1. Love the hair. 2. You tend to go much deeper than I expect from a RUclips video. I almost didn't watch because the title seems so self explanatory, but letting yourself think you know everything is a good way to not keep learning. . . and, well, you teach much past the simple concept I was anticipating. You're also a great help with things that don't get talked about as much such as the leading tone!! Thank you for sharing nuanced and Important details!!
I think musicians as a whole would benefit if sheet music would specify the mode or scale they would be using at the beginning of the piece. It would also translate the chord functions as well. Love your techniques for finding the scales though! Great video dude!
Maybe it would help if next to the chord they would notate the roman numeral chord function so that you always know what the I chord is like some jazz charts do. The implications of bringing a visual modulation to a relative key would help a lot of musicians. I think the logic goes hand in hand with how some musicians use irrational time signatures to indicate a bar using triplets or metric modulation. Expanded vocabulary and different ways to express an idea would help in general.
Great video ! Music theory has been so hard to learn, I've put it on the backburner for far too long. Want to get to a point where I can make the music I daydream of!
Often there are multiple possibilities, if your melody has only a few notes. You can try to find the last note, in the series of sharps, that is sharpened, or vice versa for flats
7:38 okay, but why isn't it I-V-I-V instead of IV-I-IV-I? What's making the difference? Think about it... I mean come on, really look at it... It's because of the C# note in the Dmaj7 chord. In the key of G, you would have a C natural which forms a tritone with F#, but in D, the C# forms a tritone with G.
We’re never in D, the C# gives no information whatsoever. But I get your point. You’re right that the reason I know it’s a IV I pattern, is because of the Maj7 nature of these chords
3:53 I mean there's no point in considering relative major and minor modes to be different keys on the first place, no matter the genre. Everything is the same relative to them, because they're the same context. This is just a dumb idea that has persisted since the beginning of occidental music theory, even though it is practically pointless. Why ever have the concept of it's pointless and doesn't make any difference? Relative major and minor are the same key.
I agree with some of your sentiment, and disagree with some of it. I like to consider them as part of one bigger thing, in many cases it is the most helpful thing to do. But in other cases (classical) there is really marking differences between the two because of harmonic and melodic minor modes, and a stronger polarity is established. If you followed this logic, you would end up saying that all the church modes (f Lydian, g mixo, etc) are the same. Whereas, if you polarize it enough, they become useful distinctions. It’s just two levels of analysis
@@purpasteur I think the thing is that it seems to make sense to view them as different keys in classical music in descriptive analysis, but only because composers actively limited themselves by prescriptively viewing them as different keys when composing, when they really didn't need to. Analysing it that way is confirmation bias, and doesn't actually bring you any benefits over just viewing it as the same key. They only did that because they were taught that's how they should do it, but the amount of counter examples from people who didn't follow those "rules" is still overwhelming - the V chord of the relative minor happens extremely often in songs that just never even go to that relative minor chord at all. Prescriptively, this concept of relative modes being different keys is only limiting, and clearly never actually "true;" you perceive music and harmony the same way mo matter the genre, it's just your expectations that change if you're familiar at all with the genre, but your perception of the music remains the same. And yeah, even with the seven Greek modes, they're the same key. Ionian and aolian are the only stable modes out of the seven, so they'll always be tonicized when their relative modes are used. Just try it, take any piece in D minor for example, then use the D dorian mode in any way you want, and C and Am will sound resolved - which doesn't mean that Dm won't still sound resolved, but that's the thing about keys: they're inherently ambiguous. They're in your head, and they depend on context, which you don't instantly forget (that's the whole point), meaning that you can remember and humour two different contexts at once, and essentially be in two keys at once. This is why something as simple as Sweet Home Alabama has been the subject of so much debate. Is it in D or in G? Well literally both, it's just that people think they have to pick one, so they do. Picking one key is useless as well. Modulations and ambiguity happen all the time in music, for example in How My Heart Sings. Why should C major be the "main key"? It just changes key.
Check out my video on modes, i cover a lot of that. I think dorian phrygian etc. are useful concepts when you have a fixed fundamental. Less so when you're in C and have a Dm chord and then an Em chord, indeed. But you can tonicize all of them, provided you put a bass note and hold it long enough
Is this type of thing common knowledge among advanced amateur or professional musicians, or only people who have specifically studied theory and composition? I say this because I took 10+ years of classical instrument lessons in my youth, and while I did reach a relatively advanced level of technical instruction, I was taught virtually zero of the theory and concepts of modes, chord progressions, tonics and diatonics, any of that stuff. When I was playing the violin and piano, as far as I was concerned the key was virtually trivia- as long as I could read the notes and play them correctly, why did I even need to know what key I was technically playing in? Did I receive uniquely poor instruction that just happened to ignore all musical aspects other than the technical performance of my instrument? Or is this still the common way classical music is taught, and we're now opening our eyes to applying 20th century songwriting disciplines to our old classical music? I wonder, how many of the young professionalsl performers I admire- like Hilary Hahn, Sumina Studer, Ray Chen- do they also look at and discuss music using the same harmonic theories as modern pop rock producers? Or, since they are performers of music composed by others (as opposed to the American singer-songwriter tradition through which we view modern music), do they not think in compositional terms either?
Great question, I would say it’s quite common, especially among professional musicians and composers, but on the instruction side, there’s a whole spectrum of teachers ranging from no understanding of theory to vast understanding, and when you get your first teacher it’s often a lottery unfortunately. For me the whole point is reducing the number of data points, if you can go from playing some passage with 12 different ideas vs playing the same thing with 3 bigger ideas, it’s probably more efficient
@@purpasteur Thank you! I always wondered why I was able to play some pretty advanced pieces with very high precision and excellent technique, yet I was totally unable to compose even the simplest original tunes. I was purely a technician, exercising the instrument, without much understanding of why the piece sounded the way it did or how it was written. Meanwhile, my friends who were casual self-taught guitarists and pianists could seemingly improvise any melody or harmony on the fly, despite only having a few months or years of experience. Always puzzled me but now I understand why!
Amazing content can’t wait for the modulation video
1. Love the hair. 2. You tend to go much deeper than I expect from a RUclips video. I almost didn't watch because the title seems so self explanatory, but letting yourself think you know everything is a good way to not keep learning. . . and, well, you teach much past the simple concept I was anticipating. You're also a great help with things that don't get talked about as much such as the leading tone!! Thank you for sharing nuanced and Important details!!
Thank you, great comment :)
I'm excited for a modulation video! Your videos are really great at explaining concepts I have a basic understanding of in new ways that click well
Cool, I’ll be working on that !
Wow, a lot of really good gems packed into this 8 minute video! Looking forward to the next video on momodulations! Thanks
Your videos are excellent on so many levels.
I think musicians as a whole would benefit if sheet music would specify the mode or scale they would be using at the beginning of the piece. It would also translate the chord functions as well. Love your techniques for finding the scales though! Great video dude!
Maybe it would help if next to the chord they would notate the roman numeral chord function so that you always know what the I chord is like some jazz charts do. The implications of bringing a visual modulation to a relative key would help a lot of musicians. I think the logic goes hand in hand with how some musicians use irrational time signatures to indicate a bar using triplets or metric modulation. Expanded vocabulary and different ways to express an idea would help in general.
Totally that would bring clarity. Yeah I feel like traditional notation really needs an update, but hard to say which changes are worth it
you make such high quality videos, i enjoy them and learn a lot even as an alt rock guitarist who only knows basic theory
Thank you for watching!!
Let’s go!!! Thanks for the vid, you’re my fav music teacher on yt!
Thanks man 🥳
Great video ! Music theory has been so hard to learn, I've put it on the backburner for far too long. Want to get to a point where I can make the music I daydream of!
Keep it up :) happy to help
My problem is that I start with a melody, but then I don't know how, in which scale I am in. What can I do here?
Often there are multiple possibilities, if your melody has only a few notes. You can try to find the last note, in the series of sharps, that is sharpened, or vice versa for flats
Mhhhh? I am a beginner, I am sorry. @@purpasteur
7:38 okay, but why isn't it I-V-I-V instead of IV-I-IV-I? What's making the difference? Think about it... I mean come on, really look at it... It's because of the C# note in the Dmaj7 chord. In the key of G, you would have a C natural which forms a tritone with F#, but in D, the C# forms a tritone with G.
We’re never in D, the C# gives no information whatsoever. But I get your point. You’re right that the reason I know it’s a IV I pattern, is because of the Maj7 nature of these chords
@@purpasteur Gymnopédie no. 1 is never in D?
@@althealligator1467 sorry, thought you meant in How my heart sings
@@purpasteur Oh right fair enough then, but yeah I meant in Gymnopédie
3:53 I mean there's no point in considering relative major and minor modes to be different keys on the first place, no matter the genre. Everything is the same relative to them, because they're the same context. This is just a dumb idea that has persisted since the beginning of occidental music theory, even though it is practically pointless. Why ever have the concept of it's pointless and doesn't make any difference? Relative major and minor are the same key.
I agree with some of your sentiment, and disagree with some of it. I like to consider them as part of one bigger thing, in many cases it is the most helpful thing to do. But in other cases (classical) there is really marking differences between the two because of harmonic and melodic minor modes, and a stronger polarity is established. If you followed this logic, you would end up saying that all the church modes (f Lydian, g mixo, etc) are the same. Whereas, if you polarize it enough, they become useful distinctions. It’s just two levels of analysis
@@purpasteur I think the thing is that it seems to make sense to view them as different keys in classical music in descriptive analysis, but only because composers actively limited themselves by prescriptively viewing them as different keys when composing, when they really didn't need to. Analysing it that way is confirmation bias, and doesn't actually bring you any benefits over just viewing it as the same key.
They only did that because they were taught that's how they should do it, but the amount of counter examples from people who didn't follow those "rules" is still overwhelming - the V chord of the relative minor happens extremely often in songs that just never even go to that relative minor chord at all. Prescriptively, this concept of relative modes being different keys is only limiting, and clearly never actually "true;" you perceive music and harmony the same way mo matter the genre, it's just your expectations that change if you're familiar at all with the genre, but your perception of the music remains the same.
And yeah, even with the seven Greek modes, they're the same key. Ionian and aolian are the only stable modes out of the seven, so they'll always be tonicized when their relative modes are used.
Just try it, take any piece in D minor for example, then use the D dorian mode in any way you want, and C and Am will sound resolved - which doesn't mean that Dm won't still sound resolved, but that's the thing about keys: they're inherently ambiguous. They're in your head, and they depend on context, which you don't instantly forget (that's the whole point), meaning that you can remember and humour two different contexts at once, and essentially be in two keys at once. This is why something as simple as Sweet Home Alabama has been the subject of so much debate. Is it in D or in G? Well literally both, it's just that people think they have to pick one, so they do.
Picking one key is useless as well. Modulations and ambiguity happen all the time in music, for example in How My Heart Sings. Why should C major be the "main key"? It just changes key.
Check out my video on modes, i cover a lot of that. I think dorian phrygian etc. are useful concepts when you have a fixed fundamental. Less so when you're in C and have a Dm chord and then an Em chord, indeed. But you can tonicize all of them, provided you put a bass note and hold it long enough
Is this type of thing common knowledge among advanced amateur or professional musicians, or only people who have specifically studied theory and composition? I say this because I took 10+ years of classical instrument lessons in my youth, and while I did reach a relatively advanced level of technical instruction, I was taught virtually zero of the theory and concepts of modes, chord progressions, tonics and diatonics, any of that stuff. When I was playing the violin and piano, as far as I was concerned the key was virtually trivia- as long as I could read the notes and play them correctly, why did I even need to know what key I was technically playing in?
Did I receive uniquely poor instruction that just happened to ignore all musical aspects other than the technical performance of my instrument? Or is this still the common way classical music is taught, and we're now opening our eyes to applying 20th century songwriting disciplines to our old classical music? I wonder, how many of the young professionalsl performers I admire- like Hilary Hahn, Sumina Studer, Ray Chen- do they also look at and discuss music using the same harmonic theories as modern pop rock producers? Or, since they are performers of music composed by others (as opposed to the American singer-songwriter tradition through which we view modern music), do they not think in compositional terms either?
Great question, I would say it’s quite common, especially among professional musicians and composers, but on the instruction side, there’s a whole spectrum of teachers ranging from no understanding of theory to vast understanding, and when you get your first teacher it’s often a lottery unfortunately. For me the whole point is reducing the number of data points, if you can go from playing some passage with 12 different ideas vs playing the same thing with 3 bigger ideas, it’s probably more efficient
@@purpasteur Thank you! I always wondered why I was able to play some pretty advanced pieces with very high precision and excellent technique, yet I was totally unable to compose even the simplest original tunes. I was purely a technician, exercising the instrument, without much understanding of why the piece sounded the way it did or how it was written. Meanwhile, my friends who were casual self-taught guitarists and pianists could seemingly improvise any melody or harmony on the fly, despite only having a few months or years of experience. Always puzzled me but now I understand why!