rumleymusic
It is okay to disagree, even thought there is nothing to disagree with, please read the context of the post. What I posted was the norm throughout the entirety of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras.  Modal scales disappeared from common practice during the renaissance, and never really came back until French Impressionism in the 20th century.  They are much more popular now, of course.
 
Not that I don't appreciate a good Dorian scale, but Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler didn't seem to find any limitations to the Major or Minor modes.  

Indeed and you did put in some indication that those rules didn't apply to more modern music at the end there but to someone not familiar with broader theory concepts it might give the impression that if they did not follow those principals that they would be "doing it wrong".
 
Writing in classical style using classical methods is obviously VERY different than what most contemparary writers are looking for. In this followup post you confirm that these original ideas were dropped (and depending on your historical perspective the reasons why can be interpreted as very dogmatic and outright silly... as in the quest to crush "pagan" folk music which was generally mode based in favor of the accepted modes which we now know as the Major and minor scales) then "rediscovered" in contemparary music... jazz of course being the highest level/culmination of that "new" renaissance based on the folk music brought to America from around the world into the musical and cultural melting pot. Of course that all started with African rhythms, applied to European "folk" music (outisde the classical realm) and then being analyzed and refined under the microscope of classical "western" music theory.
 
That in turn gave birth to rock, metal, dance, disco, grunge, hip hop, industrial, whatever. The advent of "pop" music (which was originally based on those early modern styles) as a mass marketable commodity led to the technological advancements in audio recording that have led us here to this very forum designed to discuss one of MANY programs that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago... let alone 350 years ago.
 
Now ignoring the technological advancements of the past 100 years (which those composers could have done much with) what would they have, could they have created without being confined by the theory of the times? Perhaps they would have created even more epic works. Perhaps they would have been directionless and it all would have sucked. Perhaps nothing would have changed at all and they would have come to the exact same conclusions with the same sonic outcomes (which is acutally kind of likely since many of those composers shaped the theory anyway).
 
Personally I think many of those guys probably laughed the restrictive nature of the theory because all you really need to do is change your chord and go nuts with your melody in the scale that chord is built on... which is a mode. They were smart enough to work around and with the restrictions which really were and are meanigless. They just had to figure out ways to couch it all in terms that fit within the restrictions... which led to some of the cool tricks and alternates being discussed here and of course are commonly used even by modern musicians.
 
Anyway, my point is you cannot escape the math. The traditional method is merely a stylistic approach that fits within the broader grid. Modes and keys are dissections and reorganizations of 12 into 7. Chords are dissections of 7 into 3 or 4 or 2 or six or whatever. Movement is created by bouncing around the 12 tones using all sorts of dissections, combinations and rhythmic patterns.
 
If someone REALLY wants to figure out some interesting and useful stuff they should just get a handle on all the keys and modes then start studying cadences (which is how chords move from one chord to the next). Then you can learn all sorts of ways to create the structure and movement required to create a composition and because you already know all the notes that could be played over top melodies are easy. You just figure out what works over what chord (and there are usually multiple possibilities) then improv or write your melody.
 
But that RIGHT THERE is what traditional theory is good for. Learning commonly identifiable cadences and what works over them. This of course is subjective and the only reason it is immediately pleasing is because we are programmed to find it pleasing through repitition.... because those combinations have been around for centuries.
 
New cadences are being created all the time with new styles of music though which why dudes like Brandon Smalls (the guy who created Metalocalypse/Home Movies) or dudes like Paul Schaffer (David Letterman show) or Danny Elfman (dude who wrote the Simpson's theme) or any other ultra flexible artist can tweak you into hearing the style they want you to hear to create the mood they want you to be in.
 
I personally aspire to teach, to create "mood" music for film/TV and to release my own work that is interesting and innovative (which is why I do nothing but study digital audio these days) so I am open to ALL tonal options.
 
Of course there are realms beyond the 12 tone system too but that is a whole other ball of wax and really much of that can actually be defined within the western system with the quarter generally just being more ornamental than actually part of the structure... as far as I can tell. I have however limited my studies to western styles because I am a westerner and there is only so much time in our short lives (of which I fear mine may be shorter than the majority) so I will have to stick to pitch bending to access the "in betweens" as opposed to actually trying to define the place of quarter tones in the grand scheme of things.
 
Again... totally respect your style and perspective and if I ever get the opportunity I will indeed be taking formal classical lessons to unlock the knowledge therein. For now I do pretty good with the system I have I think.
 
Cheers, fistbumps and much respect. Sorry for the ranting but I am trying to remain motionless to hopefully get through some physical distress so typing is about the most I can do right now.
 
:-p

synkrotron

Beepster
You're a smart fellow so just use logic.

Yeah, dood, I'm cool with that.
 
That's a lot to take in and, as you say, I need to sit there with my keyboard at the same time. I think if I had to answer questions about this lot then I'd probably chuck the towel in now.
 
As Homer Simpson once said, "If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing. You just stick that guitar in the garage next to your short-wave radio, your karate outfit, and your unicycle, and we'll go and watch TV."
 
Joking apart... I could be biting off more than I can comfortably chew here...
 

Certainly do not let the wall of text throw you off. I tend to be really verbose when typing up "lessons" like that but it's so the reader can just go through things one step at a time and then see some of the potential pitfalls as they arise. If you just follow the directions it might take you twenty minutes with the keyboard and a pen and paper to work through it and then you'll get it. CoF is actually really easy once you see how it works.
 
Never give up, brother. I typed that up specifically for you because I saw your post and I think you're a good soul. Might help others in the meantime and it gives my own brain a workout and a second chance to analyze my own weirdo reasoning.
 
Cheers.
 
PS: I'll try to analyze your chord progression but you posted that as I was typing the CoF stuff. First impression... don't use Pentatonics to create your harmony framework. Use diatonic (seven note scales). Pentatonic only allows for 5 triads per key. Diatonic allows for 7 triads. It also of course allows more chord texture options. That's kind of why I was pushing that modal stuff on you in my first reply.

 

synkrotron
 
[...] Now, when I pick up my guitar [...]

Wasn't sure what instrument the OP prefers, so may have missed this earlier. Just a few quick notes:

1. It is very easy to bury oneself in theory, so keep revisiting post #2 often. Don't bury yourself in things you will not be using... trust your ears.
2. Pentatonic scales are the best starting point for improvisation. This link is a nice "short and sweet" overview that I give out a lot.
3. The mind "hears" intervals more than anything (IMO), both in consecutive notes, as well as relationships of notes to underlying chords. Moving between "unresolved" and "resolved" is very commonly done. The best way to start is simply play two-note voicings (intervals) and get the "feel" for what those notes sound like. Simple, goofy, things like lowering the root of a P5 interval (say C/G) to B/G (inverted M3) have "sound qualities" that are difficult to explain but easy to hear (that specific one is easy to find in a lot of music).
4. Expression on notes in a scale run are similar to the above, in that a listener will pick those notes out as "more prominent" and "hear" the intervals it has created. When those notes are played quickly, the listener assembles them into chords by default.
5. Lastly, do not get into the habit of running "scales in sequence" all the time. That is how most practice scales, but can completely undermine performance (as it is repetitive). Gary Burton's Jazz Improvisation course (free) is a nice one for a new perspective on this particular piece (not sure when it will run next though).

Dumb anecdote here: After getting off a stint of nasty commutes, the movie "Role Models" came out which featured KISS's "Love Gun" twice... that solo scale run made me pick up guitar again (most is just triplets on the Emin pentatonic scale). Analyzing myself since, I find that I fall into two-note voicings and triplets often (even if daisy-chained together, I still tend to think in 3's).

I don't think many composers found the popular tonality of the day limiting, there are a few notable exceptions, of course, and those people did help propel music forward into new eras.  In truth, however, limitation is the catalyst for creativity.  It is amazing was a great composer could do with just a few notes.  Jazz, classical, rock etc all work within a confining structure which brings continuity to the music.  Stravinsky once said "The more you limit me, the more you set me free."  The best way to stifle creativity and productivity is to hand a composer a blank page and say "go!"  Even jazz improvisation, at its simplest, is really based on a 5-note scale, one that conforms quite well to all harmonic possibilities.  Even the composers who flipped the modern convention on its head simply found different ways to limit themselves.  For example Schoenberg's 12-tone system is much more limiting if followed in theory than tonal harmonies.  There is also non-serial atonality based on interval vectors rather than tonal voice leading. And of course neo-classicism which utilizes all kinds of modal and alternate scale forms.  None were a musical free-for-all, of course.  Without at least some form of limitation, music cannot have structure.  
 
One big question I get is whether guys like Bach and Mozart knew theory and restricted themselves to it, or was theory build around their work.  The answer to both is a resounding yes.  Mozart studied theory, but not in the way we do.  He studied species counterpoint of the renaissance, and the modern tonality of Baroque composers such as Handel and Telemann.  JS Bach, which is where we source quite a bit of our modern harmonic language really wasn't studied until nearly the 20th century.   Modern theory is based around all historical compositional styles.  Historical is the key word.   It really isn't about how to compose music, but rather how music was composed.  It is a great insight for those looking for inspiration for their own ideas.  Acceptance and rejection are both equally important.   

.nil

.nil
 

rumleymusic
I don't think many composers found the popular tonality of the day limiting, there are a few notable exceptions, of course, and those people did help propel music forward into new eras.  In truth, however, limitation is the catalyst for creativity.  It is amazing was a great composer could do with just a few notes.  Jazz, classical, rock etc all work within a confining structure which brings continuity to the music.  Stravinsky once said "The more you limit me, the more you set me free."  The best way to stifle creativity and productivity is to hand a composer a blank page and say "go!"  Even jazz improvisation, at its simplest, is really based on a 5-note scale, one that conforms quite well to all harmonic possibilities.  Even the composers who flipped the modern convention on its head simply found different ways to limit themselves.  For example Schoenberg's 12-tone system is much more limiting if followed in theory than tonal harmonies.  There is also non-serial atonality based on interval vectors rather than tonal voice leading. And of course neo-classicism which utilizes all kinds of modal and alternate scale forms.  None were a musical free-for-all, of course.  Without at least some form of limitation, music cannot have structure.  
 
One big question I get is whether guys like Bach and Mozart knew theory and restricted themselves to it, or was theory build around their work.  The answer to both is a resounding yes.  Mozart studied theory, but not in the way we do.  He studied species counterpoint of the renaissance, and the modern tonality of Baroque composers such as Handel and Telemann.  JS Bach, which is where we source quite a bit of our modern harmonic language really wasn't studied until nearly the 20th century.   Modern theory is based around all historical compositional styles.  Historical is the key word.   It really isn't about how to compose music, but rather how music was composed.  It is a great insight for those looking for inspiration for their own ideas.  Acceptance and rejection are both equally important.   

This is an excellent and fascinating post. I certainly hope you don't think I was trying to shut you down or outright disagree because you obviously are far more educated than I and I feed off that.
 
I have a different philosophy/approach to it though. I completely agree that really the end goal of achieving specific styles, feels, moods, sounds is best satisfied through boxing ourselves in using predefined paramaters.
 
I guess because I am interested in performing and creating in all styles I start from the broadest possible perspective (which in western theory is the chromatic scale) then dig down and compartmentalize it as needed into, blues, C&D, Celtic/Folk, Rock, Blues, Metal, Jazz, Classical, whatever...
 
Of course using that approach I won't acheive the level of skill in any one of those styles that someone who dedicates their entire focus to a specific genre might but I can also interject interesting things into any of those styles by being more flexible and I can more easily create my own fusions or completely original works (the latter being what I am actually most interested in).
 
Also I guess because I am so interested in so many styles of music I feel taking it right down to sheer, raw math is my best bet to understand the various theories behind those styles when I get a just to study them. So far, unless really proprietary terms or concepts are used I can usually figure out what's up rather quickly and even for the specific stuff I can just hunt around the internet for terminology and whatnot (gawd I love the internet... perhaps too much).
 
Unfortunately I am currently trapped in the technical mumbo jumbo of learning audio production but really the entire reason I'm doing that is to just be able to sit back one day and do nothing but create... in any style... or no style at all.
 
In fact I really should just get on with it soon. More writing, less nerding.
 
Thanks for the cool convo.
 
Cheers.

Hm. I seem to have written an essay. Ah well, publish and be damned and all that.

rumleymusic
Modal scales disappeared from common practice during the renaissance, and never really came back until French Impressionism in the 20th century.

I'd say the opposite. Modal scales and older sounds continued in the vernacular music of the "common people" while the professional composers moved away from them as European art music (for want of a better word) became increasingly a thing apart from what you'd hear in "society".

For example, the traditional dance music of Ireland and the Britsh Isles, especially Scotland, is loaded with Dorian, Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, with the Dorian also frequently having a semitone between 7th and octave rather than a tone. Though musicians who play the music generally simply refer to anything other than a straight major scale as "minor".

England is slightly different to our neighbours in that the fashion for military band, brass band and theatre music plus the waltz and polka (both imports from central Europe) brought the major scale to prominence and changed how the "folk" played their music, as did the growth in popularity of diatonic instruments in the late 19th/early 20th century. Though even we English have music, especially songs tunes, that are best described as "loose" in attitude to key/mode and all this was going on at the same time as composers were writing in the more "modern" German-led style, and persists into the 21st century.

By the late 19th century "art" composers such as Vaughan Williams and Percy Grainger were actively seeking a distinctive "English" music and took what was sung in the pubs and played in the villages and towns and adapted it to their own needs. Along the way they found that for a people once described as "without music compared to the Germans" the English have a great deal of music indeed.

A similar process went on in the rest of Britain, France, Italy, Eastern Europe and Russia of course. It just happens that I'm most familiar with England.

As for the French impressionists, I hope you don't mind if I put my tongue in my cheek and suggest that their use of natural minor might be in part a consequence of them hearing French bagpipers who use that scale quite a lot and were still to be found playing in the streets, bars and bals of Paris until supplanted in the mid 20th century by the "bal musette" with its technoflash accordion playing, bigger bands and own set of rules. Perhaps ironically, "musette" happens to be the name of a French type of bagpipe; the name lived on in the fashionable maisons de bal even though the instrument itself retreated to the countryside.

So the "old" ways coincided with the "new", existed side by side and each cross-fertilised the other. In the melting pot of the USA, English collectors Cecil Sharpe and Maud Karpeles collected and recorded fiddlers in the Appalachians and it struck them how close those early 20th century fiddlers were to the descriptions of how the early violin was played in the baroque. The fiddle often held not under the chin but against the chest or in the crook of the elbow, short bow strokes with a great deal of attack, very little legato playing or vibrato and an emphasis on drones, I/V or I/flattenedVII harmony structure.

I guess the thing is that there is never only one kind of music in any society at any point in time. There are different milieus, each being created and performed in the way that meets the musical needs and expectations of its creators, performers and audience.

Beepster
Never give up, brother. I typed that up specifically for you because I saw your post and I think you're a good soul. 

Hiya Beep,
 
I won't give up... I may reign in my ambitions a bit, but never give up. I really appreciate your help here
 
I am also totally enjoying the conversations going on... Fascinating, and is tying in a little bit with some offline texts I have been reading.
 

mettelus
Wasn't sure what instrument the OP prefers

Hi again mettelus,
 
Yeah, for some things I like to use my guitar, mainly melodic stuff. I turn to my keyboard for melodic stuff to, but the melodies I play turn out different to my guitar melodies. Probably, no, definitely because of my lack of playing skills of both instruments. And then there's my DAW, or "sequencer," which is my main weapon of choice for most everything else.
 
In fact, as I have said here on many occasion, I consider myself to be more of a "midician" than a musician. I've played in a band, at small gigs, in the past and it's amazing how "unskilled" you can be and still fit in with a band.
 
Thanks for the links, although I'll be giving the course a miss. I just cannot play any instrument well enough to even consider enrolling on a course like that. It looks to me to be more for a musician that can already play reasonably well, but wants to improve/develop their improvisational skills, which is something altogether different to being able, for instance, to sight read from sheet music.
 
cheers everyone, and, yet again, thanks for all your help 

For example, the traditional dance music of Ireland and the Britsh Isles, especially Scotland, is loaded with Dorian, Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, with the Dorian also frequently having a semitone between 7th and octave rather than a tone. Though musicians who play the music generally simply refer to anything other than a straight major scale as "minor".

 
There certainly are exceptions to every "Norm".  Most folk melodies were not created in the 17th and 18th centuries, but pre-date that by at sometimes hundreds of years.  Tradition and popularity kept them around, as well as the limitations of the traditional Bagpipes which are incapable of playing a leading tone in their designed key.  The composers you mentioned, Grainger and Vaghan Williams certainly utilized folk melodies in their compositions, but by that time, the Romantic era was already over, they were composing well into the 1950's.  
 
Of course folk music has a tradition of leaking into "serious" music.  And by that you can usually substitute "serious" with "liturgical".  Church composers ever since the Medieval era would sneak folk melodies into their works in order to get butts in the seats.  As things became more secular, Baroque and Classical composers would sneak elements of folk or ethnic styles into their compositions to make it more marketable.  (Rondo alla Turka anyone?).   Even if they modernized and usually major or minor-ized it as well.  
 

I certainly hope you don't think I was trying to shut you down or outright disagree

 
Of course not.  There is no such thing as right or wrong in music.  It is simply different perspectives.