Page 1 of 2
#1
Hi Guys,

There have been firm statements from various folk that the major-minor system is the only way to create tonality. As you're well aware, I don't buy into this view.

But I think this depends very much on what you've studied, who with, the genre(s) involved, etc.

Remember that theory is defined as set of principles on which an activity is based (creating music in our case) ... it is not a theorem. Music theory books describe how composers typically went about (and go about) their business of composition. Different composers apply different principles at different stages of musical eveolution.

So I thought the following could be an interesting exercise: provide some citations on the topic of tonality. I pretty much guarantee we'll see various views on how to create tonality. At that stage, what does that tell us? We may see overlapping principles. We may that one theory is contained within the other. It's very unlikely we'll see no overlap.

Then what? We can refute the ones we don't like ... choose not to use them ... claim they are wrong ... and so on. And that's fine.

But such claims should be made with the proviso that other theories exist. so that a balanced view can be taken by others new to the ideas, or trying to find out more.

We should not be censors. So ... my view is that the major-minor system is a very well used way of creating tonality, but I firmly believe it's misleading and censorious to state it is the only way.

So, here are some excerpts from renowned theorist's books.

Bert Ligon: Jazz Theory Resources. Volume One. Chapter 3. Basic Tonal Materials. pg 53. excerpts from the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.


"Tonality, by definition, indicates a heirarchy of pitches ..... The three most important pitches are the tonic (the home pitch), the dominant (a perfect fifth above the tonic) and the mediant (which determines modality, either major or minor). A piece may be tonal and not necessarily is the major/minor system. There are pieces that may be in other major and minor modes or highly chromatic implying major or minor but still imply one pitch as the center of the musical structure."


The next paragraph to the above then does on to discuss an E Phrygian melody, stating it is in the key of E phrygian.


Walter Piston, Mark Devoto: Harmony. Chapter 5, Modal Scales. pg 47

"Tonality is the organized relationship of tones in music. This relationship, as far as the common practice of composers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is concerned, implies a central tone with all other tones supporting it or tending toward it in one way or another.

Modality refers to the choice of the tones between which this relationship exists. Tonality is synonymous with ley, modality with scale. In addition to the major, minor and chromatic scales, a large number or special scales called modal scales can be constructed in any given tonality ..."


pg 48. last 2 paragraphs,

"... We limit ourselves, therefore, to the three modes or scales described in Chapter I - major, minor and chromatic, the last considered as an explanation of of the other two.

(Chapt I refers to natural minor, harmonic minor, and ascending and descending minor)

The acknowledged authority of the major and minor modes over a period of some three hundred years has given rise to the expression major-minor system often applied to our music. We are so imbued with this tradition that we tend to interpret music based on other modes as being in either major or minor, usually with somewhat unsatisfactory results"


And so it goes on. I have several other theory books stating the same, basically.

Let's see what we get from your research.

Cheers, Jerry
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jul 5, 2015,
#2
Look, it really depends on how you want to define tonality. If you're talking about V-I systems, then it's probably a safe bet to say it's either going to lean towards minor or major. But if you want to define tonality as "revolving around one pitch", then it doesn't necessary have to lean either way.
But I really don't give a shit whether it's the case or not. I don't write that much tonal music these days, so it's not really on my list of things to care about.
#3
Quote by GoldenGuitar
Look, it really depends on how you want to define tonality. If you're talking about V-I systems, then it's probably a safe bet to say it's either going to lean towards minor or major. But if you want to define tonality as "revolving around one pitch", then it doesn't necessary have to lean either way.
But I really don't give a shit whether it's the case or not. I don't write that much tonal music these days, so it's not really on my list of things to care about.


Fair enough if you don't care. Others do, especially if they are just starting.

What sort of music you into? Any on soundcloud?

cheers, Jerry
#4
Quote by jerrykramskoy
Fair enough if you don't care. Others do, especially if they are just starting.

What sort of music you into? Any on soundcloud?

cheers, Jerry

Ironically, everything on my soundcloud is from a few years ago, or needed to be really easy to play, aka tonal (literally in C).
Sent you a PM.
Last edited by GoldenGuitar at Jul 5, 2015,
#5
Quote by GoldenGuitar
Ironically, everything on my soundcloud is from a few years ago, or needed to be really easy to play, aka tonal (literally in C).
Sent you a PM.


Cool. Thanks.

BTW: you hit the nail on the head when you said it depends how you want to define tonality. 100% in agreement there.
#6
I'd just like to hear an example of a song that is tonal but not major/minor that doesn't sound like crap. I've heard a lot of people promote their music with catchphrases like "my song in melodic minor" or "this is totally in 7/6 time signature" and they can always be explained with the familiar tonal system and time signatures. I'm no one to say what is right and what is wrong since I haven't had that much formal education, but let's just say that before I hear a good song that's tonal but non major/minor I don't really buy into it.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#7
yeah, how it sounds is all that is important. Examples? I can hardy see a chromatic harmony based on no key to sound listenable.
#8
^
Phrygian (first bit anyway)




inb4 that weird guy who's obsessed with relating Eastern music to western tonality.


Also I talked about this already:

Quote by me
A scale is a tonal collection. It’s a collection of tones that comprise a given melody arranged from lowest to highest. Different cultures used different scales at different time periods, but Western music is primarily concerned with the diatonic scale and its variations through much of its history. Today our definition is a little wider, but fundamentally the idea that a scale is a tonal collection is still accurate.

Keys are a system of freely transposable diatonic scales paired with a mode.

Modes are a harmonic context. While a scale is a tonal collection, a mode is a tonal context. F Dorian, for example, is both a scale and a mode. It tells us the collection of notes that are going to be used in a passage and it also tells us the tonal center. Much the same as E major is both a scale and a mode. It tells us the collection of notes that are going to be used in a passage and it also tells us the tonal center. This combination of scale + mode is effectively what the key system is. Each key (scale) can carry two modes (major or minor). The scale tells us which notes will be used and the mode tells us the harmony and where the tonic is.

It makes literally no sense to say the key of F Dorian (or any other church mode). Keys exclusively refer to a scale and either the major or minor mode. Nothing else. Why? History. If you want to go against that I don’t care, but that’s how it is. On the other hand, saying the major mode or minor mode to refer to pieces in the key system makes perfect sense.

Tonal definition #1. Broadly speaking the word “tonal” simply means having a tonal center (a pitch to which a melody resolves). Most of the world’s music is tonal. In fact, I’d venture to say all of it is outside of a small portion of the music created in the tradition of Western European art music of the last 115 years (i.e., the good stuff). Here we contrast the word tonal with the word atonal (meaning not having a pitch to which a melody resolves).

Tonal definition #2. Within the context of Western music tonality can have a narrower definition. Here we contrast tonality with modality. This is a contrast in a system of harmony. Both tonality and modality are tonal according to tonal definition #1. In modality we call the note the melody resolves to the modal final and in tonality we call that note the tonic. They are just different versions of the same thing. This distinction is what we’re worried about right now and where all of the confusion and bickering about semantics boils down to.
#9
Quote by Kevätuhri
I'd just like to hear an example of a song that is tonal but not major/minor that doesn't sound like crap. I've heard a lot of people promote their music with catchphrases like "my song in melodic minor" or "this is totally in 7/6 time signature" and they can always be explained with the familiar tonal system and time signatures. I'm no one to say what is right and what is wrong since I haven't had that much formal education, but let's just say that before I hear a good song that's tonal but non major/minor I don't really buy into it.



Hi Kevaturhi,

I get you. Ultimately, it's always your decision as a listener and as a player / writer. That's what is should be. Along with your decision to play music for yourself, for others, or both...

There is a lot of Jazz that is tonal but non major/minor, that sounds really nice (to me that is :-)) but this sort of stuff doesn't get spread widely around. And I avoided Jazz till my early 30's ... mates had played me some atonal stuff in my 20's that I couldn't relate to at all at that time ... but being ignorant I mentally translated that experience into "steer clear of anything labelled Jazz". Oh well. I love most music now, and always listen out for new ideas, new approaches.

I also had a problem with classical due to my upbringing which made me rebel massively against it. But you guys here on UG have helped me a lot realise what I'm missing through the various examples that get put up.

And overriding everything, I still love rock / metal / blues (well played).

cheers, Jerry
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jul 5, 2015,
#10
Well, I love jazz music, so send some links my way if you have nice examples.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#11
Drone music like Sunn O))) is tonal without being major or minor.

It revolves around a tonic note and its overtones. It doesn't use the notes of the major or minor scales to create any tension or resolution.
#12
+1000 to JRF. Great examples, especially the difference between the two definitions of tonal, the source of all this whatever-ing anyways. Couldn't have said it better.

What it comes down to is "Big Tonal" and "little tonal."

"Little tonal" being the concept of tonal harmony as a whole (V-I and such)

And "Big Tonal" being everything with roots and tonics.

This distinction is important, but never addressed, because usually we're constantly dealing with tonal harmony, and not swimming into the deep end of the pool. Hence the confusion.

For the record:

I have literally zero problem with people having their own systems for things. My issue is just making sure there isn't misinformation flying literally everywhere.

And oddly enough, Jerry, "Key of E Phrygian" is more or less the only part of that purple book I vehemently disagree with

But again:

Inb4 Tonality is useless and limiting
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#13
Quote by Declan87
Drone music like Sunn O))) is tonal without being major or minor.

It revolves around a tonic note and its overtones. It doesn't use the notes of the major or minor scales to create any tension or resolution.


Do you mean like this?

http://youtu.be/hIR1KfKXH6s
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#15
Can't read Solo e pensoso without my eyes disagreeing with my ears /Stroop

As for drone music, I'd argue that the harmonics speak to some sort of major key context (sharp-ish C).
Last edited by NeoMvsEu at Jul 5, 2015,
#16
Quote by Declan87
Shoot, that shows up my research! I'm not too familiar with the band


Then you shouldn't use them as an example.

Quote by NeoMvsEu
As for drone music, I'd argue that the harmonics speak to some sort of major key context (sharp-ish C).


Do you mean like the 5:1 harmonic being two octaves and a perfect major third?
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#17
Quote by theogonia777

Do you mean like the 5:1 harmonic being two octaves and a perfect major third?


That one and the one that's a (flat) flat seventh. These two: v

Harmonic series:
C C G C E G Bb
#18
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
^
Phrygian (first bit anyway)




inb4 that weird guy who's obsessed with relating Eastern music to western tonality.


Also I talked about this already:



HI JRF.

Thanks for that. And I agree with it ... but I haven't come across this bit in my travels

"It makes literally no sense to say the key of F Dorian (or any other church mode). Keys exclusively refer to a scale and either the major or minor mode. Nothing else. Why? History. If you want to go against that I don’t care, but that’s how it is. On the other hand, saying the major mode or minor mode to refer to pieces in the key system makes perfect sense."


I'd be interested to know whihc book(s) you got that info from?

Double check: you (or rather, history) takes issue with "the key of F Dorian", but you're ok with "the tonality of F Dorian?"

cheers, Jerry
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jul 5, 2015,
#20
Well I doubt you'll find a book that will say that exact quote or even address this issue, but I said that because keys refer to major-minor tonality. Historically we don't see the word key used until tonality is starting to be established and you just don't see people saying the key of X dorian or Y mixolydian. The word key starts being used when the modal system was being collapsed and distilled into the tonal system.

And I don't know why you'd have to say the "tonality of F dorian" just say F dorian.
#21
Quote by jerrykramskoy
Fair enough if you don't care. Others do, especially if they are just starting.

cheers, Jerry

Jerry, I actually quite like the way you explain your threads (ie: The war of names...), and sure, not discounting what the master race state clearly here, and rightfully so, will highlight the inevitable outlook in drawing the final conclusion on theories explained (not the best choice of words I know but sorry). But your threads certainly help at my level to define differences ,such as the Classical Vs Jazz use of say Melodic minor, and with this being an open forum there's always gonna be others that will tweak information posted, accordingly, and that makes for a greater understand (imo).

Sometimes (I have found) the language from the master race can itself be a little hard to decipher at times just what's being said (particularly at my theory level - sometimes you guys run through it too quickly) and to you guys, what seems glaringly obvious... to those like myself ...well you know sometimes we need that shit dumbed down a little further, otherwise it can too easily fly over our heads? Sometimes we need that layman style, slow stroll in the park to absorb things, so yeah, Jerry keep the threads coming, cheers! and JRF, I thank you for that (last thread), missed that opportunity as the thread was closed early and due to those pesky international time differences. (I wasn't going to miss the rugby final and shit it all... we lost).
#22
Hi Tonibet.

Thanks for that. Yes, there are some very knowledgeable folk here, and sometimes the jargon gets a bit intense.

For me, there's a lot of theory books that just hit you with abstract concepts, notation and jargon, without the big picture first (and that picture is simple), and being required to read notation before you're aware of the sounds is all upside down (since that's what music is all about).

Plus I know loads of people that don't want to really dig into every aspect of theory ... they just want enough for their purposes.

My favourite analogy is this: if you want to cook a Thai meal for a few mates, is it reasonable to expect you to learn the Thai language first, because the cook books are all written in Thai? Yet this is the state of play for these people I mention above.

I think the knowledge should be accumulated primarily from practice of hearing / creating these sounds (under guidance) along with the minimum of formal theory to back it up ... and so on, in an iterative manner ... to gradually build both the knowledge/skills, but also the confidence for the student to engage and develop new ideas.

cheers, Jerry
#23
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Well I doubt you'll find a book that will say that exact quote or even address this issue, but I said that because keys refer to major-minor tonality. Historically we don't see the word key used until tonality is starting to be established and you just don't see people saying the key of X dorian or Y mixolydian. The word key starts being used when the modal system was being collapsed and distilled into the tonal system.

And I don't know why you'd have to say the "tonality of F dorian" just say F dorian.


Thanks JRF.

I would say "F Dorian". Less words :-)

cheers, Jerry
#24
Tonibet,

All due respect, let's keep some things in mind. Many times people come here asking questions, without the foundation to understand the answers given. When that happens, the proper move there, is educate yourself and then come back. It's not to have someone now tasked on a topic to also supplement ones backwards education model. Backwards education happens when, instead of preparing oneself for investing in and being responsible for their own (what I know and what I don't) knowledge and development, they subtly apply pressure to the person responding, that "no it's not that I don't invest in my own education it's that YOU speak over my head, and you need to bring things down to my level, and in cases where I don't understand and have the attending background knowledge, well YOU need to bring me up to speed on that as well in a way that I understand as well."

Then it becomes teaching by proxy. At some point people become indentured, conscripted servants, by the simple matter, that (person) is unwilling to own their education except it come from convenience, not investment. Which sucks because the line between helping people and teaching becomes blurry.

If someone doesn't understand, it's not our fault. There are books and resources out there. These days, ignorance is not a valid excuse. People don't know because they haven't invested. anyone can grab Berklees Modern Method for next to nothing. They won't though, because they don't want to. It steps on their insistence for immediate gratification and figures poorly into their value systems that only want things that arrive through the least amount of personal investment.

Now you might say, "some people don't mind teaching us", but that's their call to make not the person who doesn't know. I object to the thinly veiled entitlement intimations that I see as a subtext to "questions". If you don't know or understand something, that's not our doing, it's yours. That's not our job to fix, it's yours. And by fix I mean something different than "posing an array of questions in a different color text" rather than own your own actions and get out there and read a book, or hire a teacher. We aren't helping ignorance, we are catering to someone's insistence that their education be made convenient.

Best,

Sean
#25
I don't really see major/minor as the biggest distinction in music or what creates tonality. The fundamental trait of music is motion, and everything else is an emergent property of pitches in motion. Major and minor describe systems of pitches, but being major or minor chords isn't what makes them tonal. It's the motion - in the case of major/minor, tonality is epitomized by the V I relationship. The fundamental impulse of the music is to move by 5th

But it doesn't have to be. There is such a thing as quartal harmony, where you chords are built on fourths instead of thirds. Even in regular tertian harmony you can write chords that don't include thirds and are resolved to by non-fifth intervals. You write songs where the progression is minor but it resolves to a major chord. And, yes, there is modal harmony, where the harmony is basically an entire mode (interval series), and the motion is just a change in the interval series (ie Steve Reich).

These musical conventions will seem a lot less restrictive when you understand them and are used to working with them. Lots of people dislike learning traditional things because they don't want to sound traditional - but guess who else didn't want to sound traditional: everyone whose musical tradition is worth learning! All of musical tradition is a story of musicians who were bored with the tradition they inherited and decided to push the envelope.

Getting to the interesting stuff really does take some time, but by the time you get there, you will no longer be concerned with the strictures of the major/minor tonal system, because composers broke that barrier like a century ago, and if you really want, you can get books and learn about what they did.
#26
Quote by cdgraves
I don't really see major/minor as the biggest distinction in music or what creates tonality. The fundamental trait of music is motion, and everything else is an emergent property of pitches in motion. Major and minor describe systems of pitches, but being major or minor chords isn't what makes them tonal. It's the motion - in the case of major/minor, tonality is epitomized by the V I relationship. The fundamental impulse of the music is to move by 5th

But it doesn't have to be. There is such a thing as quartal harmony, where you chords are built on fourths instead of thirds. Even in regular tertian harmony you can write chords that don't include thirds and are resolved to by non-fifth intervals. You write songs where the progression is minor but it resolves to a major chord. And, yes, there is modal harmony, where the harmony is basically an entire mode (interval series), and the motion is just a change in the interval series (ie Steve Reich).

These musical conventions will seem a lot less restrictive when you understand them and are used to working with them. Lots of people dislike learning traditional things because they don't want to sound traditional - but guess who else didn't want to sound traditional: everyone whose musical tradition is worth learning! All of musical tradition is a story of musicians who were bored with the tradition they inherited and decided to push the envelope.

Getting to the interesting stuff really does take some time, but by the time you get there, you will no longer be concerned with the strictures of the major/minor tonal system, because composers broke that barrier like a century ago, and if you really want, you can get books and learn about what they did.


Now this I agree with, cdgraves. Well put. And apologies to you for going overboard in my response to your previous post. That was dumb of me.

cheers, Jerry
#27
Quote by Sean0913
Tonibet,

All due respect, (rant)...

Best,

Sean
Hey Sean, hmmm... yeah kind of?
But please don't let that become an excuse to say whatever it is you like though. I mean from time to time (lol), there's this "look at me, I know something that you don't know.... and I'm not gonna tell" amongst these forums and it can often come off as just plain old showing off and is no more a contribution than 0.02¢, and sure we can all be guilty of it at times, (sometimes perhaps it's even necessary? idk), but it can also be viewed as an easier way out, (which granted) to actually tackle the question, does to some degree, require a fairly mutual understanding, (for all the reasons you posted^^), and some may choose to do it, to actually make a point, and some just for shits n giggles.

A pet peeve I have is when someone asks a question that perhaps requires (to some degree) a bit of 'organic' to-&-fro-ing... to get through that sticking point in their theory, and the thread is soon filled with all those go nowhere statements...
You'll personally remember my encounter with a particular character (ouat), where they didn't even understand the question... and so it became my fault, only for many others to begin answering accordingly (you being central in making me feel like I hadn't just entered into the twighlight zone, and I thank you again for that day!)

Not to single out any mod in particular, but the general consensus from them (in my experience) has been "please do ask, that's what these forums are for", and sure re' my post, last thread, sometimes we just have to take what we get, for better or worse.

Some will answer, some won't.
Some don't even understand the question at first until the thread takes hold,
then they answer ...and some still don't.
...and as I read here recently: Some just get sick of repeating themselves every 3 days.

and (occasionally) vice/versa!

and some... well hey it's an online music forum, gotta love it!

I raise my Milo/Ovaltine/Malt Chocolate Milk to those some that do, and to those some that otherwise... well, I can only imagine your frustration at times (more often than not). more hot milk? haha!


All good! haha!
Last edited by tonibet72 at Jul 7, 2015,
#28
Yeah, I get what you're saying though.

I used to make an approach that was more or less, I can help you with all this, but I cant give it away for free, because I make a living with it, and its a slap in the face to those who pay me.

I still can't.

That's never changed, but I've mellowed a bit. I try not to make those statements any more, and rather, I just help where I can. If people need more they can contact me for mentoring. Which has always been free with no strings.

And there IS a place of please ask, that's what these forums are for. But there's always been an expectation that, when you ask, make sure you have the attending knowledge to understand the answer. Hence why so many mode threads go awry very quickly.

My point and hope for you is that you're actually out there investing into your own knowledge, as in reading books. Say what people will about Liampj, but at some point, after all that time, the dude, went out and bought the AB Guide to Music Theory, and started going through it, and I respect the hell out of him for that. His questions soon were being resolved, and any other questions he'd raise all had legitimate basis, and points to them, augmenting his music theory studies, and not as a subsidy for not studying.

I hope the same for you. Its not about money, but it is about investment into your own development.

If a person doesn't want to know or learn theory, then what the hell do they care what key a song is in?

Just use your ear and find notes that fit.

I know I'm coming across as grouchy right now, but we've all seen this - I dont want to be bothered, just answer me, kind of posts. That get's old. Just because they post here doesn't mean they want help, many just want answers that are convenient, and there's a difference, I'm sure you'd agree.

Best,

Sean
#29
If only to clarify on my last post this thread... I would like to reiterate that I was by no means making any attempt to single out any of the mods here, they have all been what I have expected from such a role, if not many times over... Liampj? who's Liampj? (rhetorical question) ...certainly no connection to anything what I was bleetin about!

Anywho; a music forum (as I understand it) is an open place where people come to discuss, share, ask, answer, what ever, how much ever, and when ever they so choose... within legitimate, legal confines of course. Someone might post a youtube clip of some composition, band, guitarist, solo, interview, whatever, and it might drop the proverbial penny I was looking for, more so than any of the numerous worded attempts posted in earnest. Sometimes the music itself, can speak volumes alone (as a learning tool), and as Sean pointed out, only if the student has enough of a grasp to understand and learn from it.

but essentially, I'm now off thread topic.

but yeah?
Last edited by tonibet72 at Jul 7, 2015,
#30
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Well I doubt you'll find a book that will say that exact quote or even address this issue, but I said that because keys refer to major-minor tonality. Historically we don't see the word key used until tonality is starting to be established and you just don't see people saying the key of X dorian or Y mixolydian. The word key starts being used when the modal system was being collapsed and distilled into the tonal system.

And I don't know why you'd have to say the "tonality of F dorian" just say F dorian.


Semantics
Last edited by Jehannum at Jul 15, 2015,
#32
Quote by cdgraves
I don't really see major/minor as the biggest distinction in music or what creates tonality. The fundamental trait of music is motion

nah the only fundamental trait of music is time

why should music have to move?
#33
Quote by welvendagreat
nah the only fundamental trait of music is time

why should music have to move?


Nobody says it has to. Monoharmonic music tends to pall quickly, though. Even the modiest of modal music has some sort of resolution, be it harmonic or melodic.
Last edited by cdgraves at Jul 18, 2015,
#35
Quote by welvendagreat
well if it doesn't have to, motion isn't fundamental

qed


I kind of agree with this, but unless the rhythm makes up for the lack of motion, and/or the sounds involved are immersive enough, I'd very rapidly lose interest.

I do agree that rhythm underpins everything, although it took me a long time to finally realise that (for a very long time I was solely concerned on how to create and deal with harmony and improvisation over it ... big big mistake on my behalf ... I wish I'd paid as much attention, or more even, to rhythm).

cheers, Jerry
#36
Quote by welvendagreat
well if it doesn't have to, motion isn't fundamental

qed


Music doesn't have to do any particular thing, but that certainly doesn't mean that music lacks fundamental concepts. Motion is fundamental because almost all composers have chosen resolving harmonies, not because it's some mysterious rule of the universe. Tonality and rhythm are fundamental, as well, but there's plenty of music written outside those traditional confines.

I call motion especially fundamental because it's pretty hard to write music in which the notes never move. What would that even sound like? Just a single pitch or chord ringing until the piece ends?

But don't let these concepts boss you around - write music however you like, analyze it after the fact. It's just music.
Last edited by cdgraves at Jul 18, 2015,
#37
To be more specific, the fundamental trait of all music is some method to count rhythm. In that sense, I think cdg and welven are both right to some extent. Music has (an) organized pitch(es) (or tacets - 4'33" )that change or are repeated over time, but beyond that it's impossible to generalize. There are cultures whose song depends on tonal clusters, which have no melody or harmony in the Western theoretical sense.

Boredom has nothing to do with music quality. There is a lot of music that exists that most people haven't heard. Continue on in the Western bias.
Last edited by NeoMvsEu at Jul 18, 2015,
#38
Music is timbre and duration. That's it.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
Page 1 of 2