Page 2 of 2
#41
NeoMvsEu I'm sure you're right,,. But unfortunately, I tend to be stuck in a Phrygian dominant rut, which generally nets a pure I > II half step cadence. Even the Andalusian Cadence, (which is technically a harmonic minor scale), gives us that I > II Byzantine gift. (Which isn't actually I > II but rather bVI > V). Reference Al Stewart, "Roads to Moscow", Bob Dylan "One More Cup of Coffee", and although I'm not quite sure, Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and believe it or not, Dire Straits, "Sultans of Swing"".

The "Roads to Moscow" implementation is E > Fmaj7, which leaves you with an E drone, tres modal. (at least for a few measures).
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 16, 2017,
#42
Captaincranky

Roads to Moscow is Em - C (albeit Eb tuning so concert Ebm - Cb )

eb|-------------------------|
Bb|-------------------------|
Gb|-------0-----------0-----|
Db|-----4---4-------4---4---|
Ab|---2-------2---3-------3-|
Eb|-0-----------0-----------|
#43
NeoMvsEu You can't be possibly be suggesting that our tab is wrong, can you?


Em................................................... Fmaj7
Winter brought with her the rains, oceans of mud filled the roads

Em ............................................................ Fmaj7
Glueing the tracks of their tanks to the ground while the sky filled
with snow

C..................G...................... C..... G.........Em
And all that I ever, was able to see ------ee


Although I'll grant you that "glueing" is spelled wrong.

But, from C to Fmaj7, here again, all we're dealing with is that pesky "F" to make it Phrygian.


AFAIK, or as far as my tin ear allows, the chord does change when you go to the C,G,C, G, Em, "all that I ever" refrain. So the preceding chord can't be C major.

CODA: I will grant you that my I >II Phrygian dominant is technically incorrect, but that E > F is possibly more insistent than what you're suggesting or is written in the tab. E major is also quite startling if used after the C, G, C, G >E. I also think I know why he tuned down, since E4 is a biddy to hit for a baritone at the end of a breath. Eb, much easier to sing.
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 16, 2017,
#44
Captaincranky, giving a general area/song section might help in the future; not everyone has your taste in music

As for the chord chart, where the section is concerned, all of the E-rooted chords are E MAJOR (or at least dominant 7th). So yeah, this section could be interpreted as Phrygian dominant in the vamp part. Trusting in stuff without proper critical review is what nets simple chord charts an inordinate rating relative to their objective accuracy.
#45
Quote by NeoMvsEu
Captaincranky, giving a general area/song section might help in the future; not everyone has your taste in music ;...[ ].....
This is why I'd never make it in a cover band. If given the chance, I'd play "Roads to Moscow", backed up by, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", at children's birthday parties.....
#46
I have some thoughts and questions about what distinguishes modal from tonal and would like to read the thinking of others, but before we proceed I think it might be good to have a modal example to discuss (in terms of key, modes, progressions, cadences, counterpoint, melody, etc.).

So, first, can we agree that this is "old modal" (let's just look at the first section - G. P. da Palestrina, Motets For 5 Voices from 0:00-2:45)?

If so, then may we use this to see how it is different from tonal?  

Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#48
Quote by theogonia777
Vreid

You could say the Mixolydian or Dorian scale but it's still the key of E major or minor.  If you give somebody the key and they know what they're doing, the scale options are obvious.

My emphasis...  

For some people "key of E major" means (understandably) the E major scale, and they'll be confused because the E major scale has a D#, so how are they supposed to use that on the D chord?  The D chord is not in the key of E major (according to the basic view of music theory).

The "scale options" are not obvious to a beginner, to someone who doesn't "know what they're doing".  Someone who knows what they're doing in a context like this won't be asking a question like the OP's here.
#49
Quote by PlusPaul
I have some thoughts and questions about what distinguishes modal from tonal and would like to read the thinking of others, but before we proceed I think it might be good to have a modal example to discuss (in terms of key, modes, progressions, cadences, counterpoint, melody, etc.).

So, first, can we agree that this is "old modal" (let's just look at the first section - G. P. da Palestrina, Motets For 5 Voices from 0:00-2:45)?

If so, then may we use this to see how it is different from tonal?  

We could, but it's probably of more interest and relevance on this forum to talk about the differences between tonal and modern modal (post-tonal).  The way  modes are used in pop, rock and jazz is vastly different from pre-tonal modal usage.  So different that the modern usage probably needs a different word, but that's not going to happen!

UG's modes sticky (Neo's link) is good, and I'd also recommend this, to anyone interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/core/modes - it certainly covers medieval modal practice as well as modal jazz practice - in brief, necessarily.
#50
Quote by jonriley64

For some people "key of E major" means (understandably) the E major scale, and they'll be confused because the E major scale has a D#, so how are they supposed to use that on the D chord?  The D chord is not in the key of E major (according to the basic view of music theory)....[ ].....
The D major chord, or the note D, really isn't that obscure in the key of E major, and both are often encountered.
"Modal theory" actually collides with "blues theory" in an odd sort of way, since Em pentatonic is played over the key of E major.. Since E major doesn't possess that D#, all you get is that D in the Em pent, which is the b7th, and "all's right in the world".

From what I have observed, "these kids today", seem to be learning pentatonic scales, (or preferring to learn (?)), pentatonic scales first, the D# (in E major), really isn't taken into account.

A flat 7th chord is used frequently (?) in rock, which also assists in justifying the D natural in an E major setting.

Here's the chord tab for the Stones "Sympathy for the Devil: https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/the_rolling_stones/sympathy_for_the_devil_ver2_crd.htm

Sheet music shows the song as being in E major, but through the verse, the chords are those of the key of A, (A, D, & E), but we do start out on E major, so one can suppose that establishes the key of E..

Note that the D# in the E major scale, doesn't factor in until the bridges, when it might come in handy over top of the B major chord.
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 17, 2017,
#51
Quote by NeoMvsEu

I read the first one... interesting, and does cover a lot, but it does not get at the kind of thing I have been thinking about.
I did notice that Palestrina shows up at the end of the modal period with hints of tonality, so I don't know if that is a good example.

He takes for granted that we hear diatonically, but then makes the assertion that back then they heard modally and not tonally as keys, chords, and roots, but today we hear tonally as keys, chords, and roots and not modally. If human perception of music is flexible enough to be heard either way, why not the other, or both? The relative structures of the pitches and harmonies are heard no matter what the different names applied at the time.

I view the "seeking the tonic" description of tonality inadequate; much more is going on during the departure from and meandering around back to the tonic. Some departures serve to invoke and support entirely new harmonic and melodic cascades of routes back to the tonic, and to my ear these paths themselves are most important.

When I first ran across the idea of function, I thought I knew what it was because I heard it, although I would describe it in terms of a kind of aural stress configuration space that varies shape through time so that to "know how a song goes" is to be familiar with the shape along that song's pathway through time. As I learned more about function I was disappointed that its scope seemed quite limited and did not include all space shapes. I think the vertical vs horizontal analytical perspectives of these paths are more an artifact from the appearance of written music than the phenomenological qualia of how it is perceived.  
Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#52
Quote by jonriley64
We could, but it's probably of more interest and relevance on this forum to talk about the differences between tonal and modern modal (post-tonal).  The way  modes are used in pop, rock and jazz is vastly different from pre-tonal modal usage.  So different that the modern usage probably needs a different word, but that's not going to happen!

UG's modes sticky (Neo's link) is good, and I'd also recommend this, to anyone interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/core/modes - it certainly covers medieval modal practice as well as modal jazz practice - in brief, necessarily.

I thought the enlightened informed consensus these days was the contention that there is no such thing as modern post-tonal modal (MPTM); that everyone who is playing and talking MPTM are misguided and just playing and talking plain ordinary historical tonal (POHT), in spite of naming things with modal appearing names.
Quote by reverb66
I'm pretty sure the Bible requires that you play through a tube amp in Texas.
#53
Quote by PlusPaul
I read the first one... interesting, and does cover a lot, but it does not get at the kind of thing I have been thinking about.
I did notice that Palestrina shows up at the end of the modal period with hints of tonality, so I don't know if that is a good example.

He takes for granted that we hear diatonically, but then makes the assertion that back then they heard modally and not tonally as keys, chords, and roots, but today we hear tonally as keys, chords, and roots and not modally. If human perception of music is flexible enough to be heard either way, why not the other, or both?
Perception of music is conditioned by cultural acclimatization.
They could not have heard tonally back then because tonality had not been invented. They would probably have regarded tonal harmony as we use it as a baffling cacophony - too many notes all falling over themselves at the same time! Sounds we regard as "sweet" they would have heard as unpleasantly dissonant. (It took centuries for 3rds to become acceptable.)

We can get an idea of this cultural factor by listening to present day music of cultures very different from our own. Chinese or Indonesian music can sound very harsh to our ears - at least if we have heard very little of it. Even within western culture, someone trained in classical harmony will hear jazz chords as strangely dissonant. I've known classically trained musicians hearing a maj7 chord as unresolved - the them it sounded "wrong" to end a tune on a maj7. The maj7 interval actually is dissonant, as we can tell if we isolate it from the chord. But jazz ears - and pop ears - have accepted the chord as a "sweet" sound, perfectly suitable as a final chord to a song. In fact (I understand) it's only been used in jazz since Duke Ellington pioneered it.

Historically, in popular music we only have to think back 50 years or so. When the Beatles first arrived, their music was frequently described as "noise", bafflingly harsh. In the 1950s, rock'n'roll was thought to threaten civilisation. Obviously, teenagers hadn't been acclimatized to the mellower music of previous decades, so weren't biased, and were able to identify with the youth, energy and humour of the bands. Those teenagers grew up, and now you find them complaining about rap, or death metal, or EDM, or whatever. Plus ca change...

Just imagine going back 5 centuries (or more)!
Quote by PlusPaul

I view the "seeking the tonic" description of tonality inadequate; much more is going on during the departure from and meandering around back to the tonic. Some departures serve to invoke and support entirely new harmonic and melodic cascades of routes back to the tonic, and to my ear these paths themselves are most important.

When I first ran across the idea of function, I thought I knew what it was because I heard it, although I would describe it in terms of a kind of aural stress configuration space that varies shape through time so that to "know how a song goes" is to be familiar with the shape along that song's pathway through time. As I learned more about function I was disappointed that its scope seemed quite limited and did not include all space shapes. I think the vertical vs horizontal analytical perspectives of these paths are more an artifact from the appearance of written music than the phenomenological qualia of how it is perceived.  
Nice points!
What you're saying, essentially, is that music theory doesn't deal with the subjective experience of music. Music theory just labels and describes music. It gives names to sounds and common processes, but offers no explanation of how they work. It's rather like describing a speech in terms of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc, but not addressing what the person is actually saying.

Music evolves vary much like verbal language does. We would probably not be able to understand an English speaker from several centuries ago. We might recognise the odd word, but the accent and dialect would undoubtedly be strange.

The meanings of music are not literal, of course, but they do operate - at least in tonal music - in a kind of narrative fashion. They "tell a story" from consonance to dissonance and back, much like fairy tales set up scenarios and handle conflict. In a sense, a piece of tonal music (at least from the classical tradition) is a moral tale. Consonance and stability win out in the end, despite the best efforts of evil (dissonance), thanks to the clever strategies of a civilised composer.
It's no accident that classical music arose in Christian Europe, accompanying a time of imperialism, capitalism and - later - the industrial revolution. It was perfectly designed to express the values of that society - the music of that society could hardly have been designed any other way. (It owes its complexity to the invention of notation, but its forms and sounds are all about the values and morals of that culture.)

There is very little that is "natural" about music, and tonal harmony certainly isn't. Harmony in any other musical culture is either crude, accidental, or non-existent - they are simply not interested in it as an important element of music. Their music is more interested in melody, rhythm, timbre, etc. (European tonal music is relatively crude in those respects, because of its focus on harmony.)
In terms of the anthropology of human music-making, the European classical system of keys is a bizarre blip - a strange (if impressive) deviation.

Most music is modal, not tonal. In that sense, medieval modes and modern modes have that much in common, but nothing else. Modern modal music is inevitably coloured by our cultural tonal background. It may be a reaction against it, but cannot escape its influence.
Last edited by jonriley64 at Oct 17, 2017,
#54
Captaincranky
"Sympathy for the Devil" is generally using the D major chords as a double plagal cadence thing, which is a common rock idiom, and the D# features strongly throughout the entire song, not just in the bridge. It's functional harmony, ergo E major

PlusPaul
Palestrina was a master at counterpoint long before Bach and counterpoint's formalization in the form of Fux's Gradus ad parnassum. The basis of cadential push and pull existed before tonality was formalized in Rameau's A Treatise on Harmony, but that doesn't mean that the vertical (chord-based) approach to harmony was the goal, only the result of good contrapuntal (horizontal) practices.

Besides Palestrina, a lot of counterpoint-centric composers existed: de Lassus, Allegri, Wilbye, etc.

There is a pointed difference between the two modal approaches, and that is, as Jon says, centered around the prominence of chords. Saying that they are one in the same is too much reduction. Also, extrapolating present idioms into the past can lead to extremely inaccurate conclusions. The past informs the present, not the other way around.
Page 2 of 2