Thank you, Mark. A wonderful reminder that western music and its theory is just one limited perspective on the spectrum of music around the world. Let’s not forget also one-chord funk songs and John Lee Hooker-style blues which don’t even change chords and just center around one 7th chord.
Thank you! I have read a lot over the years about music and music theory, and this is the first time I’ve heard someone explain it in a way that makes sense to me
Looking forward to the next videos. I've spent many years trying to find common points of agreement (and hence usefulness) between my classical training on piano and guitar, and the music that I've enjoyed (and often been paid for) playing. The tritone has always seemed like it should be just such a point, and your discussion has helped assure me that my efforts may someday find 'resolution'. I particularly appreciated your applying architecture as a metaphor, since I've always felt that the Dorian scale should get more attention and priority in theory discussion.
@robertfoose9453, Glad you got something out of the vid. Dorian mode is the only symmetrical mode. If symmetry is there it seems to make sense to use it. I'm glad you get the architecture metaphor. I actually think architecture as a metaphor for diatonic structure is almost not a metaphor at all, but one in the same thing. It's all "stuff that's there" ... arranged in a pattern defined by pitch ratios ... distances in tone and time. Frequencies of sound are, after all, temporal. So music is always about time even when there's only one note playing. I expect the next video will relate the tritone to rhythm.
@williamrome2257, Thanks for your comment. I get your point ... but consider the following: If "resolution" is defined rigidly in classical theory terms as we apply it to blues, then that's certainly true. But why do we have to do that? It could just be a matter of semantics ... or maybe something deeper. Blues does not stem from European classical music. It was almost wholly rejected as legitimate music by early 20th century classical theoreticians partly due to its ubiquitous tritones, its pulsing rhythms, its often sexual subject matter, and (of course) due to racial bias. Ultimately blues won that battle which led to jazz, which redefines and expands on classical theory. "Blues in A" does not mean "3 sharps" ... Blues harmony and melody needs to be understood on its own terms. We have to reconsider many of the traditional theory concepts to describe blues in western theory terms. Blues has its own cadences. When a blues number ends in a crescendo on a big fat dominant 7th played on the "I" ... or its half diminished extension ... you know the song is over. The "Good Evening Friends" cadence does not suggest any other place to go after reaching that final Dom7th. Blues has its own definition of resolution. Its use of the Dominant chord and the tritone doesn't fall within the conventional practices of classical theory. It recontextualizes things. Context is everything when it comes to harmony. Check out the end of Ray Charles' bluesy rendition of Georgia on My Mind and tell me if it doesn't feel resolved: ua-cam.com/video/16pNrB7vXqE/v-deo.html Or the end of this B.B. King performance with Robert Cray Band; ua-cam.com/video/_hT-boYWlfM/v-deo.html If that's not resolved, where would it go from there? Why can't we call that "blues resolution"?
I'd like to know your thoughts on Stephanie McPeak Petersen's video called "Conspiracy Against Harmonic Frequencies". Thank you in advance if you find the time and respond.
Thanks for your question. First let me say that for me, music has great spiritual power … and it has nothing to do with the numerical frequency I tune the note A to. Honestly, I don’t find anything compelling about the 432 argument made in that video. Keep in mind that our division of time into seconds is based on a particular counting system that could just as easily be replaced by another and all our note pitches would have different numbers. The specific frequency of 432, or 440 or any other number of vibrations per second for a single note pitch has no special cosmological significance. There are many, many arbitrary statements made in that video that - notwithstanding her dismissal of the word arbitrary - are simply syllogisms ... self defining circular logic which does not stand up to real world analysis. Sound frequencies inhabit an infinite range of variable frequencies. The overtone series which stems from each note is not built on any one specific starting point … in other words overtones have the same proportional relationship regardless of what their fundamental frequency is, and there are infinite possible fundamental frequencies, none of them more in tune with the cosmos than any other. The overtone/harmonic series is of course the essence of our awareness of music as a structured coalescing of sound energy ... this structure however can be placed anywhere along the frequency continuum. The note "A" can be 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405 ... ... 430., 432, 433, 434 ... ... 450 455 456 ... etc etc etc, or any measurement in between, without doing any harm to anyone's chakras. The division of time on planet Earth into seconds, minutes, hours using the numbers we do, naturally have mathematical parallels with music since the number 12 is fundamental to both systems. This is a mathematical phenomenon, but not a cosmological metaphysical one. there are as many interesting numerical coincidences using any other number system and other musical divisions. Also keep in mind that no one prior to the middle of the last millennium knew anything about vibrations-per-second as a measurement for the pitch of notes. There is no truth to any ancient significance to the number 432 as a way of tuning the note “A”. There was no alphabetical labeling of notes before the 6th century, and that method didn’t match our current method. Musical cultures throughout time have used many different methods for deciding what exact pitches to use for tuning instruments and voices, and a single frequency associated with a single standard pitch has never been the norm until fairly recently in history. Even with 440 as a “standard” there are plenty of variations for all sort of reasons. There is no conspiracy regarding 440 as a tuning reference. It was chosen for mathematical convenience for standardizing the tuning of orchestras, and in no way has any less or more metaphysical significance than any other frequency we could be using. If there’s any spiritual power in music - and I believe there is - it has nothing to do with arbitrary numbers we assign to sound frequencies, but rather to the appreciation of the infinite possibilities of melody and harmony combined with rhythm. We are swimming in a sea of vibrational energy of infinite variations in frequency. There isn’t one single number that can be called “the” harmonic resonance which sets up some kind of absolute perfect harmonic paradigm that has more spiritual power than any other. But whatever works for you. Spiritual awareness doesn’t come from measuring sound frequencies with stroboscopic tuning devices. Nothing is lost when we use one tuning frequency over another for the note we arbitrarily call “A” … there’s nothing special about the note A except that it’s the first alphabet letter, which makes it convenient. The number 440 is simply an easy number to double and cut in half so it makes identifying octaves of the tuning reference simpler and 440 is a pitch that, when played on a tuning fork is clear and easy to match. Oboe plays this pitch in orchestras for other instruments to tune to because it’s in a register that’s clear and easy to match by ear. Numerical convenience is at the heart of many conventions across different scientific and creative fields when that field depends on precise measurements, so there will always be certain numerical coincidences from one filed to another, but assigning "ascendancy" and other quasi-spiritual significance to these coincidences makes no sense to me. Also, I have to mention that I find McPeak Peterson's attempt to tie our standard tuning reference pitch to global finance and Masonic machinations hard to buy. As a fan of Kubrick, I think the legendary director would have found this assertion a bit silly to say the least. So ... those are some of my thoughts on the subject. Maybe I'll address this issue in a video at some point, but I think there's already ample information available if one chooses to seek it out. Here’s a link that lays out many of the issues with 432 from a fact/fiction perspective: ask.audio/articles/music-theory-432-hz-tuning-separating-fact-from-fiction
@@NewstetterRemarkable reply! Your intriguing, well explained and illuminating video was quite a cake, but this reply iced that cake for me. I’m a subscriber, now. Thanks for the thought you’re putting into this.
Thank you, Mark. A wonderful reminder that western music and its theory is just one limited perspective on the spectrum of music around the world. Let’s not forget also one-chord funk songs and John Lee Hooker-style blues which don’t even change chords and just center around one 7th chord.
Thank you! I have read a lot over the years about music and music theory, and this is the first time I’ve heard someone explain it in a way that makes sense to me
Thanks! Glad you've gotten something out of this!
Eye opening information! thanks! I think this has puzzled me for a long time... resolution is a human need, makes it easier to breath.
Man, these ideas are so FRESH. Thank you!
You're welcome!
Looking forward to the next videos. I've spent many years trying to find common points of agreement (and hence usefulness) between my classical training on piano and guitar, and the music that I've enjoyed (and often been paid for) playing. The tritone has always seemed like it should be just such a point, and your discussion has helped assure me that my efforts may someday find 'resolution'. I particularly appreciated your applying architecture as a metaphor, since I've always felt that the Dorian scale should get more attention and priority in theory discussion.
@robertfoose9453, Glad you got something out of the vid.
Dorian mode is the only symmetrical mode. If symmetry is there it seems to make sense to use it.
I'm glad you get the architecture metaphor.
I actually think architecture as a metaphor for diatonic structure is almost not a metaphor at all, but one in the same thing. It's all "stuff that's there" ... arranged in a pattern defined by pitch ratios ... distances in tone and time. Frequencies of sound are, after all, temporal.
So music is always about time even when there's only one note playing.
I expect the next video will relate the tritone to rhythm.
Very heavy stuff, thanks
Apparently the truth is there are no truths, only perspectives. Your perspective always gets me thinking..
Thank you man, much appreciated.🎶
Great!
Thank you Jon!
(My mind just got blown)
:)
What is this that stands before me? 🤘
There is no resolution to the blues. Possibly that in itself is the philosophic conundrum implied musically.
@williamrome2257, Thanks for your comment. I get your point ... but consider the following:
If "resolution" is defined rigidly in classical theory terms as we apply it to blues, then that's certainly true. But why do we have to do that? It could just be a matter of semantics ... or maybe something deeper.
Blues does not stem from European classical music. It was almost wholly rejected as legitimate music by early 20th century classical theoreticians partly due to its ubiquitous tritones, its pulsing rhythms, its often sexual subject matter, and (of course) due to racial bias.
Ultimately blues won that battle which led to jazz, which redefines and expands on classical theory. "Blues in A" does not mean "3 sharps" ... Blues harmony and melody needs to be understood on its own terms. We have to reconsider many of the traditional theory concepts to describe blues in western theory terms.
Blues has its own cadences. When a blues number ends in a crescendo on a big fat dominant 7th played on the "I" ... or its half diminished extension ... you know the song is over. The "Good Evening Friends" cadence does not suggest any other place to go after reaching that final Dom7th.
Blues has its own definition of resolution. Its use of the Dominant chord and the tritone doesn't fall within the conventional practices of classical theory. It recontextualizes things. Context is everything when it comes to harmony.
Check out the end of Ray Charles' bluesy rendition of Georgia on My Mind and tell me if it doesn't feel resolved: ua-cam.com/video/16pNrB7vXqE/v-deo.html
Or the end of this B.B. King performance with Robert Cray Band; ua-cam.com/video/_hT-boYWlfM/v-deo.html
If that's not resolved, where would it go from there? Why can't we call that "blues resolution"?
I'd like to know your thoughts on Stephanie McPeak Petersen's video called "Conspiracy Against Harmonic Frequencies". Thank you in advance if you find the time and respond.
Thanks for your question.
First let me say that for me, music has great spiritual power … and it has nothing to do with the numerical frequency I tune the note A to.
Honestly, I don’t find anything compelling about the 432 argument made in that video.
Keep in mind that our division of time into seconds is based on a particular counting system that could just as easily be replaced by another and all our note pitches would have different numbers. The specific frequency of 432, or 440 or any other number of vibrations per second for a single note pitch has no special cosmological significance. There are many, many arbitrary statements made in that video that - notwithstanding her dismissal of the word arbitrary - are simply syllogisms ... self defining circular logic which does not stand up to real world analysis.
Sound frequencies inhabit an infinite range of variable frequencies. The overtone series which stems from each note is not built on any one specific starting point … in other words overtones have the same proportional relationship regardless of what their fundamental frequency is, and there are infinite possible fundamental frequencies, none of them more in tune with the cosmos than any other.
The overtone/harmonic series is of course the essence of our awareness of music as a structured coalescing of sound energy ... this structure however can be placed anywhere along the frequency continuum. The note "A" can be 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405 ... ... 430., 432, 433, 434 ... ... 450 455 456 ... etc etc etc, or any measurement in between, without doing any harm to anyone's chakras.
The division of time on planet Earth into seconds, minutes, hours using the numbers we do, naturally have mathematical parallels with music since the number 12 is fundamental to both systems. This is a mathematical phenomenon, but not a cosmological metaphysical one. there are as many interesting numerical coincidences using any other number system and other musical divisions.
Also keep in mind that no one prior to the middle of the last millennium knew anything about vibrations-per-second as a measurement for the pitch of notes. There is no truth to any ancient significance to the number 432 as a way of tuning the note “A”. There was no alphabetical labeling of notes before the 6th century, and that method didn’t match our current method.
Musical cultures throughout time have used many different methods for deciding what exact pitches to use for tuning instruments and voices, and a single frequency associated with a single standard pitch has never been the norm until fairly recently in history. Even with 440 as a “standard” there are plenty of variations for all sort of reasons.
There is no conspiracy regarding 440 as a tuning reference. It was chosen for mathematical convenience for standardizing the tuning of orchestras, and in no way has any less or more metaphysical significance than any other frequency we could be using.
If there’s any spiritual power in music - and I believe there is - it has nothing to do with arbitrary numbers we assign to sound frequencies, but rather to the appreciation of the infinite possibilities of melody and harmony combined with rhythm.
We are swimming in a sea of vibrational energy of infinite variations in frequency. There isn’t one single number that can be called “the” harmonic resonance which sets up some kind of absolute perfect harmonic paradigm that has more spiritual power than any other. But whatever works for you. Spiritual awareness doesn’t come from measuring sound frequencies with stroboscopic tuning devices.
Nothing is lost when we use one tuning frequency over another for the note we arbitrarily call “A” … there’s nothing special about the note A except that it’s the first alphabet letter, which makes it convenient.
The number 440 is simply an easy number to double and cut in half so it makes identifying octaves of the tuning reference simpler and 440 is a pitch that, when played on a tuning fork is clear and easy to match. Oboe plays this pitch in orchestras for other instruments to tune to because it’s in a register that’s clear and easy to match by ear.
Numerical convenience is at the heart of many conventions across different scientific and creative fields when that field depends on precise measurements, so there will always be certain numerical coincidences from one filed to another, but assigning "ascendancy" and other quasi-spiritual significance to these coincidences makes no sense to me.
Also, I have to mention that I find McPeak Peterson's attempt to tie our standard tuning reference pitch to global finance and Masonic machinations hard to buy. As a fan of Kubrick, I think the legendary director would have found this assertion a bit silly to say the least.
So ... those are some of my thoughts on the subject. Maybe I'll address this issue in a video at some point, but I think there's already ample information available if one chooses to seek it out.
Here’s a link that lays out many of the issues with 432 from a fact/fiction perspective: ask.audio/articles/music-theory-432-hz-tuning-separating-fact-from-fiction
@@NewstetterRemarkable reply! Your intriguing, well explained and illuminating video was quite a cake, but this reply iced that cake for me. I’m a subscriber, now. Thanks for the thought you’re putting into this.
🧐🤔👏👊✌️
❤