u/MaggaraMarine

It's not only "cultural conditioning", though. Or more accurately, there is most likely a reason why people discovered this pattern (the point is, it's not arbitrary). It's based on half step resolutions. When V7 resolves to I, scale degree 4 resolves down to 3, and scale degree 7 resolves up to 1. These are the only half step resolutions in the major scale.

The same exact resolutions happen when you move from V7 to vi. But the bass does something different - instead of resolving to the tonic, it moves up a step. This way, the two progressions (V7-I and V7-vi) are similar enough to sound "logical", but also different enough so that the V7-vi sounds "surprising".

When it comes to the F-G-Am progression in a modern popular music context, that's no longer a V-vi resolution. It's a VII-i resolution in A minor. The tonal center makes a big difference. If Am has been established as the tonic, then the G major chord has a different function than in the key of C major - you don't really hear a similar tendency for the G major chord to resolve to C, because C is not the tonal center.

First of all, become aware of all of the options. There are only 8 different one-beat rhythms using 16th subdivision that start on the beat, and 8 more that start with a rest on the beat. Get familiar with all of these rhythms - get comfortable with playing any of them.

Also, get familiar with all of the one-beat rhythms using 8th note triplet subdivision (8th note subdivision in compound meter).

Practice sheets for compound meter/triplets:

https://cf.preview.redd.it/compound-time-practice-v0-8utestud65ih1.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=43f02ca4c6ce61341983916375750611d9510e1a

https://cf.preview.redd.it/compound-time-practice-v0-bk0nxm2e65ih1.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e91ca19856129d00b070697366c6031eeba83219

These two subdivision levels (16ths and 8th note triplets) are what you need for most musical contexts.

To practice these rhythms and make them part of your vocabulary, you could choose a couple of basic rhythmic figures and just improvise with those. Limitations are good - they force you to focus on one concept and out of your comfort zone.

Also, don't forget to use rests, and phrases that start on some other beat than the downbeat.

Pointtina ei ole luottaa AI-vastauksiin, vaan käyttää AI:ta hakukoneena.

AI-vastaukset voivat olla hallusinaatiota. Mutta AI:lta voi myös kysyä linkkejä aiheeseen liittyen. Tällainen haku toimii selkeästi paremmin kuin Googlen oma haku, jossa on vaikea tietää, millä hakutermeillä saa haluamansa hakutuloksen.

Perinteinen Google on ollut huono jo vuosia.

Jep. Tekoäly on selkeästi parantanut juuri Google-haun toimivuutta. Siltä pystyy kysymään spesifejä kysymyksiä tiedonhakuun liittyen. Jos hakutulokset ovat huonoja, voi kysyä uuden tarkentavan kysymyksen.

Toki joskus tekoälyn vastaukset ovat hallusinaatiota, mutta tästä syystä kannattaakin tekoälyä kysyä antamaan linkkejä lähteisiin ja sitten tarkistaa tieto noista lähteistä.

Google-haku on ollut pilalla jo monta vuotta. Tekoälytila on huomattavasti parantanut sen toimivuutta.

Tekoälyssä myös hyödyttää hakukoneena se, että siltä voi kysyä kysymyksiä normaaleilla lauseilla, eikä tarvitse optimoida omaa Google-hakua erilaisilla avainsanoilla.

Edelleenkään tekoälyn omiin vastauksiin ei pysty täysin luottamaan, mutta kuten jo sanoin, siltä kannattaa kysyä linkkejä aiheeseen liittyen.

V wants to go to I. That's what you are expecting it to do. When you play a different chord, it creates a surprise.

Why the vi works really well as a substitute for the I chord is because those chords have two common tones: scale degrees 1 and 3. Those are also the notes that the tendency tones of V7 normally resolve to. The 7th of V7 resolves down a half step to the 3rd of the I chord. The 3rd of the V7 chord (the leading tone) resolves up a half step to the root of the I chord. Those are also the only diatonic half step resolutions in the major key (scale degrees 4-3 and 7-1, or "Fa-Mi" and "Ti-Do" resolutions).

Now, because the vi chord also contains those same notes, the tendency tones of the V7 still resolve as expected.

Compare these resolutions:

1. B moves to C, F moves to E. Bass moves from G to C.
2. B moves to C, F moves to E. Bass moves from G to A.

The first one is G7-C, the second one is G7-Am. Notice how the only difference is the bass note here.

In other words, it's very close to the expected chord, which makes the resolution sound "logical", but it's also different enough to make it sound at least somewhat surprising.

Of course it's "cultural" (pretty much everything about how people write music is cultural), but the logic it follows is still consistent. My point is, it is not arbitrary. Something being "cultural" doesn't make it arbitrary.

fixed

The first movement of Moonlight Sonata is actually great for practicing chords, because the entire movement is basically just arpeggios. I would recommend looking at the first movement from that perspective. You can already play it, but you can always learn more from the piece. And actually, being able to already play it makes studying what's going on in the piece easier.

I'm talking about it being a half step higher than the major minor third.

Also, there is no minor 3rd against the root in the harmonic series. The first minor 3rd in the harmonic series is between the 3rd and 5th of a major chord. My point is, the E-G minor third is in the harmonic series of C.

This is actually why minor chords are difficult to "justify" from the perspective of the harmonic series. And this is also why some people have used the "undertone series" as a way of deriving the minor triad.

Opiskellessa oppii uusia asioita. Tämä on itsessään ihan palkitsevaa, ja sitä kannattaa mielestäni ainakin pyrkiä arvostamaan. Etenkin sitten kun ei enää tarvitse opiskella, niin tällainen järjestelmällinen omien taitojen ja tietojen kehittäminen ja haastaminen helposti katoaa elämästä.

Nautitko opiskelemastasi alasta? Ovatko opinnot mielestäsi mielenkiintoisia?

While it is true that using the 6th of the natural minor scale would affect the tonality, I don't think it would suddenly make the song that much sadder.

Wellerman is a good example of a song with a fairly similar feel, but it's fully in minor key (and uses the minor 6th degree).

The fact that you just chose another fifth keeps it pentatonic which is also not really minor

(Hexatonic if we are being 100% accurate, since the song uses the 2nd degree of the scale.) But it's not Dorian either. My point was that removing the major 6th doesn't affect the basic feel of the song that much. Your original claim I replied to was that the song sounds happier specifically because of the major 6th (that is what defines it as Dorian).

It does affect its tonality. But the "mood" of the song is more than its tonality. Of course the tonality affects it to a degree - if we use a more extreme example, playing it in the parallel major would clearly make it sound brighter.

Also, I like to define minor more broadly. If the tonic triad is minor, then it's in minor. Minor pentatonic, hexatonic, Dorian, Aeolian, etc. - those are all "different shades of minor".

Any way, here's how I would alter the melody of Drunken Sailor to make it fully Aeolian (IMO just changing the 6th from major to minor while 100% retaining the original melodic shape doesn't sound that natural):

What shall we do with the drunken sailor
A    A     A  A  A    Bb  A    D  F   A

What shall we do with the drunken sailor
G    G     G  G  G    A   G    C  E   G

What shall we do with the drunken sailor
A    A     A  A  A    Bb  A    A  C   D

Early in the morning
C  A  G  E   D   D

IMO doesn't change the mood that much.

I disagree. The melody only uses the major 6th degree once (in the third "what shall we do with the drunken sailor"). You could easily alter the melody in a way that skips the 6th degree, and it wouldn't really change the basic feeling of the song.

For example try replacing the 6th degree with the 5th degree in the melody (in D):

What shall we do with the drunken sailor
A    A     A  A  A    A   A    A  C   D

Now there's nothing Dorian about the melody, but I don't think it's fundamentally different.

The beginning of the progression uses fairly weak chord motion. Generally speaking functional progressions move down in 5ths and 3rds and up in 2nds. Your first half basically only moves up in 3rds, which doesn't create a clear sense of harmonic direction. Especially the move from vi to I is weak. You return to the tonic, but in a way that doesn't set up any kind of a resolution. (Of course you can also do stuff like this, and there are definitely songs out there that go from vi to I, but this progression is something that can easily sound aimless.)

So, it could be the progression that creates this feeling. But there are probably also other elements that create this feeling. With the right melody, the progression could sound just fine. Most likely, your melody also lacks a clear direction/structure. When writing melodies, it's often a good idea to try to base it on just a couple of different motifs. If you introduce too many ideas without developing any of them, the melody will pretty likely sound aimless.

Also pay attention to the melodic contour. Aimless melodies often simply noodle around using a couple of different notes, without creating a clear melodic shape/direction.

"Common time" and "cut time" are both based on the old mensuration symbols.

There was also a mensuration symbol for triple meter that was a circle. In fact, the C in common/cut time is actually not a C - it's a half circle. This is because 3 is a "perfect number" and 2 is an "imperfect number".

A circle or a C with a dot meant the beats had 3 subdivisions.

So, basically

O = simple triple meter

C = simple duple meter

O with a dot = compound triple meter

C with a dot = compound duple meter

anything in the actual physics or math of the intervals that makes major thirds and perfect fifths feel resolved and "bright" compared to minor

The notes in the major triad are in the harmonic series of a single note. Does this make major chords more inherently stable than minor chords? At least today, people have accepted them as equally stable. But in the renaissance period, pieces in minor modes ended in major chords (or alternatively in a chord with an omitted 3rd), so at least back then people did in fact consider the major triad as more stable than the minor triad.

The "brightness" probably simply comes from the fact that the major 3rd is higher than the minor 3rd. Another reason is that if you derive the 3rds by stacking 5ths, the major 3rd is 4 fifths in the sharp direction, while the minor 3rd is 3 fifths in the flat direction, so it's also "brighter" in that sense.

Now, neither of these necessarily makes people think major sounds happy, but I also don't think that association is completely arbitrary. BTW, in the past, people described major as "hard" and minor as "soft". An interesting video that talks about this. It's not explicitly about major vs minor. It's more about sharps vs flats. But as I pointed out, major harmonies are "sharper" than minor harmonies.

Yes, there is definitely a similarity in style here. It's based on both hands playing an arpeggiated figure at the same time. The register is fairly similar, and the chord voicings are sort of similar too.

I don't hear a clear classical influence here. The chord voicings are just not classical-like.

I read that JVKE said Golden Hour was inspired by Franz Liszt, but after listening to a few of his pieces, I couldn't really find anything similar.

Yeah, if he was influenced by Liszt, then he hid his influence pretty well, because that doesn't sound like Liszt at all. I can maybe hear some influence from Liebestraum No.3. It uses arpeggios in a higher register and it's in a similar tempo and meter. But the chord voicings are pretty different.

Last question, out of curiosity, if we go smaller, for example 32th, it keeps the two slashes, right?

No. If the speed of the tremolo is supposed to stay the same, then 32nd notes would get a single slash. Again, one beam = one slash, so if you add a beam, you remove a slash.

But also, since it's flutter tonguing, the "tremolo" here is an unmeasured one. Technically the notation implies it's supposed to be 64th notes, but in reality, it's not a precise rhythm. So, in this case being consistent with the speed of the tremolo isn't really that important. (I think it still looks cleaner if one slash is removed when one beam is added.)

But if it was a measured tremolo, then it would matter.

Jos kannabikseen liittyvät väitetyt haitat olisivat niin suuria kuin on uskoteltu, niin silloin kolmannes suomalaisista työikäisistä kärsisi tällä hetkellä vakavista päihdeongelmista.

Tässä tilastossa näytettiin ihmiset, jotka ovat käyttäneet kannabista vähintään kerran elämänsä aikana - ei pelkästään niitä, jotka käyttävät kannabista aktiivisesti.

Varmaan joku ihminen väittää, että yksikin kannabiskokeilu johtaa pakosti vahvempiin aineisiin ja addiktioon, mutta onko tämä se argumentti, jonka ihmiset oikeasti ottavat tosissaan? Perustuvatko suurimman osan kannabiksen laillisuutta vastustavien argumentit tällaisiin väitteisiin, vai voisiko kyseessä olla enimmäkseen vain se, ettei uutta päihdettä haluta laillistaa (kun alkoholi on jo laillista), koska ajatellaan, että kannabiksen käyttö yleistyy sen laillistamisen jälkeen, jolloin sen negatiivisetkin vaikutukset yleistyvät?

Vastaavasti (verrattaen vaarattoman) huumeen käyttö ja ylinopeutta ajaminen eivät mitenkään mielekkäästi vertaudu toisiinsa.

Eivät vertaudukaan, mutta pointtina oli samanlainen logiikka argumentaation takana, ei rikosten vertautuvuus toisiinsa.

It's not any more difficult than learning any other thing. There's plenty of logic behind music theory.

There are three main reasons to why people think it's difficult.

1. It's something people are forced to learn in music school, when they are mostly just interested in learning to play the instrument. In other words, they don't see much value in learning it, and their lack of learning motivation makes it feel difficult. (People generally do not learn things that they don't want to learn.)

2. People learn it too theoretically, not connecting it to musical practice. Most importantly, they don't learn the sounds of the theoretical concepts, which makes it feel disconnected from actual music. A lot of theory makes sense when you can actually hear how it works.

3. People don't know the right order of learning things (this is mostly an issue with self-taught musicians - but also, self-taught musicians are probably the ones who post most questions on this forum, because formally taught musicians can ask those questions from their teachers). They try to learn too much at once (without actually internalizing the basics), or they may try to learn too advanced stuff (again, without having internalized the basics). This has a lot to do with patience too. The most important thing about theory is actually how fast you can think, not how many concepts you know (in reality, the amount of knowledge you need for most music isn't that big). But people are more interested in knowing everything right now instead of focusing on internalizing the basics really well (and that naturally takes a lot of time). A related issue is that people try to learn the theory before they have basic playing skills on their instrument.

i learnt music theory for fun whilst learning how to play piano

This is the most important thing here. This made you naturally see the connection between the theoretical concepts and how they actually work in practice. Also, you obviously were motivated to learn because you described it as fun. Not everyone thinks learning theory is fun or interesting.

D#m is F tier. I mean, who actually spells Ebm as D#m?

Here's a simple transcription with time signatures and chords.

There is no single time signature.

The intro/main riff is in 3/4 (one bar per chord).

The verse is

[4/4 + 3/4] + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4

[4/4 + 3/4] + [4/4 + 2/4] + 3/4

[4/4 + 3/4] + [4/4 + 4/4]

[4/4 + 3/4] + 3/4

(The brackets represent harmonic rhythm. The bars inside the same brackets have the same chord.)

The chorus is mostly in 5/4 (2+3).

After three bars of 5/4, there's a single bar of 4/4, then a single bar of 3/8, and a single bar of 3/4.

It's an offbeat triplet, notated in a way that makes the beats visible (so the middle note of the triplet is divided into two tied 16th notes). The "threes" apply to the second 8th note and the 16th note under the second beam group, and to the 16th and the next 8th note under the third beam group.

The rhythm would be clearer if it used triplet brackets instead of just the numbers.

Transcription. The first measure shows the "offbeat triplet" idea. The second measure shows the rhythm notated with the triplet brackets, making it a bit clearer.

Why are some notes written with three diagonal strokes and others with two?

When the note values are 8th notes, there are 3 slashes. When the note values are 16th notes, there are 2 slashes. Notice the extra beam in the 16th notes, which takes one slash away. If the rhythm used quarter notes, there would be 4 slashes. Basically, in "tremolo" notation, beam = slash.

There is no polyrhythm here. It's just syncopated, with swung 16th notes.

Here's a transcription of the rhythm.

The confusing part is the rest on the downbeat, which could make feeling the downbeat a bit more difficult.

Out of context, the chord could be Asus4, Dsus2 or E7sus4. (It could also be the upper structure of some extended chord.)

The name depends on the context.

The melodies aren't really that close. It's the fact that they are in the same key and use similar instrumentation in similar register (simply put, a "similar vibe"). But if you actually listen to the notes, it is clearly a different piece of music.