Jacob Collier ... the left side is MINOR?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 гру 2022
- The Circle of Fifths is at the center of music theory. But can the circle explain major vs minor? Jacob says so, but I'm not convinced. Let's explore it.
🎹 Start your FREE TRIAL of my Jazz Fundamentals course today.
- courses.jazz-library.com/
- Use Coupon Code "ytsub" for 30% off.
Excerpts from Jacob's masterclass come from his channel @jacobcollier • Jacob Collier Qwest Ma... - Розваги
More than colliding with the classic notion of 3M and 3m, I feel that he means emotionally the 5th movement offers brightness and 4th darkness, which is a more mature way from the reductionistic comment than “major chords are happy and minor chords are sad”
Moving forwards and backwards through the circle has long existed before him and I don’t like his explanation of it. This is a limited view of harmony and it does work in that model in that context. However I don’t like to think of music in a vacuum and music should really exist in context because that is how it’s played and performed. Reducing the colors of harmony to “dark” and “bright” is so 2 dimensional. It all depends on the context which is where you get such interesting creations because the spectrum of color is so infinite it’s easy to want to reduce it to basic ideas like this but in practice it’s not as colorful. One must remember these are simplified generalizations of music. For instance the introduction of enharmonic respelling of notes in a harmony already surpasses this vision of his because then it doesn’t really seem to be going clockwise or counterclockwise another example is passing harmonies through use of voice leading which almost seems to go all over the place erratically on the circle, implied harmony through melody or ambiguity in the harmony takes us away into something much more detailed of a picture than dark and bright. And we haven’t even talked about how rhythm and time can be used to sway harmonic and melodic devices such as through use of certain Implied tones on stronger or weaker beats to imply a resolution etc. Some models go the route of the predictable circle of fifths others use patterns and others use voice leading, we are finding more and more ways of finding new routes to connect up new unexpected lines of travel in harmony and making it work.
Some return lines to separate paragraphs would be Major, not minor.
What you said reminds me of the Grateful Dead layers texture syncopation weaving in and out
Thank you for this fantastic comment
Yes. Music theory is all about harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic relationships and context.
This concept goes as far back as Hugo Reimman's theories about harmonic dualism in the mid-19th century. Harmonic dualism refers to the inverse relationship between major and minor that Jacob Collier is talking about. It has strong support among neo-Reimmanian music theorists who have taken Reimman's ideas and run with them to create a description of harmony based on the relative distance of one chord to another, doing away with the idea of a tonic. This is ultimately where Jacob Collier is landing if you look at how he describes the relationship between major and minor in interviews with June Lee here on UA-cam.
Erno Lendvai's Pitch Axis theory, which an explanation of Bela Bartók's harmonic language, is another take on this dualist idea (in my view), but holding on to the idea of functional harmony and a tonic.
12tone has some great videos explaining both Neo-Reimmanian theories of harmony and the Pitch Axis theory
Epic comment! Thanks Derrick.
I think it's a great idea and it comes from modes, namely the lydian and mixolydian modes. On the right hand side, the lydian mode on say C would take you to the next major key around, namely the notes of G major. The lydian on G, would take you to D etc. Going left, the mixolydian on C, would give you the notes of F major, the mixolydian on F would give you the notes of Bb major etc. A chord progression that goes clockwise through the circle of fifths solely as major chords, sounds as if it is going on a journey forever forwards. The opposite way, sounds like it is forever returning. I'd never thought of the five notes (C, G, D, A, E,) making up the pentatonic on C. Looking at the five on the left, it makes up a 'supra plagal cadence' of F, Ab, Bb, C, Eb, a kind of Fmin7th complete with a sus4 which when resolved to G, A, C, D, E brings complete harmony and resolution to the universe.
Barry Harris has made similar comments about this in some dvds you can find online. What he said was something like, a 2-5-1 is really major 4 to 5 to 1. I think it is one of the reasons why he tells us to remember that every major 6th is a minor 7th. For example Dm7-G7-CM could also be FM6-G7-CM7.
Thanks Justin. You know, I’ve seen those dvds but never put those 2 things together before. Very interesting!
How is a major 6th a minor 7th when they are different notes? In the key of C, a 6th would be A and a b7th would be Bb.
@@pellabandgeek he is saying that every minor 7 chord can be a major 6th starting on the third of that chord: Dm7 is D, F, A, C when F6 is F, A, C, D. It depends on the inversion.
It's clearer if you play guitar because for example basic barre chords on guitar aren't voiced as root position chords on piano (if you play F major you are playing Root, Fifth, Octave, Third, Fifth, Octave whereas on a piano you would be playing Root, Third, Fifth).
That being said you can change the voicing you use on a guitar but by playing standard chords, with the same notes being repeated twice or more (in a G chord shape on guitar there are three G notes being played) the difference between playing a m7 chord or a M6 chord built on its third is very hard to notice
@@pellabandgeek they're speaking in terms of chords, not scales. Dm7 is D F A C, and F6 is F A C D. the minor 7th is structured in such a way that you can just move the root an octave up to get a major 6th with its third becoming the root.
@@scumoftheearth4745 we need better ways of typing out music stuff. If it had superscript such as 6ᵐᶦⁿ⁷ I wouldn't have been confused lol
I like also thinking of this idea in parallel with the concept of the overtone series and the undertone series. One of many ways to perceive harmony and explore the human brain's aural perception of math, complexity, and ratios.
Maybe it's right. But it's another rule. Likely the last thing your compositions need is more rules
This sounds like a great way to approach modes from a tonal center.
Great video. Well explained, easy to watch & understand and very useful. Cheers Josh.
I feel like right as this ended it could’ve gone for another 2 hours; I’d love to see voicings, exercises and more examples ❤
Yeah, I need a detailed breakdown of this entire concept!!!! Please follow up, Josh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever since I was a kid and discovered chords, I had the strong feeling that from C to F it gets brighter, and from C to G it gets darker. The opposite seems very strange to me.
Huh, I don't get that at all. Like if you just play the roots and improvise a melody over them you can hear how much brighter the C to G progression is, not only than C to F but any other progression.
From a theory perpective C to G is a I-V. The V is dominant, meaning it is the chord that most strongly wants to resolve to the tonic. This is because it contains the 7th and 2nd scale degrees, both of which want to resolve to the root. This tension and subsequent resolution is so strong that the ear hears the I before it is even played and is why the V-I is the foundation of all diatonic harmony. (That's why a V to anything other than a I is a "deceptive" cadence). That's also why it is "bright" sounding; you aren't ever leaving the major tonality of the I.
C to F is a I-IV where the IV is the subdominant and is a much more ambiguous progression. The IV most strongly wants to resolve to the V and only weakly resolves to the I. Being a "predominant" chord it is related to the ii and vi, can be substituted with either (IV / ii being most common). So although it is a major chord the fact it can function as a minor chord and it's ambiguity in resolution is what creates it's "darker" sound compared to the I-V. It's not
kaitlinbove.com/harmonic-progression sheds more light on these concepts.
Wow, I had no idea that Jacob Collier was such a skilled musician! I love how he approaches music with such creativity and innovation. The way he plays with the minor side in this piece is truly impressive and adds so much depth to the music. Great work, Jacob!
You knew about Jacob Collier's existence but you didn't know he was a skilled musician?
That video of his was ear opening for sure. Definitely an interesting springboard into looking for alternative cadences. Cheers, Daniel
Daniel - “ear opening” I love it.
@@JoshWalshMusic All about that audiation! :)
Thanks for distilling down the topic here.
It's all thought-provoking stuff 👍. Theory nerds can quibble over details but it only matters if it helps people create music that they might not otherwise have thought of.
Great vid!
Well yes I mean if you have looked into the Lydian chromatic theory then you know all the tension note are down the line half way through the circle of fifths. I guess it makes sense all the tension notes are on the left side. It's an easy way to look at it all.
One issue is that, if you have a cyclic sequence of a finite set of letters, then you're going to find patterns that don't necessarily have any deeper meaning - it's just with 7 letters, the same letters keep turning up in different places. Kind of like how angle is an anagram of angel. Does that mean there's some underlying connection between angles and angels? Of course not. It's just a finite set of letters we're using to describe a large set of words. In music we have a finite set of symbols to describe a bunch of sounds. So of course there are repeats and combinations where it seems that 2 different chords have the same notes. Is there anything deep there? Not really. Excepting that, yes, those chords will probably sound similar and can be substituted in a progression - even though in the theory side one of the chords seems to fit and we can say "This is why this chord works" but the other chord doesn't. This confuses people who hope (wrongly) that music theory will tell them or guide them towards what sounds they should make. It doesn't do this. All theory does (and only then to a certain extent) is to put some words and symbols on sounds someone made. Typically because this allows us to communicate sounds without having to make the sounds. So instead of saying "Doo be doo dah dah" we can give them sheet music or talk about the chord progression.
Similar to the way that language allows us to share our thoughts and emotions with each other - but also it's not perfect. Does the reverse work? Can I use language to evoke emotion? Yes, and similarly, to some extent I could use music theory to play certain sounds - and although both are interesting it's not really necessary that either language or music theory exist in order for people to feel things or think nor for them to be able to create and play music.
Another thing Jacob has shown in a video clip is that you can take any 2 notes next to each other in the C major scale, say E and F and put notes between them, like divide the interval between E and F into 2, 3, 4 or 5 or more notes. Most of these notes are not notes at all in the Western musical theory where we have 12 notes and there's nothing between E and F, - but the notes Jacob sings between E and F are obviously sounds and notes in the physical sense of him singing them and us hearing them. The latter is what matters for music. Music is about the sounds you make and others hear. Theory exists as a way of trying to create a language musicians can use to talk about those sounds. Jacob singing notes that don't exist in theory (at least not the typical theory as taught - undoubtedly someone will have written some theory books about microtonal music and so on) should teach us all that the sounds are what matter and what are key to understanding music, not word and symbols of the theory. If you want to fully understand music you have to develop your ear so you can hear those sounds, the intervals etc. This is a skill that is not easy to develop (and, of course, it's perfectly possible to listen to and to play music without having a well-developed ear)
Otherwise what Jacob says just becomes lost - because he's talking about sounds. For someone starting out in music who looks at the circle of fifths and hopes that it'll tell them something about what chords or notes to play, well, not really. It can as you showed you can play a D chord then a G chord then a C chord, but you could play any 3 chords - but, of course, what 'circle of whatever' are you hoping exists to tell you to play any of the myriad other possible chord progressions? There isn't one. So don't look too deeply at the circle of fifths as though it's the key to understanding music or something.
@@Wurldz "I do think the circle of fifths holds all the answers you need to understand making music" - this is just so obviously not true. It's as naive as the middle ages when they thought they could write down the 'rules' for creating music which notes you could play and which you couldn't. Of course, you can use a set of rules and create a subset of music, but it's a big mistake to believe you have all the answers. Any note can go with any chord and these can be played in any sequence. There are no rules.
@@WurldzYou've said it's all anyone needs but seem to believe that's the piano. Broaden your thinking - your statement I quoted was just wrong. Circle of fifths is not all of western harmony let alone all of music and it's most definitely not needed.
@@Wurldz What you're saying whether you mean it or not is just wrong. I could pull it apart line by line but you wrote an essay. e.g " It is simply telling you why things sound the way they do" is just nonsense. Music theory, the circle of fifths included, doesn't tell you why things sound the way they do at all. I can type a C that doesn't tell you anything at all about how a particular note sounds. No more than typing 440hz would.
@@Wurldz You typed something that was nonsense and now you've typed a lot more nonsense arguing that the first nonsense wasn't nonsense. How can you possibly say "we're not talking about biology and physics" and then go on to say "if you've never heard a C before or know how to generate a sound of 440hz" - which is basically biology and physics.
@@Wurldz What you're typing is nonsense. Don't confuse that with me dismissing music theory. Just what you're typing about music theory. The crux seems to be that you're typing words that you don't understand yourself and then confuse me replying to the words you've typed with me not understanding them. Don't sweat it no one expected you to say anything worthwhile on the subject so you really don't need to keep failing.
Eye opening and mind blowing
Gonna play around with this. Thanks
“If it feels right, it’s probably alright.”
Some truth for both sides, but jury deadlocked!
Haha
NO , it's not right. Nothing is right what Jacob is saying. these are NOT notes. Circle of 5ths are key signatures of major keys, NOT individual notes. Going to the left is NOT minor. My God , this is basic child's music theory 101. If you cannot see this, you will fail music theory.
Awesome content
Thinking of the Neapolitan tradition where 4ths were sometimes referred to are Major/minor.
Really enjoyed this video
Thanks Mrk.
Genius thanks. It's all a matter of perspective and the more views you have the better
i think what jacob means is getting lost in translation right now. the clip you showed in the beginning was from a talk he gave in france to a live audience where he simplified his ideas a lot.
i believe it's not about strictly splitting the circle of fifths in half, but rather drawing an axis and using one direction as the mirror of the other. he talks about this concept and the concept of negative harmony more in his interviews with june lee ua-cam.com/video/DnBr070vcNE/v-deo.html. i think thats where most of the negative comments here stem from
You are right, and the confusion is partly my fault too. In trying to simplify the video enough for this discussion, I may have oversimplified with “right vs left”
Thanks for sharing this!
I’m a subscriber now love your ideas
The clockwise direction of the circle is a convention only. Having 5ths on the left and 4ths right is a better way since chord progressions appear to move forward instead of backwards.
I think this also ties into his theory on "negative harmony". Cool sounding buzz words aside, seeing the left side as minor, when we get the plagal cadence from F to C, we can use the Ab, its on the left side right? So instead of our normal plagal, The Amen cadence, we get the Minor plagal cadence. If we add the 6th of the F minor chord we get Fm6 (or Dm7b5). Which is the actual opposite (or reverse/mirrored might be a better word) of the G7-C perfect cadence. Why? well THE VOICE LEADING..its sort of equal in a way. The Ab falls to G, the F falls to E. We even have a tritone between the 3rd and 6th (Ab & D), but unlike the perfect cadence the tritone is really what resolves (although you could argue that the D-C movement is a resolution of sorts in a step wise motion).
Jacob said said all minor chords are fourths… and the circle he showed was outer (major) I were (minor) and for me idk what the context was, what was his previous and after points of that video…. The chords and harmony are stuff that each one learns with thier own way, each have thier own version of story of how they learn, perceive the sounds
Learn it fourths and fifths and mix n match harmonic motion to imply major and minor tonal centers. It's fun
in the last year or so i've messed around with plagal-centric harmony (as an amateur) and even when i only use major chords it gives me some feeling of mixed tonality, not major and not minor
Well, it's helped me solve a puzzle in a song I'm writing so I'm with it
I don’t know what the “major” vs “minor” was getting at, but the brighter vs darker is something I think about a lot.
If you start with C and work your way anti clockwise half way to Db, you get a Db Maj chord with 6,7,9 extension. You can think of it as a Tonic Maj 6 chord + Major triad a 5th higher or for this case, Db6 + Ab triad, which makes for a great voicing with the Ab chord in second inversion.
An interesting thing about this collection of notes is that it has no tritone, so it sounds good almost anyway you put the notes together, the only thing needing attention is the flatted ninth.
If you flatten the third, you can think of having a min 6 + Maj triad, which creates many nice melodic minor voicings. Now you do have a tritone, so it’s a more complex, tense sound.
If you additionally flatten the fifth you get diminished voicings.
If instead of flattening the fifth you raise the root a half step, and omit the second (that is, from the melodic minor), you get Whole tone voicings. (E.g. from Db melodic minor, raise the Db to a D, and omit the Eb).
Instead of going counter clockwise, you went clockwise, instead of a Db Maj 6,7,9 chord with C as the top note, you’d have a C Maj 6,7,9 chord with B as the top note.
Awesome comment, thanks!
Interesting, I am going to try this in my newly bought guitar
I think a simpler way to see this is that the right side is essentially Sharp, the left side Flat, major has a Sharp feel, (as you mentioned the 11th) and minor keys have a Flat feel, (5th 9th 13th etc) im not saying this is his point but i would submit it in support of what he is saying
Disregarding Collier's thing altogether, just the saying 'left side is minor' does ring true to me. I play the accordion, and its left hand chord keys are arranged in a line adhering to the circle of 5ths. And I always noticed since I was a kid that with a major key, I was largely playing around on the right side of the tonic (except for the 4th) - C major largely plays with Gma, Dmi, Ami, Emi, Bdim. And when in a minor key, aside from the 5th and 2nd, it's a lot of the left side - Bbma, Ebma, Abma. I mean, it's not exactly symmetrical or a science, but maybe that's still relevant to this topic.
That’s a really interesting observation that I hadn’t thought about - the accordion layout.
The “left side” is relative to whichever key you are in. I didn’t explain that well, the circle has to rotate for the key center to be at the top. The comments humbled me with that oversight 🤣
If you move left then A D G for example is Am D7 G or II V I progression.
That seems like a question of context, not inevitable.
Yes, Jacob is right! The problem is that it is hidden from people because they get taught in a way that obfuscates the information. There is a simple formula to be observed using the circle of consonance.
Josh, I'm sure you get this, but to clarify: Jacob is talking about movement clockwise vs. counterclockwise around the circle of fifths -- clockwise movement sounding major and counterclockwise movement sounding minor. Perhaps a small distinction, but this idea didn't make sense to me until Jacob mentioned moving "anti-clockwise."
This is the way.
He's right, the notes of major harmony (3 and 7 especially) come from stacked 5ths, the notes of minor harmony (b3 and b7 especially) come from stacked 4ths. In C:
CGDAEB - root, 5, 9, 6, 3 7 etc. C Major
CFBbEbAb - root, 11, b7, b3, b13 etc C minor
This is the circle of fifths being used to generate chord tones, not chord movement as it is usually used. This is the same potential confusion point as when numbers are used to denote chord tones vs. chord movement, same numbers and location but different purpose function and meaning.
Music theory is called music theory for a reason, but not the way people would think of it. It’s music theory because as you grow as musician, you develop your own theory and own way of learning that suits you and your style
06:22 Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto intro.
This sounds interesting, I’ve always thought of odd and even. Or on the harmonica, in or out…. but you’d need to break things down a bit more for me to really understand.
I think you were confused a little bit here. It's not about the "side" of the circle like you said at 2:20 which you demonstrated like there are two halves of the circle, one is major and one is minor, no no it's not about that; what Jacob actually meant was the direction of the movement, if the direction goes clockwise it will be major sounding and if the direction goes anti-clockwise it will be minor sounding. You also pointed this out at 4:54, yes it's the direction movement on the circle no matter where the "side" is, which means 1/ you can start wherever "side" on the circle and if the direction goes clockwise it's major sounding, e.g. we can go from Eb to Bb to F to C for major sounding, or from A to D to G to C for minor sounding; and 2/ you can go beyond half of the circle with one of these directions and it will still work as long as the direction must be consistent (no changing halfway), e.g. we can go from C - G - D - A - E - B - F# - Db - Ab -... for the major sounding.
You are correct that it’s more about the movement direction than the right vs left side. I was trying to simplify for the video here. Appreciate the comment.
@@JoshWalshMusic yeah I guessed you tried to simply things too, but that might let to confusion later on, anyway as a fellow Jacob fan, I love that people more and more spread out his genius, keep up the good work man!
i have the impression that jacob is stating in a simple and attractive way the same idea that charles rosen presents in his great book the classical style. i believe that haydn and mozart observed this in practice without likely thinking of it in the same terms. part of what rosen helps you understand is that there are reasons why certain modulations would not have felt acceptable to mozart or beethoven, and it is not because they didnt "know about" far reaching modulations. let us remember that G# and Ab may be the same note on the well-tempered clavicord! but not in a choir or a string quartet.. i wish schoenberg were alive to give his impression of this idea because his thought is so penetrating and original.
Lies! Why, by your summation, perfect pitch is arbitrary pedantry.
Isn't the major resolving going counter-clockwise and the minor side resolving going clockwise? Does that have anything to do with the closing vs. opening feeling?
That’s what Jacob is indeed saying, at least in my interpretation. Plagal is “opening” and authentic is “closing”
Exploring the key signatures fun, I think I would try to play all the keys starting on one note then I found out its seven keys for one note. Also that going through those 7 the role of the note happens to be 7362514.... its a diatonic progression! Then you are forced to move it a half step to get to the next key and it starts again on that 7th degree. Perhaps the 6 whole notes go to the other six and borrows one maybe on the minor 7b5?
I think he is absolutely correct. However, when I was learning to play Guitar and learning music theory, one thing jumped out at me. Once you understand music theory, you can view it from a thousand different perspectives. Once you look at something like Tritones, you first think, "Oh, thats just the 3rd and b7th. Hmmm... or is it the b7th and the 3rd? Hey maybe its part of a Diminished chord? Blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. I have never seen a need to over analyse music theory once you fully understand the basic rules. If someone wants to try to look at music from every possible aspect, they will find that its a lifelong search and they will never get to the final result. I'm not criticising what he did, I'm just thinking that its not necessary.
This is kind of why the blues is all based on the 4 and 5 chords, because the blues is not just playing in a minor key. It's more like playing in a flexible space that allows you to combine major and minor elements. Try playing a major melody over minor blues chords, or a minor melody over major blues chords, and you will see that you can make either one work. But as soon as you start adding chords outside 1-4-5, or even extending the 1-4-5 chords too much, you'll start to lose some of that flexibility and restrict yourself in the types of melodies that will sound "right" over the chords.
I feel the same way. The blues isn’t really major or minor, it’s like it’s own thing.
"Lets take any random note on the piano .... lets start with C......" LOL
You’re onto me :-)
George Russell dug into the natural vs sharp 4 topic, and how all the other notes in the circle fit together in another interesting system in the "lydian chromatic concept"
Indeed. I’ve thought about a whole video on this, but worry it’s too nerdy!
Self edited out about 10 replies to that..
I have always thought of it this way. I didn’t know it was unusual. Seems kind of obvious, really.
To me the argument doesn't come across as sufficiently rigid as to convince me that the the left side is minor (and vice versa), but it's a fascinating idea that clockwise movement yields a brighter sound, and counter-clockwise a darker sound!
Of course. For example, going to the left you end up with Aeolian, going right you end up with Lydian. Keeping the starting note as the tonic. The minor notes are darker.
Yes indeed, great observation.
I'll make a slight modification to this. The two notes that each side share are C and F#/Gb, so the right side is indeed Lydian, but the left side is Locrian not Aeolian since it has the Gb but not G. So the left side has all the notes of the darkest mode, Locrian, and the right side has all the notes of the brightest mode, Lydian. All the modes in between are mixtures of bright and dark.
Lydian - all bright notes (D, E, F#, G, A, B)
Ionian - 5 bright (D, E, G, A, B) and 1 dark (F)
Mixolydian - 4 bright (D, E, G, A) and 2 dark (F, Bb)
Dorian - 3 bright (D, G, A) and 3 dark (Eb, F, Bb)
Aeolian - 2 bright (D, G) and 4 dark (Eb, F, Ab, Bb)
Phrygian - 1 bright (G) and 5 dark (Db, Eb, F, Ab, Bb)
Locrian - All dark notes (Db, Eb, F, Gb, Ab, Bb)
(C, the tonic, is considered neutral since it's shared by all 7)
@@danielroberts6328 just to add… there also is the Db on the left which belongs to locrian and not to aeolian
One thing we all should consider is that music theory is AN EXPLANATION OF A PERCEPTION (and not a rule about how music should be played or composed) that has a very well documented empirical proof widely accepted by the musical comunity, but as perception itself may vary, there's allways room to anyone present new INTERPRETATIONS of the same perception. In that matter, everyone can benefit a lot in having different ways to look at (or listen to) things.
I don't really think that Jacob have used the major/minor terminology in the most accurate way, but knowing a bit about the way he thinks musically, he is, in my understanding, probably using major/minor as a simplification of more subjective ideas and feelings: major=assertive, conclusive, bright; minor=unsure, unsettled, darker. In that perspective, his argument has a very interesting value!
Spot on, Leo! Great comment.
Why it’s called music theory and not music fact like you said it’s from his perspective!!! Nice observation!!!
I'm not gonna say this Is obvious stuff... But is. If you order the modes in brightness order, they are separated by fifths, and they use 6 consecutive notes on the circle of fifths... So it's natural that the brighter notes are on the right, and the darker are on the left.. Even trespassing the b6/#4 position, at the bottom of the circle, if you can male the next note in clockwise direction sound like a "#1" and not a b9, and the next one again like a #5 and not a b6, It will sound bright even though it's in the left side!
That’s correct. It’s more about the direction you move than which side of the circle. Thanks for pointing that out. I was simplifying for the video :-)
@@JoshWalshMusic I don't even play jazz so all I said Is very theoretical from my perspective, but I sure know that the impact a note has depends a lot on the notes that you play with and before it
Could you explain in context how this theory works with major vs minor fourth intervals? I can’t wrap my head around what he’s saying and it seems like a fresh way to see music (conceptually).
Hey Michael, I would suggest checking out the full video of Jacob’s masterclass. I simplified a lot in this video, and you may find the context you are looking for in that video (link in description.)
I’m not opposed to sharing more discussion on this, but hard in a comment section.
Appreciate your comment!
You missed one of the important elements in finding the truly minor sound. Triads should be built down from the fifth, not, up from the root. This is why Jacob Collier claims the minor iv6 chord is a sort of reverse dominant chord
You’re underrated
So kind of you!
I didn't hear Jacob calling the right/left side major/minor. To me it sounded like he was saying that clockwise/anticlockwise movement was major/minor... which I still don't understand. Why is the IV-I a minor movement?
You are right that he was more talking about direction around the circle, than the right/left halves. I was trying to simplify for the video by showing how you can rotate the overall circle by key. I do appreciate you pointing it out.
Jacob is just looking at what we already know about harmony but through a jazz lens, jazz tends to progress in the anti-clockwise direction of 4ths, ( flat 7, 5, 1) whereas classical tends to resolve clockwise (2, 5, 1) but it’s not in the true sense minor. You said that the minor notes of a C scale are all on the “minor side.. (E flat, A flat, and B flat, )but if you use the minor scale of say f# then those minor notes are (A D and E,, )all on the major side, so no, I don’t think Jacob has discovered a revelation, it’s just an interesting way to look at our western harmonic system..
the only way to know for sure is to start by not knowing then see how it sounds to you 🎹
First thing is that I think the term you’re looking for is authentic cadence, not perfect cadence. There are perfect and imperfect versions of an authentic cadence, which is most likely where that’s coming from, but the general type of cadence (V-I), is an authentic cadence.
I love Jacob Collier, but he’s not infallible. He once answered the question of why middle C is called middle C by saying that it was because it was roughly in the middle of the keyboard. For anyone who might not know why this is wrong, middle C is labeled as such because it’s in the middle of the grand staff, and not kinda in the middle, exactly in the middle.
The reason that middle C is roughly in the middle of an 88 key keyboard is because both the staff and the keyboard cover the lions share of the hearing range of human beings, which means they overlap quite a bit. So it makes sense that that’s also where you’d find it on the keyboard.
As far as the right side of the circle being “major” and the left being “minor”, well, I think you already gave the answer as to its validity early on in this video. I know we put C at 12 o’clock on the circle, but that’s really arbitrary. Turn it 180 degrees and put F#/Gb at 12. It’s just directional. I mean, it is one of the many fascinating symmetries that music and, in particular, the circle of fifths provides us with, but that’s where I leave it. Major and minor have definitions and they’re axiomatic. It either describes the quality of an interval, or the quality of a chord, which can, in turn, define the quality of a key, and that’s it. Saying that the right side of the circle is major and the left side is minor doesn’t mean anything. I mean, I understand the connection, it’s just not what major and minor mean.
Another thing you almost said before almost laid out the whole crux of the biscuit. You said that C going up to G is a perfect fifth, but that C going down to G was another “version” of a perfect fifth, which is a perfect fourth. Yes, it’s another version. In fact, it’s an INversion.
Maybe a better way to say this is that the right side of the circle is the inversion of the left, not that one is major and one is minor. Again, those things are axiomatic and have specific meanings.
Yes, Authentic. Thanks for keeping me honest! Appreciate the epic comment.
Interesting debate
I think Collier's idea is fantastic!
It's cool. We should all remember that music comes from our imagination and the rules are suggestions to get predictable and usually not very original results.
Hey I have a few thoughts about this. I feel like your explanation was kinda there but the way you described Jacobs thoughts was just wrong. Jacob states clearly "Fifths are Major, Fourths are minor", and you then say "Jacob says this side (CGDAEBF#) is Major and this side (CFBbEbAbDb) is minor" but Jacob didn't say that, you showed the clip of him NOT saying that. However in your explanation you demonstrate that you believe the actual motion of the music is what determines it, so I guess you came to the same conclusion? Then what confuses me more is when you show the "Major side" you cycle through it in fourths while exclaiming this is major sounds, and then to demonstrate fourths you cycle through the circle of fifths. Those two instances stuck out the most to me. In the end I understood the concept, but was only left more confused by your explanation. I'm also curious do you find that Jacob actually just means Plagal motion is minor and Perfect is major? Thanks, would love to see a reply!
Appreciate the comment. And I agree that is not left vs right. It’s moving left vs moving right. Appreciate you keeping me honest!
@@JoshWalshMusic thanks for the reply! It's certainly a complex subject and I was confused. I've looked into it a bit more and I've started to understand it more. Keep on posting this high quality content!
@@DrumCorpsLink thanks for being here man!
I’m pretty sure Jacob is playing dumb and purposefully not saying his theory is based off 5 limit just intonation. If you understand musics relationship to the overtone series the answer is super obvious.
Idk if I'd call it "playing dumb", but otherwise I agree.
His theory is based off of intonation.
However, it probably isn't super useful to use in jazz music, unless you already use fairly complex harmonies (pro level chords lmaooo).
I feel like this theory is for arrangers and composers more than theorists.
As much as I respect Jacob Collier as a musician and how passionate he is, his views and theories aren‘t new at all. They are rooted in the mid to late 19th century, covering a huge dispute in music theory about the minor triad. There were the 'monists' claiming that the minor chord is part of the major scale and the 'dualists' who were building their theories upon the fictional undertone series. Both sites have good arguments, partially going deeply into acoustics and physics as well as maths. Jacob, however, has a more 'spiritual' and 'philosophic' approach with way less arguments and evidence than there actually are.
Absolutely right. I agree, thought I really appreciate the enthusiasm he brings to sharing his discoveries, even if he’s just re-discovering existing ideas.
Absolutely lovely idea… i love the video with Jacob. He is a giant… hugely consequential Musician
As a piaon Newby, I'm open to any argument.
Welcome to your piano journey! I’ve been playing 34 years, and still have so much to learn.
bVII IV I - is that the 251 of upside down land?
It’s not a 251, but it is a similar function for a plagal cadence.
Jazz harmony is about keys .
Plagal versus Authentic, Perfect cadences are a type of Authentic cadence
Thanks for keeping me honest.
Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day🌅, and the darkness he called Night🌌. And the evening (minor) and the morning (Major) were the first day.
The 11th is a suspension of the third, of course you dont use it with third
no the 4th is a suspension of the 3rd, an 11th exsists with the 3rd in the chord
I think Jacob has a tendency to overthink music. Which is probably why all great songs I remember of him are cover songs. I'm a huge fan of Jacob but I'm even a bigger fan of Brian Wilson who says in a conversation with George Martin that writing music is a subconscious process in which music comes right from the ❤️ heart. I don't think that a great knowledge of music theory alone has ever produced great music
ua-cam.com/video/kSuCKFkMcjc/v-deo.html keep it simple. 12 steps up then 12 steps down. Seven semi tones ups then 7 down. Fourth’s are in the sus/diminished range. That eleventh falls there too. Kinda like getting your foot stuck between an uneven rung that needs to be resolved.
I haven’t seen this video, thanks for sharing.
Still don't get it. I guess it's harsh since english is not my first language and Piano is not my instrument.
But I feel like I should know whatahell this means by now.
a whole video of "what he said"
So it has nothing to do with the "sides" but the direction you go around the circle. 😒
Correct.
Seventh!
But seriously, awesome visual aids in this video! I didn’t follow all of it, but I think I got the gist.
It sounds a lot like the beginning of the Zelda breath of the wild soundtrack xD
Why quartal chords sound minor: because they have minor 7th and 10th.
Why quintal chords sound major: because i they dont.
Luke, play the dark side. I am your father. Play a fourth.
🤣
LOL.
What the best sounds run in 4s this is stupid you can make the 5s minor too craaaaazy
“If it sounds good, it is good” - at the end of the day, it’s music theory not law; if it were music law, we’d all go home as all musical composition could be done by an algorithm on a computer …
Theory can at best try to describe what has already been “said.” It’s not as much a tool of creation as it is of explanation.
IMO anyway.
@@JoshWalshMusic IMO you’re right! 😉
Spiral not circle. Only true on piano.
The one true instrument all other instruments bow down to.
You have to to play it
The instrument you play does not change how you apply the theory. This is as "true" for any harmonic instrument using 12 tone equal temperament as it is for the piano. Why make the distinction? Everyone knows the notes spiral from octave to octave and don't actually repeat like a circle. This is all symbolic anyways.
This is ridiculous. First off, the circle of 5ths is meant to keep going in CLOCKWISE direction. It is moronic to think that you move clockwise for only half the circle, and then move counter clockwise for the other half of the circle. Second off, the entire circle of 5ths is built off of MAJOR KEYS, despite Jacob trying to reinvent the wheel. Third, when you see an F key signature in the circle of 5ths, it's NOT minor. It is literally telling us the entire key that starts on F has 1 flat note which is Bb. So the entire key is Major, with the notes of F,G,A,Bb,C,D,E,F. IN WHAT WORLD, is that a minor key. Lastly, the ENTIRE circle of 5ths is major key signatures built off of a formula which is, TONE TONE, SEMITONE, TONE, TONE , TONE, SEMITONE. In WHAT WORLD would that formula be minor?????? Jacob is just saying DUMB stuff, and would have failed a basic music theory test in any college in the world. If you buy into his nonsense, you are gullible.
To get the minor key, you go left (counter clockwise). So C F Bb Eb Ab are the notes of C minor. If you start with the G and then move left, you get the fifth as well. You could start from Ab and move right (clockwise) to get an Ab major scale, or from the G and move left to get C natural minor, the Aeolian minor related to Ab major.
@@ewallt , these are NOT notes. Circle of 5ths are key signatures of major keys, NOT individual notes. Going to the left is NOT minor. My God , this is basic child's music theory 101. If you cannot see this, you will fail music theory.
@@tgrimes175 Did you watch Collier’s video? He said what I said. You form a Major Chord by going along the cycle of fifths. C G D A E B forms a Major chord with 6,7,9 extensions. If you go the other direction, you get a Cm 13 chord, with 7, 9, 11.
It looks like you’ve formed an opinion about his video which isn’t based on anything he actually said. If you disagree, please tell me the time of the video where something is being said which supports your interpretation.
@@ewallt , I disagree with the video because he is stating single notes forming chords. The circle of 5th is KEY SIGNATURES, which has ZERO to do with single notes forming chords.. Jacob is trying to say that the right side of the circle of 5ths is major sounding, and the left side of the circle is minor sounding. This is ignorant and moronic. He is trying to reinvent the wheel (circle of 5ths), by stating something so ignorant and false. NOTHING on the left side of the circle of 5ths sounds minor. They are MAJOR key signatures. Jacob as well as you, would fail a basic music theory exam thinking that the left side of the circle of 5ths is minor. The circle of 5ths shows MAJOR KEY signatures based on an underlying major scale formula of TONE, TONE , SEMITONE, TONE, TONE, TONE, SEMITONE.
@@tgrimes175 I replied to this, but didn’t get posted. I’ll try again. Sorry for the delay.
Did you watch Collier’s video? He absolutely was talking about notes. C F Bb Eb Ab make a C minor chord with 7th, 9th 11th extensions, similar to the major chord made going in the other direction.
He wasn’t talking about key signatures.
Western music emphasizes the right side (dominant harmony). Not true in other music, which has a more equal share of right vs left.
It might be more prominent historically, but Western music includes most of the styles of music that we are familiar with up to the present, in which nearly every type of progression has been approached anyways, especially when you get out of the most traditional examples. Jazz is Western music, and it exploits this to the extreme (even if the most typical examples use tons of dominants, there are still plenty of examples of pretty much any type of resolution or progression). Everything we are talking about is "true" in Western music and beyond. At this point, there are as many "rules" as there are ideas, which is to say, there are no real rules to western music anymore.
No.
Nothing new under the sun
Why are you saying the left side of the circle of fifths is minor and right side is major? You find the fifths by traveling clockwise and you find the 4ths by traveling counter clockwise, not by looking at this side or that side. It's not a left or right side thing. What am I missing?
Also, for all of Collier's musings about music theory, we have to stop acting like he's the first person to ever figure out how music works. He isn't. He's no more the first person to dive deep in music theory than Neil Degrasse Tyson is the first person to ponder the cosmos. However, I will say that much like Tyson, Collier has the personality, star power, and communication ability to make it fun to talk about such nerdy things.
You are right that it’s more about clockwise vs anti-clockwise that right vs left. I was simplifying for the video.
Appreciate the comment. Agree that he’s not the originator of these ideas, but I enjoy his energy in sharing them.
Couldn't watch the video cos of the out of sync audio :(
Hey man, appreciate the comment. This sync issue happened when I uploaded to UA-cam, so Im not yet sure where it’s coming from. But a few people mentioned it and I’m working on it. Thanks!
Good video and I like Jacob, but this is doo doo butts IMO. Jacob tends to explain music in a "blah blah mystical something with a fur hat" fashion. There is very little harmony that wasn't covered by Chopin 200 years ago and I'm sure he'd give a good chuckle at this, even if he stayed to watch the whole chat. Side note, the more and more music I play my 9 year old (Bird to Monk to Beatles to Stevie to P-funk to Queen to Duke and Count...), the more he just likes AC-DC and something simple with a good beat. Kid actually loves the Bee Gees and hated Jacob's version of How Deep is Your Love, LOL! Pretty sure there's a message in there somewhere. At a certain point, making music for musicians will alienate the other 6 billion people. Kind regards, have a great day!
🎼🎶Music🎵 - God's Creative Clock 🕰
Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening (minor♀️) and the morning (Major♂️) were the SIXTH day.
👇
6 days × 2 parts per day (minor & Major) = 12 key notes per scale 🕰
utter rubbish
@@markauckland666 Proverbs 14:6
A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.
@@biblereadingoutreach2284 Shame the book is proven fiction
@@markauckland666Show me the PROOF🤔
@@biblereadingoutreach2284 im not the one making outlandish claims, thr burden of proof is yours, good luck with that
“best musicians of our timeline” the dude can’t even release a decent sounding song
Exactly
He plays and hears better than I (and 99+% of professional musicians) ever will. If modern day Mozart says it's real, I am likely to believe that it is unless someone on his level or himself corrects it down the road.