Pitch Axis - new?

[Chris K]

In a thread on blue notes Malcom Amos presented the following examples of Pitch Axis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTQol...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SckVz3XpLs

For explanation, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_axis_theory

Is Pitch Axis:
- a way to understand music theory?
- a tool to compose music?
- a revolutionary musical concept?

I'll confine myself to commenting on this last option. Unless I'm missing something crucial, this concept is entirely NOT new, let alone revolutionary. Similar ideas have been used ages ago in the organ music of Bach, Reger, Franck (hence the term 'pedal tone') and in the orchestral works of Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, to name but a few.

[Fergie Fulton]

Hi Chris the first link is faulty anything you can do to repair it.
Pitch axis as it is being called, is not that new but these applications are a bit deeper using it.

It will cause a few problems with those that preach chord tones only, rather than scales and modes as a way to approach learning, but as we all know they are all related, it's just how a player chooses to use them.
Chord tones then scales and modes or scales and modes then chord tones?.......it is up to the player to decide. Both need to be known so you know what chord options are open to you to use in the scale of mode you choose.

Heres another link
http://satriani.worldsgreatestguitar...xis/index.html

[onlyclave]

It sort of looks like pitch axis theory tries to incorporate a pedal point as an integral part of the harmony instead of as a non harmonic tone.

It also looks like it stems from the guitar player 5 fret box school of theory.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Chris K

In a thread on blue notes Malcom Amos presented the following examples of Pitch Axis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTQol...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SckVz3XpLs

For explanation, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_axis_theory

Is Pitch Axis:
- a way to understand music theory?
- a tool to compose music?
- a revolutionary musical concept?

I'll confine myself to commenting on this last option. Unless I'm missing something crucial, this concept is entirely NOT new, let alone revolutionary. Similar ideas have been used ages ago in the organ music of Bach, Reger, Franck (hence the term 'pedal tone') and in the orchestral works of Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, to name but a few.

Regarding #1, I would say yes, in a restricted sense. That is, it's not a new and better overall approach, but it can be a useful way of understanding certain things.

Regarding #2, I would say, sure, why not, if it sounds good. Not all music revolves around keys and functional harmony, or needs to. It just needs some kind of organizing principle, which doesn't have to be the system we study in Harmony 101. So if this sort of not-strictly-key-based approach can be used as an organizing principle for some decent music, as it can IMHO, then go for it. This would be kind of the flip side of #1: if it can be a tool for creating music, it can also be, at least equally importantly, a tool for analyzing the workings of some music already created.

Regarding #3, I agree with you.

[JohnDavisNYC]

this 'theory' is BS....

superimposing harmony on top of pedal points is nothing new.

although having a totally 'edgy' name like pitch axis theory does make me want to cut a handle in all my basses and wear oakleys all the time.

the more i think about it, i don't even see how it can even be considered a 'theory'... it is just harmony moving on a pedal point.

john

[MalcolmAmos]

Originally Posted by Chris K

Is Pitch Axis:

1.- a way to understand music theory?
2.- a tool to compose music?
3.- a revolutionary musical concept?

1. IMO pitch axis is easy to understand.
2. Easy to use.
3. Not revolutionary, just another way of explaining a complicated concept. I never did see the need for relative modes. There is no improv in the Country we do, we play THE Established Tune. The major and/or natural minor scale was doing everything I needed, then I discovered the characteristic mode note, which is so obvious with pitch axis, and the light bulb came on. Now if I need a #4 or a b2 to add that little something extra I understand how to grab and use them.

Originally Posted by onlyclave

..... It also looks like it stems from the guitar player 5 fret box school of theory.

Yes, exactly.

[merlinaz]

pitch axis?! yeah buy this Pitch Axis 3000 and get a free haircut!

this is really NOT revolutionary...the different scales advanced in early christian time out of chorals...

for jazz imrovisation it's helping to know wht scale fits over a chord though...
and every scale got its own charcter like the doric in 'So What'.

[JohnDavisNYC]

wait a second... you got a free haircut? i only got a Pitch Axis XXXtreme fanny pack and a ponytail elastic!?!?!?! ***!?!?!?!

[kr0n]

Both pedal point and pitch axis are rather new concepts to me so would anyone explain if there's a difference there at all?

After reading the Wikipedia article about pedal point, to me it seems pedal with pedal point you'd be playing the key's root when other instruments would be playing chords according to modal theory (so the chords have their own root that is not the tonic root) and pitch axis rests totally on the root by only changing the harmonizing notes within the chord and using the same root.

So with Pedal point it would be in C, playing C throughout I-IV-V-I
Cmaj7-Fmaj7-G7-Cmaj7 (C is not a chord tone with G7).
So with this the C would create a dissonance within the V.

With Pitch Axis (if I'm correct) playing I-IV-V-I would incorporate 3 scales, C Ionian, C Lydian, C Mixolydian which are CDEFGABc, CDEF#GABc and CDEFGABbc.

So you could basically fill the I-IV-V slots with any suitable chords, probably with those that use the identifying notes, F# and Bb and keeping the C as the "note in the background" but still in the chord.

Of course with my limited study this Pitch Axis could only be a part of the pedal point theory.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by kr0n

After reading the Wikipedia article about pedal point, to me it seems pedal with pedal point you'd be playing the key's root when other instruments would be playing chords according to modal theory (so the chords have their own root that is not the tonic root) and pitch axis rests totally on the root by only changing the harmonizing notes within the chord and using the same root.

Well, you don't have to play the key's tonic (root refers to chords primarily)--the dominant is also sometimes used. But note that the fact that other chords may be played that have their own root has absolutely NOTHING to do with "modal theory." It's in the nature of harmonic progressions.

Originally Posted by kr0n

So with Pedal point it would be in C, playing C throughout I-IV-V-I
Cmaj7-Fmaj7-G7-Cmaj7 (C is not a chord tone with G7).
So with this the C would create a dissonance within the V.

Yeah, that's a reasonable example. Generally you proceed from consonance to dissonance and resolve to consonance.

Originally Posted by kr0n

With Pitch Axis (if I'm correct) playing I-IV-V-I would incorporate 3 scales, C Ionian, C Lydian, C Mixolydian which are CDEFGABc, CDEF#GABc and CDEFGABbc.

So you could basically fill the I-IV-V slots with any suitable chords, probably with those that use the identifying notes, F# and Bb and keeping the C as the "note in the background" but still in the chord.

I wouldn't say this is right. What you describe is not I-IV-V. That terminology refers to root movement, and if the root never changes, you can't have I-IV-V, by definition. If you're doing C ionian, C lydian, C locrian, C altered, there's no root movement. What's more, that terminology (I, IV, V, and so on) mostly makes sense within a key structure (ie, functional harmony) or an overarching modality, though you could technically derive those relations from any specified starting point. The whole point of pitch axis, it seems to me anyway, is that you're not really working with a key or its attendant functionality, you're dealing with a succession of harmonic spaces that revolve around (hence "axis") a note rather than a key or modality (hence "pitch"). IOW, you could say they don't exactly have a key as such, in the way in which we usually employ the term; rather, they have a key note, or a tonal center, and perhaps a general flavor. Through shorthand, you could refer to a tune of this type that is based on the pitch E as being "in E", but it won't necessarily be analyzable as being in E major in terms of functional harmony. So trying to impose those functional harmonic concepts onto this kind of progression won't always be that productive.

The consequence of this is that since the changes are not really tied together by a key, you often can't approach them by thinking in terms of a key. They don't have the same kind of relationships that the chords in a key have in functional harmony. So you may have to approach them one by one, as they happen--rather as if each one is its own key or mode. This is different from the way pedal point is generally used, because that usually involves some level of functionality. But I suppose you could say that at a basic level--that of harmonies shifting over a constant bass--it's the same idea. But in practice I'd say most people mean somewhat different things by it.

[PlanetEarth]

I"m sorry but either I'm incredibly ignorant or that Wikipedia article sounded like complete non-sense.

Progressions that don't follow a strict diatonic (modal) progression I've just always known as tonal music. Does a theory and/or phrase need to be coined to state that Cmaj7 -> C-7 *could* e.g. among many things imply a change from e.g. C Dorian to C Ionian. The author also speaks only of modality based off a major scale, no mention of altered chords, scales, substitutions, etc...

The resulting chart showing all the possible chords attached to each mode may be a neat reference to stick in a book or other learning aid but other than that.... I'm not really seeing the value. And, as negative as that sounds that's really not my intention, on the contrary, please enlighten me - If there is a useful value here I do indeed want to know what it is.

-PE

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by PlanetEarth

I"m sorry but either I'm incredibly ignorant or that Wikipedia article sounded like complete non-sense.

Progressions that don't follow a strict diatonic (modal) progression I've just always known as tonal music. Does a theory and/or phrase need to be coined to state that Cmaj7 -> C-7 *could* e.g. among many things imply a change from e.g. C Dorian to C Ionian. The author also speaks only of modality based off a major scale, no mention of altered chords, scales, substitutions, etc...

The resulting chart showing all the possible chords attached to each mode may be a neat reference to stick in a book or other learning aid but other than that.... I'm not really seeing the value. And, as negative as that sounds that's really not my intention, on the contrary, please enlighten me - If there is a useful value here I do indeed want to know what it is.

-PE

As concept it is just being re-branded for guitar, almost a reference for guitarists to work from. Since it is theory based that is a good thing, because if through this "sexy" approach to a part of theory, many may go further and explore the other things that will overlap this.
As a theory it would have one chapter in a music book because of the implictions of how the information is taught in this instance.

My old music teacher told me once that if i read the two best books about music theory and learned them, i would understand as much, if not more than 90% of the players out there, but to catch up with the other 10% would take a lifetime, if it would ever be possible for me to do it.

[MalcolmAmos]

Originally Posted by PlanetEarth

.... I'm not really seeing the value. And, as negative as that sounds that's really not my intention, on the contrary, please enlighten me - If there is a useful value here I do indeed want to know what it is. -PE

If you are playing other people's tunes (covers) a chord progressions and the major and natural minor scale will probably let you do everything you need. If, however, you are composing, either on paper or on the fly, then all that stuff comes in handy.

I play Country in public, a dirt simple I IV V with the major or perhaps every once in a while the natural minor scale is all I use. All that other stuff is fluff, but, you know in private up in my music (poute) room I love to dig into that stuff and improvise (badly) on my keyboard.

Is there value in all this, depends on what you play and how much you enjoy studying music.

[PlanetEarth]

Originally Posted by MalcolmAmos

If you are playing other people's tunes (covers) a chord progressions and the major and natural minor scale will probably let you do everything you need. If, however, you are composing, either on paper or on the fly, then all that stuff comes in handy.

I guess to elaborate more - I spend most of the time playing in Jazz combos, mostly Real Book stuff, a few guys have their own books - so again, I've just always known this as tonal music. I'm not necessarily looking to expand every progression into a diatonic series of chords but certain combinations you just come to know as being so... Same with individual chords, V7alts and or subs many times (for me) scream for lydian b7 or .... I forget what it's called, Jazz/melodic minor from the 7th step (super locrian or something like that maybe). But that subjective in itself, it all depends on what's called for in that moment.

I learned by being taught to recognize certain sounds/colors in the context they were being used in then subsequently how to color them further. I'm not sure I see it as being remarkable that a move from a maj7 to a minor7 chord with the same root indicates a move from a major to minor scale off the same root or furthermore that the least of changes will be the difference between the 3rd and 7th.

-PE

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Not all music revolves around keys and functional harmony, or needs to. It just needs some kind of organizing principle, which doesn't have to be the system we study in Harmony 101.

Bravo! +10,000,000,000,000

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

if it can be a tool for creating music, it can also be, at least equally importantly, a tool for analyzing the workings of some music already created.

Unfortunately, a lot of neophytes seem to believe that the opposite is equally true.

[Chris K]

+1

Have to admit that Richard somewhat softened my views on pitch axis as a tool for composition. So I'm glad I held those back when I started this thread. Maybe pitch axis is a harmonic system that is of equal value compared to Harmony 101.

I take functional harmony as my starting point whenever I write music. From that point of view pitch axis (as tool for composition) at first sight seemed nothing more than a trick. You take some mode-related chords that share (at least) 1 note and put them in a row. There are no specific rules to rank these chords. Then you play a melody that fits those chords.

Am I still correct??????

A quote from the Wiki article: "When that chord occurs, the corresponding mode should be used for the melody or for soloing."

When that chord occurs... But what determines the moment these chords occur? Personal taste? A throw of the dice?

On the other hand, functional harmony could also be seen as a trick. However, functional harmony was not created as a system; it developed as a body of practical experiences integrated into a logical system.

Fergie says that it is up to the composer/player to decide if he/she takes chords as a starting point, or scales/modes. From the quote above it is pretty clear that pitch axis implies taking chords as a starting point for the composition.

Functional harmony implies taking harmonic functions as starting point for melodic progression. Melodies are being created alongside one another and the chords are the result of the way these melodies sound together. Slight changes in those melodies may change the chords that occur, but they may still sound o.k. because the harmonic functions guarantee the integrity of the composition.

Therefore IMHO functional harmony is a much more open tool for composition compared to pitch axis.

But what always did strike me most in functional harmony is this: If I write something according to the rules of functional harmony, and never play anything while composing, and if I succeed to stick to those rules, in the end my music will always sound good.

I still have to try if I can do that with pitch axis as well, but I doubt it.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Chris K

the harmonic functions guarantee the integrity of the composition.

Well, I don't think I'd go that far...or at least, that's a fairly charitible definition of "integrity".

Originally Posted by Chris K

But what always did strike me most in functional harmony is this: If I write something according to the rules of functional harmony, and never play anything while composing, and if I succeed to stick to those rules, in the end my music will always sound good.

Um... wow. Again, I would opine that that must be a rather generous definition of "good" for that statement to be taken at face value. ime&o a composition has to do way more than just "follow the rules" to even sound remotely engaging, much less rise up to a level considered "good".

Probably just a semantic quibble, I've been stumbling over a lot of those lately.

[Jim Carr]

Originally Posted by merlinaz

...this is really NOT revolutionary...the different scales advanced in early christian time out of chorales...

Perhaps "different scales" were invented a wee bit earlier than the time of Pope Gregory and the associated chant.

I know you are referring to the Western church modes (derived from a medieval Western misunderstanding of ancient Greek documents preserved by Arabic librarians).

However, examining the scales built into the finger holes of the 40,000 year old bone flutes from the collections of the Museum of Lower Austria (Asparn), and at the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte of the University of Tübingen makes it clear that the ideas of scale and mode are concepts probably as old as the human race.

http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3595-1

In fact, Steven Mithen, in his book, "The Singing Neanderthals" has argued that the Neanderthals used music for it's survival value, though it seems not to have been entirely sucessful.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...act?aid=390800

PS. Persian Music documents from the Sassanian Period [AD 226-642] relate names of seven modes, thirty derived modes, and 360 melodies.

[Chris K]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Well, I don't think I'd go that far...or at least, that's a fairly charitible definition of "integrity".
Um... wow. Again, I would opine that that must be a rather generous definition of "good" for that statement to be taken at face value. ime&o a composition has to do way more than just "follow the rules" to even sound remotely engaging, much less rise up to a level considered "good".

Probably just a semantic quibble, I've been stumbling over a lot of those lately.

A little more than semantic I would say. By 'good' I mean to say: considered to be ''nice' by general opinion. I know my place, so I am not claiming any artistic value, but I do have the pure craftsmanship of writing music like songs for a school musical, a hymn for a festive occasion etc. etc. (though I also have my creative moments).
In those cases functional harmony always proves its worth to me. If I follow, the audience generally likes the music. If I didn't, I myself would get annoyed by all of those forbidden parallels, leading notes resolving the wrong way, accent 5ths etc. etc. I believe the audience would like my stuff less, though unable to say why.

Just write two arrangements of the same tune. One follows the rules, the other one does not. I guarantee you that a survey would show that any western audience likes the one following the rules better. The reason is simple: because it is in accordance with conventional taste.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Chris K

Fergie says that it is up to the composer/player to decide if he/she takes chords as a starting point, or scales/modes. From the quote above it is pretty clear that pitch axis implies taking chords as a starting point for the composition.

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Chord tones then scales and modes or scales and modes then chord tones?.......it is up to the player to decide. Both need to be known so you know what chord options are open to you to use in the scale of mode you choose.

Sorry Chris, what i am saying is it is in the learning of the two not the application. It is not which one is learnt first, but understanding the relation that the two have together.

A lot of debate is put into the worth of whether a player benifits from learning scales/modes, then chord and chord tones, all pitch access does is show a unity for the two in an un-complicated way. By that i mean if you learn these two principals you can function in the pitch access world....and maybe move on to other overlapping principals that will follow.