Page 1 of 2
#1
Ok, I understand that different musicians comprehend and understand Music Theory different form each-other, and thats why no two composers ever think the same.

Exapmle:

Me and my uncle were talking about modes. I said they where when you sharpen/flatten a scale to an extent that it is labled as a different key sig (not my excact words, it would be easyer to say face to face), and he said it is playing the key you want, but using a different tonic. We have different views on it!

Do you guys think its true that Musicians look at music theory different from each other? Do guys have examples? Or do you think im just dumb?

Peace
#2
Quote by Night_Warrior
Ok, I understand that different musicians comprehend and understand Music Theory different form each-other, and thats why no two composers ever think the same.

Exapmle:

Me and my uncle were talking about modes. I said they where when you sharpen/flatten a scale to an extent that it is labled as a different key sig (not my excact words, it would be easyer to say face to face), and he said it is playing the key you want, but using a different tonic. We have different views on it!

Do you guys think its true that Musicians look at music theory different from each other? Do guys have examples? Or do you think im just dumb?

Peace



well, musical terms have specific meanings. It's not a matter of opinion, or "how you look at it",........ it is what it is.
shred is gaudy music
#3
Quote by GuitarMunky
well, musical terms have specific meanings. It's not a matter of opinion, or "how you look at it",........ it is what it is.


+1 i agree
#4
Quote by Night_Warrior
Ok, I understand that different musicians comprehend and understand Music Theory different form each-other, and thats why no two composers ever think the same.

Exapmle:

Me and my uncle were talking about modes. I said they where when you sharpen/flatten a scale to an extent that it is labled as a different key sig (not my excact words, it would be easyer to say face to face), and he said it is playing the key you want, but using a different tonic. We have different views on it!

Do you guys think its true that Musicians look at music theory different from each other? Do guys have examples? Or do you think im just dumb?

Peace



Im of the school of thought that your uncle is in, but I have friends who see it the way you do. Both are valid, so your point then in also that people don't just see theory differently. We all experience music in a personal way.
#5
Quote by GuitarMunky
well, musical terms have specific meanings. It's not a matter of opinion, or "how you look at it",........ it is what it is.



I'm disagreeing here, atleast in respect to the example given about modes. You can definitely interpret it either way and I've infact seen books that explain it both ways.


And yeah, intervals are the same, but beethoven probably wouldn't care much for a M7 chord, but in jazz it sounds great COnsonance and dissonance are viewed VERY differently especially regionally. With the middle east and india having smaller than half step intervals.
Last edited by Kapalen at Jul 1, 2009,
#7
Your uncle´s right.
My gear:
  • Fender American Standard Telecaster
  • Ibanez RG450
  • Laney VC15
  • Electro Harmonix HOG
  • Vox Satchurator
  • Blackout Effectors Musket fuzz
  • Electro Harmonix Pulsar
  • Earthquaker Devices Disaster Transport
  • Malekko Chicklett

#8
Quote by Gord@k
Your uncle´s right.


No, he isn't. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between "key" and "key signature" either.

Munky is right. There is plenty of actual debate over the meaning and validity of different concepts, but not at the level that most people here would understand. The discussions that take place on this forum barely qualify as music theory (at least, not any more than finding Oxygen on a periodic table qualifies as "chemistry").
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 1, 2009,
#9
Yes I think people have different outlooks on things. And your uncle is right, it's just a different tonal center, the notes are still the same, there's nothing to flatten or sharpen, that's just confusing.
#10
Quote by tenfold
Yes I think people have different outlooks on things. And your uncle is right, it's just a different tonal center, the notes are still the same, there's nothing to flatten or sharpen, that's just confusing.


Ionian: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Dorian: 1-2-b3-4-5-6-b7
Phrygian: 1-b2-b3-4-5-b6-b7
Lydian: 1-2-3-#4-5-6-7
Mixolydian: 1-2-3-4-5-6-b7
Aeolian: 1-2-b3-4-5-b6-b7
Locrian: 1-b2-b3-4-b5-b6-b7

Don't spout off about things you don't understand.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "key" and "key signature" either. Work on that.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 1, 2009,
#11
Quote by tenfold
Yes I think people have different outlooks on things. And your uncle is right, it's just a different tonal center, the notes are still the same, there's nothing to flatten or sharpen, that's just confusing.


A lydian, A ionian, A mixolydian, A dorian, A aeolian, A phrygian, and A locrian all have the same tonal center, and different key signatures. You have to sharpen and flatten notes to get them.
#12
Quote by Archeo Avis
The discussions that take place on this forum barely qualify as music theory (at least, not any more than finding Oxygen on a periodic table qualifies as "chemistry").


Hmm.. now that I think of it, you wouldn't happen to frequent a forum that discusses more in depth stuff, would you?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#13
certain concepts are so fundamental that it is hard to think of them in more than one way, btu others are more global so to speak and some people interpret/apply them differently
#14
Quote by Night_Warrior
Ok, I understand that different musicians comprehend and understand Music Theory different form each-other, and thats why no two composers ever think the same.

Exapmle:

Me and my uncle were talking about modes. I said they where when you sharpen/flatten a scale to an extent that it is labled as a different key sig (not my excact words, it would be easyer to say face to face), and he said it is playing the key you want, but using a different tonic. We have different views on it!

Do you guys think its true that Musicians look at music theory different from each other? Do guys have examples? Or do you think im just dumb?

Peace
Musical terms have specific meanings, but that doesn't mean there can't be more than one way of explaining them - in fact any decent teacher should be able to explain things in different ways. Your uncle and you are just coming at modes from different angles - you are looking at them in terms of their intervals, and your uncle is looking at them in terms of their relationship to the 'parent' scale. Neither is completely wrong (giving your uncle the benefit of the doubt that you didn't quote him exactly and assuming he meant key sig ) but imo neither is completely right either. Stick both modes of thought together and you've got a much more complete picture.

Quote by Nietsche
Or do I need to totally rethink my understanding of modes?
lol you just need to re-read his post with the words in the right order
Last edited by zhilla at Jul 2, 2009,
#15
Quote by zhilla
lol you just need to re-read his post with the words in the right order
thanks

Quote by Archeo Avis
The discussions that take place on this forum barely qualify as music theory (at least, not any more than finding Oxygen on a periodic table qualifies as "chemistry").
Hydrogens easier to find
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Jul 2, 2009,
#16
Quote by Nietsche
Hydrogens easier to find


Learn some simple probability. There are a constant amount of elements on the periodic table. Different versions of it will have different numbers of synthetic elements, so I'll assume there are 118 on the table that we're talking about, as that currently shows all found elements. Hydrogen and Oxygen both have one place each on the table. Now some math.

(elements)C(hydrogen) = 118 C 1 = (elements)C(oxygen)

Therefore they are both exactly equally easy to find on the table.


Now if you meant it was easier to find in nature, you would be correct on the assumption that you were randomly selecting one atom from the entire universe, but as we are on earth, and incapable of accessing most of the elements, if you were to choose one atom from earth's atmosphere, you would find that oxygen is much easier to find.
#17
Quote by isaac_bandits
Learn some simple probability. There are a constant amount of elements on the periodic table. Different versions of it will have different numbers of synthetic elements, so I'll assume there are 118 on the table that we're talking about, as that currently shows all found elements. Hydrogen and Oxygen both have one place each on the table. Now some math.

(elements)C(hydrogen) = 118 C 1 = (elements)C(oxygen)

Therefore they are both exactly equally easy to find on the table.


Now if you meant it was easier to find in nature, you would be correct on the assumption that you were randomly selecting one atom from the entire universe, but as we are on earth, and incapable of accessing most of the elements, if you were to choose one atom from earth's atmosphere, you would find that oxygen is much easier to find.
Have you ever seen a periodic table? If you had you would know that hydrogen is always right in the top left corner. Oxygen is on the second line and right of center and therefore harder to find to the uninitated observe:
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Jul 2, 2009,
#18
as far as basic theory goes i don't believe there is any room for interpretation, but on more advanced concepts of music there can be. for example when does a tonicization become a modulation? when is something classed as 'out of tune'?
#19
Quote by Kapalen
I'm disagreeing here, atleast in respect to the example given about modes. You can definitely interpret it either way and I've infact seen books that explain it both ways.


And yeah, intervals are the same, but beethoven probably wouldn't care much for a M7 chord, but in jazz it sounds great COnsonance and dissonance are viewed VERY differently especially regionally. With the middle east and india having smaller than half step intervals.


modes are "when you sharpen/flatten a scale to an extent that it is labled as a different key sig"?

No, that is not a valid interpretation/definition of modes.

I agree some things are a matter of opinion/perspective. Modes are clearly definable though.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jul 2, 2009,
#20
Quote by Archeo Avis
Ionian: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Dorian: 1-2-b3-4-5-6-b7
Phrygian: 1-b2-b3-4-5-b6-b7
Lydian: 1-2-3-#4-5-6-7
Mixolydian: 1-2-3-4-5-6-b7
Aeolian: 1-2-b3-4-5-b6-b7
Locrian: 1-b2-b3-4-b5-b6-b7

Don't spout off about things you don't understand.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "key" and "key signature" either. Work on that.

I didn't mean it literally. I think that's a confusing way of looking at modes. I know you can still take degrees' and sharpen/flatten their scales but in my opinion it's just less confusing if you just start on a different degree.

And how did you come to the conclusion I don't know the difference between a key and a key signature? I know the difference.
#22
music theory is how we explain musical concepts. concepts can never change. so there is little to no room for change in the explaination.

that being said, i suppose some people have different ways of remembering certain things like the modes, but that doesnt really change the concept of what they actually are.
#23
Quote by tenfold
I didn't mean it literally. I think that's a confusing way of looking at modes. I know you can still take degrees' and sharpen/flatten their scales but in my opinion it's just less confusing if you just start on a different degree.

And how did you come to the conclusion I don't know the difference between a key and a key signature? I know the difference.



But that way you can see the scale formula, which solidifies the concept that they are actually different scales/different sounds.

When you only see modes as being different degrees of the parent scale, you miss this very important perspective. I believe alot of the confusion associated with modes is due to lack of perspective.

Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
some people have different ways of remembering certain things like the modes, but that doesnt really change the concept of what they actually are.


Exactly
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jul 2, 2009,
#24
Quote by Angry-Mares
what does the periodic table have to do with modes...?
Read the whole thread
And I don't like the interpretation as modes as the major scale with different root notes. It causes needless confusion
.
#25
Quote by Nietsche
Read the whole thread
And I don't like the interpretation as modes as the major scale with different root notes. It causes needless confusion


Exactly. Parallel modes are important. Relative modes exist solely to induce confusion.
#26
Quote by isaac_bandits
Exactly. Parallel modes are important. Relative modes exist solely to induce confusion.


Meh, I'd say it makes it less confusing at first because it makes the formulas of the modes make more sense. Once you start trying to apply them practically, whether it be writing modal stuff, borrowing from the modes or just analyzing modal songs you definitely have to drop the idea and stick to the formulas.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#27
Quote by Eastwinn
Meh, I'd say it makes it less confusing at first because it makes the formulas of the modes make more sense. Once you start trying to apply them practically, whether it be writing modal stuff, borrowing from the modes or just analyzing modal songs you definitely have to drop the idea and stick to the formulas.


I don't see any reason to use them at all. Its pretty easy to get the idea down that the seven modes are the only possible arrangements of five whole tones and two semitones in which the semitones are spaced as far apart as possible. Using that, you can easily derive the seven modes, and you will most likely derive them going from most sharps to most flats. Then you can use them as modes, and no one will be confused.

Relative modes exist solely to induce confusion, as they obscure the usage of modes.
#28
Quote by isaac_bandits
Exactly. Parallel modes are important. Relative modes exist solely to induce confusion.


^ No


All the relationships are relevant/important

Quote by isaac_bandits


Relative modes exist solely to induce confusion, as they obscure the usage of modes.


Not at all man.

They don't obscure anything. it's just a relationship. That's it. Being aware of that relationship makes things more clear, not less.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jul 2, 2009,
#29
Quote by GuitarMunky

Not at all man.

They don't obscure anything. it's just a relationship. That's it. Being aware of that relationship makes things more clear, not less.


Almost every person who doesn't understand modes, thinks that E Phrygian and C major are the same, and that playing C major starting/ending on E is E Phrygian. It does confuse people, as it makes them unaware of what modal music is. Parallel modes on the other hand, allow people to clearly understand the differences between modes, and generally make the use of them fairly obvious.
#30
Relative modes by themselves do tend to confuse people. But that's true for most things in life. When you give someone just a small piece of the picture, they don't quite know what to make of it, so they make assumptions based on what they CAN see. If you show them the whole picture (relative modes, parallel modes, intervals, examples of modes over vamps, modal songs, etc.), then it becomes much, much clearer. Sadly, most people aren't exposed to all these things at one time, so they continue to make assumptions based on a small amount of information.

tl;dr - Relative and parallel modes go hand in hand when you're learning.
#31
yeah, for example I don't use it at all I just find it confusing, I'd much rather play by ear
#33
look in... i think his username is something along the lines of xdarrenx. His signature has some good links to mode topics. Also, the sticky. Which you're supposed to read first. XD
#35
Quote by isaac_bandits
Almost every person who doesn't understand modes, thinks that E Phrygian and C major are the same, and that playing C major starting/ending on E is E Phrygian. It does confuse people, as it makes them unaware of what modal music is. Parallel modes on the other hand, allow people to clearly understand the differences between modes, and generally make the use of them fairly obvious.


Don't blame the relationship between a mode and it's parent scale. That's kinda silly don't you think?

The confusion you're talking about is more often a result of people trying to learn something before they have the necessary background to understand it.

I agree though that the parallel perspective is an important one.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jul 3, 2009,
#36
If you try and learn modes before you understand how scales are constructed from intervals then you are going to think its just the parent scale starting from a different note. Unfortunately (for them) most people think they understand the major scale and are ready for modes if they can play it based on the 5 standard shapes - especially if the source they got those shapes for gave them modal names.

Munky's right - the relationship between relative scales isnt the problem - in fact imho its very useful. The problem is when people only understand that aspect - or worse, think they understand that aspect when they only partially understand it.

Maybe there should be a law that all mode lessons should start with the scale formula and a brief explanation of parallel modes before they are allowed to mention relative scales
#37
Quote by timeconsumer09
look in... i think his username is something along the lines of xdarrenx. His signature has some good links to mode topics. Also, the sticky. Which you're supposed to read first. XD

I was just wondering why they're all threads and weren't ever submitted as columns... it seems to me that people would find them more easily that way, even if they didn't read the forum.
#38
its the same when me and my mates try to learn songs by ear. We are by no means composers, nor musicians, but when we compare the song that we think is right there are oftentimes differences. That is not to say that one of us is wrong, just that we interpret musically differently.

I also believe that every human has a different resonate frequency (not in the physics sense, so just bear with me here). I think that we have a different note at which get goosebumbs, have a non-sexual orgasm (so to speak), whatever (you should know of what i speak). For me its a note that jeff beck commonly plays with a slide and some whammy added for flavour. I have no idea wat it is and i dont intend to find out. For another person it will be another note that he plays, another artist, another style of music etc.

What i am basically trying to say is that we all perceive music differently. Is it detrimental? No. We would not have such a diverse music world today if everyone interpreted music the same way!
If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all
#39
Quote by tenfold
I was just wondering why they're all threads and weren't ever submitted as columns... it seems to me that people would find them more easily that way, even if they didn't read the forum.
Darren's modal chord progs lesson is a proper lesson I think. But yeah you're right, it would be handy if some of the others were lessons or columns rather than just left in threads.
#40
Quote by baylewis
its the same when me and my mates try to learn songs by ear. We are by no means composers, nor musicians, but when we compare the song that we think is right there are oftentimes differences. That is not to say that one of us is wrong, just that we interpret musically differently.

I also believe that every human has a different resonate frequency (not in the physics sense, so just bear with me here). I think that we have a different note at which get goosebumbs, have a non-sexual orgasm (so to speak), whatever (you should know of what i speak). For me its a note that jeff beck commonly plays with a slide and some whammy added for flavour. I have no idea wat it is and i dont intend to find out. For another person it will be another note that he plays, another artist, another style of music etc.

What i am basically trying to say is that we all perceive music differently. Is it detrimental? No. We would not have such a diverse music world today if everyone interpreted music the same way!


But perceiving music is different from theory. Theory is one way only, and there isn't room for your own interpretation of it. The way music makes you feel of course varies between people, which is why different people like different genres, but that isn't the point of this thread.
Page 1 of 2