# Tonality vs modality vs diatonicism vs chromaticism



## clarkcontrol (May 10, 2009)

Good book. One of my faves is Dave Liebman's "A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony." Though it has the word jazz in its title, has helped me more in a general sense than my jazz playing. Speaking of chromatic...



alphabetgreen @ Sun May 03 said:


> All diatonic means is: a seven note scale from one note to a note an octave higher. Just as octatonic means: an eight note scale from one note to...etc
> Pentatonic = 5 note scale from one note to....etc.



For the record, I use the term diatonic differently than this. I also use the terms scale and mode differently than how Dave Connor describes.

Historically, I defer to those who are reminding us about the nature and development of the music theory that surrounds these terms. I, however, choose to adopt a more contemporary (jazz) view.

For instance, I use diatonic to describe the notes IN a scale. Any scale of any number of notes per octave. Here's an example of how I would use it in a sentence: "This phrase stays diatonic to Eb pentatonic until beat three where the composer introduces chromatics..."

Now, this is incorrect in a technical sense, using diatonic and chromatic in such a way to describe relationships to scales, not actual scales. Diatonic: in the scale. Chromatic: outside the scale.

This also applies to chords: "diatonic to a chord" to describe someone soloing over a chord change in a jazz chart.

RE: Scales and modes. This is the same as above in the sense that these terms describe relationships, not point to a moment in our musical history. Pick/generate a scale. Any scale. Now generate a mode from it. These modes are all diatonic to each other if they all use the same parent scale.

This also means that Lydian could generate Ionian, technically. Now, as a caveat, I do choose to hold to the major scale generating these modes other than vice versa, but I hope you get where I'm coming from with this.

My apologies to all who's sensibilities have been offended by my selective nature. I choose to organize my thoughts this way because it makes the information so much more useful for me in a composing/improvisational context.

Clark


----------



## Rob (May 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



clarkcontrol @ 10th May 2009 said:


> ... Diatonic: in the scale. Chromatic: outside the scale.



my thought exactly



> ... I choose to organize my thoughts this way because it makes the information so much more useful for me in a composing/improvisational context.
> 
> Clark



I think that's the point, each of us can literally invent his own musical system, and as Darwin teaches the fittest will survive... :D


----------



## bryla (May 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Rob @ Sun May 10 said:


> clarkcontrol @ 10th May 2009 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Diatonic: in the scale. Chromatic: outside the scale.
> ...


mine too...
I also see chord/scale/mode relationships as Clark describes it.

And nothing wrong with inventing systems of your own - I do it too - but when in the conservatory, it is hard to convince your theory teacher, that your system is the new Russell or Sebesky....

He'll see... :evil:


----------



## Rob (May 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



bryla @ 10th May 2009 said:


> I also see chord/scale/mode relationships as Clark describes it.



yes, the three of us must have had the same teachers  



> And nothing wrong with inventing systems of your own - I do it too - but when in the conservatory, it is hard to convince your theory teacher, that your system is the new Russell or Sebesky....
> He'll see... :evil:



 It is well known that practice comes first, then comes theory. The best harmony books recognize this (Piston comes to mind)... the western harmonic system took centuries to consolidate, and still in the works of the great composers you find exceptions to the rules... imagine that for a form of art so young and manifold as jazz...


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Regarding the semantics of 'diatonic' or 'chromatic' there need not be any confusion: you can simply say "scale" (which can be whatever it is -diatonic or not by definition- and "chromatic" (non scale tone.) One can still _think_ about it anyway you like. But it's a little like discussing colors with someone and saying I call 'red' 'blue' and expecting them to follow along with your _thinking._ Most composers traditionally distinguish quite clearly between diatonic and modal language. It's the difference between Gregorian chant and Beethoven to use an extreme example. The gravitational laws and forces that govern these scales are completely different. If you call them both the same thing I think you miss the basic essence of both. There I beat that horse into oblivion.


----------



## mf (Dec 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Thu Dec 10 said:


> Most composers traditionally distinguish quite clearly between diatonic and modal language.


You mean "between diatonic and chromatic," right?
Because modal is just an idiom falling under the diatonic (or chromatic) language.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Dec 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Its a matter of how you define your terms.

I believe that we agreed to disagree.

Clark


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 10, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



mf @ Thu Dec 10 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Most composers traditionally distinguish quite clearly between diatonic and modal language.
> ...



That is a debatable point held by some and not by others. My point is how composers have viewed and therefore discussed the modes (pre-classical) and diatonic scales (classical onward) as hallmarks of those eras. The difference in thinking and approach is enormous. That's why the difference in the music is so apparent: one is obeying the laws of the modes the other of the _tonic_ (as in dia-tonic) _dominant_ relationship. It's also why a return to modal writing (as in much of Hindemiths work) is so strikòk>   ºG÷k>   ºGøk>   ºGùk>   ºGúk>   ºGûk>   ºGük>   ºGýk>   ºGþk>   ºGÿk>   ºH k>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºH	k>   ºH
k>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºH k>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºHk>   ºH k>   ºH!k>   ºH"k>   ºH#k?   ºG®k?   ºG¯k?


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

You are completely missing my point which is more practical (what I'm talking about) than theoretical (your point in the main and which I'm not debating.) I'm talking about the historical _usage_ of the modes versus what is now called diatonic. You may assign the properties of the diatonic to the modes if you like but again that misses the essence of what I'm talking about. The modes have been used historically during the pre-classical era. Chants (would you call Mozart's music chant?) are constructs based upon an adherence to specific modes. This approach versus the classical use of diatonic harmony is an entirely different way of approaching a single scale.

So I say again, the two may share properties but yield entirely different _sound._ If you can convince me that Palestrina's sound is in essence the same as Beethoven's I'll be sold. It's not. One is modal in nature and one is diatonic. If I want to sound like Palestrina I will think modally. For Beethoven I will think diatonically. This is exactly why Persichetti teaches it this way and with good reason. The avalanche of music we have in the repertoire from both schools of thought bears out the principle. For my part it is not an academic discussion but a type of thinking for approaching composition.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Fri Dec 11 said:


> You are completely missing my point which is more practical (what I'm talking about) than theoretical (your point in the main and which I'm not debating.) I'm talking about the historical _usage_ of the modes versus what is now called diatonic.



I think its funny that when I think of your approach (historical), I certainly don't think of it as practical. But I totally understand and respect that POV. I just have never gone that far back historically in my practical (ha! there's that word again) application of theory when I compose.

I think maybe that will change somewhat as I'm forming a new project that might require me to reach back to the baroque period or earlier.

Clark


----------



## mf (Dec 11, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri Dec 11 said:


> If you can convince me that Palestrina's sound is in essence the same as Beethoven's I'll be sold. It's not. One is modal in nature and one is diatonic. If I want to sound like Palestrina I will think modally. For Beethoven I will think diatonically. This is exactly why Persichetti teaches it this way and with good reason.


Sorry, if he teaches that, that is not correct. 
Diatonic is a category that includes the Modal. 
Palestrina's music is (primary) Diatonic and (secondary) Modal; Beethoven's music is (primary) Diatonic and (secondary) Tonal. They both use the same Diatonic musòkÀ   ºdÐkÀ   ºdÑkÀ   ºdÒkÀ   ºdÓkÁ   ºdÔkÁ   ºdÕkÁ   ºdÖkÁ   ºd×kÁ   ºdØkÁ   ºdÙkÁ   ºdÚkÁ   ºdÛkÁ   ºdÜ


----------



## mf (Dec 11, 2009)

Those 7 modes above are Diatonic modes, right? If Diatonic is opposed to Modal, then 'diatonic mode' is a contradiction in terms. Is it?

OTOH, can you point to me Persichetti's definition of Diatonic? I'm puzzled that such a big name can oppose Diatonic to Modal. Quote please?



Dave Connor @ Fri Dec 11 said:


> If you tell the student that the above composers are all diatonic you teach him nothing. Yet by your definition they are.


Berg didn't use much the Diatonic scales, but yes, it is a fact that Palestrina and Beethoven both use the same Diatonic language, the same Diatonic scales, in different ways of course: Palestrina uses a Diatonic Modal idiom, while Beethoven uses a Diatonic Tonal idiom.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Berg has tons of diatonicism so you've lost me there. Depending on the piece sure but tons and tons. I think you just made my point if you're saying his diatonicism sounds completely different.


----------



## mf (Dec 11, 2009)

No, your point is that Diatonic is different and opposed to Modal, while my point is that Diatonic includes Modal.

Diatonicism is common to both Palestrina and Beethoven. What differentiates them is: one writes Diatonic Modal music and the other Diatonic Tonal music.

Where is that Persichetti quote?


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

My point is the difference in approach and therefore sound between the modal approach of the pre-classic era and the diatonicism of the following eras. I have never used the word 'opposed' since I don't agree with that. You keep using that word which is why I say you don't understand my point. That's why I queried you as to _hearing_ the difference in the two approaches (my fundamental point.) 

Berg's orchestral songs for example contain diatonic passages everywhere but it sounds completely different because it is not the diatonicism of the classic era or the diatonicism of the pre-classic era. I am only making a very healthy distinction. Sure you can call them all diatonic but it doesn't inform one of the dominating characteristics found in the music.

I didn't quote Persichetti but his book on 20th century harmony has a wonderful section on modal writing that deliberately steers the student away from diatonic writing or thinking.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Well I just read Persichetti's writing on modes who does in fact refer to the _diatonic limits_ of each mode. The problem is that he is not treating them as though they were modes in the traditional sense and says so. In fact what he does is force them into a traditional role (referring to 'double dominants' and the like: a term which doesn't exist in traditional harmony) in order to give the composer a convenient way to give himself new chords on the scale steps. 

So now you have what he explains is 20th century use of the modes which is unrelated to the ancient use of church modes. So he's doing what I'm doing: categorizing terms according to the era.

Semantics.

Wikipedia on Diatonic:

Diatonic and chromatic are terms in music theory that are most often used to characterize scales, and are also applied to intervals, chords, notes, musical styles, and kinds of harmony. They are very often used as a pair, especially when applied to contrasting features of the common practice music of the period 1600–1900.


----------



## billval3 (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Fri Dec 11 said:


> Well I just read Persichetti's writing on modes who does in fact refer to the _diatonic limits_ of each mode. The problem is that he is not treating them as though they were modes in the traditional sense and says so. In fact what he does is force them into a traditional role (referring to 'double dominants' and the like: a term which doesn't exist in traditional harmony) in order to give the composer a convenient way to give himself new chords on the scale steps.



Regardless of the way he treats the modes, you've just admitted that he refers to them as diatonic. If you write a piece that is completely Phrygian than all of those notes are diatonic to the mode. If a note of the scale is altered, that note is non-diatonic.

The origin of the word made total sense when someone pointed out dia = 7 and tonic = notes.

I don't understand why you're asking us to hear the difference in approaches when using Ionian versus the other modes. Of course there's a difference. But there's also a difference to be heard between a mixolydian piece of music and a lydian one.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

I have stated several times that the modes can be labeled diatonic. The problem is _most_ of music other than strict 12 tone writing (which can fairly be called chromatic) is in fact diatonic. But we don't call 12 tone music _chromatic_ the same as we *do* call music of the pre-classic _modal_. We don't say Schoenberg's _chromatic_ system. Because that doesn't distinguish it from the chromaticism of the preceding eras. Because ALL music that varies from the given scale is chromatic. Just as all music based on seven tones is diatonic.

So we tell the student to write _modally _for the pre-Classic era, _diatonically_ for the Classic and Romantic eras. We also explain that chromaticism becomes more extreme towards the end of the Romantic until all twelve tones are freely used as equal in 12 tone. Consider that Romantic music ò[email protected]   º~4[email protected]   º~5[email protected]   º~6[email protected]   º~7[email protected]   º~8[email protected]   º~9[email protected]   º~:[email protected]   º~;[email protected]   º~<[email protected]   º~=[email protected]   º~>[email protected]   º~?[email protected]   º[email protected][email protected]   º~A[email protected]   º~B[email protected]   º~C[email protected]   º~D[email protected]   º~E[email protected]   º~F[email protected]   º~G[email protected]   º~H[email protected]   º~I[email protected]   º~J[email protected]   º~K[email protected]   º~L[email protected]   º~Ml


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Yes I agree with that scientific explanation (which I said a ways back there: i.e. not debating it. If you read the quote I sighted from Wikipedia you will see I use the term diatonic exactly as they suggest many do. Keep in mind the thread title and why I continue to make the distinction. Just as Miles Davis entered into a modal period (is there a single Jazz player that doesn't know exactly what I'm talking about?) which was completely different from his earlier periods, you can of course say it's all diatonic. I just prefer to make a distinction between Diatonic and Modal because they suggest to me and even historians two different approaches in compositional method.

We don't call Beethoven's 5th, 'Symphony in C Aeolian Mode'. But we have a thousand years of music that we do identify by it's mode. It all may fall under the category of Diatonic but it also falls under the category of Music. I'm not bothered but only helped by the distinction as are others.

Yes Wagner and Haydn use chromatics in the same way. But try explaining to a child that they use all twelve tones in their music but we never call it 'twelve tone'. It is scientifically correct to say composers write twelve tone music because they have freely made use of chromatics for ever (and not limited to the leading tone btw.) It's just that we use semantics to distinguish periods and approaches.


----------



## mf (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:


> We don't call Beethoven's 5th, 'Symphony in C Aeolian Mode'.


Of course we don't, but you know why? Because Beethoven's 5th is not Modal but Tonal. It is Diatonic and Tonal in the same way that Palestrina's Missa Papæ Marcelli is Diatonic and Modal. 



Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:


> I just prefer to make a distinction between Diatonic and Modal because they suggest to me and even historians two different approaches in compositional method.


Since you have agreed that Modal is Diatonic, that means that you cannot separate Modal from Diatonic. When you say Modal you implicitly say Diatonic. As you rightly observed, there's no escape from Diatonic unless you go atonal and twelve-tone. That's why I said we better forget the term Diatonic, since it encompasses almost everything. It's implicit, almost synonymous to music.

Diatonic and Modal are NOT "approaches in compositional method." Diatonic is a language, and Modal is a dialect WITHIN the Diatonic language. Modal is to Diatonic what Cockney is to English. When speaking in Cockney dialect, one still speaks English. When writing in the Modal dialect, one still writes in the Diatonic language.

If you tell someone to "write Modally rather than Diatonically," what you will say would be nonsense, because, by its nature, Modal is Diatonic. One can't write modally without writting at the same time diatonically.
You can instead tell him to "write Modally rather than Tonally." That would be a correct and meaningful use of terms.

I see you avoid the term Tonal. Do you say 'Diatonic' for 'Tonal?' That would be a mistake, because Diatonic is a larger category that subsumes both (smaller) categories of Modal and Tonal.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying. I understood what you were saying from your first post. It is a fact the historians use the terms as a way of distinguishing between periods due to differences in the character of the music. I hear the difference between modally conceived music and and music conceived by what is commonly referred to as the diatonic era. Did you see that this distinction is mentioned in paragraph one of Wikipedia when referring to diatonic?

I understand your point which is highly academic and which I don't disagree. I would like you to demonstrate that you understand my point. Diatonic is a big umbrella. The term is now used to isolate the period following a millennium of modal dominated music. I would also ask you if you hear the difference between to two eras I am citing. Because if you can't, what good is any discussion? Now please demonstrate you understand my very simple point and paragraph one in Wikipedia. I understand your very simple point and have all along.


----------



## mf (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:


> I hear the difference between modally conceived music and and music conceived by what is commonly referred to as the diatonic era.


What you're calling "the diatonic era" most likely is "the tonal era." It is improper to only call Baroque, Classicism and Romantism: 'diatonic era,' since the previous period was a 'diatonic era' just as well, and deserves that label even more.



> Did you see that this distinction is mentioned in paragraph one of Wikipedia when referring to diatonic?


No I don't see there any explicit or implicit distinction between Diatonic and Modal:

_"Diatonic and chromatic are terms in music theory that are most often used to characterize scales, and are also applied to intervals, chords, notes, musical styles, and kinds of harmony. They are very often used as a pair, especially when applied to contrasting features of the common practice music of the period 1600–1900."_

This paragraph says that diatonic and chromatic are used in pair especially with regard to the common practice period - with the implication that they (diatonic and chromatic) are less often used in pair with regard to the previous period. Why is that? Because the previous period was almost completely diatonic, with extremely few chromatic "heresies" (Gesualdo being the most notable).
That is where you have extracted your idea that common practice period can be called Diatonic? Guess what, the previous period was even more Diatonic (because less chromatic) than the common practice period. So, correctly would be to call the 800-1600 period: "The Diatonic Modal Era" and the 1600-1900 period: "The More and More Chromaticisized Diatonic Tonal Era."



> I would like you to demonstrate that you understand my point. Diatonic is a big umbrella. The term is now used to isolate the period following a millennium of modal dominated music.


I think I you say Diatonic for Tonal. That's a misnomer and a confusion of categories. 
The common practice period is a Tonal period. The previous period is a Modal period. As you well said, the "Diatonic big umbrella" covers both periods. To differentiate between those two periods (also between their corresponding musical idioms), the terms to use are: Modal and Tonal.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 12, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



mf @ Sat Dec 12 said:


> As you well said, the "Diatonic big umbrella" covers both periods. So if you want to differentiate those two periods and those two musical idioms, the terms to use are: Modal and Tonal.


 Well we differ here too. I see both as Tonal in the extreme. Tonal versus Atonal. You must be aware of this as well. I think you missed the use of diatonic to describe eras in that Wikipedia paragraph as well. I'm aware of all the various terms used to describe the musical eras and their sub categories. It's just easier to communicate by emphasizing the over arching characteristics. This is agreed upon by countless musicians.

As I said I think it's a semantic issue. Most people understand these very basic points you've made. I've had too many discussions with world class musicians using the terminology I do (and they as well) without the slightest confusion or contention. When people talk about Gregorian Chant that don't say, _I love all that diatonic stuff._ They say modal. When they talk about Beethoven they don't say I love all that tonal stuff he did. They see it as a unique era of diatonicism completely different from it's modal predecessors. 

These musicians are well aware of the literal but prefer to use practical terms. You just have a thing about theoretical accuracy which one gets very early on in their education. It's not how people talk in the real world but in the classroom. I don't have a problem with it but I also have no problem using the terminology I do and having it perfectly understood. The same as I understand exactly what you're saying but have chosen other very common descriptive terms.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

_Diatonicism means music whose tonality is predominantly diatonic, i.e., nonchromatic such as the works of Haydn and Mozart._ Harvard Dictionary of Music. (Why didn't they mention the 1000 years of music prior do you suppose?)

In the long article in this same book on the Church Modes the word 'diatonic' is not even found. So you get my drift.

Harvard differs with you on _Tonal_ as well. Referring to Gregorian Chant as a _Tonal_ period.

I hope that helps you understand my point. I will say finally I have understood yours from your first post.


----------



## mf (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:


> [Modal and Tonal] I see both as Tonal in the extreme.


No, they can't be both Tonal, only Tonal is Tonal; Modal is not Tonal.
There is only one correct terminology, the academic one. If some musicians chose to stray away from it, just because, and while lacking reasonable arguments for their choice - that's not very mature from their part, is it?
Just use a bit of common sense: Gregorian Chant is far more Diatonic than Beethoven's music; and yet, you label Beethoven (rather than Gregorian Chant) as 'Diatonic.' That doesn't make any sense.
The Modal period (800-1600) is Diatonic to the extreme, and uses the Modal idiom. It can safely be called: a Modal period.
The Tonal period (1600-1900) is less and less Diatonic (so there is LESS reason to call it a 'Diatonic period'), and uses the Tonal idiom. It can safely be called: a Tonal period.
The Modal and the Tonal periods are both Diatonic. So it makes no sense to only call one of them Diatonic.

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect you are the only person who uses the term "Diatonic period" with regard to the 1600-1900 period. Can you point to me who (and where) refers to 1600-1900 as "the Diatonic period" in order to differentiate it from a previous "Modal period?" Name, quote, and link if possible, please.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



mf @ Sun Dec 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > [Modal and Tonal] I see both as Tonal in the extreme.
> ...



Not according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music. Which means you are on the other side of some various serious scholarly work. But I'm honestly surprised you are not acutely aware of this. It's very common in academiòlÏ   º’ûlÏ   º’ülÏ   º’ýlÏ   º’þlÏ   º’ÿlÏ   º“ lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“	lÏ   º“
lÏ   º“lÏ   º“lÏ   º“ l


----------



## bryla (Dec 13, 2009)

No, chord notation follows general standards. D flat major with major 7th is Dbmaj7 or DbM7 among others, but NOT Db7+ which spells out the chord Db F A B


----------



## mf (Dec 13, 2009)

Right, that's a Dbmaj7/c (have also corrected there) Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

mf, You are saying that the Harvard definitions which are identical to mine are in error? Look up the terms in the Harvard dictionary. I have sighted them exactly. This is hardly a nuanced issue. It's simple enough for a child to understand and very common amongst musicians and scholars. If Harvard isn't academic enough for you I can't help you.

What does the word 'gay' mean to you? Cheerful? Words by their use take on other meanings. 'Diatonic' has come to mean to a period as well as a scientific definition of certain scales. It's harmless and doesn't disqualify either meaning. You just have to sort of apprehend the meaning by it's usage. Do your own investigation and do some reading. You will find both uses of the term everywhere. I have already done this and am completely satisfied by the confirmation from numerous sources. If I see that the Harvard Dictionary has the identical definition that I do (right down to the very composers who represent the diatonic era) than I'm okay with it. If someone on a forum can't grasp the concept there's not much I can do. But chatting online isn't going to sway me on such a basic issue. Research from credible sources is.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 13, 2009)

bryla @ Sun Dec 13 said:


> No, chord notation follows general standards. D flat major with major 7th is Dbmaj7 or DbM7 among others, but NOT Db7+ which spells out the chord Db F A B



Bryla, does the notation Db+7 exist? That would be my shorthand.


----------



## mf (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Sun Dec 13 said:


> mf, You are saying that the Harvard definitions which are identical to mine are in error?


From what I see, they are identical to mine - Harvard Dictionary, p.100, 2nd column, towards the end:

"These forms are found in a vast number of works from the* tonal period*."
http://books.google.ca/books?id=02rFSec ... rd&f=false

Also, Harvard Dictionary, the Harmony chapter, p.379, second paragraph says:

"The period of tonal music, from the late 16th century to well into the 20th, is sometimes called the harmonic period"
http://books.google.ca/books?id=02rFSec ... rd&f=false

So, "tonal period" (as I use it), also, the "harmonic period." I couldn't find any reference to that period as "diatonic period." Again, can you point it out to me, please? I have used your source and found there my terminology and not yours. Apparently you can't reference your terminology, in your Harvard source or elsewhere.


----------



## jsaras (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



> jsaras, you're the MAN.



My friends just call me "Youda"


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 13, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Look up diatonic - I quoted it exactly. This is my last post as I saw your bit about me being _lost and bluffing._ WTF kind of childish nonsense is that? You ascribe these qualities to anyone who disagrees with you? Pitiful!

You are unable to grasp the validity of my argument. I have not questioned yours. I have simply pointed out the acceptance of the term diatonic as being a musical era different from the other preceding and following eras. Not heavy stuff. I have repeatedly found this position supported with very little effort. You are not only having a problem with my use of terms but extremely authoritative sources such as Harvard. Your questioning of my sourcing and my motives is highly insulting which only leads me to question your motives. I know you're dying to be right but you are wrong in not accepting both views. I'm done.


----------



## mf (Dec 13, 2009)

I rest my case.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



mf @ Sun Dec 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > [Modal and Tonal] I see both as Tonal in the extreme.
> ...



mf, rejoice: you are wrong!

Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, St Martin's Press, Volume VIII, page 499:
*Tonality* :"The result of the process of relating a series of notes or chords to a focal point which is called the tonal center or tonic of the key in musical composition... Tonality in the strict modal period EXISTS in so far as the particular melodic progression of the various notes, inthemselves common to all the modes, defines the particular mode of the melody"

I would like to add that you may be hard pressed to deny that in order to be established, modes need strong cadences, and that for sure, modes are very much dependent on the establishment of a focal point, the modal tonic. 

I think that one of the greatest quality of a musician (and of a human being) is the ability to learn from ones' mistakes. This is the foundation for sound intellectual development.

I, for one, have no problem recognizing when I am wrong, even in a public forum.

Thank you for getting all of us to examine this point of contention...


----------



## bryla (Dec 14, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Bryla, does the notation Db+7 exist? That would be my shorthand.


+ refers to an augmented fifth. Db+7 also points to the notes Db F A B from the whole-tone scale


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

bryla @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Bryla, does the notation Db+7 exist? That would be my shorthand.
> ...



You would actually notate it: Db7+, not Db+7...


----------



## Dan Selby (Dec 14, 2009)

bryla @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Bryla, does the notation Db+7 exist? That would be my shorthand.
> ...



...but spelled Db F A Cb. :wink:


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 14, 2009)

Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> bryla @ Mon Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 14 said:
> ...



OK, for me it would make most sense then this way:

Db = Db, F, Ab
Db+ = Db, F, A
Db7 = Db, F, Ab, Cb
Db7+ = Db, F, A, Cb
Db+7 = Db, F, Ab, C
Db+7+ = Db, F, A, C

Same chords written with a little d would be minor:
db = Db, Fb, Ab
etc.

Short and efficient.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 14, 2009)

... and in case there could be a confusion I would write it like that anyway:

Db+5+7

In any case it is important you know what you are doing, no matter how you write it. However for me a short and precise notation helps to keep a clear mind though.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

Db+7 = Db, F, Ab, C
Db+7+ = Db, F, A, C

These two are trouble Hannes because it's so firmly established that 
+ means Augmented 5th. 

DbM7 or DbMaj7 (as someone posted) are standard.

DbM7+ or DbM7aug (I think) are more standard for the raised 5th.

Edit or DbM7#5 for augmented major 7th as well.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

+1

There is also DbMa7

Personally, I prefer DbMa7#5 but that's a matter of taste...

I'd never spell DbMa7 = Db+: if you do a search, you'll won't find charts that list a Db+7+ chord!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Thanks Dave.

Thinking about it I would prefer a thoroughly consistent notation in the sense that the same symbol always means the same, no exceptions. And I don't like the "Ma" or "Maj" since it is not really international.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Personally, I prefer DbMa7#5 but that's a matter of taste...



Yes this is the notation I prefer as well as it is unambiguous and reads from left to right as is proper. You don't ever want something at the end to tell you to reinterpret what you first read.

Hannes, Anytime brother! Lots a years of reading Jazz charts! Nonetheless I've had many discussions about proper notation where people differ.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> And I don't like the "Ma" or "Maj" since it is not really international.



Hey, I have to read _Lento_ so you have to read Ma7 ; )

Probably due to the fact that Jazz notation was born in the U.S. you find the English abbreviations.


----------



## Rob (Dec 14, 2009)

Hannes_F @ 14th December 2009 said:


> ... and in case there could be a confusion I would write it like that anyway:
> 
> Db+5+7
> 
> In any case it is important you know what you are doing, no matter how you write it. However for me a short and precise notation helps to keep a clear mind though.



I agree about the need for a unified system... but if we agree that the symbol "+" means augmented, then since in this chord the seventh is major and not augmented this would be an incorrect notation. I do prefer Dbmaj7#5


----------



## Rob (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



mf @ 14th December 2009 said:


> ...
> ... (those 9th century Buddhist monks in Lhasa were chanting Tonal music, you know...)



Buddhist monks I don't know, but in gregorian chant...


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

"nearly all music in this sense of the word is tonal"

Congratulations you now except one of my points. This is exactly what I was saying. Apology excepted.


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

Rob @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Buddhist monks I don't know, but in gregorian chant...


Is Gregorian chant Tonal music to you? Then what term would you use to distinguish a Haydn piano sonata from Gregorian chant?


----------



## Rob (Dec 14, 2009)

mf @ 14th December 2009 said:


> Is Gregorian chant Tonal music, to you? Then what term would you use to distinguish a Haydn piano sonata from Gregorian chant?



mf you didn't notice the chord symbols I added? It was an innocent joke, of course gregorian is not tonal in the common sense... although it had some sort of rudimental tonic/dominant relationship between finalis and repercussio.


PS liber verum stands for real book...


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> "nearly all music in this sense of the word is tonal"
> 
> Congratulations you now except one of my points. This is exactly what I was saying. Apology excepted.


Very mature. Congratulations to you too. 
In fact, I do *accept* many of your points - *except* for two or maybe three, not only one. But yes, apology *excepted*. 
Btw, the difference between 'except' and 'accept' is probably as big as the difference between Modal and Tonal. -

Harvard Dictionary of Music, p.855:
In current usage the terms "tonality" and "modality" are mutually exclusive, the former referring to music in a "key" (major or minor mode) and the latter to pieces written in, or showing the influence of, the church modes.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=TMdf1Si ... ty&f=false


----------



## Olias (Dec 14, 2009)

Ah, a missed joke. The surest sign that people are taking each other (and themselves) too seriously.

(I thought it was hysterical!)


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

Olias @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> Ah, a missed joke. The surest sign that people are taking each other (and themselves) too seriously.


Actually I missed the joke not for the reason that you kindly suggest but because, since I don't read that old notation, I initially skipped the pic altogether. Now, re "the surest sign," may I call you a bit *too* sure of the signs you think you see?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Rob, that was really funny :mrgreen:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

mf, what is your scholastic musical background?

Based on the behavior that you are exhibiting here, I doubt very much that you ever allowed anyone to teach you anything...

Shame. You seem to invite debate but show very little ability to deal with, and accept other people points of view... (o)


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Yes there's an *exception* to many rules isn't there. One is that modal music falls under _tonal_ which *you* have now finally accepted and even quoted. So you catch on after a few dozen posts. I'm curious that you are now quoting Harvard. Why don't you quote as I did their definition of diatonic music: you remember, the music as represented by Haydn and Mozart. Than you can come around on that point too.


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> mf, what is your scholastic musical background?
> 
> Based on the behavior that you are exhibiting here, I doubt very much that you ever allowed anyone to teach you anything...
> 
> Shame. You seem to invite debate but show very little ability to deal with, and accept other people points of view... (o)


Patrick de Caumette,
You are getting personal and your remarks are slightly insulting. So, maybe, "shame" applies better to your own behavior in this thread.

A short recap. After a somewhat long debate between myself and Dave Connor (pretty decent and harmless from both sides, AFAIC), we have, some 20 posts ago, implicitly agreed to disagree and explicitly settled to bring our debate to an end: "I rest my case" and "I'm done."

Guess what? The debate gets revived the very next post. And by whom? - by the Moderator himself, who, out of the blue, blows in with a pompous (albeit maliciously ironic) "mf, rejoice, you're wrong!" Then, after throwing in as argument a neutral/futile quote, he quickly passes to a few condescending remarks about how I should admit my mistakes (??) and learn from them, if I want to be considered "a musician and a human being" - that, while giving himself as an example of that particular learning ability. Then he concludes scornfully alluding to my alleged lacking of a "foundation for sound intellectual development" and quickly ending with a sort of a half-baked 'thanx for being so stupid' coda.

I have little doubt that that post was meant as an indirect invitation to continue an otherwise closed debate. I think I can safely call that: flaming and baiting. Why? Because it was pretty clear that, after blowing an uncalled-for "rejoice, you're wrong!", the addressee is likely to respond and try to clarify a thing or two. Which I did. Only to discover that my appeal to reason goes completely ignored. Instead, what does the Moderator do? - the Moderator is getting personal and resorting to barely masked insults. 
Moderator - apparently you're ignoring your own principles. Shame. You seem to invite debate but show very little ability to deal with, and accept other people points of view... (o)
"Practice what you preach."

Coda
Now question is: Is this the way Moderators behave in this forum? Instead of moderating, are they baiting, flaming, getting personal, insulting? Not from what I see. So, most likely, this particular Moderator could make use of some moderation.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

mf, or whoever you are: Never mind.

What you call courteous seemed to me to be a curt, provocative correspondance.
No need to give you "Name, quote, and link if possible", just have a look at how you debate your rock solid points throughout this thread.
But somehow, I doubt that you'll see any of it.
For some reason, you seem to be very sensitive to criticism directed at you, but have no issue being on the issuing end of things...

Yes, I am the moderator of this section and as such, I will be editing this whole thread to turn it back to its original intent:
a place where people can contribute their "harmonic tips and tricks"

Don't be surprised if you find a large chunk of your contribution edited out...
(the good news is, my posted answers to you will be deleted as well)

Feel free to start a new thread where you can debate your theories ad libitum...

Cheers o-[][]-o


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

You are certainly welcome to delete any of my posts Patrick. It really was an intense debate about practically nothing. The bottom line being Diatonic covers a whole lot of music as a description and so does Tonal. Pretty silly in the end.


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> mf, or whoever you are: Never mind.
> 
> What you call courteous seemed to me to be a curt, provocative correspondance.
> No need to give you "Name, quote, and link if possible", just have a look at how you debate your rock solid points throughout this thread.
> ...


Smart move.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 14, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*



Dave Connor @ Mon Dec 14 said:


> You are certainly welcome to delete any of my posts Patrick. It really was an intense debate about practically nothing. The bottom line being Diatonic covers a whole lot of music as a description and so does Tonal. Pretty silly in the end.



I think there is merit in the debate Dave.
But since this thread is a sticky, it needs editing so that readers can access the info without having to read through many un-related posts.
Your contribution to this forum is valued, so please don't take it personally...

Anyway, I wouldn't delete posts, only relocate them under a different title.
Somehow, I doubt that you want to spend more time debating our friend mf, in this thread or in another...


----------



## mf (Dec 14, 2009)

That final remark was kinda uncalled-for, wasn't it? Why do you keep on doing it? Does it give you pleasure? Is it too painful to keep your malice inside? Do you feel a compelling urge to spit it out? Geez... Drop it dude, it doesn't do you any service.


----------



## Rob (Dec 15, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

well, since you are two and mf is alone, I'm with mf... at least on the whole tonal/modal topic I tend to see things the way he does


----------



## mf (Dec 15, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*

Thanks, Rob. In king James' words, "I can make a lord, but only God can make a gentleman."

Btw, I think I've found a recording of the tune from that real book -


----------



## Rob (Dec 15, 2009)

*Re: Harmony Tips and Tricks*


----------

