is going to sound like a ii
chord right at the moment that change comes up.

This is one of the things that has confused me for a while...the idea
of "key center" playing. The reason its confusing in some cases is
because if you listen to the melody, it sounds like its all in one
key, but if you are soloing you might treat each ii V as its own key
center area. So in this case I'm trying to figure out how people hear
it. I never see this talked about anywhere.

For example someone might totally rehamronize "somewhere over the
rainbow." The melody is still clearly in one key and its just a
diatonic melody. If I was going to sing it, its just notes from a
major scale. However the changes are telling you something else. So
I am wondering how to hear the changes. Its like the melody and the
harmony are disconnected in the way you hear them...one is diatonic
(the melody) and the other (the reharmonized changes) is going to all
these other key centers.

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-28 06:19:25 UTC

I think it depends on if you are the performer (or an educated
listener) or just someone who hasn't heard the song before. For
Dm G7 | Dm G7 | Em A7 | Em A7 |
So do you hear this as 4 measures in C or 2 measures of C and 2
measures of D? When the Em chord comes up, if you are doing "key
center playing", then I assume the Em is going to sound like a ii
chord right at the moment that change comes up.

This is not functional analysis though. Functional analysis always takes
into account what will happen. The "performer" as you describe it is
function and the audience is not. But the audience still hears it the same
way. as the performer. The performer is just trained to give symbols and
names to the things he hears and has a better memory to listen by.

Ok, the analysis above could be(skipping repeats)

C:[ii V] D:[ii V]

or

D:[ii/bVII V7/bVII ii V7]

or

Dm:[i IV7 ii/I V7]

or

G:[ii/IV V7/IV vi V7/V]

or

G:[ii/IV V7/IV ii/V V7/V]

or

G:[C:[ii V] D:[ii V]]

or

F#:[bvi bII7] D:[ii V7]

etc...

It all depends on what the the person listening hears as the underlying
tonic, how strongly the music defines that underlying tonic, the memory of
the listener, the experience of the listener, the mood of the listener, etc.

But most western people tend to have a very strong reaction to any
progression that is complete and treat that as a tonicization which either
disrupts or confirms the current tonic.

In the above example you have a sequence of ii V's which are complete
progressions and tonicize their key. In this case first C then D.

If before the song strongly defined G as the tonal center then these would
be seen as very quick divergents into the subdominant and dominant tonal
areas.

I believe what you are talking about is the difference between a person with
infinite memory and a person with no memory. A person with no memory cannot
experience functional harmony. They just move from one chord experience to
another never able to relate them to anything before.

You can think of functional harmony as being the person with infinite memory
and "non-functional harmony" as the one with no memory. Jazz, for example,
is sort of like a person with no memory. You just experience a chord and
need to play the right scale for it. If you have a really good ear you'll
get the right scale quick and it will fit. Of course I'm just teasing
Jazz'ers but in effect this is similar to their approach. (they do require
memory because there is much more to soloing than just playing the right
scale at the right time)

Post by Dan S
This is one of the things that has confused me for a while...the idea
of "key center" playing. The reason its confusing in some cases is
because if you listen to the melody, it sounds like its all in one
key, but if you are soloing you might treat each ii V as its own key
center area. So in this case I'm trying to figure out how people hear
it. I never see this talked about anywhere.

People will hear it differently. If you are a performing musician you
hopefully have come across the difference between scale playing and chord
playing. Scale playing is like functional harmony while chord playing is
like non-functional harmony.

If someone was a perfect master of one and another was a master of they
other, both would sound amazing.

If a functional harmony guy was listening and they listened to the chord
method guy they would still reference everything to the tonic and still
think what he was playing was "functional". It might sound different than
the other guy but it would still sound good. Vice Versa for the other guy.

Jazz'er will tend to hear things a bit different than non-Jazz'ers. They are
more detail oriented when it comes to chord/scale knowledge and solos are
generally thought more along those lines. Because of the fanciful colors
used tonal rules are much more subdued and a tonal listener can get lost if
they don't learn how to listen to it.

There are many variables involved and you could have two seemingly similar
situations that actually sound very different.

What I can say is really you should learn both. But if you get good at one
you should be able to pick the other one up more easily if you attempt to.
Although you may just get used to what you've learned and then not care to
learn something new.

Post by Dan S
For example someone might totally rehamronize "somewhere over the
rainbow." The melody is still clearly in one key and its just a
diatonic melody. If I was going to sing it, its just notes from a
major scale. However the changes are telling you something else. So
I am wondering how to hear the changes. Its like the melody and the
harmony are disconnected in the way you hear them...one is diatonic
(the melody) and the other (the reharmonized changes) is going to all
these other key centers.

No, sorry, if they reharmonize it then the melody's key must be changed to
fit the harmony. They may have not touched the harmony but it will be heard
differently.

What I did for you is take the melody and harmonize it by simply transposing
the melody relative to the harmony. I then also made the melody
diatonic(which changes the melody of course).

I did this for a 1/2 step below, a 4th below, a 5th below, and a tritone
below. You'll notice that the melody itself is still recognizable yet
creates an extreme dissonance with some of the harmonies. In some cases it
works out ok but some notes ruin the good effect the original had.

The chord symbols are not always accurate due to sibelius not accepting some
extensions. For example, a B#11 could mean either dominant 9 with raised
11th or a B triad with added raised #11th. B(b9) could mean a maj or dom as
any extensions. Sibelius doesn't handle added tensions(add chords) well at
all.

http://wikisend.com/download/623798/RainbowExercise.pdf

http://wikisend.com/download/878492/RainbowExercise.mp3

How do you hear it? Can you easily tell the melody is the same in all the
cases where it actually is? Can you tell the differences in the cases it
isn't(when I made it diatonic to the harmony)?

Note that in all the case the harmonic analysis is the same as is the
melodic analysis. When combined tensions are created adding tensions to the
chord symbol but pretty much the root movement is still the same as is the
quality. So harmonically all those progression is still something along the
lines of

I vi iii V7/IV IV I

It's just for some there are some really strange extensions that create
ambiguities and dissonances that are not expected. This could actually
change the tonic and one could easily create such a melody that does so. In
the second case my ear is drifting to G#m as the tonic chord. This is not a
functional progression even though the chords are exactly the same as
before. So trying to actually analyze it using roman numeral analysis may
not yield any useful information.

If you happen to solo in that way then I hope it is jazz because most people
won't like the effect produced. Again, I can't say it enough, but the effect
is only due to the relative relation between the melody and chords(Left hand
stave). Which can change or ambiguate normal functional harmonies.

In the 3rd case the melody is now diatonic. This creates a bit more
coordination between the harmony and melody but does change the melody to do
this. Now the melody is more function but still uses some extensions.

In the next 3 cases the melody is much much coordinated with the harmony
producing a more consonant effect yet there is still some disagreement
between the harmony the melody is implying and the harmony used. This might
end up being one possible harmonization that someone might do though. The
only difference between the two is the B and Bb on the 3rd chord.

The final example is that of a tritone with diatonic melody. It is almost
exactly the same as as the F case because when I made the melody diatonic it
had the effect transposing it up a half a step(for most notes anyways).

All the variations though are various colorations of the original melody.
You should be able to hear the harmonic varations and as a whole.

In fact it would be great if someone played the 2nd example and you heard
the melody and recognized it exactly as the first case and heard the chords
and recognized it exactly as a transposition by half step down as the first
case and also heard all those tensions created due to that transposition of
the chords.

Why? Because this is exactly what I did. But if you were singing or playing
that melody you would play it the same way in both cases. Thats just because
thats how you memorize things(by breaking them down in to pieces). If I had
to perform that 2nd example I wouldn't try to remember all those chords and
extensions but simply remember that the melody is played a 1/2 step above
what it is normally played.

It's one thing to be reproducing an effect. You don't have to understand it
to do that. For example, I can play many pieces that I haven't analyzed and
don't know exactly what is going on but I just memorized note for note. I
can perform them just fine without understand what is exactly going on. In
fact, most professional performers rarely know what really is going on. They
just memorized how to do it and do it the same each time.

Now if you are an improviser or composer it is a different story because you
are creating something. If you are simply doing something someone else did
then no understanding needs to happen.

Any singer can be great if they have an ability to memorize melodies easy
and can sing them expressively(which has virtually nothing to do with
functional harmony) and the right manager.

If your a jazz soloist then you'll need to hear the tensions, chords, and
note how they are functioning so you can create music on the spot that works
the way you want it.

There is a huge difference between creating something (good) and copying
something. One is easy and the other is hard.

Ok, I reread what you said and it seems you are saying then when you sing
the melody with a different harmonization your "ear" is telling you to sing
something else than what you know your suppose to sing? Basically you have a
feeling to sync up the melody to the harmony even when that is wrong? (sorta
like in the cases I made diatonic)

In this case if you know the melody well then you just have to sing it and
block out the changes. Get used to doing that and hearing the alterations.
Eventually your ear will get used to those alterations and it will be fine.
After all, theres no reason the original melody and harmonization was right.
It just happened to be the one you learned first. Your going to have to, in
some sense, unlearn it and relearn the new one.

You can develop your ear so that when you sing a note against a harmony you
recognize the interval it makes with the root. This way when you try to sing
those altered harmonizations you'll know if your correct by comparing what
harmonic intervals your singing and what your suppose to sing(in which case
you'll need the score).

I promise you that if asked a relatively good singer to perform Over the
rainbow a 1/2 step higher than normal while keeping the harmony the same(2nd
example) they will fall flat on their face. This is because stuff like that
just doesn't happen. If they have a great ear they probably could get it in
a few tries. Even if you asked them to sing it and had the band tune down
1/2 a step the singer will try to sing a 1/2 step below what they usually
do.

It wouldn't be too bad if they could completely ignore the harmony and it
happened to be 1/2 a tone below what they normally sing.

If you want to get away from such things then practice crazy stuff like
singing in min2nd's and over strange progressions. You could make a
progression that has random chords and sing over them. First try to come up
with a good melody then attempt to sing it all at each interval. Then
attempt to transpose per tonic change for each interval.

The more you practice the easier it will be. It's very easy for an
instrumentalist to do such things but much harder for a singer.

Dan S

2010-08-28 11:42:16 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
I believe what you are talking about is the difference between a person with
infinite memory and a person with no memory. A person with no memory cannot
experience functional harmony. They just move from one chord experience to
another never able to relate them to anything before.
You can think of functional harmony as being the person with infinite memory
and "non-functional harmony" as the one with no memory. Jazz, for example,
is sort of like a person with no memory. You just experience a chord and
need to play the right scale for it. If you have a really good ear you'll
get the right scale quick and it will fit. Of course I'm just teasing
Jazz'ers but in effect this is similar to their approach. (they do require
memory because there is much more to soloing than just playing the right
scale at the right time)

This is helping to clarify my thinking. With the type of ear training
I'm doing, it is helping to develop a sensitivity to tonicization vs.
modulation and helping to develop tonal memory.

If I understand correctly, in tonicizaion you don't modulate...so the
harmony/melody is still heard in the original key. But, in modulation
it is heard as a change to a new tonic. These two things
(tonicization and modulation) are not always a black and white issue.
Also...for a performer modulation can mean something a little
different than compared to functional analysis. It depends on the
strenghth of their tonal memory.

I think I am using the term "tonal memory" correctly? I use to think
that term referred to any tone, or sound. But now I think that term
might refer to memory of a tonic, and how skilled you are at placing
any function within that tonic (from a hearning standpoint, not
functional analysis).

One thing that is different for a performer vs. functional analysis
with respect to modulation; is where the modulation actually takes
place. The performer can anticipate the modulation. The performer
can also negate a modulation (keep it as a tonicization). Both of
these things can be more or less difficult depending on how closely
related the keys are. Closely related keys favor tonicization.
Distant keys favor modulation.

The actual modulation (in a persons ear) can take place sooner or
later depending on how much help the melody is giving. When people
hear a phrase, and then hear the phrase transposed, the shape of the
phrase combined with the transposition helps to hear a modulation.
However, with closely related keys this modulation might not be
heard. It might just be a tonicization. For a person with strong
tonal memory, they can hear it either way.

But say for example, modulating/transposing 1/2 step up; this is
probably going to be heard as a modulation because the keys are so
distant. For a person with strong tonal memory, they might be able to
hear the 1/2 step transpostition as a tonicization.

All of this is not so simple, as the ammount of time you stay within a
tonality will favor a modulation.

Post by Jeff Johnson
All the variations though are various colorations of the original melody.
You should be able to hear the harmonic varations and as a whole.
In fact it would be great if someone played the 2nd example and you heard
the melody and recognized it exactly as the first case and heard the chords
and recognized it exactly as a transposition by half step down as the first
case and also heard all those tensions created due to that transposition of
the chords.
Why? Because this is exactly what I did. But if you were singing or playing
that melody you would play it the same way in both cases. Thats just because
thats how you memorize things(by breaking them down in to pieces). If I had
to perform that 2nd example I wouldn't try to remember all those chords and
extensions but simply remember that the melody is played a 1/2 step above
what it is normally played.

These examples you gave are good. In jazz there is a technique called
"side stepping" where you simply play in another key regardless of
what the harmony is doing. It is usually a 1/2 step - for example in
Bb you could play something in B as a side step. This creates a
strong "outside" sound. This shouldn't be done for too long in a solo
- side step for a little and then resolve back to an "inside" sound.
I think in this case to truly hear this you would have to relate it
all to the tonic. I don't think that's what most people do though.
They just hear it as outside playing. I've never sat down from an ear
training standpoint and looked at these effects. I think its a good
exercise.

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-28 19:43:51 UTC

The usual way it is explained is a tonicization is a short deviation way
from the tonic by introducing another possible tonic. But only when that new
tonic is confirmed as being the new tonic do we have a modulation. The satin
doll example you gave was series of tonicizations but no modulations.

A modulation is almost always created by a cadance and usually after some
other tonic was introducted(close keys do not necessarily need tonicizations
because they are already implicitly tonicized).

Suppose I do something crazy like this

C G7 C G7 Am F#7 B C [next cadence on B]

The first F#7 B is a tonicization. In tonal music the Dom7 is so powerful
that it can almost singlehandedly change the tonic. F#7 along is actually
almost enough to do it. The B helps by confirming F#7 as actually a
dominant(but depending on the music, the listeners, etc they may not hear
that as a dominant).

C G7 C G7 Am F#7 B C [next cadence on B]
C G7 C G7 Am F#7 C [next cadence on B]

By having the B after F#7 we are conforming the tonicization of B and
letting them know we really mean F#7 is a dominant. There is almost no
ambiguity in there(If B is replaced with B7 then it changes). The 2nd case
the F#7 will be hard to analyze since it seems out of place. It is some type
of dominant chord but what it is doing there no one knows. When we cadence
on people, if people can remember, they would then realize that the C was
probably out of place(even though they heard the F#7 being out of place).

When we cadence on B, that confirms the that B is the new tonic almost
conclusively. Cadences are the single most conclusive way to confirm a
tonic. They are like mini endings of a song. We know the last chord of a
song is almost always the tonic(99.9% of the time in tonal music). (Of
course it can be too strong and composers regularly weaken the cadence
affect so it doesn't sound to final)

One could define modulations only occuring at cadences but unfortunately
it's not so easy. It has a lot to due with length too. In that example
above, if you never cadence but just play a bunch of stuff in B people will
finally just give in and say your not in B. This is most likely because they
forget the old tonic. If you have a great memory you might still be waiting
to return back to C and get frustrated because you don't know what the tonic
truly is. (Your mind might be trying to resolve everything as if C were the
tonic which gives a long of strange relationships or trying both C and B and
eventually you too will just give in and treat B as the tonic)

Post by Dan S
I think I am using the term "tonal memory" correctly? I use to think
that term referred to any tone, or sound. But now I think that term
might refer to memory of a tonic, and how skilled you are at placing
any function within that tonic (from a hearning standpoint, not
functional analysis).

Yes, At least that is the way I use it. Tonal memory deals with tonality and
tonality is all about some chords behaving as the center in progressions.

Post by Dan S
One thing that is different for a performer vs. functional analysis
with respect to modulation; is where the modulation actually takes
place. The performer can anticipate the modulation. The performer
can also negate a modulation (keep it as a tonicization). Both of
these things can be more or less difficult depending on how closely
related the keys are. Closely related keys favor tonicization.
Distant keys favor modulation.

Yes, and there are many types of modulations and different people can
experience them slightly different. Good music, IMO, anticipates the
modulations by hinting at the new tonic in an very unassumpting way. This
means the modulations are not willy nilly but have some relation to the
module. Haydn was a genius at this IMO.

Well, actually the key a tritone away can be used and made pretty smoothly
even though it is the most distant key. Jazz'ers routine exchange the
dominant chord with that of it's tritone for smooth root movement to the
tonic. They have the same characteristic tritone in them too. F - B in C. In
one case F can be the 7ths giving us G7 or B(=Cb) can be the 7th giving us
Db7. Since that is such a striking interval and we still have a dominant
chord sonority and both lead to the tonic it seems these two types of chords
are almost exactly the same(as far as function).

Post by Dan S
The actual modulation (in a persons ear) can take place sooner or
later depending on how much help the melody is giving. When people
hear a phrase, and then hear the phrase transposed, the shape of the
phrase combined with the transposition helps to hear a modulation.
However, with closely related keys this modulation might not be
heard. It might just be a tonicization. For a person with strong
tonal memory, they can hear it either way.

Sure. The melody itself could modulate while the harmony lags behind. For
close keys this can easily be done.

If you do not already know about active and stable tones in a key you should
read about it. Everything you are talking about stems from that. Tonal
harmony is an extension of how the active and inactive tones combine.

A short description is that some tones in a "key" are more stable than
others. This is a phenomena only explained by our brains.

Taking C major as our prototype, the note C is the center, the kingpin, the
sun, the most stable tone. C has no need to delegate it's power to anyone
and C is the ultimate provider. E, and G are the next two tones. G is like
the queen. Very powerful and she get's what she wants but ultimately it's
the king that the people follow. E is like a prince. Sort of aloof and
wanting to take the throne but never really given much to do.

The rest of the tones, D F A B are active tones. When the key of C is
established those tones have a strong desire to move.

A is like the princess. She just can't wait to get her a prince. The king
has to keep her on a tight leash. B is B and F are like the kind's guards.
They have to follow him a around every where he goes(and protect the royal
family too). D is the wizard that tries is trying to make sure he's on the
good side of both the king and prince so if the king dies he can stay wizard
for the new king(the prince).

While not a perfect analogy the idea is that when the key of C is setup, the
notes C E G(e.g., the C maj triad) are the notes which all other notes
gravitate towards.

This is tonal harmony and it comes from tonal melodies. Modal harmonies are
similar but a different tone is setup as king. For D dorian the Dm triad is
used as the "center" and all notes revolve around it. In this case the C
note(the king) as become the guard and D has being the king. C must obey
the orders of D. Even though we are still using the same notes a different
hierarchy has been setup.

G7 contains 3 of the 4 active tones and the 2nd most stable tone. In fact G9
contains all those unstable tones + that tone a 5th a way from the tonic. So
G9 is like a royal cerimony for the king created by the queen. Everyone has
to come and see the king (and probably the prince will be by his side).

G resolves by a P5 down, D resovles to E or C, F resolves to E and B to C.
Those are the natural actions of those active tones and what makes G7 such
an active chord that needs to go to C.

Dm on the other hand is also fully active. But generally moves to G instead
of C. This is because of the power of the root movement's by a P5 down. Dm
is actually more related to F than C and Em is to G than C. (in each case
only one tone different).

So for whatever reason Dm resolves to G. I could give several possible
reasons by they may or may not do it for you. The best thing to do is sit
down at the piano and try to move it to different chords and realize that Dm
to G is probably the most "consonant" movement.

Composers routinely follows those rules(thought they developed ways to
subvert them and hide them to make interest) and when one changes tonic one
must change the "king" which changes the hierarchy. Now you can introduce
small changes in the hiearchy(say the princess got married) or you can
introduce huge changes(the kingdom was overthrown by another).

Post by Dan S
But say for example, modulating/transposing 1/2 step up; this is
probably going to be heard as a modulation because the keys are so
distant. For a person with strong tonal memory, they might be able to
hear the 1/2 step transpostition as a tonicization.

Depends, If it was simply a chord or two it could simply sound out of place
and not heard in any relation to the tonic and not heard as a tonicization.

If you try something like that you can force yourself to understand it many
ways. If you say take a standard progression in C but half way through it
raise everything a 1/2 step it would surely sound strange but if, at that
moment, you completely forget where you just came from you could hear it
just fine.

Post by Dan S
All of this is not so simple, as the ammount of time you stay within a
tonality will favor a modulation.

Yes. Modulations tend to be much longer, tend to be confirmed through a
cadence, and in most cases are closely related to the previous key.

Yes and chances are that came about from a guitarist accidently playing in
the wrong "box" pattern and immediately got back into the right one which
was just a 1/2 step away ;)

If it's quick enough it won't dissrupt the tonal center because those tones
are treated as non-chord tones are as extensions which just makes one chord
or two "out there" when done for an entire phase it totally changes what is
going on. The first case can add interest but the second goes against what
almost all music does and most people will thing someone doesn't know the
right key the song is in.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-28 21:14:49 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
I believe what you are talking about is the difference between a person with
infinite memory and a person with no memory. A person with no memory cannot
experience functional harmony. They just move from one chord
experience to
another never able to relate them to anything before.
You can think of functional harmony as being the person with infinite memory
and "non-functional harmony" as the one with no memory. Jazz, for example,
is sort of like a person with no memory. You just experience a chord and
need to play the right scale for it. If you have a really good ear you'll
get the right scale quick and it will fit. Of course I'm just teasing
Jazz'ers but in effect this is similar to their approach. (they do require
memory because there is much more to soloing than just playing the right
scale at the right time)

The usual way it is explained is a tonicization is a short deviation way
from the tonic by introducing another possible tonic.

There's more to it than just duration.
Tonicization involves short modulations to closely related keys.
Only diatonic tones can be tonicized and the triad built on the
secondary tonic must be a diatonic triad in the primary key.
Eg. In C major we can tonicize D and the Dm triad, but not D major.
A7 as V7 of IIm moving to Dmaj rather than Dm will be a bona fide
modulation, unless the Dmaj chord continues on in a manner that makes it
seen to have been operating as V7 of V.
Etc.

So in C major the targets of tonicization are:
Dm, Em, Fmaj, Gmaj and Am.
Bdim is not a suitable target for tonicization because it is always an
active sound in key-based music, which makes it not suitable to be a
chord of rest, aka a tonic chord.

Post by Jeff Johnson
But only when that
new tonic is confirmed as being the new tonic do we have a modulation.
The satin doll example you gave was series of tonicizations but no
modulations.
A modulation is almost always created by a cadance and usually after
some other tonic was introducted(close keys do not necessarily need
tonicizations because they are already implicitly tonicized).
Suppose I do something crazy like this
C G7 C G7 Am F#7 B C [next cadence on B]
The first F#7 B is a tonicization. In tonal music the Dom7 is so
powerful that it can almost singlehandedly change the tonic. F#7 along
is actually almost enough to do it. The B helps by confirming F#7 as
actually a dominant(but depending on the music, the listeners, etc they
may not hear that as a dominant).
C G7 C G7 Am F#7 B C [next cadence on B]
C G7 C G7 Am F#7 C [next cadence on B]
By having the B after F#7 we are conforming the tonicization of B and
letting them know we really mean F#7 is a dominant. There is almost no
ambiguity in there(If B is replaced with B7 then it changes). The 2nd
case the F#7 will be hard to analyze since it seems out of place. It is
some type of dominant chord but what it is doing there no one knows.
When we cadence on people, if people can remember, they would then
realize that the C was probably out of place(even though they heard the
F#7 being out of place).
When we cadence on B, that confirms the that B is the new tonic almost
conclusively. Cadences are the single most conclusive way to confirm a
tonic. They are like mini endings of a song. We know the last chord of a
song is almost always the tonic(99.9% of the time in tonal music). (Of
course it can be too strong and composers regularly weaken the cadence
affect so it doesn't sound to final)
One could define modulations only occuring at cadences but unfortunately
it's not so easy. It has a lot to due with length too. In that example
above, if you never cadence but just play a bunch of stuff in B people
will finally just give in and say your not in B. This is most likely
because they forget the old tonic. If you have a great memory you might
still be waiting to return back to C and get frustrated because you
don't know what the tonic truly is. (Your mind might be trying to
resolve everything as if C were the tonic which gives a long of strange
relationships or trying both C and B and eventually you too will just
give in and treat B as the tonic)

I think I am using the term "tonal memory" correctly? I use to think
that term referred to any tone, or sound. But now I think that term
might refer to memory of a tonic, and how skilled you are at placing
any function within that tonic (from a hearning standpoint, not
functional analysis).

Yes, At least that is the way I use it. Tonal memory deals with tonality
and tonality is all about some chords behaving as the center in
progressions.

One thing that is different for a performer vs. functional analysis
with respect to modulation; is where the modulation actually takes
place. The performer can anticipate the modulation. The performer
can also negate a modulation (keep it as a tonicization). Both of
these things can be more or less difficult depending on how closely
related the keys are. Closely related keys favor tonicization.
Distant keys favor modulation.

Yes, and there are many types of modulations and different people can
experience them slightly different. Good music, IMO, anticipates the
modulations by hinting at the new tonic in an very unassumpting way.
This means the modulations are not willy nilly but have some relation to
the module. Haydn was a genius at this IMO.
Well, actually the key a tritone away can be used and made pretty
smoothly even though it is the most distant key. Jazz'ers routine
exchange the dominant chord with that of it's tritone for smooth root
movement to the tonic. They have the same characteristic tritone in them
too. F - B in C. In one case F can be the 7ths giving us G7 or B(=Cb)
can be the 7th giving us Db7. Since that is such a striking interval and
we still have a dominant chord sonority and both lead to the tonic it
seems these two types of chords are almost exactly the same(as far as
function).

The actual modulation (in a persons ear) can take place sooner or
later depending on how much help the melody is giving. When people
hear a phrase, and then hear the phrase transposed, the shape of the
phrase combined with the transposition helps to hear a modulation.
However, with closely related keys this modulation might not be
heard. It might just be a tonicization. For a person with strong
tonal memory, they can hear it either way.

Sure. The melody itself could modulate while the harmony lags behind.
For close keys this can easily be done.
If you do not already know about active and stable tones in a key you
should read about it. Everything you are talking about stems from that.
Tonal harmony is an extension of how the active and inactive tones combine.
A short description is that some tones in a "key" are more stable than
others. This is a phenomena only explained by our brains.
Taking C major as our prototype, the note C is the center, the kingpin,
the sun, the most stable tone. C has no need to delegate it's power to
anyone and C is the ultimate provider. E, and G are the next two tones.
G is like the queen. Very powerful and she get's what she wants but
ultimately it's the king that the people follow. E is like a prince.
Sort of aloof and wanting to take the throne but never really given much
to do.
The rest of the tones, D F A B are active tones. When the key of C is
established those tones have a strong desire to move.
A is like the princess. She just can't wait to get her a prince. The
king has to keep her on a tight leash. B is B and F are like the kind's
guards. They have to follow him a around every where he goes(and protect
the royal family too). D is the wizard that tries is trying to make sure
he's on the good side of both the king and prince so if the king dies he
can stay wizard for the new king(the prince).
While not a perfect analogy the idea is that when the key of C is setup,
the notes C E G(e.g., the C maj triad) are the notes which all other
notes gravitate towards.
This is tonal harmony and it comes from tonal melodies. Modal harmonies
are similar but a different tone is setup as king. For D dorian the Dm
triad is used as the "center" and all notes revolve around it. In this
case the C note(the king) as become the guard and D has being the king.
C must obey the orders of D. Even though we are still using the same
notes a different hierarchy has been setup.
G7 contains 3 of the 4 active tones and the 2nd most stable tone. In
fact G9 contains all those unstable tones + that tone a 5th a way from
the tonic. So G9 is like a royal cerimony for the king created by the
queen. Everyone has to come and see the king (and probably the prince
will be by his side).
G resolves by a P5 down, D resovles to E or C, F resolves to E and B to
C. Those are the natural actions of those active tones and what makes G7
such an active chord that needs to go to C.
Dm on the other hand is also fully active. But generally moves to G
instead of C. This is because of the power of the root movement's by a
P5 down. Dm is actually more related to F than C and Em is to G than C.
(in each case only one tone different).
So for whatever reason Dm resolves to G. I could give several possible
reasons by they may or may not do it for you. The best thing to do is
sit down at the piano and try to move it to different chords and realize
that Dm to G is probably the most "consonant" movement.
Composers routinely follows those rules(thought they developed ways to
subvert them and hide them to make interest) and when one changes tonic
one must change the "king" which changes the hierarchy. Now you can
introduce small changes in the hiearchy(say the princess got married) or
you can introduce huge changes(the kingdom was overthrown by another).

But say for example, modulating/transposing 1/2 step up; this is
probably going to be heard as a modulation because the keys are so
distant. For a person with strong tonal memory, they might be able to
hear the 1/2 step transpostition as a tonicization.

Depends, If it was simply a chord or two it could simply sound out of
place and not heard in any relation to the tonic and not heard as a
tonicization.
If you try something like that you can force yourself to understand it
many ways. If you say take a standard progression in C but half way
through it raise everything a 1/2 step it would surely sound strange but
if, at that moment, you completely forget where you just came from you
could hear it just fine.

All of this is not so simple, as the ammount of time you stay within a
tonality will favor a modulation.

Yes. Modulations tend to be much longer, tend to be confirmed through a
cadence, and in most cases are closely related to the previous key.

Post by Jeff Johnson
All the variations though are various colorations of the original melody.
You should be able to hear the harmonic varations and as a whole.
In fact it would be great if someone played the 2nd example and you heard
the melody and recognized it exactly as the first case and heard the chords
and recognized it exactly as a transposition by half step down as the first
case and also heard all those tensions created due to that
transposition of
the chords.
Why? Because this is exactly what I did. But if you were singing or playing
that melody you would play it the same way in both cases. Thats just because
thats how you memorize things(by breaking them down in to pieces). If I had
to perform that 2nd example I wouldn't try to remember all those chords and
extensions but simply remember that the melody is played a 1/2 step above
what it is normally played.

Yes and chances are that came about from a guitarist accidently playing
in the wrong "box" pattern and immediately got back into the right one
which was just a 1/2 step away ;)
If it's quick enough it won't dissrupt the tonal center because those
tones are treated as non-chord tones are as extensions which just makes
one chord or two "out there" when done for an entire phase it totally
changes what is going on. The first case can add interest but the second
goes against what almost all music does and most people will thing
someone doesn't know the right key the song is in.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-29 05:23:22 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
There's more to it than just duration.
Tonicization involves short modulations to closely related keys.
Only diatonic tones can be tonicized and the triad built on the
secondary tonic must be a diatonic triad in the primary key.
Eg. In C major we can tonicize D and the Dm triad, but not D major.
A7 as V7 of IIm moving to Dmaj rather than Dm will be a bona fide
modulation, unless the Dmaj chord continues on in a manner that makes it
seen to have been operating as V7 of V.
Etc.
Dm, Em, Fmaj, Gmaj and Am.
Bdim is not a suitable target for tonicization because it is always an
active sound in key-based music, which makes it not suitable to be a
chord of rest, aka a tonic chord.

This is interesting. I still don't quite understand the major/minor
system. I can see how this aspect of what can be tonicized is part of
understanding the system. For example I don't understand why there's
a C major and C minor. Why cant it just be one tonality of "C"? All
the chords in that tonality are available. As long as I can
functionally hear each chord or melody as related to C, then I don't
understand the distinction between major and minor (I know the sounds
are different, but they are still all related to C). I know there are
all sorts of harmonies available in minor that are not available in
major, but I don't understand why there is a dividing line. There
seems to be a part of this theory that I've never understood.

This is kind of related. The D major triad can exist in the tonality
of C as a lydian sound. However it can not be tonicized in C. For
some reason this doesn't make sense. But I guess it has to do with
dominant function and how that is suppose to be heard. As long as
that D major chord is not followed by a functioning dominant, then it
will work in the C tonality. But if followed by a functioning
dominant then it is a modulation. This still seems to be dependent on
how the person hears it. Because Dm can be tonicized in the key of
C. So I don't see why the D major triad can not be tonicized. I
think it might be just a misuse of the term tonicized on my part..or
the term "key"...or maybe it is so impossible to hear the D major
triad existing in a C tonality if the D major triad is followed by its
dominant in the key of C. I haven't experimented with it.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-29 16:30:55 UTC

This is interesting. I still don't quite understand the major/minor
system.

What don't you understand?

Post by Dan S
I can see how this aspect of what can be tonicized is part of
understanding the system.

Tonicization is part of extended tonality or closely related keys to the
primary key.
First you have to understand what a primary key is.

Post by Dan S
For example I don't understand why there's
a C major and C minor. Why cant it just be one tonality of "C"?
All
the chords in that tonality are available.

There is just one.
There just happens to be 2 key signatures, one for major and one for
parallel minor.
Classical music routinely borrowed minor key harmony and melody within
pieces where the primary key is major.
Less common is borrowing major key stuff when the primary key is minor.
The most common instance of this is the Tierce De Picardy or Picardy
3rd. Look it up.
Modern Tonal music will incorporate borrowing from other parallel scales
too like lydian, mixolydian, phyrygian and locrian.
For clarity's sake when *I* write about music I usually specify "C
major" or "C minor", for example, but they're both "in C".

As long as I can

Post by Dan S
functionally hear each chord or melody as related to C, then I don't
understand the distinction between major and minor (I know the sounds
are different, but they are still all related to C). I know there are
all sorts of harmonies available in minor that are not available in
major, but I don't understand why there is a dividing line. There
seems to be a part of this theory that I've never understood.
This is kind of related. The D major triad can exist in the tonality
of C as a lydian sound.
However it can not be tonicized in C. For
some reason this doesn't make sense.

Sure. but technically speaking if you're "in C lydian" you're not really
"in the *key* of C major".
"Keys' and "modes" are different concepts based on different abstract ideas.
Keys happen to have certain rules associated with them and one of those
rules, involving the idea of tonicization of diatonic tones, involves
the idea that any chord built on one of those secondary tonics needs to
also be a diatonic chord in the primary key.
Another rule is that secondary dominants need to have roots that are
diatonic to the primary key.

Post by Dan S
But I guess it has to do with
dominant function and how that is suppose to be heard. As long as
that D major chord is not followed by a functioning dominant, then it
will work in the C tonality.

???
Progressions can only be analyzed in retrospect.
A progression that never resolves to a tonic chord can not really be
said to be in the key of that tonic even though all the other chords
seem to be pointing to that tone/chord as being the tonic.
This is why chains of dominants, like the bridge of I Got Rhythm, are
said to be in no key at all until the last dominant resolves.

Post by Dan S
But if followed by a functioning
dominant then it is a modulation.

No. What I said is the opposite of that.
I.e. If Dmaj is followed by G7 and then Cmaj (where the C chord is made
to feel like a resting chord - aka a tonic chord) then the Dmaj chord
has to be seen *in retrospect* as having had a secondary dominant
function to the G chord.

Post by Dan S
This still seems to be dependent on
how the person hears it.

Composers like to play upon harmonic ambiguities.
But most Tonal pieces at one point or another just spell out what the
tonic actually is. Otherwise the music wouldn't really be "Tonal music"
and would probably sound somewhat unsettled.

Post by Dan S
Because Dm can be tonicized in the key of
C. So I don't see why the D major triad can not be tonicized.

Tones are tonicized, not chords. A "tonic" is a tone, not a chord.
In maj/min-key-based music, tonics also have maj or min chords
associated with them.

The key of C major is more closely related to the key of D minor (1
flat) than it is to the key of D major (2 sharps). Dm also happens to be
a diatonic triad in the key of C major.

The key of C major is more closely related to the key of E minor (1
sharp) than it is to the key of E major (4 sharps). Em also happens to
be a diatonic triad in the key of C major.

The key of C major is more closely related to the key of F major (1
flat) than it is to the key of F minor (4 flats). Fmaj also happens to
be a diatonic triad in the key of C major.
On the other hand...
The key of C minor (3 flats) is more closely related to the key of F
minor (4 flats) than it is to the key of F major (1 flat). Fm also
happens to be a diatonic triad in the C natural minor scale.

Etc., etc.

Post by Dan S
I
think it might be just a misuse of the term tonicized on my part..or
the term "key"...or maybe it is so impossible to hear the D major
triad existing in a C tonality if the D major triad is followed by its
dominant in the key of C. I haven't experimented with it.

The diatonic chords that are suitable targets for tonicization in the
key of C major are:
Dm, Em, F, G, and Am

The diatonic chords (including those derived from mel min and harm min)
that are suitable targets for tonicization in the key of C minor are:
Dm, Eb (care must be taken so that this doesn't sound like a transition
to the relative major), Fm, Fmaj, Gm, Gmaj, Ab and Bb.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-30 14:56:21 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Tones are tonicized, not chords. A "tonic" is a tone, not a chord.
In maj/min-key-based music, tonics also have maj or min chords
associated with them.

...
..

Post by Joey Goldstein
The diatonic chords that are suitable targets for tonicization in the
Dm, Em, F, G, and Am

Ok...this was the part I wasn't understanding. My misunderstanding
has to do with the term "key" and possibly the concept of "tone".
I'll have to think about it more. Also it is a little confusing
because "tones are tonicized, not chords", however in key based music
the "chords" are targets of tonicization. Maybe I don't understand
what "targets of tonicization" means.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-30 18:34:04 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Tones are tonicized, not chords. A "tonic" is a tone, not a chord.
In maj/min-key-based music, tonics also have maj or min chords
associated with them.

...
..

Post by Joey Goldstein
The diatonic chords that are suitable targets for tonicization in the
Dm, Em, F, G, and Am

Tonics are tones, central tones that have a feeling of rest.
But in key-based music tonics have major or minor chords associated with
them. That's how you determine whether you're in a major key or a minor key.
If the resting chord is a major chord, and the music has adhered to all
of the other conventions of key-based music, then you're in a major key.
If the resting chord is a minor chord, and the music has adhered to all
of the other conventions of key-based music, then you're in a minor key.

Tones are usually tonicized by creating a V7 relationship with that
potential tonic.
The V7 chord is the approach chord.
The tonic and the maj or min chord built upon that tonic are the target
of the V7 chord.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-08-30 02:25:06 UTC

You are correct to be confused. It shows understanding of Functional
music. The confusion comes with the various ways that it is taught
(and maybe sometimes mistaught) in more modern studies. You might have
run across the term "modal interchange". This addresses one way to
deal with these questions that you are raising. If you are in C major
and the music has an Fmin chord that still functions as a IV chord,
the way that many deal with this discrepency is "modal interchange of
the parallel minor for the major". The same is if it ends on a minor C
or if the piece is in minor and tones are borrow from C major.

On the other hand, if you look at Piston's Harmony, you will notice
that he agrees to a great extent with what you are stating here. He
ONLY uses UPPER CASE Roman Numerals. He doesn't distinguish between
Major and Minor when it comes to FUNCTIONAL HARMONY. He doesn't, of
course, rule out non functional tonal music in his music or in other
writings but when talking about your topicof Functional Harmony, he
makes no distinction between Major and Minor from a functional
standpoint.

This is kind of related. The D major triad can exist in the tonality
of C as a lydian sound. However it can not be tonicized in C. For
some reason this doesn't make sense. But I guess it has to do with
dominant function and how that is suppose to be heard. As long as
that D major chord is not followed by a functioning dominant, then it
will work in the C tonality. But if followed by a functioning
dominant then it is a modulation. This still seems to be dependent on
how the person hears it. Because Dm can be tonicized in the key of
C. So I don't see why the D major triad can not be tonicized. I
think it might be just a misuse of the term tonicized on my part..or
the term "key"...or maybe it is so impossible to hear the D major
triad existing in a C tonality if the D major triad is followed by its
dominant in the key of C. I haven't experimented with it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I am not sure what you are talking about here, but it seems as though
you are referring to a particular source that might leave something to
be desired. If you are using Tonicized in the same manner that I use
Key Areas, Dmaj is not one of the common Baroque closely related keys
that are studied by freshman music students in harmony classes, but
Dmaj can certainly be a tempory key area in later music. It seems to
me that the source of your "It can't be" statement is in error.

From these questions and some of your older questions, I am starting
to wonder if you are a "ringer" and you reallly do understand all of
this and are just toying with some of the more pretentious members of
this discussion! lol

In either case, if you want to straighten this all out, send me an e-
mail and I will try to help you make sense of your confusion or I will
enjoy talking to you about theory. In either case, I hope to hear from
you.

LJS

Dan S

2010-08-30 15:41:06 UTC

Post by LJS
From these questions and some of your older questions, I am starting
to wonder if you are a "ringer" and you reallly do understand all of
this and are just toying with some of the more pretentious members of
this discussion! lol
In either case, if you want to straighten this all out, send me an e-
mail and I will try to help you make sense of your confusion or I will
enjoy talking to you about theory. In either case, I hope to hear from
you.
LJS

No I am not a "ringer" - I have played music for a long time as a
hobby but never any formal training in theory. I've picked up theory
through self study. But part of my problem is that I could never
associate some of the "theory" with what I hear...and part of that
problem was that I wasn't paying attention to what I hear, and/or my
ear had not developed enough to understand it. When my ear did
develop, that part was disconnected with the theory I tried to learn.
I wasn't putting two and two together.

So I am trying to figure it out. Its a slow process because I am not
studying it (ear training) full time, and there are so many other
things to study. I've heard of the Kodaly books but haven't looked at
them. I feel like I already have enough material that I am not
looking at right now. But I might check out Kodaly some time.

LJS

2010-08-31 10:37:03 UTC

No I am not a "ringer" - I have played music for a long time as a
hobby but never any formal training in theory. I've picked up theory
through self study. But part of my problem is that I could never
associate some of the "theory" with what I hear...and part of that
problem was that I wasn't paying attention to what I hear, and/or my
ear had not developed enough to understand it. When my ear did
develop, that part was disconnected with the theory I tried to learn.
I wasn't putting two and two together.
So I am trying to figure it out. Its a slow process because I am not
studying it (ear training) full time, and there are so many other
things to study. I've heard of the Kodaly books but haven't looked at
them. I feel like I already have enough material that I am not
looking at right now. But I might check out Kodaly some time.

I really did not think that you were a ringer, it was a back door
compliment on your understanding of music in spite of some of the
erroneous things that have been mentioned here.

Once again, you are on target. With all the diversions, however, its
difficult to see exactly what you are missing to pull it all together.
The link that you included above is a clue to what is confusing
although I still am not sure if this is the whole thing.

The charts and visuals are fine and the whole approach is not bad, but
as yet, I can not see how this would help anyone understand what is
heard in music. Ratios are fine. They do exist, different tunings have
been around for a long time, everyone is looking for the "proper
tunings" and I am not saying that these things are not important, but
our ears are more than a precsion interpretation of ratios.

Functional music is not dependent upon precise ratios. It is all a
matter of (and for some reason, lots of people are reluctant to see
the forrest for the trees) the overall effect of the nature of sound
and this is the Overtone Series. When looking at this physical
constant, most look at the ratios and then compare them to the various
tunings. Well, that may work for science but it has nothing to do with
art and music is an art.

Our ear adjusts for all the tunings. We here "out of tune" music all
the time if you judge it by some strict sense. what is in tune for one
may not be for another but in end, our ear has kept all of this in
perspective.

Enough of that. I don't want to divert the focus on your problem. I
think your problem is you are looking for too much of an ABSOLUTE
explanation that will put everything into place. If this is the case,
good luck. you will be the first to achieve this.

I am not familar with the specific books that you are reading, but
they sound like they are very good and maybe trying to cover too many
concepts in one package.

Iwill restate that I think if you want to learn to hear functional and
tonal music properly and have a frame work to understand it all, you
should go into the Kodaly method.

It is not a book to be studied. There may be things written about his
ear training, but the training itself is just that. It is series of
exercises. It is an approach that allows you to take the Solfeggio way
of singing and as you do the exercises, the way he handles
modulations, tonality and the melodic line(s) will put things into
perspective.

We say that it is studied, but it is really practiced. The one thing I
can assure you is that it will not hurt any of the knowledge that you
have acquired, but it will improve your ear and it will give you
something to hang on to when you are trying to find the correct words
to understand what you are hearing in music.

In simple terms, with Kodaly's approach to Solfeggio and knowledge of
the various conventions that have appeared in musical history, you
will gain an inner understanding of the music from an internal sense
and then you will be better able to judge for yourself what approach
best fits your learning and thinking style as you study music.

Kodaly will not give you all the answers from a scholarly approach, it
will only provide you with an exceptional ear and a framework to
understand functional harmony from an aural perspective. Once you have
that, the intellectural writings about the music will be much easier
to understand and from your reactions to the posts I believe you will
be able to see what is worth considering and what is not so important
as you study music.

I still remain open to going over some of this in a quieter setting of
direct e-mail if you would like.

good luck.

LJS

Dan S

2010-08-31 14:02:09 UTC

Post by LJS
Enough of that. I don't want to divert the focus on your problem. I
think your problem is you are looking for too much of an ABSOLUTE
explanation that will put everything into place. If this is the case,
good luck. you will be the first to achieve this.

Yes. The more I look into the nature of hearing, the more I realize
that there are no absolutes. Music is about opinions (what people
prefer) and its hard to argue with opinions. There are no "correct
opinions." Especially when it comes to music as art.

I don't necessarily think I have a 'problem' per se. I think the main
confusion I had before was not using my ear to guide me. I don't mind
listening to all opinions on this matter. Because I can learn so much
by being open to what others' have to say. But at the same time,
using my own judgement - not blindly following.

Also there's the aspect of learning from more experienced people.
That aspect is about respect - even if I don't quite understand what
someone is saying. i.e. Maybe I don't understand what someone is
saying because I'm not on that level. I think that type of open
attitude can be helpful for growth.

I did some more research about the Kodaly method. It seems
intriguing. I like the idea of a graded approach, and also the
Hungarian aspect, and also the folk song aspect. I notice that they
always mention "children's method" or they also mention its good for
teachers to study it. I wonder if its also good for a non-teacher
adult, or if its appropriate for self-study. I assume it can be.

I might email you later if I have more questions about the Kodaly
method.

LJS

2010-09-01 10:54:45 UTC

Well, in many instances, there certainly absolute facts. The way we
use these facts are the subjective aspect. There are different ways of
interpreting the facts, but especially when addressing specific genres
or styles or music that has already been written, the fact of what has
already occured and has been successfully produced are facts that we
generally look at as rules. i.e. Conventions are facts that describe
the way things were done.

I don't necessarily think I have a 'problem' per se. I think the main
confusion I had before was not using my ear to guide me. I don't mind
listening to all opinions on this matter. Because I can learn so much
by being open to what others' have to say. But at the same time,
using my own judgement - not blindly following.
Also there's the aspect of learning from more experienced people.
That aspect is about respect - even if I don't quite understand what
someone is saying. i.e. Maybe I don't understand what someone is
saying because I'm not on that level. I think that type of open
attitude can be helpful for growth.

And you have to remember that even when talking to some experienced
people that they don't understand as much as they think that they do.
Your attitude of listening to everything and sortind it out based upon
its validity is the best approach that I know of to learn the
difference and find the best explanation.

I did some more research about the Kodaly method. It seems
intriguing. I like the idea of a graded approach, and also the
Hungarian aspect, and also the folk song aspect. I notice that they
always mention "children's method" or they also mention its good for
teachers to study it. I wonder if its also good for a non-teacher
adult, or if its appropriate for self-study. I assume it can be.

It is one of the best methods to teach music to children. This is all
part of his mission. Other strong influences in music education for
children is Carl Orff and the French guy whose name I can never quite
remember. Orff has an instrumental approach and is known for the
melodic percussion instruments with the removable bars and the French
guy uses movement and is not a popular but does extensive solfeggio
training as well. Kodaly is primarily vocal with the extensive use of
known (folk) songs.

This is related to but not the same thing as his ear training which is
more for a really advanced level. It is all movable Do and is not like
the European sysem of fixed Do. A combination of the two (Kodaly
Method for school children and his advanced method) is a great
combination, but simply doing the advanced studies will cover
everything from a strong inner perspective.

I might email you later if I have more questions about the Kodaly
method.

Anytime,

LJS

Orlando Enrique Fiol

2010-08-30 03:24:12 UTC

Post by Dan S
I still don't quite understand the major/minor
system. I can see how this aspect of what can be tonicized is part of
understanding the system. For example I don't understand why there's
a C major and C minor. Why cant it just be one tonality of "C"? All
the chords in that tonality are available. As long as I can
functionally hear each chord or melody as related to C, then I don't
understand the distinction between major and minor (I know the sounds
are different, but they are still all related to C). I know there are
all sorts of harmonies available in minor that are not available in
major, but I don't understand why there is a dividing line. There
seems to be a part of this theory that I've never understood.

Why do we classify anything at all? Why are books filed in different genres and
not just alphabetically by author? The major/minor system is a deeper
classificatory level of all the available chords in C. You are of course free
to ignore that classificatory level if you choose; Schönberg came close to
doing so by asserting that every chromatic pitch could be related to every key.

Post by Dan S
This is kind of related. The D major triad can exist in the tonality
of C as a lydian sound. However it can not be tonicized in C. For
some reason this doesn't make sense. But I guess it has to do with
dominant function and how that is suppose to be heard. As long as
that D major chord is not followed by a functioning dominant, then it
will work in the C tonality. But if followed by a functioning
dominant then it is a modulation. This still seems to be dependent on
how the person hears it. Because Dm can be tonicized in the key of
C. So I don't see why the D major triad can not be tonicized. I
think it might be just a misuse of the term tonicized on my part..or
the term "key"...or maybe it is so impossible to hear the D major
triad existing in a C tonality if the D major triad is followed by its
dominant in the key of C. I haven't experimented with it.

Who says D major cannot be tonicized in C? If it is preceded by A 7 or E-flat
7, it will be tonicized. Tonicization usually means that a chord resolves some
previous tension calling for that chord. I think part of your problem is that
you're thinking of chord progressions as rules rather than
rhetorical/syntactical devices used to articulate musical meaning. If I set up
D major's dominant in C, it means I want to tonicize D major for some reason. I
can use the same chords differently, or make D a secondary dominant rather than
tonicize it. There are many other syntactical details besides chords that let
you know the difference between modulation and tonicization. There are also
relatively few hard and fast rules. For some theorists, composers and analysts,
tonicization has more to do with how long you stay in a particular tonal region
than how it's prepared. For others, even if you only stay there for one beat,
it counts as a tonicization because of its preparation. These subtleties
underlie the differences between tonicization and modulation. Modulations tend
to be associated with a set of preparatory transitive chords, what I call
conduit chords. For me, if I'm in C and then just plunk you into F-sharp major
without preparatory chords, that's more a tonicization than modulation.
Modulation implies that there are modulatory chords bridging the gap between
the old key and the new one to be entered.

Orlando

Hans Aberg

2010-08-30 07:58:32 UTC

...I still don't quite understand the major/minor
system. I can see how this aspect of what can be tonicized is part of
understanding the system. For example I don't understand why there's
a C major and C minor.

It comes from being able to play the same triad on the two fifths up and
down in Just Intonation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale
CPP harmony <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_practice_period>
departs from this, though it is not possible to play it exactly. Before
there were modal music, which does not use harmony in that way; see:
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/chords.html

Dan S

2010-08-28 22:14:12 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
Dm on the other hand is also fully active. But generally moves to G instead
of C. This is because of the power of the root movement's by a P5 down. Dm
is actually more related to F than C and Em is to G than C. (in each case
only one tone different).
So for whatever reason Dm resolves to G. I could give several possible
reasons by they may or may not do it for you. The best thing to do is sit
down at the piano and try to move it to different chords and realize that Dm
to G is probably the most "consonant" movement.

I have been studying Dm in the key of C in Mathieu's book. He said in
traditional theory its called "the problem of ii".

From my understanding, Dm can act in a subdominant or dominant role.
The reason is because in the dominant role, the note D is based on the
pythagorean 9:8 which I think is called the supertonic (i.e. its a 5th
above G). There is also a D that is a 5th below the A that is a 3rd
above F. This note is where the Dm related to F comes from. All of
these relationships are based on a "5-limit" lattice (i.e. the
relationship of all notes to the tonic is by different combinations of
just 5ths and just 3rds)

The relationship between the two D's in C is called a Didymic comma,
based on 5-limit theory.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-29 15:57:05 UTC

I have been studying Dm in the key of C in Mathieu's book. He said in
traditional theory its called "the problem of ii".
From my understanding, Dm can act in a subdominant or dominant role.
The reason is because in the dominant role, the note D is based on the
pythagorean 9:8 which I think is called the supertonic (i.e. its a 5th
above G). There is also a D that is a 5th below the A that is a 3rd
above F. This note is where the Dm related to F comes from. All of
these relationships are based on a "5-limit" lattice (i.e. the
relationship of all notes to the tonic is by different combinations of
just 5ths and just 3rds)
The relationship between the two D's in C is called a Didymic comma,
based on 5-limit theory.

Don't confuse Mathieu's book with standard theory. It isn't.

I look at Mathieu's stuff as being a gentle reminder of where tonality
came from (i.e. just intonation) and how it came about.
He seems to be really opining about the loss of pure intervals in
ET-based modern music, and just wants to remind us that these intervals
stand for the more pure overtone based intervals.
His notions of what a "key" is and/or what an extended key is are just
that, *his* notions.

And all "supertonic" means is "the note a step above the tonic".
That terminology has nothing to do with the supertonic's relationship to
the dominant.
Mathieu places the supertonic as being on the same "spine" of 5ths
stretching above and below the tonic as the dominant. But that's got
nothing to do with the tone's name.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-30 14:40:28 UTC

I have been studying Dm in the key of C in Mathieu's book. He said in
traditional theory its called "the problem of ii".
From my understanding, Dm can act in a subdominant or dominant role.
The reason is because in the dominant role, the note D is based on the
pythagorean 9:8 which I think is called the supertonic (i.e. its a 5th
above G). There is also a D that is a 5th below the A that is a 3rd
above F. This note is where the Dm related to F comes from. All of
these relationships are based on a "5-limit" lattice (i.e. the
relationship of all notes to the tonic is by different combinations of
just 5ths and just 3rds)
The relationship between the two D's in C is called a Didymic comma,
based on 5-limit theory.

Don't confuse Mathieu's book with standard theory. It isn't.
I look at Mathieu's stuff as being a gentle reminder of where tonality
came from (i.e. just intonation) and how it came about.
He seems to be really opining about the loss of pure intervals in
ET-based modern music, and just wants to remind us that these intervals
stand for the more pure overtone based intervals.
His notions of what a "key" is and/or what an extended key is are just
that, *his* notions.
And all "supertonic" means is "the note a step above the tonic".
That terminology has nothing to do with the supertonic's relationship to
the dominant.
Mathieu places the supertonic as being on the same "spine" of 5ths
stretching above and below the tonic as the dominant. But that's got
nothing to do with the tone's name.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

As far as the names like supertonic, I was going more by this page (in
this case the supertonic is E since dorian mode is being discussed):
http://www.h-pi.com/theory/intervals1.html

The other version of D (10:9 the minor whole tone) was also described
in German theory as the subdominant parallel. Its a different note
and different function in functional harmony. Once you get into
functional harmony, the whole triad is Didymic - all the notes are
different depending on function.

In the case of "the problem of ii" it is a very subtle sound
difference in ET. But its there if you train yourself to hear it -
non-ambiguity is needed to tell where you are on the lattice. Tonal
memory. Once you get away from non-ambiguity then its harder to hear.

This book is about hearing things first - examine them under the
microscope of non-ambiguity. Context.

The thing is Joey...Mathieu's book is describing things that I have
been hearing that I have seen in no other book or from anyone else's
mouth. I'm just trying to understand what I hear...and traditional
theory isn't cutting it.

I have worked a lot with diatonic modes, and can definitely hear some
of the Didymic commas in those cases. I am not talking about JI
"cents" stuff here. I'm talking about perceptual differences of the
same note depending on context. And it is all described very well by
the 5-limit lattice.

Primary and secondary colors of sound - looking inside each note -
looking inside of the A at 5:3 and hearing the 5th partial. These are
not sounds physically in the air - this is coming from inside as the
result of tonal memory.

I have used his concepts to get to relationships that would have never
made sense in the past.

I can't remember his exact words...but the "sound" a note makes
functionally comes from three things: pitch, degree, and function.

The JI part of this equation is pitch. Equal temperament throws that
part of the equation away. The other two remain.

The true thing 12t Equal temperament gives is atonality and
symmetry... Giant Steps is symmetry. Can't have Giant steps without
12tET.

Atonality! Ahhh...the sound of the twelfth root of 2!!! :)

This is not about missing things in the past. This is about
developing tonal memory. Finding all the commas and their affects.
A lot more than that.

From a modal standpoint its huge. Take for example the mode Purya -
this mode explores the C#/Db Dieses. When using Db its spelled:
C Db E F# G A B

When using C# its spelled:
C C# E F# G A B

These two sounds can only be brought about by context. Db comes out
in stepwise passages (this is the "degree" aspect of sound). C# comes
out when associated with F# and A (the "functional" aspect of sound).
This C# is brought about in a modal context in a similar way that #4
is brought out - in the case of #4 it is its association with D and
B. In other words the notes that are a 5th and a 3rd below the
overtonal note will bring the overtonal note out.

Modal melodies are all about non-ambiguity. If you hear that #4 as a
lydian sound, then that's what it is. If you hear the C# as being a
5th above #4 then that's what it is. If you hear Db as being 1/2 step
above C then that's what it is. An important point is that these are
all heard from the standpoint of C. Non-ambiguity in modality.

Its explained in Mathieu's book. And I hear it that way...I have for
a long time before having his book. Once I had his book it took a
long time to realize he was talking about things I have been hearing.

Chapter 37 is very interesting from a jazz perspective. As Mathieu
states about chord/scale theory : "the false names, seemingly
harmless ...will quickly lead us into the familiar quicksand of a
failed nomenclature"

"Rule: name scales from the tonic, not the root...roots are sprites.
Tonics are gods...here is the full rule: name tonal matierial from the
tonic you are in, as perceived from the root you are on"

For all this to make sense, tonal memory must be developed. Tonal
memory is the ability to relate harmonic and melodic material to the
tonic. That is what is being developed throughout the practices in
this book - tonal memory.

Ch. 37 further goes on to explain how to hear the altered scale and
other dominant sounds in a tonal setting. The main emphasis here is
"tonal setting". This is not chord of the moment stuff. Thats the
sprites.

Its not for everyone.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-30 18:28:25 UTC

I have been studying Dm in the key of C in Mathieu's book. He said in
traditional theory its called "the problem of ii".
From my understanding, Dm can act in a subdominant or dominant role.
The reason is because in the dominant role, the note D is based on the
pythagorean 9:8 which I think is called the supertonic (i.e. its a 5th
above G). There is also a D that is a 5th below the A that is a 3rd
above F. This note is where the Dm related to F comes from. All of
these relationships are based on a "5-limit" lattice (i.e. the
relationship of all notes to the tonic is by different combinations of
just 5ths and just 3rds)
The relationship between the two D's in C is called a Didymic comma,
based on 5-limit theory.

Don't confuse Mathieu's book with standard theory. It isn't.
I look at Mathieu's stuff as being a gentle reminder of where tonality
came from (i.e. just intonation) and how it came about.
He seems to be really opining about the loss of pure intervals in
ET-based modern music, and just wants to remind us that these intervals
stand for the more pure overtone based intervals.
His notions of what a "key" is and/or what an extended key is are just
that, *his* notions.
And all "supertonic" means is "the note a step above the tonic".
That terminology has nothing to do with the supertonic's relationship to
the dominant.
Mathieu places the supertonic as being on the same "spine" of 5ths
stretching above and below the tonic as the dominant. But that's got
nothing to do with the tone's name.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

As far as the names like supertonic, I was going more by this page (in
http://www.h-pi.com/theory/intervals1.html

I have no time to look closely at that page.
But it looks like he's saying the same thing I said.
"Supertonic" = "the tone above the tonic".
The supertonic's relationship to the dominant is another matter entirely
and has nothing to do with the name "supertonic", as far as I can see.

Post by Dan S
The other version of D (10:9 the minor whole tone) was also described
in German theory as the subdominant parallel. Its a different note
and different function in functional harmony. Once you get into
functional harmony, the whole triad is Didymic - all the notes are
different depending on function.

Different intonations and/or temperaments have different frequency
ratios for the supertonic, assuming that the temperament being used even
contains something akin to a major scale. That's not news.

Post by Dan S
In the case of "the problem of ii" it is a very subtle sound
difference in ET. But its there if you train yourself to hear it -
non-ambiguity is needed to tell where you are on the lattice. Tonal
memory. Once you get away from non-ambiguity then its harder to hear.

Well if you wholly accept Mathieu's notions and techniques then you too
will probably learn to hear his "problem of ii".
But I hear no such problem myself.

Post by Dan S
This book is about hearing things first - examine them under the
microscope of non-ambiguity. Context.

It's about hearing simple freq ratios and their role within the genesis
of Tonal music.
But Tonal music itself (i.e. the maj/min key system) via the
incorporation of 12 tone equal temperament has evolved into something
else from what he is describing, IMO. And many of his notions are
irrelevant for the understanding of actual key-based music, IMO. Many of
his notions will lead to confusion rather than clarity when trying to
understand key-based music, IMO.

Post by Dan S
The thing is Joey...Mathieu's book is describing things that I have
been hearing that I have seen in no other book or from anyone else's
mouth. I'm just trying to understand what I hear...and traditional
theory isn't cutting it.

I'm glad you think it's helping you.
I found it to be a quite refreshing divurgence from the norms of music
theory texts. I considered most of what he said quite seriously and did
many of the singing against a drone exercises. It's cool to be able to
feel the resonances of the pure intervals.
But his description of what a "key" is and how a key can be extended
simply don't hold up upon further scrutiny. IMO.

Post by Dan S
I have worked a lot with diatonic modes, and can definitely hear some
of the Didymic commas in those cases.

Try singing in 12-TET and those commas won't even be an issue.

Post by Dan S
I am not talking about JI
"cents" stuff here.

Yes, you are.

Post by Dan S
I'm talking about perceptual differences of the
same note depending on context.

Those perceptual differences that are dependant upon context are
dependant on the context, not on the intonation.

Post by Dan S
And it is all described very well by
the 5-limit lattice.
Primary and secondary colors of sound - looking inside each note -
looking inside of the A at 5:3 and hearing the 5th partial. These are
not sounds physically in the air - this is coming from inside as the
result of tonal memory.
I have used his concepts to get to relationships that would have never
made sense in the past.
I can't remember his exact words...but the "sound" a note makes
functionally comes from three things: pitch, degree, and function.
The JI part of this equation is pitch. Equal temperament throws that
part of the equation away. The other two remain.
The true thing 12t Equal temperament gives is atonality and
symmetry... Giant Steps is symmetry. Can't have Giant steps without
12tET.

GS would not work without 12TET, true.
The type of freedom of modulation that GS exploits could not work
without 12TET.
But GS is hardly atonal. I hope that you were not suggesting that it is
atonal.

Post by Dan S
Atonality! Ahhh...the sound of the twelfth root of 2!!! :)
This is not about missing things in the past. This is about
developing tonal memory. Finding all the commas and their affects.
A lot more than that.

His book is filled with all sorts of interesting ideas and in doing his
exercises you will undoubtedly have some very interesting and rewarding
subjective experiences.
But his description of the maj/min key system does not hold true with
any other widely accepted text on the subject nor with my own
experiences playing and writing key-based music.

I'm actually in the middle of writing a tune that's based on some of his
notions about humans being wired internally for ratios like 5:3 and 5:4,
etc.
If what he says is really true then these ratios should resonate with us
when used rhythmically as well as when used to create intervals of pitch.
My tune uses alternating measures of 5 over 4 with 4 over 5.
A Mathieu devotee might conjecture that these rhythms should resonate
within and feel totally passive and/or easy to feel, as do the intervals
of pitch that result from the same ratios. But guess what, that's not
the case.

Post by Dan S
From a modal standpoint its huge. Take for example the mode Purya -
C Db E F# G A B
C C# E F# G A B
These two sounds can only be brought about by context. Db comes out
in stepwise passages (this is the "degree" aspect of sound). C# comes
out when associated with F# and A (the "functional" aspect of sound).
This C# is brought about in a modal context in a similar way that #4
is brought out - in the case of #4 it is its association with D and
B. In other words the notes that are a 5th and a 3rd below the
overtonal note will bring the overtonal note out.

But what you're describing above is not key-based music.
Mathieu's notions about dronal music and just-intonated modal music seem
to be less assailable to me than his ideas about key-based music.
I play primarily key-based music.
And when I play in modal contexts my guitars are still tuned to 12TET.
So the types of observations you're making above, as interesting as they
may be, are mostly irrelevant to me for my own musical needs.

Post by Dan S
Modal melodies are all about non-ambiguity.

Huh?

Post by Dan S
If you hear that #4 as a
lydian sound, then that's what it is.

Huh?
There are all sorts of scales besides lydian that incorporate scale
degree #4.

Post by Dan S
If you hear the C# as being a
5th above #4 then that's what it is.

But in any system that uses 7 letter names and incorporates the notion
of sharps and flats C# is always a 5th above F#.

Post by Dan S
If you hear Db as being 1/2 step
above C then that's what it is.

But in any system that uses 7 letter names and incorporates the notion
of sharps and flats Db is always a 1/2 step above C.

The question here is really how the tone being considered, C#/Db, is
tuned in relation to the other tones.
In many intonations C# and Db will be different pitches.
Players of instruments that are unfettered by frets or keys may even
play these two notes slightly differently depending on context.
Musically speaking, C# is a different *idea* from Db, and if the music
is written correctly each of these two notes might require a slightly
different intonation.
The reasons for those differences in intonation may even be described
quite well by Mathieu's text.
I'm certainly not trying to paint a picture of his text as being
useless, or malevolent in any way. It does a great job of describing
certain things about music that have not been described well anywhere
else that I am aware of.

I just don't like his notions about keys.
And I also think that your own notions about keys may have been confused
by reading his stuff.

Post by Dan S
An important point is that these are
all heard from the standpoint of C. Non-ambiguity in modality.

You're calling music based on a drone "non-ambiguous"?

Post by Dan S
Its explained in Mathieu's book. And I hear it that way...I have for
a long time before having his book. Once I had his book it took a
long time to realize he was talking about things I have been hearing.
Chapter 37 is very interesting from a jazz perspective. As Mathieu
states about chord/scale theory : "the false names, seemingly
harmless ...will quickly lead us into the familiar quicksand of a
failed nomenclature"

And when I read that I wanted to slap his face.
He does not write from the perspective of someone who uses these
concepts in their day-to-day music making or he could not disparage them
so readily.

Post by Dan S
"Rule: name scales from the tonic, not the root...roots are sprites.
Tonics are gods...here is the full rule: name tonal matierial from the
tonic you are in, as perceived from the root you are on"

As a jazz player and teacher my experience is that that "rule" of his
will only lead to confusion if it's exact opposite is not also
completely studied and understood.
You can not ignore the vertical relationships with the chord anymore
than you can ignore the horizontal relationships of the key.

Post by Dan S
For all this to make sense, tonal memory must be developed. Tonal
memory is the ability to relate harmonic and melodic material to the
tonic. That is what is being developed throughout the practices in
this book - tonal memory.

The relationships that occur within dronal and/or modal music are not
the same relationships that occur in key-based music.
The whole concept of key-based music and the desire to expand upon it by
opening up the world of free modulation to other keys via 12TET is in
many ways a refutation or a revolt against the limitations of dronal music.

Post by Dan S
Ch. 37 further goes on to explain how to hear the altered scale and
other dominant sounds in a tonal setting. The main emphasis here is
"tonal setting". This is not chord of the moment stuff. Thats the
sprites.

Chords-of-the-moment can not be considered as being somehow divorced
from the key.
Whoever put that notion into your head was wrong.

Post by Dan S
Its not for everyone.

Agreed.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-31 05:03:53 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Well if you wholly accept Mathieu's notions and techniques then you too
will probably learn to hear his "problem of ii".
But I hear no such problem myself.

Its not a problem in his view - he is saying that traditional theory
calls it "a problem". There aren't any accusations being made. Its
simply to observe the things that are there.

The commas have been tempered out, but they're still there. The true
sound of 12tET is atonal. If you are hearing tonality, its not
because of the 12tET system. There is more to hearing than pitch.

How about lydian... For me the #11 is a very bright sound. And
yet...its the same note that is also a b5. To me, a tritone sounds
nothing like #11. The way I read Mathieu is that he is trying to
explain these sound differences. Its going a step further to explain
the contextual relationships. I have never seen those relationships
explained the way Mathieu explains them.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Those perceptual differences that are dependant upon context are
dependant on the context, not on the intonation.

This is one of the aspects of Mathieu's book - to explain context.
Most of the book has examples written on piano. How could that be
about intonation?

Post by Joey Goldstein
GS would not work without 12TET, true.
The type of freedom of modulation that GS exploits could not work
without 12TET.
But GS is hardly atonal. I hope that you were not suggesting that it is
atonal.

No ... two separate things symmetry an atonality.

Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm actually in the middle of writing a tune that's based on some of his
notions about humans being wired internally for ratios like 5:3 and 5:4,
etc.
If what he says is really true then these ratios should resonate with us
when used rhythmically as well as when used to create intervals of pitch.
My tune uses alternating measures of 5 over 4 with 4 over 5.
A Mathieu devotee might conjecture that these rhythms should resonate
within and feel totally passive and/or easy to feel, as do the intervals
of pitch that result from the same ratios. But guess what, that's not
the case.

That sounds cool. As far as the rhythm aspect...I thought that's an
aside of the book. The main part of the book centers on perception of
tonality (IMO). But I haven't explored the rhythm aspect too much.

I guess everyone gets something different out of that book.

Post by Joey Goldstein
But what you're describing above is not key-based music.
Mathieu's notions about dronal music and just-intonated modal music seem
to be less assailable to me than his ideas about key-based music.
I play primarily key-based music.
And when I play in modal contexts my guitars are still tuned to 12TET.
So the types of observations you're making above, as interesting as they
may be, are mostly irrelevant to me for my own musical needs.

Its very interesting to me.

The modes (especially lydian) work in spite of 12TET. At least for
me. I have no idea how other people hear things. I hear a ringing on
certain tones in certain modes.

I am really starting to like Bartok. Mathieu has a good analysis of a
part of Microkosmos. It is very revealing. This can be a way to
learn to hear that kind of thing. A lot of Bartok is hard for me to
understand. Quite a while ago, Giant Steps didn't make sense to me at
all. I don't know how long it took, but gradually I started to hear
it.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Huh?
There are all sorts of scales besides lydian that incorporate scale
degree #4.

hehe ... what I mean is the sound of #4. It has a very bright sound
to it. It is not a tritone sound. (right?) Like I said I don't know
what other people hear.

Post by Dan S
If you hear the C# as being a
5th above #4 then that's what it is.

But in any system that uses 7 letter names and incorporates the notion
of sharps and flats C# is always a 5th above F#.

Post by Dan S
If you hear Db as being 1/2 step
above C then that's what it is.

No...I'm not talking about intonation. I'm talking about sound. The
sound. I am not talking about systems or theory. C# has a totally
different sound than Db.
This is part of what Mathieu is talking about. It is not just about
JI.
C# is overtonal. Db is recripricol. (Mathieu's term).
Db is a phrygian sound. C# is similar to a lydian sound.
These sounds are all in Equal Temperament - no intonation adjustments
have been made.
The tritone range is even worse as far as ambiguity. There are many
sounds located in that area.

Post by Joey Goldstein
He does not write from the perspective of someone who uses these
concepts in their day-to-day music making or he could not disparage them
so readily.

Well if its any consolation, I think he use to arrange for Stan
Kenton.

Post by Joey Goldstein
As a jazz player and teacher my experience is that that "rule" of his
will only lead to confusion if it's exact opposite is not also
completely studied and understood.
You can not ignore the vertical relationships with the chord anymore
than you can ignore the horizontal relationships of the key.

I am trying to learn all of that. The key aspect seems to be the
hardest though - to always keep the key in mind.
Or when I keep the key in mind, it seems hard to think about the
individual chords.

Chords-of-the-moment can not be considered as being somehow divorced
from the key.
Whoever put that notion into your head was wrong.

I agree with what you are saying. I probably worded things wrong in
that sentence. I meant to write exactly what you wrote - keep the key
in mind.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-31 06:04:10 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Well if you wholly accept Mathieu's notions and techniques then you too
will probably learn to hear his "problem of ii".
But I hear no such problem myself.

Its not a problem in his view - he is saying that traditional theory
calls it "a problem". There aren't any accusations being made. Its
simply to observe the things that are there.
The commas have been tempered out, but they're still there. The true
sound of 12tET is atonal. If you are hearing tonality, its not
because of the 12tET system. There is more to hearing than pitch.
How about lydian... For me the #11 is a very bright sound. And
yet...its the same note that is also a b5. To me, a tritone sounds
nothing like #11. The way I read Mathieu is that he is trying to
explain these sound differences. Its going a step further to explain
the contextual relationships. I have never seen those relationships
explained the way Mathieu explains them.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Those perceptual differences that are dependant upon context are
dependant on the context, not on the intonation.

This is one of the aspects of Mathieu's book - to explain context.
Most of the book has examples written on piano. How could that be
about intonation?

No ... two separate things symmetry an atonality.

That sounds cool. As far as the rhythm aspect...I thought that's an
aside of the book. The main part of the book centers on perception of
tonality (IMO). But I haven't explored the rhythm aspect too much.
I guess everyone gets something different out of that book.

Its very interesting to me.
The modes (especially lydian) work in spite of 12TET. At least for
me. I have no idea how other people hear things. I hear a ringing on
certain tones in certain modes.
I am really starting to like Bartok. Mathieu has a good analysis of a
part of Microkosmos. It is very revealing. This can be a way to
learn to hear that kind of thing. A lot of Bartok is hard for me to
understand. Quite a while ago, Giant Steps didn't make sense to me at
all. I don't know how long it took, but gradually I started to hear
it.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Huh?
There are all sorts of scales besides lydian that incorporate scale
degree #4.

hehe ... what I mean is the sound of #4. It has a very bright sound
to it. It is not a tritone sound. (right?) Like I said I don't know
what other people hear.

Post by Dan S
If you hear the C# as being a
5th above #4 then that's what it is.

But in any system that uses 7 letter names and incorporates the notion
of sharps and flats C# is always a 5th above F#.

Post by Dan S
If you hear Db as being 1/2 step
above C then that's what it is.

Post by Joey Goldstein
He does not write from the perspective of someone who uses these
concepts in their day-to-day music making or he could not disparage them
so readily.

Well if its any consolation, I think he use to arrange for Stan
Kenton.

I am trying to learn all of that. The key aspect seems to be the
hardest though - to always keep the key in mind.
Or when I keep the key in mind, it seems hard to think about the
individual chords.

Just wait till you start working on superimposition of other chords on
top of the actual chords as well as the key.

Chords-of-the-moment can not be considered as being somehow divorced
from the key.
Whoever put that notion into your head was wrong.

I agree with what you are saying. I probably worded things wrong in
that sentence. I meant to write exactly what you wrote - keep the key
in mind.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-08-31 12:39:35 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Well if you wholly accept Mathieu's notions and techniques then you too
will probably learn to hear his "problem of ii".
But I hear no such problem myself.

Its not a problem in his view - he is saying that traditional theory
calls it "a problem". There aren't any accusations being made. Its
simply to observe the things that are there.
The commas have been tempered out, but they're still there. The true
sound of 12tET is atonal. If you are hearing tonality, its not
because of the 12tET system. There is more to hearing than pitch.
How about lydian... For me the #11 is a very bright sound. And
yet...its the same note that is also a b5. To me, a tritone sounds
nothing like #11. The way I read Mathieu is that he is trying to
explain these sound differences. Its going a step further to explain
the contextual relationships. I have never seen those relationships
explained the way Mathieu explains them.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Those perceptual differences that are dependant upon context are
dependant on the context, not on the intonation.

This is one of the aspects of Mathieu's book - to explain context.
Most of the book has examples written on piano. How could that be
about intonation?

No ... two separate things symmetry an atonality.

That sounds cool. As far as the rhythm aspect...I thought that's an
aside of the book. The main part of the book centers on perception of
tonality (IMO). But I haven't explored the rhythm aspect too much.
I guess everyone gets something different out of that book.

Its very interesting to me.
The modes (especially lydian) work in spite of 12TET. At least for
me. I have no idea how other people hear things. I hear a ringing on
certain tones in certain modes.
I am really starting to like Bartok. Mathieu has a good analysis of a
part of Microkosmos. It is very revealing. This can be a way to
learn to hear that kind of thing. A lot of Bartok is hard for me to
understand. Quite a while ago, Giant Steps didn't make sense to me at
all. I don't know how long it took, but gradually I started to hear
it.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Huh?
There are all sorts of scales besides lydian that incorporate scale
degree #4.

hehe ... what I mean is the sound of #4. It has a very bright sound
to it. It is not a tritone sound. (right?) Like I said I don't know
what other people hear.

Post by Dan S
If you hear the C# as being a
5th above #4 then that's what it is.

But in any system that uses 7 letter names and incorporates the notion
of sharps and flats C# is always a 5th above F#.

Post by Dan S
If you hear Db as being 1/2 step
above C then that's what it is.

Post by Joey Goldstein
He does not write from the perspective of someone who uses these
concepts in their day-to-day music making or he could not disparage them
so readily.

Well if its any consolation, I think he use to arrange for Stan
Kenton.

I am trying to learn all of that. The key aspect seems to be the
hardest though - to always keep the key in mind.
Or when I keep the key in mind, it seems hard to think about the
individual chords.

Just wait till you start working on superimposition of other chords on
top of the actual chords as well as the key.

If the foundation is strong, there will be no problem holding up the
house! If one truly understands the concept of tonality, the evolution
of superimposing chords on top of the "actual" chords are not a
problem. There is no "divine intervention" here. Superimposing of
chords on top of the underlying tonality is exactly that. It is
tonality with a different way of adding coloring to the chord.

If on the other hand, if you are thinking of Non Tonal music and
polytonal music, then you are in another world altogether. In the
frame work of tonal music, superimposition is really not very much
different than extensions.

When you get a student that has problems with superimposition in tonal
music, you might want to go back and make sure that he has a good
foundation in tonality and they return to superimposition.

LJS

Chords-of-the-moment can not be considered as being somehow divorced
from the key.
Whoever put that notion into your head was wrong.

I agree with what you are saying. I probably worded things wrong in
that sentence. I meant to write exactly what you wrote - keep the key
in mind.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-31 14:08:04 UTC

Post by LJS
When you get a student that has problems with superimposition in tonal
music, you might want to go back and make sure that he has a good
foundation in tonality and they return to superimposition.
LJS

I think one of the issues with chord superposition in jazz is just the
mental and physical aspect of getting it into your fingers. The
performance aspect. At first it is a mental challenge to juggle all
of these concepts. At the same time, a jazz student's ear is
developing to hear what these sounds are. So it is not just the 'ear'
aspect - but also the other performance aspects that are challenging.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-28 15:32:43 UTC

This is not functional analysis though. Functional analysis always takes
into account what will happen. The "performer" as you describe it is
function and the audience is not. But the audience still hears it the
same way. as the performer. The performer is just trained to give
symbols and names to the things he hears and has a better memory to
listen by.
Ok, the analysis above could be(skipping repeats)
C:[ii V] D:[ii V]
or
D:[ii/bVII V7/bVII ii V7]
or
Dm:[i IV7 ii/I V7]
or
G:[ii/IV V7/IV vi V7/V]
or
G:[ii/IV V7/IV ii/V V7/V]
or
G:[C:[ii V] D:[ii V]]
or
F#:[bvi bII7] D:[ii V7]
etc...
It all depends on what the the person listening hears as the underlying
tonic, how strongly the music defines that underlying tonic, the memory
of the listener, the experience of the listener, the mood of the
listener, etc.
But most western people tend to have a very strong reaction to any
progression that is complete and treat that as a tonicization which
either disrupts or confirms the current tonic.
In the above example you have a sequence of ii V's which are complete
progressions and tonicize their key. In this case first C then D.
If before the song strongly defined G as the tonal center then these
would be seen as very quick divergents into the subdominant and dominant
tonal areas.
I believe what you are talking about is the difference between a person
with infinite memory and a person with no memory. A person with no
memory cannot experience functional harmony. They just move from one
chord experience to another never able to relate them to anything before.
You can think of functional harmony as being the person with infinite
memory and "non-functional harmony" as the one with no memory. Jazz, for
example, is sort of like a person with no memory. You just experience a
chord and need to play the right scale for it. If you have a really good
ear you'll get the right scale quick and it will fit. Of course I'm just
teasing Jazz'ers but in effect this is similar to their approach. (they
do require memory because there is much more to soloing than just
playing the right scale at the right time)

People will hear it differently. If you are a performing musician you
hopefully have come across the difference between scale playing and
chord playing. Scale playing is like functional harmony while chord
playing is like non-functional harmony.
If someone was a perfect master of one and another was a master of they
other, both would sound amazing.
If a functional harmony guy was listening and they listened to the chord
method guy they would still reference everything to the tonic and still
think what he was playing was "functional". It might sound different
than the other guy but it would still sound good. Vice Versa for the
other guy.
Jazz'er will tend to hear things a bit different than non-Jazz'ers. They
are more detail oriented when it comes to chord/scale knowledge and
solos are generally thought more along those lines. Because of the
fanciful colors used tonal rules are much more subdued and a tonal
listener can get lost if they don't learn how to listen to it.

While it is true that an analysis of chordal function within a key does
not always tell a jazz player what scale to use on every given chord
(sometimes a good chord-scale-relationship will even seem at odds with
the scale of the prevailing key), and it is often more practical to
think in terms of chord-scale-relationships....
I think that any jazz player, playing on a key-based chord progression,
who only thinks of the chord-scale-relationships of the
chords-of-the-moment, and is completely ignorant of the key the music is
in, will not hit the mark.
Like-wise, a player who is only thinking of the key-scales, and is
totally ignorant of how those notes operate vertically on the
chord-of-the-moment, will also not be hitting the mark.
Both axes, the vertical (the chord) and the horizontal (the key) are
important if the music being played is truly in a "key". And being able
to think along both axes will give a player a more varied palette.
For non-key-based music , eg. where each new chord is truly a type of
tonal centre unto itself, then the vertical relationships have much more
sway.

Post by Jeff Johnson
There are many variables involved and you could have two seemingly
similar situations that actually sound very different.
What I can say is really you should learn both. But if you get good at
one you should be able to pick the other one up more easily if you
attempt to. Although you may just get used to what you've learned and
then not care to learn something new.

No, sorry, if they reharmonize it then the melody's key must be changed
to fit the harmony. They may have not touched the harmony but it will be
heard differently.
What I did for you is take the melody and harmonize it by simply
transposing the melody relative to the harmony. I then also made the
melody diatonic(which changes the melody of course).
I did this for a 1/2 step below, a 4th below, a 5th below, and a tritone
below. You'll notice that the melody itself is still recognizable yet
creates an extreme dissonance with some of the harmonies. In some cases
it works out ok but some notes ruin the good effect the original had.
The chord symbols are not always accurate due to sibelius not accepting
some extensions. For example, a B#11 could mean either dominant 9 with
raised 11th or a B triad with added raised #11th. B(b9) could mean a maj
or dom as any extensions. Sibelius doesn't handle added tensions(add
chords) well at all.
http://wikisend.com/download/623798/RainbowExercise.pdf
http://wikisend.com/download/878492/RainbowExercise.mp3
How do you hear it? Can you easily tell the melody is the same in all
the cases where it actually is? Can you tell the differences in the
cases it isn't(when I made it diatonic to the harmony)?
Note that in all the case the harmonic analysis is the same as is the
melodic analysis. When combined tensions are created adding tensions to
the chord symbol but pretty much the root movement is still the same as
is the quality. So harmonically all those progression is still something
along the lines of
I vi iii V7/IV IV I
It's just for some there are some really strange extensions that create
ambiguities and dissonances that are not expected. This could actually
change the tonic and one could easily create such a melody that does so.
In the second case my ear is drifting to G#m as the tonic chord. This is
not a functional progression even though the chords are exactly the same
as before. So trying to actually analyze it using roman numeral analysis
may not yield any useful information.
If you happen to solo in that way then I hope it is jazz because most
people won't like the effect produced. Again, I can't say it enough, but
the effect is only due to the relative relation between the melody and
chords(Left hand stave). Which can change or ambiguate normal functional
harmonies.
In the 3rd case the melody is now diatonic. This creates a bit more
coordination between the harmony and melody but does change the melody
to do this. Now the melody is more function but still uses some extensions.
In the next 3 cases the melody is much much coordinated with the harmony
producing a more consonant effect yet there is still some disagreement
between the harmony the melody is implying and the harmony used. This
might end up being one possible harmonization that someone might do
though. The only difference between the two is the B and Bb on the 3rd
chord.
The final example is that of a tritone with diatonic melody. It is
almost exactly the same as as the F case because when I made the melody
diatonic it had the effect transposing it up a half a step(for most
notes anyways).
All the variations though are various colorations of the original
melody. You should be able to hear the harmonic varations and as a whole.
In fact it would be great if someone played the 2nd example and you
heard the melody and recognized it exactly as the first case and heard
the chords and recognized it exactly as a transposition by half step
down as the first case and also heard all those tensions created due to
that transposition of the chords.
Why? Because this is exactly what I did. But if you were singing or
playing that melody you would play it the same way in both cases. Thats
just because thats how you memorize things(by breaking them down in to
pieces). If I had to perform that 2nd example I wouldn't try to remember
all those chords and extensions but simply remember that the melody is
played a 1/2 step above what it is normally played.
It's one thing to be reproducing an effect. You don't have to understand
it to do that. For example, I can play many pieces that I haven't
analyzed and don't know exactly what is going on but I just memorized
note for note. I can perform them just fine without understand what is
exactly going on. In fact, most professional performers rarely know what
really is going on. They just memorized how to do it and do it the same
each time.
Now if you are an improviser or composer it is a different story because
you are creating something. If you are simply doing something someone
else did then no understanding needs to happen.
Any singer can be great if they have an ability to memorize melodies
easy and can sing them expressively(which has virtually nothing to do
with functional harmony) and the right manager.
If your a jazz soloist then you'll need to hear the tensions, chords,
and note how they are functioning so you can create music on the spot
that works the way you want it.
There is a huge difference between creating something (good) and copying
something. One is easy and the other is hard.
Ok, I reread what you said and it seems you are saying then when you
sing the melody with a different harmonization your "ear" is telling you
to sing something else than what you know your suppose to sing?
Basically you have a feeling to sync up the melody to the harmony even
when that is wrong? (sorta like in the cases I made diatonic)
In this case if you know the melody well then you just have to sing it
and block out the changes. Get used to doing that and hearing the
alterations. Eventually your ear will get used to those alterations and
it will be fine. After all, theres no reason the original melody and
harmonization was right. It just happened to be the one you learned
first. Your going to have to, in some sense, unlearn it and relearn the
new one.
You can develop your ear so that when you sing a note against a harmony
you recognize the interval it makes with the root. This way when you try
to sing those altered harmonizations you'll know if your correct by
comparing what harmonic intervals your singing and what your suppose to
sing(in which case you'll need the score).
I promise you that if asked a relatively good singer to perform Over the
rainbow a 1/2 step higher than normal while keeping the harmony the
same(2nd example) they will fall flat on their face. This is because
stuff like that just doesn't happen. If they have a great ear they
probably could get it in a few tries. Even if you asked them to sing it
and had the band tune down 1/2 a step the singer will try to sing a 1/2
step below what they usually do.
It wouldn't be too bad if they could completely ignore the harmony and
it happened to be 1/2 a tone below what they normally sing.
If you want to get away from such things then practice crazy stuff like
singing in min2nd's and over strange progressions. You could make a
progression that has random chords and sing over them. First try to come
up with a good melody then attempt to sing it all at each interval. Then
attempt to transpose per tonic change for each interval.
The more you practice the easier it will be. It's very easy for an
instrumentalist to do such things but much harder for a singer.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-28 19:59:15 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
People will hear it differently. If you are a performing musician you
hopefully have come across the difference between scale playing and
chord playing. Scale playing is like functional harmony while chord
playing is like non-functional harmony.
If someone was a perfect master of one and another was a master of they
other, both would sound amazing.
If a functional harmony guy was listening and they listened to the chord
method guy they would still reference everything to the tonic and still
think what he was playing was "functional". It might sound different
than the other guy but it would still sound good. Vice Versa for the
other guy.
Jazz'er will tend to hear things a bit different than non-Jazz'ers. They
are more detail oriented when it comes to chord/scale knowledge and
solos are generally thought more along those lines. Because of the
fanciful colors used tonal rules are much more subdued and a tonal
listener can get lost if they don't learn how to listen to it.

While it is true that an analysis of chordal function within a key does
not always tell a jazz player what scale to use on every given chord
(sometimes a good chord-scale-relationship will even seem at odds with the
scale of the prevailing key), and it is often more practical to think in
terms of chord-scale-relationships....
I think that any jazz player, playing on a key-based chord progression,
who only thinks of the chord-scale-relationships of the
chords-of-the-moment, and is completely ignorant of the key the music is
in, will not hit the mark.
Like-wise, a player who is only thinking of the key-scales, and is totally
ignorant of how those notes operate vertically on the chord-of-the-moment,
will also not be hitting the mark.
Both axes, the vertical (the chord) and the horizontal (the key) are
important if the music being played is truly in a "key". And being able to
think along both axes will give a player a more varied palette.
For non-key-based music , eg. where each new chord is truly a type of
tonal centre unto itself, then the vertical relationships have much more
sway.

I agree. I was not implying that jazz'ers have such short term memory they
can only comprehend one chord at a time but they lean more towards that
direction than experienced classical musicians. Real skill is when a player
can simultaneously think in both ways. The only problem is that tonal
harmony requires tonal memory and if you don't have it then you won't be
able to remember the tonic and hence treat each new chord as if it were the
tonic. Since jazz is more chord/scale oriented it almost resembles that. Of
course most jazz'ers do have some tonal memory so it's not so bad.
Unfortunately it seems most jazz instruction focuses very heavy on a sort of
short term memory method and not on the long term method. Hopefully in the
long run jazz'ers won't devolve end up with with no long term memory.

Again, for a successful musician both methods are needed. If one has a
relatively benign progression but has some out of place chord it would be
best if that person knew how to handle that chord. That short, being short
term and out of place could be possibly more appropriately handed by the
"short term memory method" of just choosing the right scale for it and
ignoring the tonic. If the music is going by too fast to really think about
it much then just ignoring it was out of place may be the easiest thing.

I once read that the lydian-dominant scale should be used for any out of
place dominant7 chord built on the same root. I've never gotten it to work
well but I guess thats just me. In any case that is sort of like a "short
memory method" of just dealing with the chord as it comes and forgetting
about what you just did or what you did 4 bars earlier.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-28 21:19:08 UTC

While it is true that an analysis of chordal function within a key
does not always tell a jazz player what scale to use on every given
chord (sometimes a good chord-scale-relationship will even seem at
odds with the scale of the prevailing key), and it is often more
practical to think in terms of chord-scale-relationships....
I think that any jazz player, playing on a key-based chord
progression, who only thinks of the chord-scale-relationships of the
chords-of-the-moment, and is completely ignorant of the key the music
is in, will not hit the mark.
Like-wise, a player who is only thinking of the key-scales, and is
totally ignorant of how those notes operate vertically on the
chord-of-the-moment, will also not be hitting the mark.
Both axes, the vertical (the chord) and the horizontal (the key) are
important if the music being played is truly in a "key". And being
able to think along both axes will give a player a more varied palette.
For non-key-based music , eg. where each new chord is truly a type of
tonal centre unto itself, then the vertical relationships have much
more sway.

I agree. I was not implying that jazz'ers have such short term memory
they can only comprehend one chord at a time but they lean more towards
that direction than experienced classical musicians. Real skill is when
a player can simultaneously think in both ways. The only problem is that
tonal harmony requires tonal memory and if you don't have it then you
won't be able to remember the tonic and hence treat each new chord as if
it were the tonic. Since jazz is more chord/scale oriented it almost
resembles that. Of course most jazz'ers do have some tonal memory so
it's not so bad. Unfortunately it seems most jazz instruction focuses
very heavy on a sort of short term memory method and not on the long
term method. Hopefully in the long run jazz'ers won't devolve end up
with with no long term memory.
Again, for a successful musician both methods are needed. If one has a
relatively benign progression but has some out of place chord it would
be best if that person knew how to handle that chord. That short, being
short term and out of place could be possibly more appropriately handed
by the "short term memory method" of just choosing the right scale for
it and ignoring the tonic. If the music is going by too fast to really
think about it much then just ignoring it was out of place may be the
easiest thing.
I once read that the lydian-dominant scale should be used for any out of
place dominant7 chord built on the same root. I've never gotten it to
work well but I guess thats just me. In any case that is sort of like a
"short memory method" of just dealing with the chord as it comes and
forgetting about what you just did or what you did 4 bars earlier.

What you probably read was this:
Most dom7 chords with non-diatonic roots will work well with the lyd
dominant scale.
This includes the tritone substitute dominant chord (eg. Db7 moving to
C, in C) as well as all of the secondary tritone substitute dominant
chords (eg. Eb7 moving to Dm, in C)
Etc., etc.

Using lyd b7 on a SubV7 is exactly the same as using the altered
dominant scale on the reguklar dominant chord.
I.e.
Db lyd b7 on Db7 is the same sound as G altered on G7.
Etc., etc.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-08-30 01:35:15 UTC

...

This just doesn't make any sense.

Thanks Jeff for all of your comments. It will take a while for them
all to sink in. I am definitely working on the way of hearing you
describe! It is important to do that like you said.
Yes I want to know what's going on. But if you notice my post is
titled "functional harmony ear training". So that type of ear
training is about relating everything to the tonic. i.e. to learn
about functional harmony from a perceptual standpoint. Its an
interesting subject to me.

This comment seems to indicate that you have a good understanding that
Functional Harmony is a specific thing and that a lot of the "good
comments" being posted might be good, but you are correct if you see
that they are not about FUnctional Harmony! They are about Tonal music
and a lot of people think that Functioal and tonal is the same, but
they are not necessarily the same. there are major differences.

In the book "Performance Ear Training" this seems to be the method
employed - relating the harmony to the tonic.

This is absolutly correct and don't let anyone tell you differently in
the context of Functional Music.

But from a performers standpoint it is probably different. If you
already know what's comming your ear is making adjustments ahead of
time. Anyway I think this is more a question of what someone is
trying to study. In my case I'm trying to study perceptual affects of
functional harmony as opposed to the levels of musicianship in jazz.

Post by Dan S
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?

? D is not diatonic to C.

sorry about that I meant to write C Dm G7 C.

I don't remember where you said this, but his is the basic functional
Jazz progression that parallel the older Classical C F G7 C or C F C
6/4 G7 C. It is functional and it is tonal and it is of course
definately in C.

If you want to put some of the erroneous comments in context, I will
be happy to help you to sort it out. You seem to be on the right track
but most of the coments to your posts are confusing tonal music and
Funcctional harmony music,

LJS

LJS

2010-08-30 01:20:07 UTC

It sounds like you are making this much more difficult than it is. Dm is Dm
regardless of key. In the key of C the Dm chord behaves differently than
that of the key of Dm.
You cannot recognize the two different Dm chords as being different. They
are the same chord. They simply are used different.
What you must be able to is say "Ok, we are in C and that's a Dm chord. They
progressed from Dm to G. This means it is acting like a ii in the key of C"
or "We are in the key of Dm and they played a an A7 and then a Dm so that Dm
is acting as a i".
There is no different between the Dm chord in Dm and C but only how they are
used. D F A is D F A no matter how you look at it. It is, of course, true
they are different relative to the tonic but once you establish the tonal
center you'll know that. If I just play a Dm chord by itself you can't hear
that any way than some isolated chord. It has no function. Only when you
progression from chord to chord does function come into play.
Learn to recognize the root's and the common patterns/progressions in
functional music and you'll learn functional harmony.
I am not saying what you are saying is wrong. But it seems a very long
winded way to explain it. Your ear, if you are used to functional music,
will automatically hear the tonic and all chords relative to it and it's up
to you just to recognize which steps on the scale those chords are and there
quality.
That is, I'm sure no matter what key you are in, you hear the V chord as a V
chord? It is most likely something ingrained in your brain by now. You may
not realize it is a V chord but if you recognize the root then you should
know "Hey, I've heard that before and I hear that root movement of a 5th".
What is important is that you recognize the tonic, the root, and the
quality. This will cover everything you need to know about progressions. If
you want to "learn" function then you can read about it in a book. It is
just common progressions used and not something you can "figure out" except
that they tend to feel natural in the first place.
\

Its not that a lot of things that you are saying is not true, but the
way that you are looking at things seems as though you are having
context problems. later I think you comment abougt a Dmin chord as
being simply a Dmin chord. Well since the title of the thread is
"functional harmonic ear training" that makes your statement true in
some unrelated context but in the context of functional harmony, it is
false.

Her you are talking about the importance of recognizint the Tonic, its
root and everything about it. In fact, it is usually more important to
recognize the Dominant. The dominant really defines the tonality in
CPP and related genres. In Jazz for example, as well as in late
Romantic music, the tonic is rarely reached. Wagner will often go into
a deceptive cadence or even a direct modulation once the dominant is
realized. This is true to a lesser extent in the earlier Baroque
period, but it is still true. It is the final dominant of the phrase
that is the climax of the phrase and the tonic merely gets home. It's
some what like taking a trip. It is the end of the trip that signals
the ultimate experience and the return to your home base is merely a
return to normality.

I don't know where you got this progression, but it is not typical of
any period that I know of. The G7 going to the D7 is not a common
practice in the CPP nor is it a typical functional progression. It
might have occured someplace and it might have even appeared in some
CPP piece but that does not make it a functional progression. your
example here is NOT a functional progression at that point and should
not be presented as an example of a functional progression. In
functional harmony, the G7 would be a secondary dominant and this
would not qualify as a deceptive cadence in any style that had the
rest of the progressionsl and THEN THE Eb7 is mispelled if it is to be
functional in the CPP style and if it is in a Jazz style, it is of the
TTS catagorie and this might be common practice in a jazz setting,
but again, is not typical in the CPP and that F chord is totallay out
of place in functional harmony.

You are using a non functional progression to justify your argument of
how the F note can be used in a functional setting, but your example
to prove it is not a functional example. It might sound good if
realized correctly but Functionality and sounding OK is not the same
thing. ]

Post by Jeff Johnson
Eb7 D7 is a strong dominant progression because of the potential quadruple
half-step resolution to the dominant of G. It focuses a tone of attention of
the D7 chord.

In CPP this would be maybe an Eb G Bb C# chord and it would be in the
secondary dominant class and is an augmented 6th chord. Functional,
yes, but ther is no F note and your explanation is not really on
target.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Every chord above is easily seen in some relation to G. The F chord looks a
bit out of place but it resolves strongly to Em which is part of G.

Relating a chord to G does not make it functional. Musical maybe and
maybe not, but noot functional.

Post by Jeff Johnson
At any point in time we might not be completely aware where the progression
is going but the only key that stands out as the tonic is G. Your ear will
easily pick that up. Your ear also picks up the function. The function is
just what the chords are doing.

Again, just because your ear might hear the overall progression as
having the G as tonic, does not mean that it is functional. You can
hear a tonic in the Renaisance mucis in all of the music (maybe a
freak exception) but this music is not functional. Your errors are
those of context. If youare callling something functional, that means
specific things and you don't seem to see the distinction of
functionality and tonality.

Functional harmony is by definition tonal, but tonal music is not
necessarily tonal!

Post by Jeff Johnson
Dm in that progression is functioning as a dominant preparation to the G7
chord. The G7 chord is functioning as a IV7/V of the D7 chord.

This is a very grey area. Maybe if you specy what style of music you
are talking about, this could be a functional progression, but IV7/ V
is not generally recognized as a functional progression. The question
is where did you get this progression. It sounds like an arbitrary
progression of chords and you just added a IV7/V as a functional
progression. In what genre is this a functional progression/

Post by Jeff Johnson
Analysis would be
I V7 I ii/IV V7/IV V7 I bVII vi Ger+6 V7 I
which could be written as
I V7 I [ii V7]/IV V7 I bVII vi Ger+6 V7 I

Again, bVII vi might be tonal, but this is not a generally recognized
functional progression! Tonal yes, functional? Not really. Exceptions
do not make a rule.

The rest is all built on these flimsy suppositions. So I won't
continue with this unless you want to make the effort to straighten
out your context problems. You are not really so wrong as my comments
might suggest, but they are really out of context. Functional Harmony
is a rather strict and specific context. Tonality is a different story
and it has more room for variation. In the context of Functional
Harmony, you are taking the wrong road. Expand your explanation to
TONAL MUSIC and you are much closer to the truth.
LJS

Post by Jeff Johnson
Note the ii/IV IV7/IV are more related to the IV chord of G than G itself
but since they don't go outside of G they are still in relation to G. If we
changed it up every so slightly things could change drastically,
G C G Dm G7 C G F Em Eb7 C G
Changed the D7 chords to a C chord,
V I V ii V7 I V7 IV iii ? I V
In this case the progression now sounds more in C. Now there is a some
ambuguity in the Eb7 chord. This is a mediant relationship and is not as
common BUT since it doesn't seem to do anything it doesn't change the key.
It seemsly is a temporarily disruption but nothing to upset C's reign.
I Obviously changed a very important chord in the progression above as it
was enough to change the key even though all the other chords stayed the
same.
You ear tells you all the information you need to know. Function is just
what happens with a chord. That Eb7 chord is non-functional because it
doesn't behave any way it should. It's just kinda stuck in there but doesn't
make much sense because people normally did not do that kinda thing. If they
did then there would be some name for it.

Post by Dan S
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?

? D is not diatonic to C.
D is more related to G7.
the progression is
V/V ii V7 I
In fact it may be better to write this as
II ii V7 I
as the D chord seems to be acting as a true major II chord since it
immediately resolves to it's diatonic quality. D is still not diatonic to C
though as it is not directly related to it. This is very similar to the
above case. D is more related to G than C and therefore thats how we treat
it.

I think you are trying to hear things in a strange way. In any case, no
matter which one you chose the goal is completely different.
You are trying to be able to understand the progressions. These generally
means naming the chords. If you can write out the progression then it
doesn't matter how you figure out the note relations.
Either method should give the same results. Functional harmony is more about
relations to the tonic and jazz is more about the current chord but thats
not the point of it all. The point is to be able to understand what is
going on so you can do something with it.
If you wanting to notate a song then you simply need to be able to hear the
chord roots in absolute pitch or at least relative to the tonic and then
figure out the tonic. If you want to solo over a chord progression then you
need to do the same thing. If it's easier for you to hear the notes relative
to the chord root then thats fine. If it's easier to hear them relative to
the "key" then thats fine. Both cases should lead you to the same result of
understand what is going on in a chord progression. Both have there merits.
For music that has a lot of ambiguity it may be much more difficult to hear
things relative to a tonic because no tonic may exist. In this case just
hearing stuff relative to the current chord would be better. If your more
into tonal music then it would be more advantagous to hear things relative
to the tonic.
Basically your mind does a calculation. Something like 3 + 4 = 7 = 4 + 3.
You can start with 3 and add 4 or start with 4 and add 3. Both methods,
ideally will lead you to the same result.
Function is different. Chords built on the b6th step were commonly used in
classical music and hence were given a name. Slightly different versions
existed and each given a separate name. You should be able to hear the
function quite easily. Eb7 D7 is totally different than Eb7 Ab. In fact, you
hear it. But if ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-27 15:31:09 UTC

IMO You should learn to hear it both ways.

Post by Dan S
In both examples (2 4 6 and 1 b3 5) the triad is heard as minor,
however the functional quality of the notes has changed. I assume if
I hear D F A as 1 b3 5 then this would be a minor i chord.
One thing I was wondering about is modulation vs. a cadence that
G Dm G7 C
vs.
C Dm G7 C

The problem with movable-doh-style solfege is that its practitioners
need to be very well versed in RN analysis to the point that they are
always aware of what doh is and when it has changed.
With simple music this is simple.
With more complex music, it is more complicated.
And some really common music, eg the blues, is actually quite complex
and difficult to analyse via standard means.

I think you are the right track though.
Learn to sing root progressions using solfege or RN designations.
If you already have the ability to be able to identify chord type (maj,
min, maj7, dom7, etc.) based on sound, then putting these two abilities
together should get you into the practical space you need to be in in
order to play music.

Post by Dan S
What is going on in terms of pitch function over Dm and G7 in these
two progression - it doesn't seem like the Dm and G7 are the same
between these two progressions. In one case you are in G...so the Dm
has F instead of F#. Is that note heard as a b7 in G? I don't think
you have modulated at that point. Where does the modulation take
place? i.e. when does the F sound like the 4th degree of C (and when
is C heard as the tonic instead of G)? The thing about modulations
is: from a theory standpoint it seems very straight forward to say the
G Dm G7 C is just G:I C:ii V7 I . But from a hearing standpoint you
can't tell the future of where the chords are going.
In the other case, D Dm G7 C, everthing is diatonic so no change of
pitch function with respect to the tonic has occured. Right?
Another question I has is about the dominant chord in general. Should
all the notes of a functioning dominant be heard in relation to the
tonic or in relation to the root of the dominant? I assume in
relation to the tonic. Is this way of hearing the same in jazz with
altered chords?

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Dan S

2010-08-27 18:13:39 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
The problem with movable-doh-style solfege is that its practitioners
need to be very well versed in RN analysis to the point that they are
always aware of what doh is and when it has changed.
With simple music this is simple.
With more complex music, it is more complicated.
And some really common music, eg the blues, is actually quite complex
and difficult to analyse via standard means.
I think you are the right track though.
Learn to sing root progressions using solfege or RN designations.
If you already have the ability to be able to identify chord type (maj,
min, maj7, dom7, etc.) based on sound, then putting these two abilities
together should get you into the practical space you need to be in in
order to play music.

Thanks Joey - I am still working on chord identification (I've done
very little work on it). As far as blues I am working on that too. I
have been studying Mathieu's Harmonic Experience book and have made
some good progress with it. It helped me to understand some of the
sounds I've been hearing. I haven't worked too much with the seventh
partial stuff, but from a musical standpoint I am getting better with
singing blue notes.

LJS

2010-08-30 01:51:54 UTC

If you are really interested in sight singing and learning to train
your ear with functional music as well as tonal music (from a modal
approach) I highly recommend that you look at the Zoltan Kodaly books
on Ear Training. He was a Hungarian composer who was also one of the
world's most successful educator in music literacy. His mission was to
make all the music students of Hungary musically literate and if
students are taught his method of ear training, by the time they are
through the 6th or 7th grade, they are what passes today for
professional singers that can sight read and sing in tune and with
musical style and expression vocal music of all functional and most
tonal genres. Write me personally and I will try to find the time to
look up one of my descriptions of two of the starting exercises to
improve your tonal ear or maybe I can find one of the previous times I
put it on paper and forward it to you.

I don't know the book you mention, but if it was writen after Kodaly
did his, it is probably a wattered down version of his method. I say
that because you seem to have a good sense that functional music is
something specific and special, but since you are somewhat confused, I
suspect that you have not been through the Kodaly systems.
LJS

LJS

2010-08-29 04:45:57 UTC

IMO You should learn to hear it both ways.

Well, this might be true for some, but it really doesn't have to be
complex at all. Someone mentioned above about hearing things relative
to tonic. This points out quite clearly that movable Do ( I don't know
about Simpson's Doh, maybe that is a different thing lol) is for tonal
music. Baroque with simply key relationships or Romantic music with
extended harmonic colors are the same. Functional CPPish progressions
and melodic patterns centered around tonic. Learning SoFa (solfeggio)
will develop the ear to hear the harmony in a manner that will
parallel the learning ot RN notation. In fact, RN is the same thing as
SoFa.

If one does not understand that they are the same thing, (SoFa and RN)
then either or both of the processes are not properly understood. When
putting a melody into SoFa, even if the chromatic tones are used
extensively, the base SoFa syllables will be similar weather or not
you are in major, minor or any of the Church modes or in any created
modes that are tonal in nature. If they are not, chances are that they
are not TONAL and if this is the case, then SoFa is not the best tool
to be used for this music.

The thing that often precludes the young student's learning to
properly understand how simple music like the Blues fits in is the
misconception that CPP is "the one and only" environment for tonal
music. The Blues is tonal and the Blues is simple. Music does not have
to be CPP in order to be tonal. When the student looks at everything
as if it has to fit into CPP patterns, he has lost his perspective of
music and becomes trapped inside a one dimensional world that will
doom his creativity and close his ears to so much music that is around
in the world.

Just as music prior to CPP has its own patterns of tonality, so does
music like the blues. If one has problems hearing SoFa when applied to
the blues, one doesn not understand that the Blues conventions,
although different from strict CPP has Blues conventions and these
conventions is just as important and clear and simple as the concept
of Major, Minor, Dorian from a scalar point of view, and it is just as
simple to recognize that the V IV I pattern is just as tonal as the I
IV V I or the II V I. The first is simply a BLUES pattern of
progression and the latter ones is simply conventions of the the CPP.
In other CPP contexts, we LEARN the newer contexts of tonality that
appear in the CPP such as the bII6 V I (or variations) as appears in
classical CPP and as we learn the patterns of tri-tone subs as
conventions of tonality.

If this seems complicated to your students, then they have somehow
fallen into the trap that CPP is the one and only thing that music
about. Even within the CPP there is so much deviance and so many
subsets that to even use the term CPP in the context of a standard for
tonality is an indication that they have somehow been trapped in a box
that makes them blind to the larger picture of music and how various
genres and styles relate to each other and how they differ from each
other yet still share that basic concept of tonality.

If you find that you are getting students that have been led into this
box, I would suggest that you show them how (and this is a simple
example just to serve as an illustration of the principle) a " La Mi
Me Re Do Sol La " pattern is typical of the Blues and if you run
across it when La is the key, that they are singing the Blues and not
typical CPP but if they are singing a Do Sol Fa Mi Re Ti Do pattern
they are probably singing a major scale pattern as used in some genres
of the CPP.

In this manner, you can help to erase the erroneous perspective that
they have picked up someplace that SoFa is ONLY about CPP. If you can
do that, then it will become very simple and they will not have any
more problems with clearly seeing how SoFa can be used not only with
ALL tonal music, but how one can learn Blues, CPP, Romantic, Folk, or
ANY tonal music not only simply with the use of CPP patterns.

This is a general and simplified explanation of how it works. If you,
or anyone, does not understand that SoFa is a tool to heaing and
learning to understand tonal music and if used properly, it helps to
make ALL tonal music simple. Face it, there is nothing complicated
about tonal music. There is a home base, you move away from it, and
you come back. The journey you take while doing this creates all the
various styles and genres of tonal music.

I will be happy to go into this with exact techniques and processes on
how to use SoFa for anyone that wants to learn how to use it so that
it makes things simple rather than complicated. As I tell my students:
music theory consists of a multitude of very simple layers, each of
which is extremely simple but the overall picture take shape and depht
and becomes complicated as the layers are added and we listen to them
simoultaneously. Understanding music theory is looking for these
concepts and unravelling the layers and reducing the target music to
its simplest and most basic layers.

Sorry about the mispellings and typo's, I have a new mini computer and
I have not had time to put the spell check into my reader.

There are already so many posts in this group, after a long period of
inactivity, that I may not be able to read them all in a short period
of time. If you are interested in learning how to use SoFmore simply,
please reply to author and I will do what I can to help you see how to
use it in a timely manner.

LJS

Post by Joey Goldstein
I think you are the right track though.
Learn to sing root progressions using solfege or RN designations.
If you already have the ability to be able to identify chord type (maj,
min, maj7, dom7, etc.) based on sound, then putting these two abilities
together should get you into the practical space you need to be in in
order to play music.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dan S

2010-08-29 05:45:39 UTC

Post by LJS
If one does not understand that they are the same thing, (SoFa and RN)
then either or both of the processes are not properly understood. When
putting a melody into SoFa, even if the chromatic tones are used
extensively, the base SoFa syllables will be similar weather or not
you are in major, minor or any of the Church modes or in any created
modes that are tonal in nature. If they are not, chances are that they
are not TONAL and if this is the case, then SoFa is not the best tool
to be used for this music.

Yes! this is exactly my understanding of it...but I wasn't sure if
this is how other people viewed it.

For "not TONAL" music, I have a book called "Modus Novus" for atonal
sight singing. I haven't looked at it yet though.

Post by LJS
The thing that often precludes the young student's learning to
properly understand how simple music like the Blues fits in is the
misconception that CPP is "the one and only" environment for tonal
music. The Blues is tonal and the Blues is simple. Music does not have
to be CPP in order to be tonal. When the student looks at everything
as if it has to fit into CPP patterns, he has lost his perspective of
music and becomes trapped inside a one dimensional world that will
doom his creativity and close his ears to so much music that is around
in the world.

I am getting better at blues. I am by no means an expert at it or
even intermediate I would estimate...but here are some of my
observations. One thing is to be sensitive to the microtonal
inflections. I found it helpful to use a strobe tuner and sing the
chromatic scale. You can use the strobe tuner to get very accurately
near the pitch of each chromatic note. After being in tune with a
given note, then practice going sharp or flat of that note in small
increments by looking at the strobe tuner.

This seems to help to hear and vocally control microtonal
inflections. Of course, this is a "method" as oppose to people who
just "do it"...but it has helped me.

Another thing about blues theory...In the Mathieu Harmonic Experience
book he talks about 7-limit notes. These notes are based on the
seventh partial, which is flat of the equal tempered b7. The theory
behind the blues is that the blue notes come from 7-limit, and that
all the dominant chords in the blues are based on these 7-limit notes
(except for the final dominant chord in a blues progression - that
chord is functioning as a dominant). There is also something in
barbershop quartet singing called the "barbershop seventh" that is
based on this. This type of dominant chord is stable and can be used
as a place of rest.

So blues might not be that simple after all :)

LJS

2010-08-30 02:41:57 UTC

Yes! this is exactly my understanding of it...but I wasn't sure if
this is how other people viewed it.
For "not TONAL" music, I have a book called "Modus Novus" for atonal
sight singing. I haven't looked at it yet though.

The blues is simply one other genre of music. It is definately tonal,
it has a rather strict and rigid harmonic make up although it may,
depending on the style, use elaborate substitutions, but the basic
form of the harmony is still the basic "12 bar blues" scheme.

Post by Dan S
This seems to help to hear and vocally control microtonal
inflections. Of course, this is a "method" as oppose to people who
just "do it"...but it has helped me.

Don't confuse the "blue note" and the African influence on the scale.
This is part of its roots and then the various branches of the tree of
evolution grow, the substitutions for these make it more of a "12-tet"
form where although the melody might have the quarter tones associated
with the "blue notes" but the background harmony actually evolves to
very functional variations.

In other words, the basic Blues is not CPP tonal. BUT in practice,
especially in the Jazz idiom, the subsitutions of the harmony become
more strictly functional in nature. One obvious example is the last 4
bars of the 12 bar blues where the progession is typically V/// |
IV /// | I/// |////. The first substitution to make the functional
Jazz version is to change this to: ii7 / / / | V7 / / / | I / / / |
I / / / . Then the melody may include either the functional scales
and their traditional and stylistic substitutions as well as being
overlayed with the tratitional Blues scale ( C Eb F F#/Gb G Bb C )
along with its stylistic Blue note quarter tones. The form of the
piece as well as the melodic influences will overide functionality and
create a Blues style being superimposed over a Functional Harmonic
style. It sounds a lot more complex to explain in words, but it might
be explained by the old saying about improvising on ANY jazz tune: "If
you don't know what to play when you improvise, just play the blues
insead over the form!" Or in other words, play the tonal blues scale
and if your melody is good, your solo will be good even if it is not
following the chords. lol

BUT this is a "crutch" and is not the theory that you are inquiring
about. The Blues itself is very simple. But because of its
universality and its infinite number of different variations of
specifics of style, there are a myriad of "right ways" to play the
blues. Its not so much confusing as it is so many different ways to be
right! Its and example of "it's so simple, it evades you".

LJS

Post by Dan S
Another thing about blues theory...In the Mathieu Harmonic Experience
book he talks about 7-limit notes. These notes are based on the
seventh partial, which is flat of the equal tempered b7. The theory
behind the blues is that the blue notes come from 7-limit, and that
all the dominant chords in the blues are based on these 7-limit notes
(except for the final dominant chord in a blues progression - that
chord is functioning as a dominant). There is also something in
barbershop quartet singing called the "barbershop seventh" that is
based on this. This type of dominant chord is stable and can be used
as a place of rest.
So blues might not be that simple after all :)

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-30 07:46:46 UTC

Dan, I recorded this little progression while I had the ol' guitar out that
I thought you might be interested in.

http://wikisend.com/download/440042/Chord Prog.mp4

You said in another post

"I still don't quite understand the major/minor system."

Can you describe to me what you hear harmonically and describe why it sounds
the way it does? I know it's just a short progression but lets assume for
sake of argument that it is the entire song. The progression consists of 6
chords and the phrase is repeated 3 times.

As far as what can be tonicized in a key, anything can. The further away
from the tonic though the harder or less likely it would be heard as
tonicized. One can easily tonicize any maj/min chord in any key. But the
diatonic chords are the most likely candidates because they are from the
closest keys.

Joey said that only the diatonic chords can be tonicized but this is simple
not true. It is just much easier to tonicize diatonic chords because the
sound the most related and will more likely be perceived the way they were
meant.

The key of C major contains all the chords possible. A hierarchy exists
though with the Cmaj triad at the top and chords like F#dim, Ebmaj, etc
towards the bottom. These chords are in the key of Cmaj but are not diatonic
and seem to fit more into other keys. Hence when they are played they pull
away from Cmaj more than they seem to reinforce it. If used with taste they
can be made to work just fine in C.

Does the above progression seem relatively diatonic? That is, do you get a
sense of one tonal center with all the chords being closely related? Are
there chords that seem to tug away from the tonic? If so which ones and what
do they seem to be tugging towards(if away from the tonic then which
direction)?

While the fingerpicking may be rather bland the progression is a bit more
adventuresome.

Once you settle on a a tonic can you give me a roman numeral analysis?

"As long as I can functionally hear each chord or melody as related to C,
then I don't understand the distinction between major and minor"

Does that progression sound like it's in major or minor? Any idea why?
(theres the simple answer then the more complex answer)

Dan S

2010-08-30 16:43:04 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
Dan, I recorded this little progression while I had the ol' guitar out that
I thought you might be interested in.
http://wikisend.com/download/440042/ChordProg.mp4
You said in another post
"I still don't quite understand the major/minor system."
Can you describe to me what you hear harmonically and describe why it sounds
the way it does? I know it's just a short progression but lets assume for
sake of argument that it is the entire song. The progression consists of 6
chords and the phrase is repeated 3 times.
As far as what can be tonicized in a key, anything can. The further away
from the tonic though the harder or less likely it would be heard as
tonicized. One can easily tonicize any maj/min chord in any key. But the
diatonic chords are the most likely candidates because they are from the
closest keys.
Joey said that only the diatonic chords can be tonicized but this is simple
not true. It is just much easier to tonicize diatonic chords because the
sound the most related and will more likely be perceived the way they were
meant.
The key of C major contains all the chords possible. A hierarchy exists
though with the Cmaj triad at the top and chords like F#dim, Ebmaj, etc
towards the bottom. These chords are in the key of Cmaj but are not diatonic
and seem to fit more into other keys. Hence when they are played they pull
away from Cmaj more than they seem to reinforce it. If used with taste they
can be made to work just fine in C.
Does the above progression seem relatively diatonic? That is, do you get a
sense of one tonal center with all the chords being closely related? Are
there chords that seem to tug away from the tonic? If so which ones and what
do they seem to be tugging towards(if away from the tonic then which
direction)?
While the fingerpicking may be rather bland the progression is a bit more
adventuresome.
Once you settle on a a tonic can you give me a roman numeral analysis?
"As long as I can functionally hear each chord or melody as related to C,
then I don't understand the distinction between major and minor"
Does that progression sound like it's in major or minor? Any idea why?
(theres the simple answer then the more complex answer)

I like the progression...I had to put it in transcribe sw to analyze
it.

Just on initial hearing of it, it sounded minor to me, except for some
of the chords I thought could be lydian. But it was a guess. I
couldn't tell for sure.

This is the analysis I have. The tonality I would say is C# minor for
the most part. The tonic stays in C#.

C#min Amaj F#7 D#7 G#min Cdim

i VI IV7 II7 v vii

I'm actually not sure the correct way to notate this in RN. For
example the Amaj chord I'm not sure if I should use VI or bVI. I know
there are several RN systems.

The first 2 and last 2 chords belong to C# minor. The root
progression of G C C#, along with the Cdim sound definitely has a
minor sound to it.

The thing I was hearing for lydian turned out to be the major 3rd of
the D#7 chord, which is a #4 when compared to the tonality of C#.

Dan S

2010-08-30 16:49:55 UTC

The first 2 and last 2 chords belong to C# minor. The root
progression of G C C#, along with the Cdim sound definitely has a
minor sound to it.

Oops I meant G# C C# (not G natural).

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-30 20:55:08 UTC

I like the progression...I had to put it in transcribe sw to analyze
it.
Just on initial hearing of it, it sounded minor to me, except for some
of the chords I thought could be lydian. But it was a guess. I
couldn't tell for sure.
This is the analysis I have. The tonality I would say is C# minor for
the most part. The tonic stays in C#.
C#min Amaj F#7 D#7 G#min Cdim
i VI IV7 II7 v vii
I'm actually not sure the correct way to notate this in RN. For
example the Amaj chord I'm not sure if I should use VI or bVI. I know
there are several RN systems.
The first 2 and last 2 chords belong to C# minor. The root
progression of G C C#, along with the Cdim sound definitely has a
minor sound to it.
The thing I was hearing for lydian turned out to be the major 3rd of
the D#7 chord, which is a #4 when compared to the tonality of C#.

Before we discuss what is actually happening could you do this: Put it on a
loop so there are no breaks. Listen to it and attempt to hear the G#m chord
as the tonic. You can even go out of the room and come in in the middle of
it(point is not to hear the first chord or forget it). Don't try to analyze
it but just ignore the music. Then come back to it and let your ear tell you
the "tonic"

I'm just curious which one you really hear as the tonic. If you think C#m is
the tonic then you might hear it as the tonic and if you think G#m is the
tonic you might hear it as that. Really you need to sort of ask your ears
which is the chord that sounds the most final.

Your analysis for the II7 chord seems to suggestion you are not looking at
function. Do you really here that D#7 as function as a II7 in C#m? The II7
chord in C#m is D#halfdim. It could be borrowed from C#maj but thats still
D#m7.

Remember, function requires you to "look backwards" in time. So to determine
that the D#7 chord is you gotta get to the G#m chord first. You really look
forward but when you are listening you don't know the chord comming
up(unless you've memorized the piece) so on listening you must look
backwards(which can be hard to do). Realize in 95% of the music one can
easily predict the function because progressions are not random and good
ones are repeatedly used. So in some sense even if you haven't heard a song
before chances are you have heard the progression and can
"predict/guess/estimate" the function by using your memory of other songs as
a guide.

After you do that exercise I'll tell you what I hear but I want to first see
if we can get on the same page. Remember what is important is the tonic
chord and nothing about modes, quality of chords, etc. If you hear more
than one tonic give them all and rate them on strength.

Dan S

2010-08-31 07:05:43 UTC

I like the progression...I had to put it in transcribe sw to analyze
it.
Just on initial hearing of it, it sounded minor to me, except for some
of the chords I thought could be lydian. But it was a guess. I
couldn't tell for sure.
This is the analysis I have. The tonality I would say is C# minor for
the most part. The tonic stays in C#.
C#min Amaj F#7 D#7 G#min Cdim
i VI IV7 II7 v vii
I'm actually not sure the correct way to notate this in RN. For
example the Amaj chord I'm not sure if I should use VI or bVI. I know
there are several RN systems.
The first 2 and last 2 chords belong to C# minor. The root
progression of G C C#, along with the Cdim sound definitely has a
minor sound to it.
The thing I was hearing for lydian turned out to be the major 3rd of
the D#7 chord, which is a #4 when compared to the tonality of C#.

Before we discuss what is actually happening could you do this: Put it on a
loop so there are no breaks. Listen to it and attempt to hear the G#m chord
as the tonic. You can even go out of the room and come in in the middle of
it(point is not to hear the first chord or forget it). Don't try to analyze
it but just ignore the music. Then come back to it and let your ear tell you
the "tonic"
I'm just curious which one you really hear as the tonic. If you think C#m is
the tonic then you might hear it as the tonic and if you think G#m is the
tonic you might hear it as that. Really you need to sort of ask your ears
which is the chord that sounds the most final.
Your analysis for the II7 chord seems to suggestion you are not looking at
function. Do you really here that D#7 as function as a II7 in C#m? The II7
chord in C#m is D#halfdim. It could be borrowed from C#maj but thats still
D#m7.
Remember, function requires you to "look backwards" in time. So to determine
that the D#7 chord is you gotta get to the G#m chord first. You really look
forward but when you are listening you don't know the chord comming
up(unless you've memorized the piece) so on listening you must look
backwards(which can be hard to do). Realize in 95% of the music one can
easily predict the function because progressions are not random and good
ones are repeatedly used. So in some sense even if you haven't heard a song
before chances are you have heard the progression and can
"predict/guess/estimate" the function by using your memory of other songs as
a guide.
After you do that exercise I'll tell you what I hear but I want to first see
if we can get on the same page. Remember what is important is the tonic
chord and nothing about modes, quality of chords, etc. If you hear more
than one tonic give them all and rate them on strength.

ok ... I can hear that D#7 as the V7 of G#m, but the Cdim seems to
lead to C#m as a tonic as well. I tried to hear Amaj as a tonic and
could hear it that way too. So in that case Cdim C#m Amaj would be
bIIIdim III I
For F#7 D#7 Gm its bVII7 V7 i

C#m is the strongest for me because of the way the roots are moving.
The progression stays briefly on G#m.

Jeff Johnson

2010-09-01 05:16:39 UTC

Post by Dan S
ok ... I can hear that D#7 as the V7 of G#m, but the Cdim seems to
lead to C#m as a tonic as well. I tried to hear Amaj as a tonic and
could hear it that way too. So in that case Cdim C#m Amaj would be
bIIIdim III I
For F#7 D#7 Gm its bVII7 V7 i
C#m is the strongest for me because of the way the roots are moving.
The progression stays briefly on G#m.

the Cdim chord is really a B#dim7 chord and dim7 chords can act like
incomplete dom 9th chords.

[G] B D F = Bdim = oG7. Adding the minor 9th for the minor mode gives B D F
Ab = oG9.

The progression is

C#m:[i VI IV7] G#m:[V7 i oV9/iv]

You hear C#m as the tonic because it is tonicized. G#m is also tonicized.

In functional harmony the dominant to tonic progression is the strongest and
defines a tonic the most clearly. In this case we have two possible tonics,
G#m and C#m.

Depending on the specifics you could either either on as the tonic. In this
case there are actually two tonics. This is mainly because there is no
cadence and it just repeats. A proper cadence will should make things much
clearer. I hear G#m as the main tonic becuase of the true dom7 rather than
the incomplete. That P5 root movement just makes it feel slightly resolves.
Proper voice leading would have made the progression's function be more
obvious.

The mode is minor because a minor chord is tonicized(be it G#m or C#m or
both).

In any case it's not so much which is right because there is no absolute
right answer. What is important is that you hear it in a way that makes
sense to you. Say you were to have to solo over such a progression. Suppose
you were trying to find the most comfortable key? Would you goto C#m, A, G#m
or something else? If you chose C#m would you need to alter some tones to
make it "fit" over some chords?

If your ears say the tonic is C#m through out then using C#m pentatonic
should work very well throughout. If your ear says C#m but some chord
doesn't seem to fit in that tonality then C#m probably won't work well over
that chord(doesn't mean you can't do it but then the melody might not flow
with harmony). In this case C#m works really well because all those chords
can be from C#m. Your original analysis is somewhat correct in that sense.
C#m over the F#7 chord is obviously done all the time in blues. C#m over the
D#7 chord is ok but the 3rd, F##, is missing from the scale. It is an
important tone for that chord but if contained in the harmony is not
explicitly needed in the melody. The last chord, the B#dim7 = oG9 is also
slightly problematic as the C#m scale does not contain the B#. Not necessary
but a lack of unity between the melody and harmony could be created.

So one could blindly get away with just using C#m over the whole
progression. Your ear can tell you this. If you hear C#m as the tonic and
hear all the chords as being closely related to it then that scale should be
ok. If you use G#m as the tonic then some chords will stand out. The way I
hear it is where the first 3 chords are more C#m like and the next 2 are G#m
like while the last (B#dim7) is a a G#9 chord but I do not hear it as
harmonic minor but a V9/iv. (more related to G#m than C#m).

My point about how you hear it is simply to develop some method of
understanding what you ear. For example, Suppose I hear that progression in
G#m and you hear it in C#m. Neither of us is wrong unless we can't apply how
we hear something to make music. If you hear it in C#m and choose the C#m
pentatonic and make an awesome solo over it and I can do the same with G#m
and altering some notes here and there to fit the current chords then we
both are right. We may or may not sound alike.

If, say, I were to use G#m, cause my ear told me that, but on the Amaj chord
I got lost and used really strange note choices then it would be bad. Now,
it may actually sound cool... and if I could remember that sound and apply
it in future situations then it would be a good thing. But it would be wrong
if I didn't understand what was going on and just "faked it". Faking it as a
musician might get you by sometimes but the great musicians don't fake it.

The ultimate goal for you is to "make sense of what you ear". Usually this
is done by giving names to the sounds you hear. Because one chord can
"sound" so many different ways depending on context this is where learning
about function comes in. It's basically names for those different types of
sound's that were used in cpp music.

Probably the best way you can learn this is read a good book on cpp harmony
then listen to a lot of cpp music and attempt to "hear" what you have read.
There are many good books on cpp harmony to help you and all have examples
with the functional harmony analyzed. Some have CD's for you to hear the
music and see the analysis.

It seems like you have some foundation in ear training and just need to get
the "vocab" down. For example, in C#m the "vii" chord is B#dim and not Cdim
even though they are the same sonority. There is no C in C#m for technical
reasons. Also rarely does one has a v chord in minor for functional music.
It is almost always altered to be a V chord so that it leads to the tonic.
In the mp3 you can think of it like i VI IV7 V7/V v V9 but what this is
really telling you is that it's not a v chord but a tonicization of the
dominant step. So we are sort of entering the G#m but just temporarily.

For example, just because you use F# in the key C major does not mean you
are something envoking lydian. Lydian is a mode, it is almost like a key. It
has it's own sound. If you are in Cmajor then using F# in certain ways will
not change that. That is the power of the tonic. It can withstand a lot of
punishment and still be the tonic.

Dan S

2010-09-02 15:02:59 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
If your ears say the tonic is C#m through out then using C#m pentatonic
should work very well throughout. If your ear says C#m but some chord
doesn't seem to fit in that tonality then C#m probably won't work well over
that chord(doesn't mean you can't do it but then the melody might not flow
with harmony). In this case C#m works really well because all those chords
can be from C#m. Your original analysis is somewhat correct in that sense.
C#m over the F#7 chord is obviously done all the time in blues. C#m over the
D#7 chord is ok but the 3rd, F##, is missing from the scale. It is an
important tone for that chord but if contained in the harmony is not
explicitly needed in the melody. The last chord, the B#dim7 = oG9 is also
slightly problematic as the C#m scale does not contain the B#. Not necessary
but a lack of unity between the melody and harmony could be created.
So one could blindly get away with just using C#m over the whole
progression. Your ear can tell you this. If you hear C#m as the tonic and
hear all the chords as being closely related to it then that scale should be
ok. If you use G#m as the tonic then some chords will stand out. The way I
hear it is where the first 3 chords are more C#m like and the next 2 are G#m
like while the last (B#dim7) is a a G#9 chord but I do not hear it as
harmonic minor but a V9/iv. (more related to G#m than C#m).

Thanks for these comments Jeff. I think for me I am not separating
"functional harmony" in the classical sense with how I hear it. So I
need to keep in mind the what the term "functional harmony" means.
Because it seems there can still be a tonality in "non-functional"
harmony and you can hear it that way too.

For example I can hear it the way you're saying - C#m being tonicized
and G#m being tonicized.

I would assume that is more of a "functional harmony" way of hearing
it.

Post by Jeff Johnson
In the mp3 you can think of it like i VI IV7 V7/V v V9 but what this is
really telling you is that it's not a v chord but a tonicization of the
dominant step. So we are sort of entering the G#m but just temporarily.

Yes I need to be more sensitive to these things as far as
tonicization. One of the things I'm trying to do is to figure out how
to sing (and hear) the harmony. So if the tonicization is temporary I
might try to hear it just as that - a tonicization and not a
modulation. In that case, the whole thing would be sung relative to
C# as the tonality. This strategy is something that needs to be
worked out ahead of time.

For sight singing purposes, I'm not sure how people handle it. I
think this is one of the arguments of "fixed-do" vs. "moveable-do".
The fixed-do camp says that method works best for modulation/
tonicization sight singing issues. However, regardless of methods, I
think it's still good to figure out exactly how you're hearing it.

Right now, I'm learning on simpler progressions so its not as much of
an issue.

Jeff Johnson

2010-09-03 00:25:50 UTC

Thanks for these comments Jeff. I think for me I am not separating
"functional harmony" in the classical sense with how I hear it. So I
need to keep in mind the what the term "functional harmony" means.
Because it seems there can still be a tonality in "non-functional"
harmony and you can hear it that way too.
For example I can hear it the way you're saying - C#m being tonicized
and G#m being tonicized.
I would assume that is more of a "functional harmony" way of hearing
it.

Exactly, but it's not so much a way of hearing it as it is describing what
happened rather that "what is happening".

I know this can be confusing because functional harmony might give you an
analysis that contradicts what you "hear" but if you learn to analyze in
"retrospect" you hear in a more functional way.

We talked about the memory problem and that limits you much more than using
a paper and pencil method. The final chord of a piece can completely change
your understanding of the harmony. If you take a simple non-modulating piece
by Bach and end on a chord 1/2 step below the key then that will completely
change the harmonic analysis(sort of). Do you hear it that way? No! You
cannot listen to the future music(unless you have memorized it and even then
you can't do it well).

With functional harmony we try to relate everything perfectly. We generally
have much more time to do so and as much memory as we need(called a score).
But this can be very different than analyzing in real time.

I might even go as far to say that people don't hear in functional harmony.
People do recognize common patterns and if they've studied harmony my try to
relate some incomplete patterns they are hearing to functional harmonic
concepts but functional harmony is much more a pencil and paper result.
Mainly because most of us don't have memories that act as perfect playback
devices.

Yes I need to be more sensitive to these things as far as
tonicization. One of the things I'm trying to do is to figure out how
to sing (and hear) the harmony. So if the tonicization is temporary I
might try to hear it just as that - a tonicization and not a
modulation. In that case, the whole thing would be sung relative to
C# as the tonality. This strategy is something that needs to be
worked out ahead of time.
For sight singing purposes, I'm not sure how people handle it. I
think this is one of the arguments of "fixed-do" vs. "moveable-do".
The fixed-do camp says that method works best for modulation/
tonicization sight singing issues. However, regardless of methods, I
think it's still good to figure out exactly how you're hearing it.
Right now, I'm learning on simpler progressions so its not as much of
an issue.

I am not a great singer for sure so I cannot say. I know when I sing and a
strange non-diatonic harmony comes up I automagically almost always sing a
chord tone. I may fumble around for an instant looking for it but I don't
think "I'm sing an x interval against the root". I've noticed when just
making up melodies with my voice I tend to sing in 3rds in as much a conjuct
motion as possible unless I intentionally want to leap. It's as if the
harmony is pulling my voice to the right note and it is difficult for me to
sing a non-chord tone.

I cannot force myself to sing in m2nds(relative to the chord) as my voice
will quickly slip into the root. I can, of course sing sharp or flat but the
natural desire of my voice is to sing in consonance.

BUT, for a great singer you should be able to sing any interval you want on
demand. I promise you most Top-40 singers can't do this(if any).

I'm not sure what functional harmony has to do with learning to sing the way
you want because functional harmony is simply about describing the harmony
and not about so much about melodic choices. If you are doing a cappella
then it might be more meaningful but otherwise you'll almost always have the
melody and harmony done for you. If you want to do original vocal work and
want to create good melodic lines then I would say take the same approach
any instrumentalist takes.

In fact, simply treat the voice as an instrument because thats what it is.
One approach is to learn as much material as you can and subconsciously
you'll absorb whatever knowledge you'll need to improvise(as long as you
practice that too).

If you want to sing in a "functional way"(if that even makes sense). Then
sing a lot of classical/baroque vocal pieces. Just do this constantly for an
hour a day and within a year you'll have it down. Chances are you'll be able
to create tonal sounding melodies quite easily.

But if you just want to become a better singer then start singing. The more
you can sing, specially in a variety of styles, the better you'll get.

What I can say is that functional harmony WILL not tell you the next chord.
It may give you a number of possibilities but you'll be wrong more than not.
So hopefully your not looking for that.

I can't help you with improving your singing capabilities except by saying
that practice makes perfect. It also seems you think that when
singing/improvising that the tonic matters the most. This is not the case!
The chord is the is what matters! At least for tonal music. The tonic tells
you which is the most consonant scale to use but the current chord gives you
the 3 most consonant notes to use.

In almost all music the melodies are guided by the chord tones. For example,
in the key of C it is not a great idea to sing C over the G chord. The best
notes generally are the chord tones of that chord(G B D). This creates the
most consonant sound(not always what you want but). Even though C is the
tonic does not mean it is the best tone to sing any time.

The chord's almost act is tonics themselves. They rule the time they are on.
The "tonic" of a progression simply means that it is the most stable chord
of all the chords in a "large scale" sense. In the small scale each chord
rules.

If I'm soloing and I treat every chord like the tonic chord then it's going
to sound like I don't know the progression. It may sound cool depending on
what I do the dissonances created are not going to be resolved in ways that
they generally are.

If I have the progression I ii iii IV V vi viio I

and create a melody using random tones from the C major scale then the
melody will most likely sound random.

But if I use the chord tones then the that means my melody seems to be
"linked" to the harmony. Even this case can sound rather boring.

By combining the two you'll end up with a melody that seems to create
tension and release. Even this might not work if you do it without musical
effect.

As I said in an earlier post. The "key" sets up a hierarchy and some tones
have a need to resolve. This is all the tonic does. This is what the tonic
tells your ear. It does not tell you which notes go over which chords as the
chord says that.

In C Ionian, F RESOLVES TO E!!!!!!!
In F Lydian, E RESOLVES TO F!!!!!!!

Yet they consist of exactly the same notes!

If you are in C Ionian but you always resolve E to F are you really in C
Ionian? Probably not. You might be in F lydian, D Dorian, G Mixolydian, or
possibly B locrian.

You always hear that in the key of C major the B note resolves to C, right?
But you think this is the case in E phrygian, G mixolodian, or B locrian? In
those 3 keys the B note is stable relative to the "tonic". There for B has
no need for B to move(of course it will need to move if you want an
interesting melody).

Also, in C major, If you play a B note over a G chord, will B feel unstable?
No! It will feel stable because the G chord supports it. It creates no
dissonant with the current chord(G). BUT It is dissonant(unstable) with
respect to the tonic!

So when that G chord changes to a C chord the most natural way for the B to
move is up by step to C.

Suppose we have the progression in C Major

C G7 C G - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

and that last G continues for a very long time. B will sound stable on that
chord. It won't have any desire to move to a C while over the G chord! But
the moment that G chord changes, if we still hear C as the tonic, that B is
going to feel like it needs to resolve to C(could be weakend by the long G
though).

The tonic governs two things

1. The hierarchy of notes with the diatonic notes being more stable than the
chromatic notes
2. The motion of the tones from chord to chord. Not the exact motion but
consonant motion.

The current chord tells us ones thing.

1. The hiearchy of notes that are most consonant. The chord tones being
preferable to the diatonic non-chord tones and the non-diatonic tones
generally being least favorable. (not always but in most circumstances)

So tonality setups a sort of "global hierarchy" and the current chord setups
up a sort of "local hiearchy". You can think of both as tonics. The "global
tonic" and the "local tonic". One has many tonics on many levels that depend
on many circumstances. It is even possible to concieve of something as
having two or more tonics(although chances are you'll hear only one as being
THE tonic).

The only way I can really make this clear is by comparing the modes. I gave
one example with F lydian. Another is E phrygian.

E phrygian contains the exactly same notes as C Ionian(C major). YET the B
note does not seem to have a need to move to C. Now if you play a B over a C
chord then of course! Because The C chord sort of acts as a local tonic(and
on the local tonic you have to play by it's rules).

So in E phygian, C moves to B. Over a chord containing C then it will
flip(C, F, Am, and Dm7).

A non-tonal melody using a tonal progression will completely ignore the
hiearchy that tonic creates.

If it is still not making since then just try to think of a single chord as
a real quick tonicization and therefor sort of acts as it's on key while it
is being heard. When the chord changes we get a new tonic. But our ears seem
to remember one of those chords as being a tonic even when we don't hear it.
So we have competition between the chord tonic and the key tonic.

One act's in a vertical way while the other a horizontal way.

In C major the most consonant tone is C. But over a G chord this tone
represents a P4 and creates dissonance with the 3rd and 5th. Hence even
though it is the "most consonant note in the key" it is relatively dissonant
over the G chord(which is the 2nd most important chord in C). So there is a
dynamic there and that is what makes tonal music so expressive and with so
much dimension.

Dan S

2010-09-03 16:33:24 UTC

Post by Jeff Johnson
I might even go as far to say that people don't hear in functional harmony.
People do recognize common patterns and if they've studied harmony my try to
relate some incomplete patterns they are hearing to functional harmonic
concepts but functional harmony is much more a pencil and paper result.
Mainly because most of us don't have memories that act as perfect playback
devices.

IMO part of this has to do with culture. Our perception is partly
based on "tendency tones" or "resolution tendencies".

These can be seen in these types of lists as recommendations for
interval ear training (under "interval training"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_training

Those are crutches and in functional pitch recognition, you learn to
lessen and/or eliminate the need for them.

For example, imaging "swing low,sweet chariot" as a descending major
3rd is a crutch. In funcitonal pitch recognition, you recognize the
first note as a major 3rd, and the second note as the tonic. Or if no
tonic is established, the "proper" way to hear this would be the first
note as having major 3rd quality, and the second note as having minor
6th quality. If the notes are played separately, the first note's
quality is heard in retrospect (in memory). If the notes are played
together, you should be able to hear both qualities.

When a tonic is established, and one of the notes in the interval is
the tonic, then I have not been able to hear this as an inversion.
For example, if a C and D are played together, and C is the tonic, I
can only hear D as a major 2nd and C as having "unison" quality. I
can not hear C as having minor 7th quality. But if no tonic, then D
has major 2nd quality, C has minor 7th quality in that example.

No favorites are being made when no tonic is established. The problem
with this for most people is that they prefer to hear the notes from
the major scale as opposed to b2 b3 b5 b6 b7. So if given a choice
(when no tonic is established) they will prefer one sound over the
other instead of hearing both qualities.

This is one reason, for example people can confuse P4 and P5 in those
types of programs (when no tonic is established). Because people
don't mind hearing either of those intervals...and they get confused
as to which of the notes is giving off which of the qualities.

Post by Jeff Johnson
I cannot force myself to sing in m2nds(relative to the chord) as my voice
will quickly slip into the root. I can, of course sing sharp or flat but the
natural desire of my voice is to sing in consonance.
BUT, for a great singer you should be able to sing any interval you want on
demand. I promise you most Top-40 singers can't do this(if any).

One difficulty with the non-major scale notes is that they are not
contained in the tonic's overtones. This is true of P4 as well. I've
heard that an East Indian metaphor for this is: tonic is the shore of
a lake, P5 is a tree on the edge of the shore. P4 is the reflection
of the tree in the water. If you look at b3 for example, this note is
a major 3rd below the 5th. So to generate it you have to imagine P5
as being the major 3rd of something. This is true of the other "flat
notes" as well i.e. they are a major 3rd below other notes that are in
the tonics overtone series. They are reflections. (except for
tritone...not sure on that one).

Post by Jeff Johnson
I'm not sure what functional harmony has to do with learning to sing the way
you want because functional harmony is simply about describing the harmony
and not about so much about melodic choices.

Yes - I'm beginning to think the original title of this thread is not
exactly correct.

Dan S

2010-09-03 16:59:54 UTC

Post by Dan S
One difficulty with the non-major scale notes is that they are not
contained in the tonic's overtones. This is true of P4 as well. I've
heard that an East Indian metaphor for this is: tonic is the shore of
a lake, P5 is a tree on the edge of the shore. P4 is the reflection
of the tree in the water. If you look at b3 for example, this note is
a major 3rd below the 5th. So to generate it you have to imagine P5
as being the major 3rd of something. This is true of the other "flat
notes" as well i.e. they are a major 3rd below other notes that are in
the tonics overtone series. They are reflections. (except for
tritone...not sure on that one).

Here's another way to describe it. There are 6 notes in the chromatic
scale that are in the air, and 6 that are not.
In the air (in C) : C D E G B F#
Not in the air (in C) : F A Db Eb Ab Bb

Culture is another important issue as far as difficulty with some of
the intervals. We are not use to hearing some of the sounds.

Dan S

2010-09-03 18:31:56 UTC

Post by Dan S
Culture is another important issue as far as difficulty with some of
the intervals. We are not use to hearing some of the sounds.

Some notes are trickier too...like major 6th for example. Sometimes I
hear it as "up high" from somewhere over the rainbow. In this
situation it is acting more like pythagorean (5th above the 5th above
the 5th i.e. C->G->D->A).

Other times it is more subdominant. i.e. a 3rd above the 4th.

But in either case, it has a general quality of major 6th. You can
learn that general quality enough to sing it. But when you look
deeper into what you are actually singing (how you're relating it to
the harmony), it is probably one of these specific notes.

LJS

2010-09-04 14:59:58 UTC

Post by Dan S
Culture is another important issue as far as difficulty with some of
the intervals. We are not use to hearing some of the sounds.

I know what you mean but it should be M6 "Way up". The "up high is the
resolving major second.

These type of lists, BTW, are used in the Kodaly method for older
beginners, just as has been said, as a crutch. In his educational
method for the early grades the children learn to sing and hear these
intervals in simple folk tunes that (well at least in the older days
when parenting was more personal and intense) the children learned
from their parents and their grand parents when they were young. Then
after they heard the intervals as natural intervals in their know
repertoire and as they have developed the Solfeggio (solmization for
the Wikiests, be careful with the spelling lol) associates with the
hand signals, the students will not need these crutches. With older
beginners, the song lists will allow the student to "make up for lost
time" and then they can learn the SoFa syllables as they do related
exercises.

These exercises, in one way, reverses the learning process, but seems
to work just as well, (except for the time that the young student has
to "ingrain" it into their psyche as they age to be older students) to
solifify the connection to the SoFa and the interval sound. Once
ingrained, sight singing becomes a lot easier than one would think.

It is a rather simple exercise and if anyone is interested, I will be
happy to share it.

Other times it is more subdominant. i.e. a 3rd above the 4th.
But in either case, it has a general quality of major 6th. You can
learn that general quality enough to sing it. But when you look
deeper into what you are actually singing (how you're relating it to
the harmony), it is probably one of these specific notes.

This is one approach. I don't like it but if it works, then it works.
It is just as easy to learn the intervals directly with the SoFa
syllables, a lot easier for most, that I don't see the advantage to
doing it in this manner. The song list of intervals is a good way to
discipline your self to get the intervals correct when you don't have
a piano to work with. In fact, it is generally better to do ear
training without a piano for reference and in this case you would be
using the song list to "check" the accuracy of your memory of the
interval sound with your sight singing.

If one is working without a teacher to moniter and guide you through
exercises, the song list becomes a good tool, but it is only used to
help you connect the sound to the syllables you assign to it as you
learn the SoFa for the intervals assoiated with these syllables in all
the possible melodic contexts within a key. With this exercise, one
also learn to do the Serial approach as not only does it drill the
SoFa syllables, but it drills the theory names of the intervals as
well in a serial manner as related to a specified note.
(m2,M2,m3,M3,P4,+4/-5,P5 etc.)

With the mastery of these exercises, if you can decode the SoFa in
tonal melodies, you can accurately sight sing the melody and if you
can quickly relate the interval name in serial singing, you can sing
any serial arrangement of tones that you see be it tonal or atonal.

Its a shame that there is relatively so little time spent on ear
training in most colleges relative to the "pencil and paper" approach
to theory and music in general. This is especially true of performance
degrees where the ear training, seems to me at least, is one of the
basic and most important skills for the performing musician to have at
his command!

LJS

LJS

2010-09-04 14:29:12 UTC

Here's another way to describe it. There are 6 notes in the chromatic
scale that are in the air, and 6 that are not.
In the air (in C) : C D E G B F#
Not in the air (in C) : F A Db Eb Ab Bb
Culture is another important issue as far as difficulty with some of
the intervals. We are not use to hearing some of the sounds.

Why did your choose those notes? Is the the C E G B D F# (A) choice
of notes that George Russell used to justify his lydian chromatic
concept? Or is there some other relationship that you are using to
choose these notes?

LJS

Dan S

2010-09-06 09:28:33 UTC

B->F# or C->G->D->F#. This relationship is two P5's and one major

3rd.

Then, P4 and the flat notes would be:
F is a P5 below C
Db is a major 3rd below F
Eb is a major 3rd below G
Ab is a major 3rd below C
Bb is a major 3rd below D

One way to figure out the sound of Db for example is to first find Eb
by singing (in C) G F Eb and hearing this as both 5 4 b3 and 3 2 1.
Then once Eb is found, sing F Eb Db hearing this both as 4 b3 b2 and 3
2 1. This works for me because I am use to the sound of 3 2 1.
Keeping in mind the tonic at the same time as using this trick, I can
use this for singing practice.

I think Ab can be hard because its hard to hear C (when its the tonic)
in an inverse relationship.
For Db, since it is a minor 2nd above C, it is hard to hear.

This is one way to look at it. I think its possible to learn the
sounds in other ways.

Alain Naigeon

2010-09-06 13:56:31 UTC

--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - ***@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon

Dan S

2010-09-06 14:17:48 UTC

Correct - that is why I had not originally included A in this list (I
included it with P4). A can be 5:3 (3rd above P4) or A can be 27:16
(5th above 2nd degree). i.e. 5:4 is a P5 above 5:3.

LJS

2010-09-07 01:12:00 UTC

Correct - that is why I had not originally included A in this list (I
included it with P4). A can be 5:3 (3rd above P4) or A can be 27:16
(5th above 2nd degree). i.e. 5:4 is a P5 above 5:3.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The most natural tones to sing in C are G E and A. or in Solfeggio Mi,
Sol and La. First grade children learn to read and write and take
dictation on thes tones and then still in first grade, they learn to
connect the Mi, Re and Do and they have the C pentaton. As an adult,
you will learn to hear these effortlessly in a week, maybe two if you
don't try very hard and with the C pentaton, adding the other tones is
a snap!

You are reinventing the wheel! After doing the first set of exercises
that Adults can start with, you have command of all five pentatons.
You then add the Tritone as the note 1/2 step above Mi and the note
1/2 step as the leading tone below Co and you have the whole scale.

As you go thorugh the pentatons, you learn all the intervals just as
easily with the second exercise. Then, if you diligently mastered and
keep up with your ear training, you can easily sing tonal songs and
can begin to read 12-tone stuff as well.

This is not my method, I just use and teach it. Its standard and
proven stuff in the music education world. Really, its not nearly that
hard or complicated.

LJS

LJS

2010-09-07 01:02:56 UTC

For those notes, its a way to view and hear the notes as being built
"up" from C. Not necessarily related to LCC...The choice of notes is
based on how the notes are related to C using major 3rds or perfect
5ths.
C->E is a major 3rd up.
C->G is a P5 up.
D is a 5th above G
A is a 5th above D
B is a 3rd above G and also a 5th above E
F# is a 5th above B and a 3rd above D
For me F# was harder to hear...I think that the difficulty in hearing
a sound is related to how far that sound is removed from the tonic as
shown in the relationships above. To get to F# is something like C->E->B->F# or C->G->D->F#. This relationship is two P5's and one major
3rd.
F is a P5 below C
Db is a major 3rd below F
Eb is a major 3rd below G
Ab is a major 3rd below C
Bb is a major 3rd below D
One way to figure out the sound of Db for example is to first find Eb
by singing (in C) G F Eb and hearing this as both 5 4 b3 and 3 2 1.
Then once Eb is found, sing F Eb Db hearing this both as 4 b3 b2 and 3
2 1. This works for me because I am use to the sound of 3 2 1.
Keeping in mind the tonic at the same time as using this trick, I can
use this for singing practice.
I think Ab can be hard because its hard to hear C (when its the tonic)
in an inverse relationship.
For Db, since it is a minor 2nd above C, it is hard to hear.
This is one way to look at it. I think its possible to learn the
sounds in other ways.

C G D A E B F# or the first 7 P5s above the tonic of C in thirds is C
E G B D F# A arranged in thirds. or as a scale on the tonic, the
lydian scale is produced: C D E F# G A B I realize that yo do't have
the 4th P5, but I don't remember if George Russell started with is
Lydian scale or the retrograde version of the Cycle of 5ths to build
his Lydian Concept.

BUT, back to the topic and your way of hearing the tones: it you think
that is an easy way to do it, you really should think about studying
Kodaly and/or at least let me know you are ready to try the exercises
that I mentioned. I can assure you that there are easier ways of
hearing notes and all the steps you outline will really get in your
way of hearing the tones effortlessly.

LJS

LJS

2010-09-04 14:20:59 UTC

Lets not lose the context. I think you have the right idea, but are
just losing a bit of focus with converting it to words. Functional
harmony does create recognizable patterns formed by the conventinons
of functional music. These patterns have changed somewhat over the
years as functional music evolved. They evolved as they learned to
hear more critically and they made choices as to what sounded correct
to them after they learned to hear what was going on and the evolution
occured as they learned to use the "next step" of expanding the colors
that they used in the music.

The "pencil and paper" is the result, not the music. Musical theory is
a description of what was being played and heard. The "pencil and
paper theory is the after thought. You are correct in saying that
don't have memories that act as perfec tplayback devices. What you are
not saying, however, is thatthis same "most" that do not have this
ability are the same "most" people that did not creat the creative or
innovative music that has kept our musical system alive and vibrant!
If "most" of us had this ability, then composers like Bach,
Mozart,Beethoven etc, etc, would not be special. If it was
easy,everyone would be a great composer.

The "pencil and paper" stuff that described the genius of the great
composers may be studied by an intelligent and motivated student and
after understanding the things that Mozart or Beethoven did may be
able to recreate this to a certain extent, but unless the student has
that same genius that allows perfect memory and playback of the music
as well as perfect conception and prediction of the music in his
inner ear (as well as several other exceptional talents) , the student
will be able to recreate and replicate the innovations of the
composers studied but this is a totally different context than
creating new and innovative music.

Functional harmony is what, 500 years of so old? Depending on the
exact definition used, functional music might be 1000's of years old!
We are not inventing the wheel here, we are talking about learning
skills so that we may recreate things that are very old concepts. We
are learning to understand and use these "ancient" principles and then
to pick and choose the concepts and find new music by creating
combinations of the ancient ideas in a combination and context that
gives it a fresh outlook.

If one does not have memories of music that allows perfect playback,
that is a skill that needs to be worked on and improved. Most people
do not have this skill, but most good musicians and certainly great
composers DO have this skill. Check some of the stories about the
musical memories of various composers. It is a basic skill that is
addressed strongly with musical education methods such as Kodaly and
many other methods. Musical memory is a developable skill and it is a
skill that is very important for the musican to develop.

Yes, they are. They are crutches to help one to deal with movable Do
as well as in serial pitch sight singing. BY serial pitch sight
singing I am refering to one method used in the European system where
each successive note is analyzed by intrval to the previous and then
that interval is sung relative to the previous pitch. I personally do
not like this system as it is very cumbersom in the tonal world
although it is a very good and possibly necessary way to learn atonal
music sight singing and MAY (I don't have any statistics on this) help
to see random pitches in a score in a meaningful way.

For example, imaging "swing low,sweet chariot" as a descending major
3rd is a crutch. In funcitonal pitch recognition, you recognize the
first note as a major 3rd, and the second note as the tonic. Or if no
tonic is established, the "proper" way to hear this would be the first
note as having major 3rd quality, and the second note as having minor
6th quality. If the notes are played separately, the first note's
quality is heard in retrospect (in memory). If the notes are played
together, you should be able to hear both qualities.
When a tonic is established, and one of the notes in the interval is
the tonic, then I have not been able to hear this as an inversion.
For example, if a C and D are played together, and C is the tonic, I
can only hear D as a major 2nd and C as having "unison" quality. I
can not hear C as having minor 7th quality. But if no tonic, then D
has major 2nd quality, C has minor 7th quality in that example.
No favorites are being made when no tonic is established. The problem
with this for most people is that they prefer to hear the notes from
the major scale as opposed to b2 b3 b5 b6 b7. So if given a choice
(when no tonic is established) they will prefer one sound over the
other instead of hearing both qualities.
This is one reason, for example people can confuse P4 and P5 in those
types of programs (when no tonic is established). Because people
don't mind hearing either of those intervals...and they get confused
as to which of the notes is giving off which of the qualities.

There is no reason that we have to or that we should limit our
thinking to only the overtones of the Tonic for the major scale. There
is the 5th above and the 5th below. These are both very important (and
interlocking) tones to the tonic note that have been a big part of
developing our functional system of music. With these additional tones
and their overtones creat a matrix of pitches that do account for the
P4, the Leading tone as well as all the intervals that occur in
functional music.

One of the many accounts for the "devil in music" is the juxtiposition
of the Root and third of the IV and the V (5th above and below tonic),
G B F A, or the outline of the V9 and this inclueds the tritione in
the functional context of the tonic key. As an isolated interval, it
still seems to be the the "diabolo d' musica" .

A study of history should reveal that harmony and melody is so
intertwined that you are on a really slippery slope if you try to
think of either without some referenc to the other. In our culture,
you can more safely take melody as a seperate entity but harmony, as
we know it, came out of countrapuntal music where the single melodies
and the combination of the melodies appear to have been chosen by how
they aligned with the influences of the harmonic series. The
connection, in our culture, of melody and harmony is so unified that
to try to separate them seems to be leading to disaster.

Yes - I'm beginning to think the original title of this thread is not
exactly correct.

Is there a title before "functional harmony ear training ???" ?
I don't see how a question can be "not exactly correct."

lol semantic arguments? lol

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-30 17:22:26 UTC

I disagree, obviously.
I'm using the word "tonicization" as being the technique of making one
of the diatonic tones of a key into a secondary tonic for a brief period
of time.
Generally speaking, if the chord built on the secondary tonic is not a
diatonic chord in the primary key then the secondary key can not be
heard as a secondary key. It will be heard as a modulation into an
entirely different key.

This is why when discussing usage of secondary dominants within major
keys, any text you choose to look at will only list V7/IIm, V7/IIIm,
V7/IV, V7/V, and V7/VIm.
There is no V7/VIIdim for at least 2 reasons.
1. Dim triads are not suitable as resting chords so they can not really
function as a traditional tonic chord.
2. The root of V7/VIIdim would be scale degree #4 which is a chromatic
tone within the primary key.
There are no other secondary dominants that are recognized as secondary
dominants within simple major keys.

So, the distinguishing characteristic of tonicization as a tool for
bringing about a secondary key feeling vs the notion of a true
modulation involves not just the duration of the divurgence from the
primary key. Secondary keys must also be the most closely related keys
possible to the primary key.
I.e. The key of IIm, the key of IIIm, the key of IV, the key of V and
the key of VIm.
If your primary key is a major key then there are no other secondary keys.

Tonicization of any other note or chord will involve a modulation, not a
secondary key feeling.

When borrowing from the parallel minor is utilized within a primarily
major key based composition, then you'll find secondary dominants that
tonicize the diatonic tones and diatonic maj and min triads of of the
parallel minor scales too, which can get considerably more complex and
can introduce considerably more ambiguities.
In modern Tonal music, where modal borrowing is not limited to just the
parallel minor scales, things get even more complex.

But the principles of secondary keys vs true modulations remain in tact.

Post by Jeff Johnson
It is just much easier to tonicize diatonic chords
because the sound the most related and will more likely be perceived the
way they were meant.
The key of C major contains all the chords possible. A hierarchy exists
though with the Cmaj triad at the top and chords like F#dim, Ebmaj, etc
towards the bottom. These chords are in the key of Cmaj but are not
diatonic and seem to fit more into other keys. Hence when they are
played they pull away from Cmaj more than they seem to reinforce it. If
used with taste they can be made to work just fine in C.
Does the above progression seem relatively diatonic? That is, do you get
a sense of one tonal center with all the chords being closely related?
Are there chords that seem to tug away from the tonic? If so which ones
and what do they seem to be tugging towards(if away from the tonic then
which direction)?
While the fingerpicking may be rather bland the progression is a bit
more adventuresome.
Once you settle on a a tonic can you give me a roman numeral analysis?
"As long as I can functionally hear each chord or melody as related to
C, then I don't understand the distinction between major and minor"
Does that progression sound like it's in major or minor? Any idea why?
(theres the simple answer then the more complex answer)

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Jeff Johnson

2010-08-30 21:48:57 UTC

Then obivously your concept of tonicization is limited to diatonic tones. By
definition you will not except tonicizations on non-diatonic tones. I cannot
argue with you if that is your definition. I prefer a much broader
definition.

What I can do is argue that it is not the "accepted" definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonicization

"In music, tonicization is the treatment of a pitch other than the overall
tonic as a temporary tonic in a composition. "

They do say later on that
"A tonicized chord is a chord to which a secondary dominant progresses."

Which suggests your definition. But there definition of secondary dominant
is

"Secondary dominant (also applied dominant) is an analytical label for a
specific harmonic device, prevalent in the tonal idiom of Western music
beginning in the Common Practice Period. It refers to a dominant-like
function of a chromatically altered chord built on a scale degree other than
the 5th."

Which suggests that one can have non-diatonic secondary dominants.

Post by Joey Goldstein
This is why when discussing usage of secondary dominants within major
keys, any text you choose to look at will only list V7/IIm, V7/IIIm,
V7/IV, V7/V, and V7/VIm.
There is no V7/VIIdim for at least 2 reasons.
1. Dim triads are not suitable as resting chords so they can not really
function as a traditional tonic chord.
2. The root of V7/VIIdim would be scale degree #4 which is a chromatic
tone within the primary key.
There are no other secondary dominants that are recognized as secondary
dominants within simple major keys.
So, the distinguishing characteristic of tonicization as a tool for
bringing about a secondary key feeling vs the notion of a true modulation
involves not just the duration of the divurgence from the primary key.
Secondary keys must also be the most closely related keys possible to the
primary key.
I.e. The key of IIm, the key of IIIm, the key of IV, the key of V and the
key of VIm.
If your primary key is a major key then there are no other secondary keys.
Tonicization of any other note or chord will involve a modulation, not a
secondary key feeling.
When borrowing from the parallel minor is utilized within a primarily
major key based composition, then you'll find secondary dominants that
tonicize the diatonic tones and diatonic maj and min triads of of the
parallel minor scales too, which can get considerably more complex and can
introduce considerably more ambiguities.
In modern Tonal music, where modal borrowing is not limited to just the
parallel minor scales, things get even more complex.
But the principles of secondary keys vs true modulations remain in tact.

It seems you use a very narrow use of tonicization. I have no problem with
this but perhaps it should be quanlified as "diatonic-tonicization". It is
true that what you have described generally the most natural way to modulate
through secondary dominants but it is not the only way. Also as you have
described, by mode mixture we can easily reach most other keys(3 three are
missing).

With music it's going to depend a lot on context. It's concievable that a
piece could tonicize the most distant keys but it won't feel like a
modulation if it was felt as expected. In the key of C one way might be to
center the melody or some inner harmony notes around the E making it feel
pretty well connected to the tonic and instroduce a lot of tones from E as
non-essential. This will set up E as feeling more expected than not and
therefore it won't seem as distant when we tonicize it using B7. B7 could be
seen as V7/vi from G. by centering around the E note we are possibly
shifting the tonal center of C towards G. Since music is full of ambiguities
this is definitely possible. (tonic still C but with a strong emphasis on G)

No one can argue that the further away you tonicize the more it will sound
like a modulation than not. This does not mean that in all cases
non-diatonic toncizations are modulations.

Joey Goldstein

2010-08-31 00:32:31 UTC

Then obivously your concept of tonicization is limited to diatonic
tones. By definition you will not except tonicizations on non-diatonic
tones. I cannot argue with you if that is your definition. I prefer a
much broader definition.
What I can do is argue that it is not the "accepted" definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonicization
"In music, tonicization is the treatment of a pitch other than the
overall tonic as a temporary tonic in a composition. "
They do say later on that
"A tonicized chord is a chord to which a secondary dominant progresses."
Which suggests your definition. But there definition of secondary
dominant is
"Secondary dominant (also applied dominant) is an analytical label for a
specific harmonic device, prevalent in the tonal idiom of Western music
beginning in the Common Practice Period. It refers to a dominant-like
function of a chromatically altered chord built on a scale degree other
than the 5th."
Which suggests that one can have non-diatonic secondary dominants.

While there are no examples on that page of tonicization of chords that
I said would not normally be the targets of tonicization, there is also
nothing in their definition of tonicization that negates my definition.
My definition just happens to have a few qualifications to it that the
wiki writers did not happen to include in that particular article.
I think that if you stay away from Wiki as being your primary reference
source you'll find ultimately that my definition is standard practice in
most Tonal harmony texts.

Post by Joey Goldstein
This is why when discussing usage of secondary dominants within major
keys, any text you choose to look at will only list V7/IIm, V7/IIIm,
V7/IV, V7/V, and V7/VIm.
There is no V7/VIIdim for at least 2 reasons.
1. Dim triads are not suitable as resting chords so they can not
really function as a traditional tonic chord.
2. The root of V7/VIIdim would be scale degree #4 which is a chromatic
tone within the primary key.
There are no other secondary dominants that are recognized as
secondary dominants within simple major keys.
So, the distinguishing characteristic of tonicization as a tool for
bringing about a secondary key feeling vs the notion of a true
modulation involves not just the duration of the divurgence from the
primary key. Secondary keys must also be the most closely related keys
possible to the primary key.
I.e. The key of IIm, the key of IIIm, the key of IV, the key of V and
the key of VIm.
If your primary key is a major key then there are no other secondary keys.
Tonicization of any other note or chord will involve a modulation, not
a secondary key feeling.
When borrowing from the parallel minor is utilized within a primarily
major key based composition, then you'll find secondary dominants that
tonicize the diatonic tones and diatonic maj and min triads of of the
parallel minor scales too, which can get considerably more complex and
can introduce considerably more ambiguities.
In modern Tonal music, where modal borrowing is not limited to just
the parallel minor scales, things get even more complex.
But the principles of secondary keys vs true modulations remain in tact.

It seems you use a very narrow use of tonicization.

I use the standard view of the term tonicization as it applies to the
ideas of secondary dominant chords and secondary keys within key-based
music.
I'm sure that the term can be used more generally than that too, eg. as
part of a description of modulation techniques in general.
But that is not the norm.
There is a difference between a secondary key feeling and a modulation
and it is the way I have thus far described it.

Post by Jeff Johnson
I have no problem
with this but perhaps it should be quanlified as
"diatonic-tonicization".

Whatever.
Make up any term you feel necessary.

Post by Jeff Johnson
It is true that what you have described
generally the most natural way to modulate through secondary dominants
but it is not the only way. Also as you have described, by mode mixture
we can easily reach most other keys(3 three are missing).

When a key-based analysis of a piece of music involves a certain
threshold of ambiguity the piece can no longer be said to truly be
key-based in the traditional sense.
Certainly modern music has utilized effects like pan-tonality and
bi-tonality. But those effects can not be achieved without a clear
understanding and a mastery of a single tonality.
I.e. You can't have two keys happening simultaneously if you don't know
what a key is.

Post by Jeff Johnson
With music it's going to depend a lot on context. It's concievable that
a piece could tonicize the most distant keys but it won't feel like a
modulation if it was felt as expected.

The OP mentioned Giant Steps.
What key is it in?
What are the secondary dominant chords in this tune?
Why aren't he 3 dom7 chords of this progression all involved in actual
modulations through 3 different keys?
The answer is that there *are* 3 different keys involved in this tune.
Keys that change so rapidly that normally we'd expect them to be
secondary keys.
But they can't be seen as secondary keys because none of the resolutions
of the dom7 chords happen to be diatonic within any of the 3 keys, and
also because the return to any previous key does not proceed along any
of the standard paths allowed within the concept of secondary keys.

B / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |

G / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B / / / |etc.

If B is the primary key, then the analysis is:
I V7/bVI |bVI V7/III |III |\IIm7-V7/bVI |
bVI V7/III |III V7 |I

If Eb is the primary key then the analysis is:
bVI V7/III |III etc.

If G is the primary key then the analysis is:
III V7 |I V7/bVI | etc.

These key changes are all brief enough that if your view of this topic
was correct they should all be heard as secondary keys rather than
modulations.
But surely you don't hear it this way, do you?

On the other hand, if the tune was harmonized as follows then some sort
of a primary key feeling might arise:
In B
B / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Ebm / / / |Am7 D7 |
G / Bb7 / |Ebm / F#7 | B Etc.
D7 would be V7 of bVI, and bVI could be seen as being a borrowed chord
from the parallel minor.
Bb7 would be V7/IIIm.

In G:
Bm / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
G / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B Etc.
In this case Eb is bVI, the borrowed chord from the parallel minor. Etc.

In Eb:
B / D7 / |Gm / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
Gm / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B Etc.
In this case B is bVI, the borrowed chord from the parallel minor.
Etc.
As a matter of fact, if there's any hint of a primary key at all for
this tune it's Eb. But that has more to do with the harmonic rhythm, the
time spent in the key of Eb relative to the time spent in the other two
keys, and the fact that Tran ended the tune on one of the Eb chords.

But analysis of this tune as if it's all in Eb is just silly.

Post by Jeff Johnson
In the key of C one way might be
to center the melody or some inner harmony notes around the E making it
feel pretty well connected to the tonic and instroduce a lot of tones
from E as non-essential. This will set up E as feeling more expected
than not and therefore it won't seem as distant when we tonicize it
using B7. B7 could be seen as V7/vi from G. by centering around the E
note we are possibly shifting the tonal center of C towards G. Since
music is full of ambiguities this is definitely possible. (tonic still C
but with a strong emphasis on G)

There are all sorts of ways to introduce ambiguity into key-based music
without descending into total atonality. But that music will not truly
really be key-based anymore either.
The things that go into creating an unambiguous key feeling are fairly
delicate and can be easily broken.

Post by Jeff Johnson
No one can argue that the further away you tonicize the more it will
sound like a modulation than not. This does not mean that in all cases
non-diatonic toncizations are modulations.

Give me some example where tonicization of a non-diatonic chord does not
result in an actual modulation?

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Jeff Johnson

2010-09-01 05:33:15 UTC

Then obivously your concept of tonicization is limited to diatonic
tones. By definition you will not except tonicizations on non-diatonic
tones. I cannot argue with you if that is your definition. I prefer a
much broader definition.
What I can do is argue that it is not the "accepted" definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonicization
"In music, tonicization is the treatment of a pitch other than the
overall tonic as a temporary tonic in a composition. "
They do say later on that
"A tonicized chord is a chord to which a secondary dominant progresses."
Which suggests your definition. But there definition of secondary
dominant is
"Secondary dominant (also applied dominant) is an analytical label for a
specific harmonic device, prevalent in the tonal idiom of Western music
beginning in the Common Practice Period. It refers to a dominant-like
function of a chromatically altered chord built on a scale degree other
than the 5th."
Which suggests that one can have non-diatonic secondary dominants.

While there are no examples on that page of tonicization of chords that I
said would not normally be the targets of tonicization, there is also
nothing in their definition of tonicization that negates my definition.
My definition just happens to have a few qualifications to it that the
wiki writers did not happen to include in that particular article.
I think that if you stay away from Wiki as being your primary reference
source you'll find ultimately that my definition is standard practice in
most Tonal harmony texts.

Post by Joey Goldstein
This is why when discussing usage of secondary dominants within major
keys, any text you choose to look at will only list V7/IIm, V7/IIIm,
V7/IV, V7/V, and V7/VIm.
There is no V7/VIIdim for at least 2 reasons.
1. Dim triads are not suitable as resting chords so they can not
really function as a traditional tonic chord.
2. The root of V7/VIIdim would be scale degree #4 which is a chromatic
tone within the primary key.
There are no other secondary dominants that are recognized as
secondary dominants within simple major keys.
So, the distinguishing characteristic of tonicization as a tool for
bringing about a secondary key feeling vs the notion of a true
modulation involves not just the duration of the divurgence from the
primary key. Secondary keys must also be the most closely related keys
possible to the primary key.
I.e. The key of IIm, the key of IIIm, the key of IV, the key of V and
the key of VIm.
If your primary key is a major key then there are no other secondary keys.
Tonicization of any other note or chord will involve a modulation, not
a secondary key feeling.
When borrowing from the parallel minor is utilized within a primarily
major key based composition, then you'll find secondary dominants that
tonicize the diatonic tones and diatonic maj and min triads of of the
parallel minor scales too, which can get considerably more complex and
can introduce considerably more ambiguities.
In modern Tonal music, where modal borrowing is not limited to just
the parallel minor scales, things get even more complex.
But the principles of secondary keys vs true modulations remain in tact.

It seems you use a very narrow use of tonicization.

Post by Jeff Johnson
I have no problem
with this but perhaps it should be quanlified as
"diatonic-tonicization".

Whatever.
Make up any term you feel necessary.

When a key-based analysis of a piece of music involves a certain threshold
of ambiguity the piece can no longer be said to truly be key-based in the
traditional sense.
Certainly modern music has utilized effects like pan-tonality and
bi-tonality. But those effects can not be achieved without a clear
understanding and a mastery of a single tonality.
I.e. You can't have two keys happening simultaneously if you don't know
what a key is.

The OP mentioned Giant Steps.
What key is it in?
What are the secondary dominant chords in this tune?
Why aren't he 3 dom7 chords of this progression all involved in actual
modulations through 3 different keys?
The answer is that there *are* 3 different keys involved in this tune.
Keys that change so rapidly that normally we'd expect them to be secondary
keys.
But they can't be seen as secondary keys because none of the resolutions
of the dom7 chords happen to be diatonic within any of the 3 keys, and
also because the return to any previous key does not proceed along any of
the standard paths allowed within the concept of secondary keys.
B / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
G / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B / / / |etc.
I V7/bVI |bVI V7/III |III |\IIm7-V7/bVI |
bVI V7/III |III V7 |I
bVI V7/III |III etc.
III V7 |I V7/bVI | etc.
These key changes are all brief enough that if your view of this topic was
correct they should all be heard as secondary keys rather than
modulations.
But surely you don't hear it this way, do you?
On the other hand, if the tune was harmonized as follows then some sort of
In B
B / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Ebm / / / |Am7 D7 |
G / Bb7 / |Ebm / F#7 | B Etc.
D7 would be V7 of bVI, and bVI could be seen as being a borrowed chord
from the parallel minor.
Bb7 would be V7/IIIm.
Bm / D7 / |G / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
G / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B Etc.
In this case Eb is bVI, the borrowed chord from the parallel minor. Etc.
B / D7 / |Gm / Bb7 / |Eb / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
Gm / Bb7 / |Eb / F#7 / |B Etc.
In this case B is bVI, the borrowed chord from the parallel minor.
Etc.
As a matter of fact, if there's any hint of a primary key at all for this
tune it's Eb. But that has more to do with the harmonic rhythm, the time
spent in the key of Eb relative to the time spent in the other two keys,
and the fact that Tran ended the tune on one of the Eb chords.
But analysis of this tune as if it's all in Eb is just silly.

Give me some example where tonicization of a non-diatonic chord does not
result in an actual modulation?

Just about any example you want can be used. Check out Piston's harmony and
he gives examples and gives some definition and explanations.

P300,

"The secondary dominant principle, as we have seen, presents what appears to
be a paradox: the secondary dominant supports a secondary tonic, not the
actual tonic of the key, and thus would seeem in some way to actually change
the key momentarily. Nevertheless, the returning tonic is actually
strengthend by cirtue of it's associated harmonies.

**It would seem that the stronger the emphasis on the secondary tonic, and
the more remote the secondary tonic from the main key, the greater is the
satisfaction of the return to the main tonic.**"

Which suggested those "remote keys" could be non-diatonic.

More importantly P258,

"From observations of this practice the following rule merges: any degree of
the scale may be preceded by it's own dominant harmony without weakening the
fundamental tonaity.

P261.

"The simplest and most normal way to use a secondary dominant is to precede
it with a chord that may be interpreted as a normal triad in the key of the
secondary tonic."

Not all music is simple. Your definition is a conservative one that does not
allow for more remote tonicizations. You claim that all such tonciziations
of non-diatonic chords are actually modulations is too far fetched. You
should now this from your jazz experience. One can introduce a tritone
substitution and surely have no problems tonicizing it? Did you know that
the Neapolitan chord can be tonicized? Check out Piston again for an example
where Beethoven first tonicizes it then later on modulates to it.

Joey Goldstein

2010-09-01 15:36:45 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Give me some example where tonicization of a non-diatonic chord does
not result in an actual modulation?

I'm out of town right now and don't have my copy of Piston handy so I
can look up these citations of yours and see their context.

But based on what you've quoted I'd say this:
To a listener accustomed to key-based music any return to an already
established primary key will be a satisfactory experience whether or not
the other keys involved were secondary keys or actual modulations.

you still haven't answered any of my questions about Giant Steps.
If a brief duration within a secondary key is the on;y criteria for it
being heard as a secondary key, then why is this progression not heard
as being in one key with 2 secondary keys?

Do you hear All The Things You Are as being in Ab major or F minor
throughout the entire tune with the jaunts into C major, Eb major, G
major and E major being mere secondary keys preceded by secondary dominants?
C'mon man. think about it and your argument just falls apart.
There is a difference between a secondary key and a true modulation and
it is according to the principles that I have described in this thread.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Which suggested those "remote keys" could be non-diatonic.

Evidently it does suggest that to you.
It doesn't suggest that to me and it does not negate what I've been saying.

Post by Jeff Johnson
More importantly P258,
"From observations of this practice the following rule merges: any
degree of the scale may be preceded by it's own dominant harmony without
weakening the fundamental tonaity.

Well then, he's wrong.
There is no V7 of VIIdim, for the reasons that I have already explained.

Post by Jeff Johnson
P261.
"The simplest and most normal way to use a secondary dominant is to
precede it with a chord that may be interpreted as a normal triad in the
key of the secondary tonic."

Yes, there are other chords that can be used to establish a secondary
key feeling. Sometimes the secondary dominant doesn't even need to be
used. Sometimes a secondary subdominant chord will do just as well.
So what?

Post by Jeff Johnson
Not all music is simple.

As I have also explained within this thread.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Your definition is a conservative one that does
not allow for more remote tonicizations.

My definition is the definition that delineates the difference between a
secondary key and a modulation.
Your definition doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
All you're talking about is modulation in a general sense.

Post by Jeff Johnson
You claim that all such
tonciziations of non-diatonic chords are actually modulations is too far
fetched.

It's not far fetched at all.
To say that GS or ATTYA involve a series of secondary dominants would be
far fetched.

Post by Jeff Johnson
You should now this from your jazz experience. One can
introduce a tritone substitution and surely have no problems tonicizing
it?

The above scenario makes no sense.
Tritone substitute dominant chords are dominant function chords.
If I tonicize it it won't be a tritone substitute dominant chord. It
will be some sort o tonic.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Did you know that the Neapolitan chord can be tonicized? Check out
Piston again for an example where Beethoven first tonicizes it then
later on modulates to it.

The Neapolitan chord is the only chord in CPP that I am aware of that is
borrowed directly from the parallel phrygian scale.
Most borrowing from the parallel minor was confined to nat min mel min
and harm min in the CPP and any maj or min chord that is diatonic to any
of those scales was suitable target of tonicization.
If your world-view allows for borrowing from the parallel phrygian then
there is no reason not to allow for tonicization of any maj or min
chords that are diatonic to that scale.
V7 of bII has a root on scale degree b6 which is a diatonic note in the
parallel phrygian scale as well.
Secondary dominant chords always have diatonic roots.
So there is no problem tonicizing bII.

But that's about as far as they went with modal borrowing in the CPP.
Sure there are lots of instances of borrowing from dorian too, but that
can be seen as a type of mixture of nat and mel minor.
There may be a few examples of borrowing from the parallel mixolydian
out there too.
Modern key-based music might also borrow from lydian and locrian.
So there might actually be a case for one of your earlier examples of
V7/IIm actually arriving on a IImaj chord as being seen seen as
borrowing the IImaj chord from the parallel lydian scale, but the
specifics of the music would have to somehow delineate this chord as not
functioning as V/V. And the piece would, by definition, not be properly
described as being a traditional key-based piece.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Jack Campin - bogus address

2010-09-01 15:58:35 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
you still haven't answered any of my questions about Giant Steps.
If a brief duration within a secondary key is the on;y criteria for it
being heard as a secondary key, then why is this progression not heard
as being in one key with 2 secondary keys?

Is there a unique way of hearing it?

It's not a kind of music I listen to much - I'm far more familiar
both with outright atonality and with purely diatonic music. So
I tend to assimilate it to the atonal end of the spectrum, albeit
with an assortment of (non-functional) tonal chords thrown in. I
need to have a leadsheet handy to hear it as fitting the "official"
three-centre model. (I don't hear many of the key changes in the
Schoenberg First Chamber Symphony, either - my ears don't tell me
it's heading for D minor, instead it's heading for "Erwartung").

I'm not saying people *ought* to hear it my way, just that as a
matter of empirical fact I *do* have a different perception of it.
You need to be well immersed in the jazz culture to hear it as
theorized.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile: 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

LJS

2010-09-02 02:39:15 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
Give me some example where tonicization of a non-diatonic chord does
not result in an actual modulation?

I'm out of town right now and don't have my copy of Piston handy so I
can look up these citations of yours and see their context.
To a listener accustomed to key-based music any return to an already
established primary key will be a satisfactory experience whether or not
the other keys involved were secondary keys or actual modulations.
you still haven't answered any of my questions about Giant Steps.
If a brief duration within a secondary key is the on;y criteria for it
being heard as a secondary key, then why is this progression not heard
as being in one key with 2 secondary keys?
Do you hear All The Things You Are as being in Ab major or F minor
throughout the entire tune with the jaunts into C major, Eb major, G
major and E major being mere secondary keys preceded by secondary dominants?
C'mon man. think about it and your argument just falls apart.

If your question about Giant Steps is anything like this question, why
would anyone bother to answer it? Maybe this makes sense to you, but
if you thik about it, your question falls apart.

Which key is it in? Well, if you take the tratitional definition of
the key of the piece it is the key that the last chord ends with. Any
deviation before that is moot and explained relative to the final key
of the piece If you change the definition to be the first strong
cadence, then it is in another key. Maybe you want someone to add up
the measures in each key area and decide which one predominantes.
That's a third definition that could apply and for a 4th you can have
members of the group vote upon and if you still need another possible
answer you could say it is which ever one Joey says its in and that is
final!

Some people would say it is in 4 flats. Maybe you should take a listen
to "The Unanswered Question".

LJS

Post by Joey Goldstein
There is a difference between a secondary key and a true modulation and
it is according to the principles that I have described in this thread.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Which suggested those "remote keys" could be non-diatonic.

Evidently it does suggest that to you.
It doesn't suggest that to me and it does not negate what I've been saying.

Well then, he's wrong.
There is no V7 of VIIdim, for the reasons that I have already explained.

Post by Jeff Johnson
P261.
"The simplest and most normal way to use a secondary dominant is to
precede it with a chord that may be interpreted as a normal triad in the
key of the secondary tonic."

Post by Jeff Johnson
Not all music is simple.

As I have also explained within this thread.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Your definition is a conservative one that does
not allow for more remote tonicizations.

Post by Jeff Johnson
You claim that all such
tonciziations of non-diatonic chords are actually modulations is too far
fetched.

It's not far fetched at all.
To say that GS or ATTYA involve a series of secondary dominants would be
far fetched.

Post by Jeff Johnson
You should now this from your jazz experience. One can
introduce a tritone substitution and surely have no problems tonicizing
it?

The above scenario makes no sense.
Tritone substitute dominant chords are dominant function chords.
If I tonicize it it won't be a tritone substitute dominant chord. It
will be some sort o tonic.

Post by Jeff Johnson
Did you know that the Neapolitan chord can be tonicized? Check out
Piston again for an example where Beethoven first tonicizes it then
later on modulates to it.

The Neapolitan chord is the only chord in CPP that I am aware of that is
borrowed directly from the parallel phrygian scale.
Most borrowing from the parallel minor was confined to nat min mel min
and harm min in the CPP and any maj or min chord that is diatonic to any
of those scales was suitable target of tonicization.
If your world-view allows for borrowing from the parallel phrygian then
there is no reason not to allow for tonicization of any maj or min
chords that are diatonic to that scale.
V7 of bII has a root on scale degree b6 which is a diatonic note in the
parallel phrygian scale as well.
Secondary dominant chords always have diatonic roots.
So there is no problem tonicizing bII.
But that's about as far as they went with modal borrowing in the CPP.
Sure there are lots of instances of borrowing from dorian too, but that
can be seen as a type of mixture of nat and mel minor.
There may be a few examples of borrowing from the parallel mixolydian
out there too.
Modern key-based music might also borrow from lydian and locrian.
So there might actually be a case for one of your earlier examples of
V7/IIm actually arriving on a IImaj chord as being seen seen as
borrowing the IImaj chord from the parallel lydian scale, but the
specifics of the music would have to somehow delineate this chord as not
functioning as V/V. And the piece would, by definition, not be properly
described as being a traditional key-based piece.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Joey Goldstein

2010-09-02 02:52:31 UTC

Post by LJS