This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#229855 by DainNobody
Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:00 pm
the role of the promary chords (the most important ones) was determined by what is called "Cadence" (from the Latin word meaning "to fall") describes a concluding phrase or a phrase suggesting conclusion..It normally occurs at or near the end of a melody or a section of music...there are FOUR different kinds of cadences in primary chord progressions...the PERFECT CADENCE is the resolution from the V (dominant) to the I (tonic) chord..
the IMPERFECT CADENCE is the progression from the I (tonic) chord to the V (dominant) it normally occurs in the middle of a chord sequence, not at the end, and it can be used to describe the movement of any chord to the V - USUALLY the II, IV, or VI..
the PLAGAL CADENCE is the resolution from the IV (sub-dominant) to the I (tonic) chord..
the INTERRUPTED CADENCE is the progression from the V (dominant) to any chord other than the I (tonic) .. it is USUALLY to the III, IV, or VI..
in chord sequences in a major key, these cadences reflect a definite sense of motion, tension and resolution.. however in a minor key the V (dominant) chord is a minor triad, not a major triad, and this means it does not produce the same effect when used in cadences..it was for this reason that the 7th note in the minor scale was raised by a semi-tone to create the harmonic minor scale..triads built on the harmonic minor scale could therefore produce a different series of chords: I minor, II diminished, III augmented, IV diminished, V major, VI major, and VII diminished..the V chord was now major instead of a minor, and the result was that the rules of cadences could be applied in the same way to both major and minor keys.. this concludes your free lesson..

#229875 by Starfish Scott
Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:45 pm
Ouch, can I have a simplified version to digest?

Soon as it gets very technical, you feel like you need a dictionary to interpret what you are saying.

I must be dense, I read this stuff and I start to bleed a little on the brain.

(woozy) lol

#230213 by RhythmMan-2
Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:49 pm
I'm self taught, haven't studied any of that, I play by ear.
I've been hired to teach people who've played for years.
.
I've met several music instructors who were, well . . . just plain crappy to listen to.
.
I'm not actually knocking instruction, just pointing out that you can study music and learn new things month after month after month after month without ever taking theory.
.
We have 2 halves to our brains - the musical, and the logical.
Practice enough, and you can just sit back and play your butt off - and ENJOY it, without analyzing it . . . .
.
So, ok, here's the spot where everybody tells me I'm a jerk and I probably don't know anything . . .
Yep, when I TALK to those guys, sure seems like I don't know anything.
But then we both pick up our guitars . . .
:D
I often play with musicians who've learned by the book, and they ask me to explain how I'm doing my music.
I say "Here, see? Like THIS!~"
Heh-heh, drives them nuts.
Then I wind up teaching them for a couple hours, and they don't want to go home . . .
:lol:

#230221 by gtZip
Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:10 pm
It's just a language - to describe what has been revealed by experiment and observation.
You can put any labels on it that you feel like; the value in a formal set of terms is that it lets you quickly communicate with someone else who knows the language.

#230222 by RhythmMan-2
Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:16 pm
Yeah, gtzip.
I gotta agree that a " . . . formal set of terms . . . lets you quickly communicate with someone else " is a valuable thing.

#230227 by Planetguy
Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:14 pm
knowledge of theory unto itself is a guarantee of little to nothing in terms of how well you can actually "make music".

but as gtzip pointed out..and as we all know...music is a language, and being able to communicate the nuts and bolts of what you're doing is valuable to those who want to grasp what it is you're doing/playing.

and the opposite is obviously true as well.

i make no judgements as to which path someone takes w when it comes to making music, but honestly for me....though i'm sure i'd still enjoy music w/o being ABLE to "analyze" it...there's no doubt that being ABLE to analyze adds many more layers to my enjoyment.

and i know for a fact that the folks i play with appreciate the fact that i can quickly lay out chords/keys/time signatures/modualtions/etc on the fly and in the heat of battle.

it's a good skill to have and i know i sure appreciate it in others when i'm on stage playing a song i've never heard before.


as to "playing by ear", i might have a good handle on theory but like most people in that same boat...i still "play by ear".

my EAR hears a II/V/I progression and then my INNER EAR hears a melody or bass line....then i play the bit i'm "hearing". after playing it, my "ear" might tell me...."hey, play a different rhythm"...or "leave some notes out"...."play that last note LOUDER"...

...as i see it that IS playing by ear.
#230245 by Planetguy
Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:10 pm
Dayne Nobody IV wrote: the PLAGAL CADENCE is the resolution from the IV (sub-dominant) to the I (tonic) chord..
the INTERRUPTED CADENCE is the progression from the V (dominant) to any chord other than the I (tonic) .. it is USUALLY to the III, IV, or VI..


i think that though they might hold some arcane interest to some.....these terms have little practical use or application.

in my close to 40 yrs of playing and playing out w A LOT of schooled musicians...i've NEVER heard these terms used outside of the classroom.
#230274 by Cajundaddy
Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:52 pm
Planetguy wrote:
Dayne Nobody IV wrote: the PLAGAL CADENCE is the resolution from the IV (sub-dominant) to the I (tonic) chord..
the INTERRUPTED CADENCE is the progression from the V (dominant) to any chord other than the I (tonic) .. it is USUALLY to the III, IV, or VI..


i think that though they might hold some arcane interest to some.....these terms have little practical use or application.

in my close to 40 yrs of playing and playing out w A LOT of schooled musicians...i've NEVER heard these terms used outside of the classroom.


Hmmm, I minored in music, played in the jazz band, sang in the top vocal groups in college and I don't remember ever hearing these terms inside the classroom. Relevance your honor?? As gigging musicians and songwriters, why should we care about terms like "plagal cadence" ? What is the practical application?

#230288 by gtZip
Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:18 pm
With something like the Cadences, I think the real value is in the 'why'.
Examples of a certain cadence in use in a popular song, and for what purpose gets the idea across more than anything else I think.

Music Theory is poorly, poorly named. It isn't theories, it's a language (or protocol).

#230297 by Starfish Scott
Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:01 pm
ooh is that my cue?

YEAH "PROTOCOL".. LOL

#230301 by Planetguy
Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:29 pm
gtZip wrote:
Music Theory is poorly, poorly named. It isn't theories, it's a language (or protocol).


well "semantics" raise their ugly head and are at play here for sure.

to me the word "theory" suggests something put forth but as yet unproven. since there ARE rules of "music theory", i see your point and have to agree....there just might be a better term than "music theory"

#230310 by VinnyViolin
Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:22 am
Wiki wrote:Music theory is a set of systems for analyzing, classifying, and composing music and the elements of music.

Narrowly it may be defined as the description in words of elements of music, and the interrelationship toward the notation of music and performance practice.

Broadly, theory may be considered any statement, belief, or concept of the music (Boretz, 1995).

Thus academic study of music is called musicology.


It is common to say music theory, when music system, might be better.

There are different theories and different systems of music.
The term "music theory" is often used to refer to the European classical theory and systems, and it's derivatives. Kind of like if, when some one uses the word "religion" and everyone assumes they are speaking of Christianity.

With out considering any other theory, it does seem odd to say "music theory" since the rules that define the workings of that theory appear fairly concrete.
To say "music theory" makes more sense in a context considering other music theories.

There are other, much older, music theories and systems, with different rules, still in use today, throughout the world, to make music.
... and newer ones too. Joseph Schillinger endeavored to create a rational system that could accommodate the analysis and composition of music theories from any of time or culture. Some of his work anticipated the way music is displayed nowadays in computer DAW recording programs.

#230316 by MikeTalbot
Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:48 am
I find this stuff interesting like most theory because on those very rare occasions when I'm at a loss with a song or a riff - I can reach in there for an idea.

Or a justification for some bizarre bullshit I attempted! 8)

Talbot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests