View Single Post
Old 08-17-2019, 01:52 PM   #211
superblonde.org
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,035
Default

"The theory emphasis on major vs. minor is archaic and obsolete."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergler View Post
This comes from the system of alterations, which makes one alteration at a time.
actually it comes from one of my thick, dusty 1950's traditional music theory college textbooks (luckily bought at a library's used sale for $1.00) which literally stated that, halfway through the book: "western music uses only major and sometimes minor; therefore, modes will not be discussed in this text." (or something to that effect)

and by 'western music' they really meant: The Church's music.

Nowadays nearly all music texts describe the music in terms of major & minor in the first half of education as if it is somehow easier to limit the world, but then, if mentioning modes at all, they are thrown in as a surprise, "tada! now look what happens when you add in all these missing things which you were told before didn't exist."

as you noted, real theory analysis today does not get stuck in a box of only major & minor, all bases are covered from the start. Yet typical notation is still burdened with "Cmaj" or "Cmin" in symbology, and then after that, with various other tokens for further alterations... whereas perhaps if harmony is considered tetrachord from the start (something The Church never did, isnt that right?) then the system can be dramatically improved. For example if the interval notation for M7 and m7 is fixed up, because a new system doesn't use accidentals and uses counting in 12 by default, then the basic silliness like:

Cmaj7
C7
CM7
Cm7

is eliminated.


Remember... Many of these problems were created because of limitations in typesetting - publishers and composers simply did not have fonts or software to use any other unique symbols. (Even today these problems are not resolved, but have been reduced)
superblonde.org is offline   Reply With Quote