# Very Basic Music Theory



## waveheavy (Sep 23, 2022)

Not sure if this is allowed by the moderators, but for those interested and tired of too much detailed info on Music Theory, here's a starter that fills in a lot of gaps.

This is the very basics, then leading to an intermediate level that will give you basic songwriting skills.

1. Western music is founded upon the Major Scale. The Scale is simply a series of notes played one after another.

Chords and Arpeggios are derived from the Scale. An Arpeggio is simply the notes of a chord played horizontally, one note after another, like a melody. A basic Chord is a Triad of at least 3 notes. With only 2 notes make an Interval (even though 2 notes are often used as a chord, like a 'power chord'). Chords create Harmony, which means stacked notes on top of another, vertically. Thus Melody is horizontal, but Harmony is vertical.


2. Western foundation of Diatonic Harmony is the Major Scale of 8 notes (the 8th note is called an Octave, and is a repeat of the 1st note of the Scale. The Octave simply sounds 8 notes higher in pitch than the 1st note). The word Diatonic is about the Major Scale of 8 tones, with 5 whole-steps and 2 half-steps.

The C Major Scale is a starting pattern for Diatonic Harmony. It is the notes C - D - E - F - G - A - B - C. The Key of C Major has no #'s or b's with the 8 notes. A degree number is also assigned to each note for theory purposes, as will be discovered:

1 -- 2 -- 3 - 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 - 8

C -- D -- E - F -- G -- A -- B - C

..............1/2...................1/2

(Notice also the Major Scale is assigned Degree numbers on the notes.)

2 dashes above (--) I use to represent a Whole Step; 1 dash for a Half-step. If you play guitar, a Whole-step means a space of 2 frets. On piano, a Whole-step is the two white keys with a black key in between. This is why on the piano, you'll notice that between the notes E - F, and the notes B - C, there are no black keys in between. It is because those white keys are Half-steps apart. Thus on the guitar, a half-step is one fret.

What makes the above a Major Scale is where those whole-steps and half-steps fall. Only between the E - F and the B - C are half-steps. Everything else is a Whole-step. And notice where those Half-steps fall, between the 3rd and 4th degrees, and between the 7th and 8th degrees. It is these Interval placements that makes this a Major Scale. The half-step between the E-F and B-C is a musical constant on ALL western instruments.



Reason For Sharps & Flats - For Curiosity Sake:

Because the Half-steps must fall between the 3-4 and 7-8 degrees of the Scale to be a Major Scale, this is the reason why the other Keys have to have sharps or flats so as to keep that half-step relationship for the Major Scale. To spell the Keys, use the Circle of 5ths. So from C Major, go up a 5th, which is the note G, and spell that Key of G. It will have 1 sharp, an F#, just to keep those Half-steps between the 3-4 and 7-8 degrees of the Scale. Then the next Key would be a 5th up from G, which would be the note D. The D Major Scale requires 2 sharps to keep that Half-Step relation, an F# and a C#. Eventually you'll get to the Flat Keys, which require using flats to keep that half-step relationship.



The Interval and 12 Tone Scale (also called the Chromatic Scale):

In between each Whole-step of the Major Scale is an Accidental note (a # or b). When moving upwards, the # is used, which means to augment. When moving down the Scale, the flat (b) is used, which means to diminish. Only with the Intervals E-F and B-C there are no Accidental notes. Everywhere else, in between the Whole-steps (like C-D, D-E, F-G, G-A, A-B), there is an Accidental note. The C# or Db is the same note, called an Enharmonic spelling. What this means is the Major Scale actually has 12 notes if you count the Accidentals that are in-between the Whole-steps.


Interval Names:

the interval relationship between notes have specific sounds, which is why they are labeled Major, minor, augmented, or diminished:

C note = Tonic, the Root note of the Scale (for this example, the C Major Scale)
C to C# or Db = minor 2nd
C to D = Major 2nd
C to D# or Eb = minor 3rd
C to E = Major 3rd
C to F = Perfect 4th
C to F# or Gb = Augmented 4th or Diminished 5th
C to G = Perfect 5th
C to G# or Ab = minor 6th or augmented 5th
C to A = Major 6th
C to A# or Bb = minor 7th
C to B = Major 7th

Understanding these Intervals and how each one of them sounds is very important.



Chords/Triads:
3. Two notes make an interval, three notes make a Chord, a Triad. Even though some 2 note intervals are used like a Chord, it is still an Interval.

Each Degree of the Major Scale forms a Chord with a Root note, and skipping every other note to make a Triad. This is called the Harmonized Scale, because it harmonizes the notes of the Scale into Chord Triads...

1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5 --- 6 --- 7 --- 8

C --- D --- E --- F --- G--- A --- B --- C

1 - C Major chord - notes C-E-G
2 - D minor chord - notes D-F-A
3 - E minor chord - notes E-G-B
4 - F Major chord - notes F-A-C
5 - G Major chord - notes G-B-D
6 - A minor chord - notes A-C-E
7 - B minor flat 5 chord - notes B-D-F

Notice the above Triads are derived by skipping every other note from its Root to form a Triad.

Also notice there are NO sharps or flats involved, this because ONLY the notes of the C Major Scale are used to spell those above Chords, which the 8 tones of the C Major Scale has no sharps or flats. If we were using the G Major Harmonized Scale instead, there would be an F# involved, but the chord Triads would still work out the same per the Major Scale Intervals.



4. Triad Chord Formulas and Chord Types:

Here's why the Degree numbers above the notes of the Major Scale are important. You can use those numbers to create formulas for chords that translate to all Keys.

Major Chord formula = 1 - 3 - 5. (means the 1st, 3rd, and 5th notes of the Major Scale)
Minor Chord formula = 1 - b3 - 5 (means the 1st, b3rd, and 5th notes of the Major Scale)
Augmented Chord formula = 1 - 3 - #5 (means the 1st, 3rd, and sharped 5th notes of the Major Scale).
Diminished Chord formula = 1 - b3 - b5 (means the 1st, flatted 3rd, and flatted 5th notes of the Major Scale)

Thus there are actually only 4 Chord Triad categories --

Major
Minor
Augmented
Diminished

This means a C Major 7th, or CMaj9, or CMaj11, or CMaj7b13, CMaj6, or CMaj6/9, are STILL all C Major family chords. They simply have added notes of the Major Scale added to them as Embellishment. Thus they are called embellished chords.

Likewise with C minor 7th, Cmin9th, Cmin11th, etc.



5. Basic Chord Subs and Their Families:

There also is a relationship between Chords that have Common tones in them. They can be substituted with each other.

Notice the common tones of Am and Em with the C Major Chord:

Major Sounding Family:
C Major Chord - C-E-G or C-E-G-B (7th added to the chord)
A minor Chord - A-C-E or A-C-E-G
E minor Chord - E-G-B or E-G-B-D

All 3 of the above Chords have at least TWO common tones. Because of that they can be subbed for each other (as long as nothing else conflicts, like the Melody).

Another Group: Minor Sounding Family
D minor chord - D-F-A or D-F-A-C (7th added to the chord)
F Major chord - F-A-C or F-A-C-E

Another Group - Dominant Sounding Family
G Dominant chord - G-B-D-F
B minor/b5 chord - B-D-F-A

Even though the above Chord types may be Major or minor, Dominant or min/b5, they have Common-Tones between them that place them in those Families because of their sound. You may swap them within their respective family (if the song permits).


6. Chord/Interval Movement

The Scale Degree numbers also use Roman numerals based on Chord type:

Major Scale:
I = Maj chord
ii = min chord
iii = min chord
IV = Maj chord
V = Maj chord
vi = minor chord
vii = minor b5 chord

Each note of the Major Scale has a natural tendency to move a certain direction. The Anchor notes of the Major Scale are the 1, the 3, and the 5 notes of the Scale. All other notes have a tendency towards those Anchor notes. The 2 tends to go to the 1, the 4 to the 3, the 6 to the 5, the 7 to the 1.

The two most used Western chord progressions are the I - IV - V - I chord progression, and the ii - V - I progression. The V - I chord movement is most common in all chord progressions. Jazz especially uses the ii - V - I movement, creating many small ii - V - I progressions within a larger V - I progression.

It is most common to use a V - I movement at the end of each Verse or Chorus on the way back to the original Tonic, or song-start chord. For example in C Major, this can be a G Triad, or a G dom. 7th chord, or even a Bmin-b5 chord, leading to the I chord (C Major chord). For a dominant 7th chord the 3rd and b7th of the Scale are required. This interval is called a Tritone interval. It creates a leading sound and is unstable and wants to resolve somewhere else (usually the I chord).


7. Smooth Voice Leading

Chord voicing involves how the chord tones are arranged. For each Triad, there are 3 ways to voice the notes -- Root voicing with the 1 Root in the bass, then the 3rd on top of that, and the 5th on top of that is the Root voicing. The 1st Inversion of that is with the 3rd in the bass. The 2nd Inversion is with the 5th in the bass.

When moving from chord to chord, the notes may not be arranged in nearness, so the sound of the chord progression can seem like it's jumping a lot, and changes are not all that smooth. To solve this, use the rule of 'the nearest way'. This means move the notes in the 1st chord to the nearest notes in the 2nd chord. If both chords have a same note, hold that note into and through the 2nd chord. This will help create smooth voice leading. Most pianists learn to do this naturally with chords. But the rest of us need to learn to do this in our DAW or on the music staff.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 23, 2022)

8. Embellished Chords:

As said before, there's only 4 main Triad types - Major, minor, Augmented, and diminished. Upon these Triad types more added notes from the Scale form embellished chords:

Here is where the embellishment notes come from; they are simply notes in the next Octave of the Major Scale...

1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 --| 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13
C -- D --E -- F -- G -- A -- B --| C -- D -- E --- F --- G --- A

a C Maj triad with an added 7th note of the Scale = CMaj7 chord
a C Maj7 chord with an added 9th note of the Scale = a CMaj9 chord
a C Maj9 chord with an added 11th note = a C Maj11 chord.
a C Maj11 chord with an added 13th note = a C Maj13 chord (13 is where we stop, can't go any higher).

That's all there is to it. Those are all C Major type chords. The same pattern works for the other chord triad types also.

(There is a way to whittle these chords with their note extensions down to just 4 tones including the triad instead of playing all of the extensions together (like the Maj 13 chord of a triad with four extended added notes), but I'll not get into all that. You can research that if you get this far.)


9. Modes of The Major Scale: This will solve much of the mystery often seen with the subject of modes.

Each Degree of the Major Scale has a Mode assigned to it:
Degree:
1 -- Ionian, notes C to C
2 -- Dorian, notes D to D
3 -- Phrygian, notes E to E
4 -- Lydian, notes F to F
5 -- Mixolydian, notes G to G
6 -- Aeolian, notes A to A
7 -- Locrian, notes B to B

The Mode names come from ancient Greece (don't ask me how they originated and why they were assigned to our Western Diatonic Major Scale, much debate on that.)

One may think, "Well, playing the notes
F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F,
or
D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, etc.,
is still just the C Major Scale isn't it?"
Kind of, but not really. Why?

Reason is, where those Whole-steps and Half-steps fall on the Scale Degree determines their sound.

For example, a Whole-step, like from the notes C to D is a Major type sound, happy. But a Half-step, like from the notes E to F is a minor sound, or sad sound.

So with the Phyrgian mode, it starts off with a Half-step interval, a minor interval, and at the beginning it puts us in a minor sounding mood. This is all because the Half-steps are no longer at the 3-4 and 7-8 Degrees like the normal C Major sound. The Ionian mode is the pattern of the Major Scale sound, and for it to sound like the Major Scale, those Half-steps must fall between the 3-4 and 7-8 degrees of the Scale. The other modes do not, and that is why they sound different when played from their root notes.

Writing in the Major Scale modes requires hearing these different interval relationships that give each mode its particular sound... SEE ATTACHMENTS BELOW FOR EXAMPLES. Although in the example I'm using different Keys, the style of Mode sound should still be obvious.

Ionian (Major scale) = happy sound
Dorian (minor) = often used for a medieval era sound.
Phyrgian (minor) = Spanish sound
Lydian (Major) = often used for fantasy themes, one of John William's favorite modes.
Mixolydian (Major) = royal, good for marches, etc.
Aeolian (minor) = sad, make us cry themes
Locrian (diminished) = dissonant, but can produce some unique sounds.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

10. Minor Scales:
The 6th Degree note of the Major Scale, (like the notes A to A in C Major), spell the Natural Minor Scale. This Scale, starting from the notes A to A represents the Relative Minor for the Key of C Major. And like I said, it is built from the 6th Degree of the Major Scale. Its chord notes of course are A-C-E, which spells an A minor triad.

Harmonic Minor Scale and Melodic Minor Scale:
Early composers favored the half-step leading tone sound that the end of the Major Scale naturally has, like the notes B to C, which is a Half-step. If you'll notice, the A Natural Minor Scale does not have that Half-step leading tone on the end, but instead has a Whole-step, from the notes G to A of the 7th and 8th Degrees.

So what early composers did was to sharp the 7th Degree of the Natural Minor Scale, which using A minor that would mean sharping the G note to G#, and that new Scale is called the Harmonic Minor Scale:

Harmonic Minor Scale: A - B - C - D - E - F - G# - A

Early composers then began to sharpen the 6th Degree scale note of A Harmonic Minor, and it produced the Melodic Minor Scale. When they played the Melodic Minor Scale they following the note order below when writing an Ascending passage, but then when descending they reverted back to the Natural Minor Scale without the raised 6th and 7th.

Melodic Minor Scale: A - B - C - D - E - F# - G# - A


11. Other Scales: Blues Scale and Pentatonic:

The Blues Scale is one of the most popular scales used in Rock, Pop, Jazz, Country, Folk, and of course the Blues. It is usually one of the first scales learned by Rock guitarists. Because it has the flatted 3rd, flatted 5th, and flatted 7th of the Major Scale these are often called "Blue Notes". They are what gives the Blues Scale its particular 'bluesy' sound:

C - Eb - F - Gb - G - Bb - C 
(formula 1 - b3 - 4 - b5 - 5 - b7 - 1)

The Pentatonic Scales (major and minor) are based on 5 tones of the Major Scale:

A Minor Pentatonic: A - C - D - E - G

C Major Pentatonic, start on C: C - D - E - G - A


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 25, 2022)

Without diving into further details and with no offense intended: there is lots of wrong information in your presentation, specially when it comes to your historical "foundations".
There are plenty of books about the history and origins of western music & harmony and I think you should spend (much) more time [in the sense of several years...] on that matter before you present tutorials which contain misleading information.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

12. Harmonizing the Minor Scale:
Triads:
1 - Aminor - A - C - E
2 - Bminb5 - B - D - F
3 - CMaj - C - E - G
4 - Dmin - D - F - A
5 - Emin - E - G - B
6 - FMaj - F - A - C
7 - GMaj - G - B - D

Harmonized to 7th Chords:
1 - Amin7 - A - C - E - G
2 - Bminb5 - B - D - F - A
3 - CMaj7 - C - E - G - B
4 - Dmin7 - D - F - A - C
5 - Emin7 - E - G - B - D
6 - FMaj7 - F - A - C - E
7 - GMaj7 - G - B - D - F

Common minor chord progressions:

i - iv - v: using the A Minor Scale, the chords Amin7 (i chord), Dmin7 (iv), and Emin7 (v).

i - VI - VII: Chords Am, FMaj, GMaj (notice the blend of minor and Major chords)

i - iv - V7 - i: Am7, Dm7, Edom7, Am7: Notice the v chord in minor is swapped for a V dominant 7 chord from the Major Key.

i - v - VI: Am7, Em7, FMaj7

(In all of the minor chord progressions, notice the Tonic 1 chord is a minor chord).


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> Without diving into further details and with no offense intended: there is lots of wrong information in your presentation, specially when it comes to your historical "foundations".
> There are plenty of books about the history and origins of western music & harmony and I think you should spend (much) more time [in the sense of several years...] on that matter before you present tutorials which contain misleading information.


Not interested in presenting a History Lesson with what I have shown, but instead 'nuts & bolts' basic understanding that I NEVER GOT from reading many theory books like you propose.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Not interested in presenting a History Lesson with what I have shown, but instead 'nuts & bolts' basic understanding that I NEVER GOT from reading many theory books like you propose.


The problem that you give wrong informations which won't result in any kind of "understanding".

If you want to present your knowledge, why don't you leave out the speculations that you present as facts (like: "early composers did...")? The problem is that you constantly write about how you think history was, while in fact things were pretty different.


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2022)

Waveheavy, the naming of intervals should be fixed:
c-c# is an augmented unison
c-d# is an augmented second
c-a# is an augmented sixth


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Rob said:


> Waveheavy, the naming of intervals should be fixed:
> c-c# is an augmented unison
> c-d# is an augmented second
> c-a# is an augmented sixth


When speaking of a the interval from C to C#/Db it's common to call it a min 2nd interval, because that is what it is popularly called. Calling it a an "augmented unison" is like straining at a gnat.

Likewise with the C to A#/Bb note Interval, that is an Accidental Note, and popularly called a minor 6th Interval. And to give an example, when we have a Cmin6 chord, it is NOT popularly called a a C aug6 chord. So you're straining at a gnat with that too.


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> When speaking of a the interval from C to C#/Db it's common to call it a min 2nd interval, because that is what it is popularly called. Calling it a an "augmented unison" is like straining at a gnat.
> 
> Likewise with the C to A#/Bb note Interval, that is an Accidental Note, and popularly called a minor 6th Interval. And to give an example, when we have a Cmin6 chord, it is NOT popularly called a a C aug6 chord. So you're straining at a gnat with that too.


well maybe guitar players call it like that... you're just ignoring what every musician knows, and by the way what has a Cm6 to do with A#? That is c-eb-g-a


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> The problem that you give wrong informations which won't result in any kind of "understanding".
> 
> If you want to present your knowledge, why don't you leave out the speculations that you present as facts (like: "early composers did...")? The problem is that you constantly write about how you think history was, while in fact things were pretty different.


No, I won't leave out what I 'learned'... that I DID NOT MAKE UP that you are FALSELY IMPLYING.

Sorry that these SHORTCUTS to understanding Basic Music Theory upsets your obvious FEAR of supposed academics losing potential students to throw a bunch of musical history that is CONSTANTLY IN DEBATE at them, without concentrating on the 'basics' of music knowledge, but that's all I see your whining as.

I'm not doing this to SHOW OFF MY KNOWLEDGE. That's YOUR kind of bag, obviously.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> No, I won't leave out what I 'learned'... that I DID NOT MAKE UP that you are FALSELY IMPLYING.


Before you start getting personal: as written, the things you write contain lots of errors.
Errors/Mistakes etc. at the most basic level(s).
And I just don't think it's a good thing to present them as facts to people who maybe have even less knowledge than that.
That's why I gave you the advice – in a friendly tone – to stick to the basics that you fully understand yourself.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Rob said:


> well maybe guitar players call it like that... you're just ignoring what every musician knows, and by the way what has a Cm6 to do with A#? That is c-eb-g-a


My point still is the A#/Bb in C Major is actually more popularly called a minor 7th interval than an augmented 6th.

Likewise with the G#/Ab in C Major, it is called either an augmented 5th, or sharped 5th, or minor 6th, or flat 6th.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> Before you start getting personal: as written, the things you write contain lots of errors.
> Errors/Mistakes etc. at the most basic level(s).
> And I just don't think it's a good thing to present them as facts to people who maybe have even less knowledge than that.
> That's why I gave you the advice – in a friendly tone – to stick to the basics that you fully understand yourself.


YOU have already made this 'personal' with your attack, so STOP threatening me with vanity speech. Your first post here complained about errors in which you FAILED TO POINT OUT ONE SINGLE ERROR.

And there you go again with, "the things you write contain lots of errors", not pointing to even one supposed error.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

For those who are... interested in a basic understanding in music theory, what I presented WILL help you If you apply it. The academic types here that want to argue over all the different names for an Interval, or complain that this is all wrong without showing just how, operate just like all those billion of music theory books on the market that take 20 pages to explain one simple musical idea, basically stealing your money in hopes of making them a living.

Even schools like Berklee School of Music in Boston, many academic types at conservatories try to defame by their academic elitist thinking about music theory and composition, when Berklee presents one of the most comprehensive and thorough methods of understanding the essentials of music theory.


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> My point still is the A#/Bb in C Major is actually more popularly called a minor 7th interval than an augmented 6th.
> 
> Likewise with the G#/Ab in C Major, it is called either an augmented 5th, or sharped 5th, or minor 6th, or flat 6th.


but note names change with the harmonic context... as an example, C+7 contains a raised fifth, while Ab/C has a minor sixth. And then there are the augmented sixth chords, how would you spell them...


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2022)

I think I've replied in a respectful way, please do likewise.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> YOU have already made this 'personal' with your attack, so STOP threatening me with vanity speech.


You seriously need a reality check.

I decently adviced you to leave out the speculative parts.
That was not an attack, neither was it personal.
The reason is (again, without any hard feelings against you) that false information can do lots of damage to beginners who think they are confronted with valid information.

And no, I don't intend to correct all (or some of) your mistakes.
I stated in my first sentence that I won't dig deeper in this.
It's not my job to do so.

I just think it's important that beginners who reed your thoughts are informed that the "facts" presented here should be seen sceptically.


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> ... Berklee presents one of the most comprehensive and thorough methods of understanding the essentials of music theory.


Berklee book on harmony (Harmony 1, by Barrie Nettles) exactly confirms what I said, of course


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 25, 2022)

And as a little p.s., because you complained about my lack of corrections, I will add a little example that shows why it is important to properly name intervals, as @Rob pointed out:

The difference between a little second (c-db) and an augmented unison (c-c#) lies in the inner functionality of the involved notes.
Db above a C has the tendency to resolve downwards (usually to c).
A simple constellation would be found in a progression like C7/b9 to fm.

OTOH, C-C# is a very delicate constellation where often C is a stable note while c# has the tendency to climb further.

The following excerpt is a wonderful example for this case; it's from the beginning of Wagner's "Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg".
Here, [first time in the 3rd bar] above a C in the bass a c# strives to d (the excerpt shows multiple occasions), and it possesses a very distinct sonic fingerprint, totally different from a little second:






However, I don't intend to dive in deeper, just: keep an eye where Wagner writes g# and where he writes ab!.


----------



## R.G. (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Even schools like Berklee School of Music in Boston, many academic types at conservatories try to defame by their academic elitist thinking about music theory and composition, when Berklee presents one of the most comprehensive and thorough methods of understanding the essentials of music theory.



It's Berklee *College* of Music, and you didn't go there. What you're writing is not what they teach.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 25, 2022)

I'm perplexed by the notion that there is some sort of conspiracy among conservatoires to prevent people learning very basic theory (even correct basic theory). There are so many free or very cheap accurate resources out there these days! (That includes books, which are of course incredible value for money.)


----------



## R.G. (Sep 25, 2022)

And speaking of free, well made, dependable resources, here are two of the best for CPP theory:






Table of Contents – Open Music Theory


## Introduction[Introduction to this “textbook” (for instructors & scholars).](about.html)## Fundamentals[Basic notat...




openmusictheory.github.io













musictheory.net - Lessons


Introductory and intermediate music theory lessons, exercises, ear trainers, and calculators.




www.musictheory.net




___________________________________

And a good PDF primer on Jazz theory:



https://cs.uml.edu/~stu/JazzTheory.pdf


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Rob said:


> but note names change with the harmonic context... as an example, C+7 contains a raised fifth, while Ab/C has a minor sixth. And then there are the augmented sixth chords, how would you spell them...


At this basic theory stage, not going into that. The idea is to get the beginner into the basics instead of being totally blind about music theory. Diminished, Augmented, and Quartal harmony are more advanced topics.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

R.G. said:


> It's Berklee *College* of Music, and you didn't go there. What you're writing is not what they teach.


That's strange, because they gave me a Specialist Certificate in Orchestration. How did I get that? 

So what's your claim to fame, since you want everyone here to display their credentials??


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 25, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> And as a little p.s., because you complained about my lack of corrections, I will add a little example that shows why it is important to properly name intervals, as @Rob pointed out:
> 
> The difference between a little second (c-db) and an augmented unison (c-c#) lies in the inner functionality of the involved notes.
> Db above a C has the tendency to resolve downwards (usually to c).
> ...


For practical purposes of what I was covering (i.e., basics), the C#/Db are two spellings of the 'same' note. And that is what I had said. So calling the Db a minor 2nd is a valid nomenclature, and easier to refer to, even though I had also explained when a # is used (going up) vs the Db (going down). And now you are denying that??


----------



## R.G. (Sep 25, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> That's strange, because they gave me a Specialist Certificate in Orchestration. How did I get that?


That's an online certificate, which is not remotely the same thing as going to _actual_ Berklee. You wouldn't understand, and you don't deserve to have the differences explained to you.

No one who actually went there would call it Berklee *School* of Music, and of the subset of things I've looked at in your first few posts in this thread, I've noticed things that run counter to their teaching. Some of that has already been pointed out by others who were trying to help and were reminded that _no good deed goes unpunished_, but there's no use in belaboring the issue since you're kinda weird.



waveheavy said:


> So what's your claim to fame, since you want everyone here to display their credentials??


Like I said, you're kinda weird. But if you really must know, though it's none of your business, I graduated two degrees Berklee, and one Eastman.

You can take a break now since in post #23 I linked to some reliable sources for beginning CCP theory and Jazz theory.


----------



## osterdamus (Sep 25, 2022)

*🍿*


----------



## osterdamus (Sep 25, 2022)

R.G. said:


> And a good PDF primer on Jazz theory:
> 
> https://cs.uml.edu/~stu/JazzTheory.pdf


Thanks for sharing 🙏🏻


----------



## Piotrek K. (Sep 25, 2022)

Music is a language, none of us should learn language starting from grammar (although a lot of schools still does that). And music theory is grammar of music. You don't need to know it to use language efficiently especially now with DAWs, VSTS etc. And I'm not sure if Mozart, when sitting by his piano, was thinking "and now diminished 3rd, hehehe". Maybe, maybe not. That's why I really love the idea of nuts and bolts, but the thread went ugly very fast and I see fault in both sides. You can't say "there is plenty of errors" and not correct those. If your goal is only to say something is wrong - don't comment. OP is also way too defensive. 

This could be a great thread if discussion would start with that Wagner example. Maybe it still has the chance to be great? Don't know, grabbing my popcorn.


----------



## Crowe (Sep 25, 2022)

Ouch. This is a pretty painful thread. If you're not open to criticism on your materials you definitely shouldn't be trying to teach anyone.

Feedback-culture is Teacher 101. It's among the very first things you learn when you're studying to become one.

EDIT: The problem is, that if you're not open to the possibility you are wrong, nothing you say can be trusted.


----------



## Rowy van Hest (Sep 27, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> 10. Minor Scales:
> The 6th Degree note of the Major Scale, (like the notes A to A in C Major), spell the Natural Minor Scale. This Scale, starting from the notes A to A represents the Relative Minor for the Key of C Major. And like I said, it is built from the 6th Degree of the Major Scale. Its chord notes of course are A-C-E, which spells an A minor triad...


Wow, that's a lot of work. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I praise you for the effort you were willing to put in.


----------



## VSTHero (Oct 2, 2022)

My only confusion is this kind of information is not hard to find at all; there are so so many free books, videos, posters and resources that cover these basics - Im not sure there’s actually a need or advantage to posting it in a forum. This is heavily covered ground. Also the perspective of folks like Ed who’ve gone much farther with their learning is helpful for new learners to avoid developing too narrow a model or repeating common but inaccurate concepts (like the tritone devils interval story that gets repeated over and over). And I count myself as one of those new learners. In terms of theory it’s the middle level stuff that I think takes more effort to find; or more accurately just takes longer to learn - been working through Caplin for over a year. Regardless all the best!


----------



## Gothi (Oct 8, 2022)

Nice thread intentions
Predictable course (music theory is not unambigious by default).
Just glad to have passed the basics three decades ago at music school. Should I have learned by modern internet-picking, it would have ended in confusion and attention disorder.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2022)

R.G. said:


> It's Berklee *College* of Music, and you didn't go there. What you're writing is not what they teach


As a Berklee alum I'd have to say that's true, not to pile on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2022)

Crowe said:


> The problem is, that if you're not open to the possibility you are wrong, nothing you say can be trusted.


I'm open to it, I'm just never wrong.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 8, 2022)

@waveheavy
I appreciate your effort in this and I was all prepared to rip it apart but from a certain point of view your assumptions are correct. Though I will say that most theory books in music 101 cover the same ground only a lot more carefully.

The main problem with the way you present "music theory" is that it's really just one kind of music theory. What you presented is called "Functional Harmony" if I recall the old terms and it's the first lesson in harmony that most music schools teach. Unfortunately it's so laden with pitfalls that you'll soon be writing in a box you can't get out of running out of ideas for "songs" in just about every way. 

If you really wanted to learn traditional music theory there's no need to look further than Johann Albresctsberger's book on music theory, harmony and composition. Little known composer but he was loved by Mozart and was one of Beethoven's teachers. 

If you compare what you know to what he describes you'll see where you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner though you'll also find where you agree as well.

You can get a better edition from IMSLP It's public domain.






Gründliche Anweisung zur Composition (Albrechtsberger, Johann Georg) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org


----------



## Arbee (Oct 8, 2022)

Thanks for sharing this José, I've added it to my ever-growing reading list (you know, that world where the more you learn, the less you realize you know). As someone schooled in classical piano as a child but not music theory per se, my education came mostly from "seat of pants" (at the mercy of seasoned pros), a few wonderful mentors, and intense reading as I stumbled my way into the industry in my early twenties. It's only in recent years that I've been in the right frame of mind to focus my brain specifically on music theory and composition.

I'm always fascinated by how many ways there are to say essentially the same thing (e.g. depending on a classical, jazz or rock background), and I do understand the debate about the rights and wrongs of how to introduce folk to music theory. For my learning style however, what works best is to immerse in as many different explanations as possible, and eventually it gets said in a way that finally "gets in". To me that's the single most important thing.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 8, 2022)

Piotrek K. said:


> And I'm not sure if Mozart, when sitting by his piano, was thinking "and now diminished 3rd, hehehe". Maybe, maybe not.


Advanced functional harmony analysis was not available at his time. Mozart was influenced by the same book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum. At that time harmonies were pretty triadic, but the voiceleading magnificant. It is about species counterpoint, and very little about the function of harmonies. You think more in intervals and melodies (in plural) than chords: Three types of movement, four rules of movements that can really be reduced to two, five species where the last is but a combi of the four, + some period specific voice leading recommendations (that are actually relative to style, period, and whether you write for choir or instruments). Viola, and here come the students Mozart, Bach and Haydn among others.




Today where much music is expressed in chords supporting single melodies, functional harmony is a better way to start imo. However, if you want to go old school like me, Gradus is the treasure of all time, especially supported by Knud Jeppesen.


----------



## bryla (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> Advanced functional harmony analysis was not available at his time. Mozart is trained in the same old book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum.


Rameau wrote his treatise on harmony in 1722.


----------



## Aldunate (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> Advanced functional harmony analysis was not available at his time. Mozart is trained in the same old book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum. At that time harmonies were pretty triadic, but the voiceleading magnificant. It is about species counterpoint, and very little about the function of harmonies. You think more in intervals and melodies (in plural) than chords: Three types of movement, four rules of movements that can really be reduced to two, five species where the last is but a combi of the four, + some period specific voice leading recommendations (that are actually relative to style, period, and whether you write for choir or instruments). Viola, and here come the students Mozart, Bach and Haydn among others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tonal Counterpoint (Parnassum) is harmony first. Modal Counterpoint (i.e Palestrina) is the treat of dissonance consonance without a harmonic notion.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

bryla said:


> Rameau wrote his treatise on harmony in 1722.


You are rigth. Gradus is from 1725. Tho history says it was the Fux tradition in which Mozart was trained. Fux appealed to the style of Palestrina, polyphony above notions of harmony. Jeppesen corrected a few things with regard to palestrina but species counterpoint it was, inspired from the modal tradition.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

Aldunate said:


> Tonal Counterpoint (Parnassum) is harmony first. Modal Counterpoint (i.e Palestrina) is the treat of dissonance consonance without a harmonic notion.



Gradus ad Parnassum is not tonal counterpoint. It refers to the church modes and not simply minor and major, and there are no teachings of lead tones, e.g. altered dominants, and other stuff from the tonal transition of modal music. In addition, it is based on species counterpoint and not functional chord analyses. Tho, I do recall Jeppesen write somewhere that Fux involuntarily became a bridge between modal and tonal counterpoint due to other trends of his time that had passed the renaissance composers. In the foreword to the English edition of Gradus it is said to be J. G. Albrectsberger who adopted Fux´s Cantus firmus exercises to standard major and minor tonalities.


----------



## bryla (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> You are rigth. Gradus is from 1725. Tho history says it was the Fux tradition in which Mozart was trained. Fux appealed to the style of Palestrina, polyphony above notions of harmony. Jeppesen corrected a few things with regard to palestrina but species counterpoint it was, inspired from the modal tradition.


You are right that Mozart was trained in Fux but you can not say that he wasn't appealing to the harmonic language and motivic structure that was developed under Corelli and Vivaldi. What Fux described came 200 years before him and a lot happened in between that you cannot deny Mozart was oblivious to.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

bryla said:


> You are right that Mozart was trained in Fux but you can not say that he wasn't appealing to the harmonic language and motivic structure that was developed under Corelli and Vivaldi. What Fux described came 200 years before him and a lot happened in between that you cannot deny Mozart was oblivious to.


Of course Mozart was one of the pioneers bringing the old dusty art of polyphony into the new harmonic and eventually "tonal" languages of the classical era together with Bach, Haydn and more. Obviously, Mozart´s preferences pointed to the strong and independent melody, supported by harmonies, while Palestrina went more for balanced polyphony with many imitative melodies in play. However, in Requiem, Mozart dives into polyphony wholeheartedly, e.g. double-fugue. Fux was lacking behind already when his work was released, but educational textbooks in music were not that common, and therefore it became a succes nonetheless. No doubt it was backward looking. Today almost forgotten. However I must say I have learned more from modal counterpoint than anything else, but then again, I need it to obtain a particular retrospective sound, both by following Fux´ rules and breaking them happily if I want something sounding even older, e.g. like drone music.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 9, 2022)

Besides from the discussion about Fux and Rameau I think it's crucial to point out the immense importance of the Basso Continuo.
Not only is its knowledge crucial to better understand a lot of the harmonic conventions of the baroque music (and the music that came afterwards) it also is a good concept to know for modern composers/songwriters etc.
And while I don't think that it's an absolute must to know the basso continuo for aspiring composers, I do think it's absolutely useless for people without an understanding of it to try to "teach" about harmony.
(Same goes for the whole area of the conventions of modality and how it evolved into the modern scales/tonality...)


----------



## bryla (Oct 9, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> Besides from the discussion about Fux and Rameau I think it's crucial to point out the immense importance of the Basso Continuo.
> Not only is its knowledge crucial to better understand a lot of the harmonic conventions of the baroque music (and the music that came afterwards) it also is a good concept to know for modern composers/songwriters etc.
> And while I don't think that it's an absolute must to know the basso continuo for aspiring composers, I do think it's absolutely useless for people without an understanding of it to try to "teach" about harmony.
> (Same goes for the whole area of the conventions of modality and how it evolved into the modern scales/tonality...)


The 200 years gap between Palestrina and Fux was indeed filled with the coming and passing of basso continuo and the heavy focus of the soprano/bass balance versus the overall interplay of voices.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 9, 2022)

bryla said:


> The 200 years gap between Palestrina and Fux was indeed filled with the coming and passing of basso continuo and the heavy focus of the soprano/bass balance versus the overall interplay of voices.


The real relevance of the Basso continuo is that it helps to understand lots of harmonic conventions where functional harmony will miss the point.


----------



## sinkd (Oct 9, 2022)

Just finding this thread. Aside from the erroneous conflation of enharmonic intervals in the OP, the most astonishing thing is that someone would offer a primer on functional harmony without including any music notation. Are treble and bass clefs now just the tools of the elitist gatekeeper music theory pedagog?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> You are rigth. Gradus is from 1725. Tho history says it was the Fux tradition in which Mozart was trained. Fux appealed to the style of Palestrina, polyphony above notions of harmony. Jeppesen corrected a few things with regard to palestrina but species counterpoint it was, inspired from the modal tradition.


Mozart was actually graded favorably (a report card) for his inventive harmonies by the Italian monks he studied with. Also, in him you have one of the giants of harmonic progression and the exploitation of the diatonic system. As with Beethoven he eventually turned to Bach in his later works but he is firmly ensconced in the Classical period and relied on the forms and practices of it far more than any earlier period.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

Dave Connor said:


> Mozart was actually graded favorably (a report card) for his inventive harmonies by the Italian monks he studied with. Also, in him you have one of the giants of harmonic progression and the exploitation of the diatonic system. As with Beethoven he eventually turned to Bach in his later works but he is firmly ensconced in the Classical period and relied on the forms and practices of it far more than any earlier period.


Sure he was a pioneer bringing the old arts into the frames of his time. Look at my post above. However, that does not mean he thought in terms of functional chord analysis being raised with Fux. The fifth species in Fux, florid counterpoint, is actually peculiar because here you are supposed to stop thinking about what you are doing (which you have done all the way until now) and just let it flow by intuition. I achieved that through hard work, why I do not really think much when making music, I just listen. It is emboddied, and I haven’t touched a sheet for three decades. I am pretty sure Mozart reached that state much faster and with much more excellence than me. He did correct his drafts, tho. That he did not is a myth, but still I think most came natural to him. It lies in the ambition of Gradus.

If You may allow a little demonstration of florid counterpoint up to third species. Everything is counterpointed to the harp to the left by intuition and few corrections. And to break with Fux and get it pagan-like, I wrote it in 5/4, allowed voice-crossings, and broke first rule of counterpoint by using parallel fifths in the choirs.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 9, 2022)

If you play or examine Mozart's contrapuntal works such as the Fugue in his Fantasia in C Major for piano, it is particularly distinguished by the fact that it is harmonically constructed with a sort of contrapuntal treatment after the fact. It is actually awkward in that way but nonetheless contains very nice harmonies. It is not the work of someone who's fundamental approach (nor thinking) is rooted in counterpoint. We get that later from Mozart but this piano piece is a dead giveaway as to Mozart's technique and orientation earlier (at 26). The Bach that Mozart is closest to musically (and quite literally as friends) is Johann Christian Bach, as you probably know. In similar fashion he is a thorough Classicist - despite the influence of his father, and whom Mozart models on very closely (steals.)

I just don't see Mozart demonstrating a style and technique in his early to mid writing which he had to study and apply himself to rigorously in his later life to pull off. The opposite seems to be the case in the writing itself during that period. No doubt Fux figured in his learning but that's true of now thousands and isn't cause to believe in it's universal application and primary impulse, in those that did. Debussy studied Fux no doubt, as did Schoenberg.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

Well, it was all about whether Mozart was thinking “heh, a diminished third”underway, and I still say no, I doubt it. Listening to Mozartz’ Requiem, the intro and Kyrie in particular, I hear remniscents of both Bach and Palestrina, so that convinces me of his foundation in, or at least mastery of, polyphony.


----------



## Taron (Oct 9, 2022)

Oh wow, I'm sorry, excuse me for squeezing in here, but I have to share my quite grinning as I casually peruse through this thread from the beginning  ...alone considering the intention of it by its title:
"Very Basic Music Theory"

So, @waveheavy had this sweet and noble intention to share his revelations on how to simply approach music theory, trying to avoid some of the academical complications that make communicating musical ideas verbally so challenging in the beginning. But he went at it a little clumsily, seemingly hoping to avoid the more educated VICinger to rip his head off... but that gamble went sideways almost instantly by the looks of it. 
Flash forward to page 3 and there's virtually nothing left of the "Basic" in "Very Basic Music Theory" and thereby mutilating the grammar of the title violently into "Very Music Theory"! 

However, love the thread! Good fun and one can never learn enough, really. Just don't hurt yourselves!!!


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

Taron said:


> Flash forward to page 3 and there's virtually nothing left of the "Basic" in "Very Basic Music Theory" and thereby mutilating the grammar of the title violently into "Very Music Theory"!


I consider species counterpoint pretty basic. Grammer is relative and overrated.


----------



## Taron (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> I consider species counterpoint pretty basic. Grammer is relative and overrated.


 not the _counter_point!  ...nah, it wasn't a reaction to your posts, but the general tendency of where the whole thread went into. Showing each other historical references from their studies, observations on our legendary composers and their influences, comparing notes...
Most musicians who still struggle with music theory really zone out when it comes to chord naming, but by the time the Bach family becomes the subject, well... 

Again, I'm enjoying it tremendously. Just made me giggle. 

However, I actually haven't heard the term "species" counterpoint, which is funny, because I do know the five species of counterpoint, haha. But that's the weirdness about me, so never mind that, please! 

Honestly, though, I have made/composed music for over 35 years now and from the earliest days the one thing that gave me clarity and orientation was the mathematical nature of it all, the circle of fifth, the harmonic relationships and the near infinite reach of logic both harmonically and rhythmically in the building of patterns. Combined with my roots in visual arts it allowed me to study various phenomena associated with communicating ideas from one mind to many. 
I used to be afraid to learn too many "rules", like so many others, too. The fear is always more or less the same, isn't it; quantization of creative impulses. Like when you'd wish to let yourself go freely into the keys, for example (or strings to others), but anytime you're near a common concept, you'd be quantized straight into it, following a path you had learned. Your mind would be flooded with references you'd become aware of and soon you'd find yourself replicating rather than inventing freely. The fear to lose access to your own soul's unmanifested ideals. 
But in reality at some point you will have the confidence and strength to know when to leave the beaten paths and when to take advantage of them. Like how we write each other here, using a fairly limited amount of words (if you can believe it?! ), but we each find our own voice in the words we choose and when we chose them and how, of course. And the true alphabet of music is damn near infinite, because it involves many dimensions. Nothing can stop us from making up new words in it, but we benefit greatly from the grammar that exists for it already, making it easier for us to communicate our unique ideas with them and transcend them understandably.

Alright, I won't keep you from exchanging more notes, it's delightful, honestly! I love having my mind with y'all here. It's honestly wonderful!


----------



## Gothi (Oct 9, 2022)

Not sure I got all of the above ^^^ rigth in my present state, a little spliff, but it had some nice vibes to it somehow, so I guess we are all good. I am just happy to get an excuse to speak about the things I love about music, including theory, and Dave was in so :-D

Don’t know, maybe the mods can remove all the responses but the OP and its additions at some point?


----------



## VSTHero (Oct 9, 2022)

Beautifully said!


Taron said:


> not the _counter_point!  ...nah, it wasn't a reaction to your posts, but the general tendency of where the whole thread went into. Showing each other historical references from their studies, observations on our legendary composers and their influences, comparing notes...
> Most musicians who still struggle with music theory really zone out when it comes to chord naming, but by the time the Bach family becomes the subject, well...
> 
> Again, I'm enjoying it tremendously. Just made me giggle.
> ...


----------



## Taron (Oct 9, 2022)

Gothi said:


> Not sure I got all of the above ^^^ rigth in my present state, a little spliff, but it had some nice vibes to it somehow, so I guess we are all good. I am just happy to get an excuse to speak about the things I love about music, including theory, and Dave was in so :-D
> 
> Don’t know, maybe the mods can remove all the responses but the OP and its additions at some point?


No, no, no, it's all good!


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 9, 2022)

I never did comment on the original post which I wasn’t particularly bothered by. Yes it‘s pretty basic and yes there were some problems here and there but harmless enough to a serious student - who will eventually sort these things out one way or another.

I enjoyed my exchange with Gothi and only took it up because the thread seemed to have moved move on and I felt the exact opposite is true of his main point. Hardly a clash with him though.


----------



## veranad (Oct 9, 2022)

Thank you @waveheavy !


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Oct 9, 2022)

Good grief music theory is boring


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

Tbh, I suck at chord theory unless we are dealing with some basic Jazz, where I have studied some of Steely Dan's wonderful Jazz-rock progressions. If the word is still free, I will allow myself to post an example to honor chord theory. It is very chilly and good for this thread, methinks.



However, my point with regard to what the beloved Mozart was thinking stems from an analogy from myself going through Gradus: I never think in chords, only modes, melodies and voiceleading. The harmonies thus arise bottom up. I do not really know about Mozart's involvement in advanced chord analysis. I guess he sucked up the knowledge he could use from his time, but I do just not think it was necessary for him to come up with his stuff. Once we learned how to bind our shoes per formula. Today we can bind our shoes but hardly remember the formula. I feel the same with counterpoint, it is half theory, half intuition and very minimalistic with regard to the concepts needed. Fux was an educational genius, imo. One thing going through Gradus is that when you are done, first thing you want to do is to screw Fux' first rule of counterpoint "From one perfect consonance to another perfect consonance one must proceed in contrary or oblique motion" and go do some parallel fifths somewhere. Well, that holds for Mozart's consecutive fifths, Bach's countless violations, and Haydn's appeal to dronish folkmusic on an occasion. Of course you will turn against your teacher in the end, and from this point counterpoint breaks free from restrictions and anything can happen


----------



## SteveC (Oct 10, 2022)

By the way: C# and Db are not only functionally different - they also have a different pitch. These notes are only aligned if you detune an instrument with keys in such a way that you can play all the keys in the same way (equal tuning) or almost the same (e.g. Werckmeister). In my opinion, you can hear this detuning most clearly with the fifth. A lot of music is not performed in equal tuning. I agree with some here that one should understand these facts as early as possible.
Greetings


----------



## bryla (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> If anything, Mozart's fifth reveals his training in Fux.


Can you point to how?
I can see Mozart's fifth shows his training in harmonically structured sonata form born from Corelli, the motivic and phrase builds of the early 18th century and textural shifts that where much in vogue in his own time rather than Fux's teachings.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

bryla said:


> Can you point to how?
> I can see Mozart's fifth shows his training in harmonically structured sonata form born from Corelli, the motivic and phrase builds of the early 18th century and textural shifts that where much in vogue in his own time rather than Fux's teachings.


It does not demonstrate Fux teachings, on the contrary, but it is compatible with my idea that Mozart challenged Fux the same way Bach and Haydn challenged him in a revolt like manner. It is a fact that Mozart was trained in Fux, and Fux would avoid parallel fifths in any form if possible. If Bach and Haydn would challenge first rule, why wouldn’t Mozart? Here is an excerpt on the wiki on Mozart’s consecutive fifths. Whever inspired him, it ain’t Fux stuff. But note that they still occur under obligue notion, they are not straightforward parallels either, so actually Mozart is still within Fux frame somehow, but expanding the limits. I have heard that Mozart’s fifths are considered an error in part writing at some universities. So there are still people being “Fuxy” about it 



> In Brahms's essay "Octaven und Quinten" ("Octaves and fifths"), he identifies many cases of apparent consecutive fifths in the works of Mozart. Most of the examples he provides involve accompaniment figuration in small note values that moves in parallel fifths with a slower moving bass. The background voice-leading of such progressions is oblique motion, with the consecutive fifths resulting from the ornamentation of the sustaining voice with a chromatic lower neighbor. Such "Mozart fifths" occur in bars 254–255 of the Act I finale of Così fan Tutte, in bar 80 of the Act II sextet from Don Giovanni, in the opening of the last movement of the Violin Sonata in A Major, K. 526 and in bar 189 of the overture to Zauberflöte.











Consecutive fifths - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## bryla (Oct 10, 2022)

I see. I think you confused the chordal figurations that obscure consecutive fifths with Mozarts difth symphony 
I really don't see this though as any clear cut evidence to the case you are stating in your posts.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

bryla said:


> I really don't see this though as any clear cut evidence to the case you are stating in your posts.


Oh man. Don’t say the E word, I am just proposing ideas about what none of us really know, namely whether he thought in chords or counterpoint or something else or nothing at all. How his fifths can be considered the “revolt against the father” and other free thoughts. Bad formulation then. My mistake. It distracted the point. I will edit my post and remove it as if it did never happen and your post about it is but a hallucination. All good


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

bryla said:


> I see. I think you confused the chordal figurations that obscure consecutive fifths with Mozarts difth symphony


Ha ha. You thought that I was speaking about his fifth symphony? No, sir, it was about em good old parallels of perfect consonances. I cannot even recall his fifth right now. Thanks God for YT then.


----------



## Rowy van Hest (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> Advanced functional harmony analysis was not available at his time. Mozart is trained in the same old book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum. At that time harmonies were pretty triadic, but the voiceleading magnificant. It is about species counterpoint, and very little about the function of harmonies. You think more in intervals and melodies (in plural) than chords: Three types of movement, four rules of movements that can really be reduced to two, five species where the last is but a combi of the four, + some period specific voice leading recommendations (that are actually relative to style, period, and whether you write for choir or instruments). Viola, and here come the students Mozart, Bach and Haydn among others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Voice leading (based on vocal counterpoint - Palestrina) in a functional harmonic setting does it for me. The Gradus is not really necessary these days, if you have studied voice leading. Although some extra knowledge doesn't hurt. In that case I prefer Jeppesen.


----------



## SupremeFist (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> whether he thought in chords or counterpoint or something else or nothing at all


It seems to me eccentric to assume that these are mutually exclusive. The true answer is likely "all of the above, plus other things we'll never be able to reconstruct".


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

Rowy van Hest said:


> Voice leading (based on vocal counterpoint - Palestrina) in a functional harmonic setting does it for me. The Gradus is not really necessary these days, if you have studied voice leading. Although some extra knowledge doesn't hurt. In that case I prefer Jeppesen.


I have and use Jeppesen too. His treatise on 16th century vocal polyphony is after all a comment to Fux. I know about the status of Gradus and modern schools to whom this is ancient stuff. But to me, there is some magic being schooled in this classical spirit of Fux. Jeppesen is all technical where Gradus is also a great story about a relation between a fictive teacher and student and how they get completely engaged in the topic and teaching, making errors, correcting them patiently with explanations, experimenting. Should anyone say it was all black school and punishment at that time, they haven’t read Gradus.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> It seems to me eccentric to assume that these are mutually exclusive. The true answer is likely "all of the above, plus other things we'll never be able to reconstruct".


Couldn’t you have waited some weeks with that conclusion? I have still pages to write here.


----------



## R.G. (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> It does not demonstrate Fux teachings, on the contrary, but it is compatible with my idea that Mozart challenged Fux the same way Bach and Haydn challenged him in a revolt like manner. It is a fact that Mozart was trained in Fux, and Fux would avoid parallel fifths in any form if possible. If Bach and Haydn would challenge first rule, why wouldn’t Mozart? Here is an excerpt on the wiki on Mozart’s consecutive fifths. Whever inspired him, it ain’t Fux stuff.


You're misplacing Fux as a sort of central authority figure of 18th century voice-leading, which he was not. With _Gradus_, he merely presented an updated species summation of what was even then considered old-fashioned liturgical vocal polyphony. He had marinated in it all his life and was trying to stand athwart the new trends of his day, yelling "Stop!"

J.S. Bach did not study Fux, and Mozart's Fux drills were only taught as a primer of voice-leading pedagogy, not as an outright method by which to compose, and were in any event only a subset of his studies. He was also taught from the Heinichen figured bass book that Bach held in regard for pedagogy, and drilled in the partimenti routines, which were more influential than Fux at the time. Additionally, he was greatly influenced by C.P.E. Bach, Haydn, and J.C. Bach, and personally instructed by the latter as well. And then there were all the score models of study from the various nationalist schools and styles of composition considered obligatory for music instruction.

Consecutive 5ths were avoided then, and before and after, on account of their disrupting affect on pristine independence, which is caused by tonal fusion, but when there were mitigating factors, ones that would render the 5ths either very weak or imperceptible, they were not considered an issue. Different textures, and increasingly elaborate ones, harmonic counterpoint, factors of prolongation, and chromatic harmony all presented the occasional instance where the "forbidden 5th" was only noticeable on paper, but not to the perception of the ear.

Tallis's _Spem in Alium_, all the way back to 1570, with its 40 distinct parts, had for the contrapuntist the seeming management nightmare of 780 simultaneous duets, and yet there are many consecutive 5ths—on paper—throughout, but they are not perceived as such _partly_ on account of the exceedingly elaborate texture, and therefore not troubled over, and partly because he used a little-known, special technique for pulling it off.

So, no one was thinking about sticking their finger in Fux's eye when they composed music. That would be a very hyper-conscious and unmusical thing to even consider. Those unobjectionable types of 5ths are unobjectionable on account of the ear's perception of the totality of musical events.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

R.G. said:


> J.S. Bach did not study Fux


Do not know where you get your sources from but the world seems to contradict you on this:



> In 1742 a German translation of Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum (Vienna, 1725) was published by J.S. Bach's pupil Lorenz Christoph Mizler. *J.S.* *Bach knew the Latin original well and his personal copy has survived*.








Johann Joseph Fux (Composer, Music Theorist) - Short Biography


Biography, Bach Connection, Bach-related Works and Pictures of the artist



www.bach-cantatas.com





You seem very certain of your claims, but I cannot be further convinced on this basis unless sources are provided, so I stick to my interpretation. To each, his own.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

And for those in doubt about Fux’ influence on Mozart, here are two pages from the foreword of Gradus (English) where it is mentioned. Note the “a decisive impulse for Mozart’s work”, and Padra Martini’s “we have no system other than that of Fux” remark.


----------



## R.G. (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> You seem very certain of your claims, but I cannot be further convinced on this basis unless sources are provided, so I stick to my interpretation. To each, his own.


Unapologetically and indefinably certain.

If someone doesn't already understand the obvious, I really don't know how many sources might be required to demonstrate that Bach had already reinvented contrapuntal technique well before he was 40, when _Gradus_ was published, especially given that the first book of his groundbreaking WTC was published three years prior.

Fux's species approach, just like the species books that came before, begins at two parts and are based on Late Renaissance modal polyphony suitable for voices. Whereas Bach began his students, including his sons, on four parts, in that he was teaching harmonically influenced tonal counterpoint, and treated his voices more instrumentally (except in the chorales), and you can't write that type of counterpoint in three or two parts until you understand the complete 4-part harmonic model.

In other words, Bach taught in the opposite direction, always, and did not teach it by species, but with the goal being immediate practical application. His main sources were Lutheran chorale melodies, which pagans can't comprehend, and figured basses. At first he would supply the outer voices and have the student fill in the middle two, and then he'd only supply the bass. He had them improvise on the clavier over the basses and apply diminutions to set each in a variety of textures.

His own pedagogy was influenced by that of his musical family growing up, and by Heinichen's book, not by Fux. This is explained by one of his sons, I forget which. This is not obscure knowledge and is very well known by people who are serious about Bach.

For further reading, try _The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory_, which will confirm all of the above. The only other sources I can think of atm require a JSTOR account and I'm not inclined to look them up anyway. Bibliographies and footnotes are not typically required for internet posts.


----------



## R.G. (Oct 10, 2022)

Gothi said:


> Mozart is trained in the same old book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum.


Again, Bach was 40 when Gradus was published, and he rejected it as a composition pedagogy because he taught counterpoint and harmony as one integrated totality which could not be separated into counterpoint and harmony, which is to say, composition.

On p. 279 of _The Bach Reader_, C.P.E. is quoted regarding one aspect of his father's teaching process:

_In composition he _[Bach]_ started his pupils right in with what was practical, and omitted all the dry species of counterpoint that are given in Fux and others. His pupils had to begin their studies by learning pure four-part thorough bass. From this he went to chorales; first he added the basses to them himself, and they had to invent the alto and tenor. Then he taught them to devise the basses themselves._
________________________

From p. 881 of _The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory_:

_...What we have here is the convergent movement of two huge music-theoretical tectonic plates. On the one hand, Catholic Italian contrapuntal theory _[i.e., Fux's _Gradus_]_—in which strict counterpoint is itself a training in composition—spread Europe-wide through publication, like an underground network. On the other hand, a new body of theory, emanating from Protestant Berlin and based on the music not of Palestrina but of J. S. Bach (who repudiated species counterpoint, and started his pupils with four-part figured bass writing)..._
________________________

With a JSTOR subscription you can find _Fux to Bach: Bridging the Gap_ (by Robert Gauldin), and _Reconstructing and Applying the Music-Theoretical Paratext of Johann Sebastian Bach’s Compositional Pedagogy,_ by Derek Remes. There is plenty there also about Haydn's and Mozart's musical instruction and sources of influence besides just _Gradus_.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 10, 2022)

R.G. said:


> Again, Bach was 40 when Gradus was published, and he rejected it as a composition pedagogy because he taught counterpoint and harmony as one integrated totality which could not be separated into counterpoint and harmony, which is to say, composition.


Question was not how old Bach was when Gradus was released or if he taught it to his students, but whether Fux had impact on Bach. Fux did not invent species counterpoint, but took it into a system and an educational textbook. I still consider Bach initiated and influenced. These sources are in strong agreement:

*"C. P. E. Bach named Fux first in the list of composers whom his father admired in later life: perhaps it is from this time that the new admiration dates."*



> In 1742 (probably the year of Clavier Ubung iv) he published a trans- lation of Fux's treatise Gradus ad Parnasslum, prepared (as Spitta said) 'under Bach's very eye, as it were'. It includes not only the theoretical examples of counterpoint from the original edition but also extra ones of Fux's work, along with Mizler's comments. According to C. P. E. Bach, his father did not practise Fux's teaching methods, but he could scarcely have failed to be impressed by the results of these methods in such 'real' music as the Kyrie from Fux's Missa vicissirudinis, a strict four-part canon, which appears in Mizler's edition. 1 *C. P. E. Bach named Fux first in the list of composers whom his father admired in later life: perhaps it is from this time that the new admiration dates. *There is a possible echo of Bach's renewed acquaintance with Fux's music in the Goldberg Variations themselves (Fux's Missa di Saii Carlo, or canonica, uses a similar canon sequence in reverse); these newly discovered canons look like the first positive result


"A Newly Discovered Group of Canons by Bach" https://www.jstor.org/stable/959253.

Other sources are more specific, read about the three connections between Fux and Bach. One refers to one of your quotes:



> There are perhaps three important points of contact between Johann Joseph Fux and *J.S. Bach* which suggest that he was a source of influence on *J.S. Bach*'s late style and that he was regarded by contemporary commentators as a composer (as well as a theorist) of comparable significance to *J.S. Bach*.
> 
> A letter from Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach to J.N. Forkel of January 19, *1775 attests to J.S. Bach's preference for actual music in the teaching of composition as against 'the dry species of counterpoint that are given in Fux and others', but the same letter places Fux at the head of those (contemporary) composers whom J.S. Bach most admired:* J.J. Fux, Antonio Caldara, George Frideric Handel, Reinhard Keiser, Johann Adolf Hasse, Johann Gottlieb Graun and Johann Gottlieb Graun, Jan Dismas Zelenka (a pupil of J.J. Fux's), and Franz Benda.
> 
> ...








Johann Joseph Fux (Composer, Music Theorist) - Short Biography


Biography, Bach Connection, Bach-related Works and Pictures of the artist



www.bach-cantatas.com





Certainty and music history/theory? I think not. We are all speculating here, question is on what basis.


----------



## R.G. (Oct 11, 2022)

Did that spliff you mentioned earlier ever wear off, or did you have another? You asked for sources, and I gave you sources, but, as is typical in these situations, you're ignoring that fulfilled request and moving the goalpost way past your earlier declarations. Bach having an appreciation of Fux as a composer does not validate your assertion that Bach was trained in _Gradus_, as in the following quote:



Gothi said:


> Mozart is trained in the same old book as Bach, Haydn and myself, tho I am not in their league: Fux’ Gradus Ad Parnassum.


It is not a "speculation" to say that this is manifestly wrong. It is an easily discernible fact. Some things can be known, and _are_ known, and this is one of those things. Haydn and Mozart, yes (among their other sources and influences), but not Bach.

And of this quote:



Gothi said:


> ...it is compatible with my idea that Mozart challenged Fux the same way Bach and Haydn challenged him in a revolt like manner...


There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Mozart and Haydn were making musical decisions based on the extra-musical consideration of "challenging Fux," or that Bach was somehow "challenging Fux" dozens of years in advance in some sort of clairvoyant anticipation of the _Gradus_ publication. Fux was not the locus of 18th century compositional thought. His book was one reference point among many others. It was a big world. This theory you have is what amounts to speculation; not the known facts.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 11, 2022)

R.G. said:


> Did that spliff you mentioned earlier ever wear off, or did you have another?



Don't be offensive because I caught you red handed with regard to Fux' influence on Bach. You neglected it on basis of Bach's teachings and not much else, and I gave you some official sources who disagree.



R.G. said:


> You asked for sources, and I gave you sources, but, as is typical in these situations, you're ignoring that fulfilled request and moving the goalpost way past your earlier declarations.


Nope, no ignorance. I just gave sources, which contradicted yours, e.g. one and the same quote. So do not be offended because I still don't take your words for granted. And my goalpost here was solely Fux' influence on Bach, why I quoted this only in my response to your teachings.




R.G. said:


> Bach having an appreciation of Fux as a composer does not negate your assertion that Bach was trained in _Gradus_, as in the following quote:
> 
> 
> It is not a "speculation" to say that this is manifestly wrong. It is an easily discernible fact. Some things can be known, and _are_ known, and this is one of those things. Haydn and Mozart, yes (among their other sources and influences), but not Bach.


So you say, but I have just given sources that say it had influence on late Bach. If you do not like the term "trained", let us call it "influenced by". It is but semantics to me. I have even edited it for your sake.




R.G. said:


> There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Mozart and Haydn were making musical decisions based on the extra-musical consideration of "challenging Fux," or that Bach was somehow "challenging Fux" dozens of years in advance in some sort of clairvoyant anticipation of the _Gradus_ publication. Fux was not the locus of 18th century compositional thought. His book was one reference point among many others. It was a big world. This theory you have is what amounts to speculation; not the known facts.


No, not evidence, like in many other fields of music. That is a funny little hypothesis, which I explained as an analogy from myself and the feeling to go out and do parallels after finishing Gradus. But I still find that many things from Mozart and Haydn contradicted Fux in ways they must have been aware of. A revolt against the old they were from a technical point under all circumstances, no matter their psychological motives.

I am worried about your tone, so I will leave the last word to you and call it the day. I have my sources and right to present them too to counter yours. That is the name of the debate game to me. I am done here.

As far as species counterpoint as technique concerns, I consider Gradus so basic that I consider it fundamental for any voice leading, whether you follow the old ways, or drop the periodic specific recommendations and follow it into the tonal era. And this is what history did with modal counterpoint. Species are species basically, and they are all there today even though the voiceleading and harmonic rules have changed.

Freya's Peace
Gothi


----------



## R.G. (Oct 11, 2022)

By Grabthar's Hammer, by the Sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 11, 2022)

You seem to forget I have already Valhalla, Folkvang and The Underworld as allies. And Mjølnir, Thor's hammer. Are you sure your Grabthar and the Warven spacebikers are up to the task?


----------



## Cdnalsi (Oct 11, 2022)

You guys scared OP away.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 11, 2022)

Cdnalsi said:


> You guys scared OP away.


If I am guilty, it was not my intention. Neither to make anyone angry. I like free thoughts and speculation beyond facutal history lessons. No one knows shit anyway. Good brain gym. Not to be taken too literally or too seriously. To each, his own mom. Whatever floats your wreck, one man's sushi is another man' shit, beauty is in the substances of your bloodstream, drugged horses for fraudulent courses, different cloaks for different folks. Eternal wisdom. 
I wish everyone a happy day.

Freya's Peace 
Gothi


----------



## Noeticus (Oct 11, 2022)

I truly admire some of the erudition on display in this thread.

So, for levity, consider the BS below...

"The pursuit of soloistic tone-substances to superimpose the mostly-musical paradigm is a key focus of my quasi-fragmentary study. My stylistic collaborations have led me to explore the 20th-century potential of parts and resonators, and incorporate the creation of situations in which the composing of a awareness has the potential to perform all sorts of stereophonic fermata-phenomena. In short, the study must never perceive the expression. My work is, in short, a re-imagining of the 'gestural-performances' school of contemporary 'expression-analysis' composition. My latest piece begins with a rather binary 'procedure-timbre', before collaboratively transforming the existing provocative material into a more triadically-linear state, a process I term 'integrally-contrapuntal-dismissing'. It is clear that harmonic aleatoric compositional approaches are often compromised by an over-abundance of acoustically dynamic linearities, particularly when dealing with large numbers of minimalistic approaches."

From...



The Contemporary Classical Composer's Bullshit Generator



 🍷  🍷


----------



## Leon Willett (Oct 11, 2022)

What a bunch of noobletz in this thread. Not only do I know the C AND the D... but I also know the C#. Do you noob faces know the C#? DIDN'T THINK SO. So go back to piling techno loops on top of eachother and leave the french trumpones to me! IN OCTAVEZ BABY!


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 11, 2022)

The previous exchange is gold on account of the sources named alone. It’s nice to witness the result of serious study.

In the end, the music tells the tale. Years ago, reading through Mozart’s Fugue from his Fantasia in C Major for the first time, I literally stopped and chuckled. It was so obviously conceived harmonically (in that the melodic lines weren’t independent but rather pleasant-sounding tones cascading through the chord tones) that I couldn’t compare it to _any _piece of a contrapuntal nature I was aware of. Certainly not any _fugue. _

Mozart had one of the greatest musical memories on record so it wouldn’t have been that he forgot whatever he learned from Fux. Rather, he was proceeding from his basic orientation as a composer, from a style that as R.G. mentioned, was firmly established by Bach’s sons, Haydn and others. Later on Mozart demonstrates a far greater level of contrapuntal writing but it clearly descends from Bach as opposed to Fux, Palestrina and the like.

Still, what a great diversion this thread took and we’re all entitled to our opinion and making our case.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 11, 2022)

Mozart is my man too. And yes, his greatest preferences seem to turn toward the strong melody supported by harmonies. Just remember that in terms of counterpoint, chord blocks correspond to first species counterpoint, note against note, so it is not that Fux’ counterpoint does not have terms for chords and harmonies as such, at least a triadic language, but not the functional chord analysis that evolved from the classical era and into modern times. And from my pics of the intro to Gradus shown before, Mozart seemingly taught counterpoint to a student. However, that does not mean he used it for polyphony. You can stick to first species and a melody as much as you want or you can go renaissance, it is up to you. By the same token, Gradus does not point to Fux’s own style in particular. There is difference between being fascinated by a language and a particular book. Species counterpoint is a language.


----------

