Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Is anyone interested in a new theory that matches with the ear?

  1. #1

    Is anyone interested in a new theory that matches with the ear?

    The main idea is that there's a point that we reference from, a Key, a Root, an Extension that can be proven to be true. If so a number will sound consistent enough to be memorized. Without knowledge of the reference point measurements do not matter.

    For Example: CEG is traditionally a major chord, but it could sound dark in the key of E, which would have b3s and b6s. To get it to sound this way would require some work. Playing the E first and last, and on beat, and louder, and any other positive tendencies.

  2. #2
    Registered User Color of Music's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    417
    sounds interesting. but maybe I'm confusing things as you seem to be pointing out Dynamics. Don't get me wrong, I think I see where you're going though. Do enlighten me though, please!

  3. #3
    Yes Dynamics can change which note we perceive to be the 1. So can every other aspect of sound. Take any pair of opposites like "High and Low" or "Random and Repeating", and there will be a tendency to perceive one of them as the Key, Root etc.

    The more contrast, the stronger a tendency is. The more even or equal, the weaker a tendency is. Repetition would matter if one note is repeated much more than others. If all notes are repeated the same amount then repetition is not the reason that we're in a certain Key.

    Tendencies are "usually" instead of "always". Even a strong tendency can lose if enough of the other tendencies are against it. So a repetitious note may not be your Key if it's also high, soft, and complex.

    If we add positive tendencies to our Key it should get more solid, confident and obvious sounding. If instead it causes more tension then it wasn't the note that the ear was measuring from. This is a great way to test which note the 1 is.

  4. #4
    Registered User Color of Music's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    417
    Hmm ... that is a neat way.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    439
    unfortunately, there seems to be some misunderstanding about generally accepted music theory as taught in Universities, respected theory books, etc

    and that's important so that we can ALL understand what you are trying to communicate to knowledgeable musicians

    first of all some basics need to be addressed

    Dynamics are how loud or soft you play a note, chord, etc

    for instance you are playing an E chord and you gradually make the SOUND louder than what you were previously playing, your are establishing and applying dynamics(if you chose you could also play softer than what you were previously sounding also)

    that strategy of applying dynamics "in general" does not establish ANY key tonal center

    it just changes how loud or soft the key tonal center sounds

    now as to your example

    if your trying to establish a "tonal center" than you want to focus on the chords in a chord progression,

    your comments kind of lean toward that, but also seem to imply chord inversions

    so i will address and cover both bases

    Quote by Ken Valentino
    For Example: CEG is traditionally a major chord, but it could sound dark in the key of E, which would have b3s and b6s. To get it to sound this way would require some work.
    Playing the E first and last, and on beat, and louder, and any other positive tendencies.
    I need some clarification here,

    because I'm not sure if your talking about a chord inversion, or modal chord progression

    playing the EXACT notes of a chord in a different order is known as a chord inversion

    taking the notes of a chord and rearranging them
    (ie. your major C chord contains the notes of C E G
    if you take those SAME notes and rearrange them so that the E note starts first(its known as the 1st inversion of a major chord) or start with the G note(it's known as the 2nd inversion of a major chord)

    in your example E G C with an additional E up higher in the melody

    the next part is determining if your referring to a chord progression

    in this quote it sounds like your talking about a chord progression
    quote by Ken V
    The main idea is that there's a point that we reference from, a Key, a Root, an Extension that can be proven to be true
    now as to your specific chord progression

    its basically a major key progression that adds a b6 maj chord

    while you can RATIONALIZE and THEORIZE any type of use of a chord in a chord progression,

    really it comes down to SUBJECTIVE opinion, if it "sounds good to you, then it is good"

    from a music theory prospective what you MAYBE kind of establishing when you play an E major chord to C major chord progression is a type of modal chord progression,

    as long as you make sure to end and go back to your original starting chord in this case the E major chord

    this could be considered establishing a E modal chord progression that is Minor in sound

    from a theory perspective E maj going to C major is MINOR SOUNDING and can explain why you consider it sounding "DARK"

    FYI: it would probably sound even "darker" if you changed the C major chord, and substituted a G major chord, which is the b3 major chord

    then it would sound "really Minor sounding"

    but really it's all up to personal preference, of what you consider is "dark" sounding

    so which are you theorizing Ken, a chord inversion or a chord progression, so we can understand your theory that you are proposing ?
    Last edited by Schooligo; 11-11-2013 at 08:54 PM.
    "Success is arriving at a Personal Satisfaction within yourself"

    Dedicated To Guitar!!!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Schooligo View Post

    I need some clarification here,

    because I'm not sure if your talking about a chord inversion, or modal chord progression

    playing the EXACT notes of a chord in a different order is known as a chord inversion

    taking the notes of a chord and rearranging them
    (ie. your major C chord contains the notes of C E G
    if you take those SAME notes and rearrange them so that the E note starts first(its known as the 1st inversion of a major chord) or start with the G note(it's known as the 2nd inversion of a major chord)

    in your example E G C with an additional E up higher in the melody

    the next part is determining if your referring to a chord progression

    from a music theory prospective what you MAYBE kind of establishing when you play an E major chord to C major chord progression is a type of modal chord progression,

    as long as you make sure to end and go back to your original starting chord in this case the E major chord

    this could be considered establishing a E modal chord progression that is Minor in sound

    from a theory perspective E maj going to C major is MINOR SOUNDING and can explain why you consider it sounding "DARK"

    so which are you theorizing Ken, a chord inversion or a chord progression?
    Neither

    A b6 is harder to get to work if played as a "chord"(simultaneous notes) so I was talking about Melody or ringing out notes in a chord. I also referred to repeating a note more than the others, if I played the group of 3 notes every time together then I couldn't use that tendency.
    Last edited by Ken Valentino; 11-11-2013 at 09:29 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Color of Music View Post
    Hmm ... that is a neat way.
    Thanks!

  8. #8
    Lets take just a C note and an E note.

    If enough strong positive tendencies are on the E and enough strong negative tendencies are on the C then we will perceive 1 and b6 which is a dark number. (Every number includes a 1 by the way because without the 1 it wouldn't exist.)

    If the tendencies are more equal in strength and/or the amount, then I don't have numbers because I don't have a 1. There will be less of a Dark sound and more of a Conflicted Ambiguous sound. Since I don't have a location then the only accurate label would be an interval name or just what letters are used.

    If enough strong positive tendencies are on the C and enough strong negative tendencies are on the E then we will perceive 1 and 3 which is a bright number.

    If you don't like the labels used, like for instance "Dark", then call it what you will. The concept is the main thing.


    I was thinking about posting a list with all the tendencies that I've figured out so far, but I think it might be fun and more productive to see what other people come up with. Like Dynamics not being a tendency used to be what I believed too. Nowadays it's my go to tendency for a quick check without changing an idea much.

  9. #9
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    Yes Dynamics can change which note we perceive to be the 1. So can every other aspect of sound. Take any pair of opposites like "High and Low" or "Random and Repeating", and there will be a tendency to perceive one of them as the Key, Root etc.

    The more contrast, the stronger a tendency is. The more even or equal, the weaker a tendency is. Repetition would matter if one note is repeated much more than others. If all notes are repeated the same amount then repetition is not the reason that we're in a certain Key.
    Right. If every note is equally weighted (in terms of repetition, duration, or dynamic emphasis) and there is still a sense of "key", then it's down to frequency relationships, and probably the perception of a familiar major scale (or possibly harmonic or melodic minor).

    For the ear to hear a tonal centre in a group of notes other than a major key tonic requires one other note to have some kind of emphasis over the others.

    We're talking, I guess, about the perceptions of ears habituated to western tonalities...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    Tendencies are "usually" instead of "always". Even a strong tendency can lose if enough of the other tendencies are against it. So a repetitious note may not be your Key if it's also high, soft, and complex.
    True.
    Even in familiar tonal or modal music, a frequently repeated note can be the dominant at least as much as the tonic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    If we add positive tendencies to our Key it should get more solid, confident and obvious sounding. If instead it causes more tension then it wasn't the note that the ear was measuring from. This is a great way to test which note the 1 is.
    I guess so, but you might need to explain what you mean by "positive tendencies" . You mean just emphasising that one note more? Or notes with some strong relationship to it?

    If it's about "testing which note 1 is", in tonal music the dominant is usually the note that sounds best (blends smoothest) over all the chords in a sequence. The tonic doesn't. In fact, in a major key, all the notes except the tonic and the 4th sound pretty good on all the chords (forming chord tones or consonant extensions); but the dominant (IMO) tends to be the smoothest sounding.

  10. #10
    I thought I said what a tendency was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    Take any pair of opposites like "High and Low" or "Random and Repeating", and there will be a tendency to perceive one of them as the Key, Root etc.
    But Maybe I need to give more examples

    Any pair of opposites has a positive direction which we'd rather measure from and a negative direction which we'd rather not. We can't say that our ear "always" measures from the low note, but we can say it has the tendency to do that.

    It can be difficult to figure out a Tendency. One way I've found is to make all other tendencies very weak or exactly equal. Then test it out with one other known tendency. For example a whole step is very weak. So if I play in free time with equal length(to wipe out any timing tendencies) and then play for a while (so I'll lose the memory of which note was first), then I can test Loud vs Soft by playing one of the notes a little louder. If loud is a positive tendency then I should hear b7 1 if the higher note is louder, and 2 1 if the lower note is louder.

    I've noticed JohnR that over the years many things that used to be solid unwavering facts to you have become looser. Tendencies are looser yet we can still predict and memorize sounds. Its much better than going straight back 'n forth from, "This is always the case" to "Well anything goes, it's all subjective."

    So with this new line of thinking we can say that if a tendency seems to point negative (like the 1 being played higher), it was really because of other tendencies (like it was louder, on beat 1, most repeated, and we started and ended with it.)

    So a Tendency is what we look for a 1 to be. If conceptually we get stuck on a couple then there will be times that our "ear" is measuring from a different note then we "think" we are. The goal is to make the two line up and be on the same page. Many people here have lots of Tendencies they talk about, it's just they may not call them "Tendencies".

  11. #11
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    I thought I said what a tendency was:


    But Maybe I need to give more examples

    Any pair of opposites has a positive direction which we'd rather measure from and a negative direction which we'd rather not. We can't say that our ear "always" measures from the low note, but we can say it has the tendency to do that.
    Yes, in the case of musical tones, we tend to assume the lower one rules, because that's the nature of the harmonic series.
    Harmony doesn't exist in nature, so our ears try to assess a harmony as one sound - which means the pitches need to belong to the same harmonic series of a single acoustic root.
    A major triad sounds "natural" because its 3 tones all sound like overtones of a lower octave of the nominal root. IOW, it's like a natural single sound, or near enough. (Assuming we regard a fixed pitch as natural in the first place.)
    Other types of harmony sound relatively less natural, which makes them fascinating, although the more unrelated their frequencies are the more unpleasantly dissonant - "wrong" - they will sound.

    But in the case of intervals, we perceive acoustic roots, which may not always be the bottom note. A perfect 4th sounds smoothly consonant, but only as long as we perceive the upper note to be the root (because octaves of the lower note belong to the harmonic series of the upper note). If the lower note is made to sound like it should be the root, then the upper note is perceived as dissonant, because it's not part of the harmonic series of the lower note.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    It can be difficult to figure out a Tendency. One way I've found is to make all other tendencies very weak or exactly equal. Then test it out with one other known tendency. For example a whole step is very weak. So if I play in free time with equal length(to wipe out any timing tendencies) and then play for a while (so I'll lose the memory of which note was first), then I can test Loud vs Soft by playing one of the notes a little louder. If loud is a positive tendency then I should hear b7 1 if the higher note is louder, and 2 1 if the lower note is louder.
    Right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    I've noticed JohnR that over the years many things that used to be solid unwavering facts to you have become looser. Tendencies are looser yet we can still predict and memorize sounds. Its much better than going straight back 'n forth from, "This is always the case" to "Well anything goes, it's all subjective."
    Yes, but subjectivity depends on habit and familiarity - as well as (in music) on frequency relationships.
    Tendency, likewise, will depend on those things, as well as (fairly obviously) on things like relative volume. (Naturally we perceive "loud" as more significant than "quiet".)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    So with this new line of thinking we can say that if a tendency seems to point negative (like the 1 being played higher), it was really because of other tendencies (like it was louder, on beat 1, most repeated, and we started and ended with it.)
    Sorry I don't really follow what "negative" means in this context.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    So a Tendency is what we look for a 1 to be. If conceptually we get stuck on a couple then there will be times that our "ear" is measuring from a different note then we "think" we are. The goal is to make the two line up and be on the same page. Many people here have lots of Tendencies they talk about, it's just they may not call them "Tendencies".
    Seems to me you're talking about acoustic root qualities (of an interval), which is down to the harmonic series.
    Some intervals - like major 2nds - are ambiguous in terms of their acoustic root, which is why the "tendency" as you call it needs to be enhanced by the way the notes are treated, as you're saying; and could go either way (b7-1 or 1-2).
    If we took a major 3rd, C-E - or its minor 6th inversion, E-C - it would be more difficult to make E sound like the root (to give it a "tendency", 1-b6), without some assistance from other notes. Certainly a lot of repetition of a low E, with an occasional high C, would make the C sound dissonant.
    Add a G to the mix, and the tendency towards E would be even more difficult to establish, because both E and G support C as root, while neither support E.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    439
    I agree with Jon R,

    after much effort and writing on your part Ken V to explain your "theory"

    sure sounds like Ken you are referring to and talking about interval relationships

    though originally this was not made very clear in your past communications in this post thread, i appreciate your effort to clarify

    and for Jon R's effort to explain your theory in a way that is understandable to knowledgeable musicians who communicate through accepted music theory
    "Success is arriving at a Personal Satisfaction within yourself"

    Dedicated To Guitar!!!

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Schooligo View Post
    I agree with Jon R,

    after much effort and writing on your part Ken V to explain your "theory"

    sure sounds like Ken you are referring to and talking about interval relationships

    though originally this was not made very clear in your past communications in this post thread, i appreciate your effort to clarify

    and for Jon R's effort to explain your theory in a way that is understandable to knowledgeable musicians who communicate through accepted music theory
    I "agree" with JohnR too. It's the concept as a whole that I'm trying to get across. I'm not only talking about interval relationships, that was just one example. It could be an out of tune drum beat and still have "Tendencies" at work. It's a unifying concept.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    Yes, in the case of musical tones, we tend to assume the lower one rules, because that's the nature of the harmonic series.
    Harmony doesn't exist in nature, so our ears try to assess a harmony as one sound - which means the pitches need to belong to the same harmonic series of a single acoustic root.
    A major triad sounds "natural" because its 3 tones all sound like overtones of a lower octave of the nominal root. IOW, it's like a natural single sound, or near enough. (Assuming we regard a fixed pitch as natural in the first place.)
    Other types of harmony sound relatively less natural, which makes them fascinating, although the more unrelated their frequencies are the more unpleasantly dissonant - "wrong" - they will sound.

    But in the case of intervals, we perceive acoustic roots, which may not always be the bottom note. A perfect 4th sounds smoothly consonant, but only as long as we perceive the upper note to be the root (because octaves of the lower note belong to the harmonic series of the upper note). If the lower note is made to sound like it should be the root, then the upper note is perceived as dissonant, because it's not part of the harmonic series of the lower note.
    Right.
    Yes, but subjectivity depends on habit and familiarity - as well as (in music) on frequency relationships.
    Tendency, likewise, will depend on those things, as well as (fairly obviously) on things like relative volume. (Naturally we perceive "loud" as more significant than "quiet".)
    Sorry I don't really follow what "negative" means in this context.
    Seems to me you're talking about acoustic root qualities (of an interval), which is down to the harmonic series.
    Some intervals - like major 2nds - are ambiguous in terms of their acoustic root, which is why the "tendency" as you call it needs to be enhanced by the way the notes are treated, as you're saying; and could go either way (b7-1 or 1-2).
    If we took a major 3rd, C-E - or its minor 6th inversion, E-C - it would be more difficult to make E sound like the root (to give it a "tendency", 1-b6), without some assistance from other notes. Certainly a lot of repetition of a low E, with an occasional high C, would make the C sound dissonant.
    Add a G to the mix, and the tendency towards E would be even more difficult to establish, because both E and G support C as root, while neither support E.
    So it sounds like all the points you made were in agreement with mine.

    To explain further, each tendency could be just equal(no advantage either way), weak or strong positive, or a weak or strong negative.

    With numbers like you said a b6 would be a strong negative number whereas a b7 would be a weak negative number. A tritone for instance is completely equal so on its own it would be just an interval. No positive or negative.

    This same line of thinking can be applied to all aspects of sound. It could be just a rhythm. If everything in the rhythm was equal then there is no obvious beat 1. It could be how full your tone was etc..

  15. #15
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    So it sounds like all the points you made were in agreement with mine.
    Probably, yes. I was just trying to express it in the language I'm familiar with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    To explain further, each tendency could be just equal(no advantage either way), weak or strong positive, or a weak or strong negative.

    With numbers like you said a b6 would be a strong negative number whereas a b7 would be a weak negative number. A tritone for instance is completely equal so on its own it would be just an interval. No positive or negative.
    OK, seems you're talking about the difference in inversions?

    So a M3 is "strong positive" while its inversion, m6 is a strong negative?
    While a tritone is the same when inverted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Valentino View Post
    This same line of thinking can be applied to all aspects of sound. It could be just a rhythm. If everything in the rhythm was equal then there is no obvious beat 1. It could be how full your tone was etc..
    Nice point - analogy between a tonal "1" and a rhythmic "1".

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 07:44 PM
  2. vocal theory..every thing abt vocals(rock) basic theory
    By guitar.pick in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2010, 09:26 AM
  3. Classical Theory/Jazz Theory & Analysis
    By rmuscat in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-12-2005, 03:03 PM
  4. Some Theory help please?
    By degradacija in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-02-2005, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •