Klarinet Archive - Posting 000461.txt from 2001/11

From: Bear Woodson <bearwoodson@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] A few facts about Chromatic Modal Harmony
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:41:43 -0500

Hello, Klarinet List.

Many of you divide your time with practicing, per-
forming, studying and teaching clarinet techniques. But
I don't play any woodwind, although I have studied
some of the fingering problems on many instruments.
I'm basically just a Composer and Music Theorist.

(Too often I've had someone make petty and insulting
comments about why I don't play an instrument. Before
anyone makes that mistake again, I had severe nerve
damage to the right arm nearly 20 years ago, and had to
switch to writing left-handed ever since. During the 1990's
I slowly regained most of the use of the right arm, but still
write left-handed. In the process, I wrote a large "Concerto
for Piano, Left Hand Only, with Orchestra".)

I am likely one of the few people on this list with a
lot of experience with 20th Century Music Theory. Let
me be clear: I have always said that I think 12-Tone,
Random and several other 20th Century Methods were
too often used as childish excuses for lack of Mature,
Inspired, Musical Compositions. (Many 12-Toners insisted
that Inspiration and Melodies were "dead" concepts.)

The system I use is rare, and was compiled by Howard
Hanson and his students, based on teachings of Hindemith.
Traditional Tonality is based mostly on the Major Scale,
and to a lesser degree on the 3 Forms of the Minor Scale,
but beyond that, many Chord Progressions that sound
good are dismissed as "Non-Functional" by Tonal Defini-
tions.

The rarely understood "Chromatic Functional Mo-
dality System" uses Chord Progressions from ALL the
Church Modes, Ethnic Modes, Invented and Altered
Modes, and even Quartal Harmony, showing WHY
things that DO sound good ARE Functional, but in
Scales other than just the Major and Minor Scales.

By Strict Tonal Definitions, "Greensleeves" in the
original Dorian, and Flamenco Guitar Music in the ori-
ginal Phrygian, are also "Non-Functional", even though
most people find them beautiful. Therefore when people
like Modal Music, they already like Chromatic Func-
tional Modality, without knowing that in technical terms.

Since the 1950's, many Jazzers use the SAME prin-
ciples of Chromatic Functional Modality, but they have
their own words for how to explain it. So in other words,
if you like Modern Jazz, or Barber, Bartok, Prokofieff,
Hindemith, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, etc.,
then you already like Chromatic Functional Modality,
without knowing the technical words for how it works.

Since many of these principles expand upon Tonal
and Modal Chord Progression Principles, some of these
Chord Progressions ARE 500 years old, yes! BUT some
of these Chord Progressions are unique to the 20th Cen-
tury and beyond!

When you argue against me, and Chromatic Func-
tional Modality, without knowing the details, you are
criticizing and unknown quantity in the dark. I'm sorry,
but I fail to see the logic in that!

By already liking Modern Jazz, Hindemith, etc., you
have already admitted to liking Chromatic Functional
Modality, and some of this is unique to 20th Century
Harmony.

Having made that clear, I will now explain that I
cannot accept anyone telling me that they DON'T
like Chromatic Modal Harmony, AND that they like
Modern Inventions, as anything less than a Contra-
diction. ALL of my relatives, and many dear friends,
are Non-Musicians, who only like Simple Traditional
Tonal Harmony in Popular Music Songs. I wouldn't
trade their friendship for all the money in the world,
but they often DO sometimes go into literal Temper
Tantrums, or whine like Babies, when I point out that
I, vi, IV and V are NOT "New" Chord Progressions!
They've been in daily use for 500 years of European
Descended Culture. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

To many of my friends, to play anything much
more complex than I, vi, IV and V, is "talking over
their heads". They find it "uppity", insulting, and since
it loses them, they find it boring. That doesn't make
J.S. Bach a moron, just because a world of Music
Theory Illiterates can't understand Bach. It makes
Bach based on Skilled Composition Principles, and
the masses just want Simplicity.

One man's I-vi-IV-V Universe, is another man's
Harmonic Prison. I don't tell them what to do, but too
many people, who know nothing about Music Theory,
DO try to dictate what I CAN and CAN NOT do. I
find that hypocritical.

Simplicity is not a crime, but I'm VERY thankful
that my Medicine, Technology, Communications and
Computations are NOT limited to Knowledge from
the year 1650, 1720 or 1860! Most American Musicals
NEVER exceed Harmony that was written by 1860!
Again that's a fact of Music Theory, and is NOT an
opinion.

I find it inconsistent that so many people demand
the latest technology for their Medicine, Technology,
Communications and Computations, but whine like
babies when they hear Chromatic Modal Harmonic
Progressions, that have been in daily use by Modern
Classical Composers, Jazzers, and even TV and Film
Scores since the 1940's, because it's "too modern"
for them! I'm sorry, but I find this behavior to be
Babyish! And it's prevalent to many Americans, who
run away screaming at the sound of consonant works
like the Hindemith "Der Schwanendreher" Viola Con-
certo or his "Sinfonia Serena". I'm sorry, but I find
that Babyish and hypocritical in the year 2001!

I'm the first to applaud the Official Death to 12-
Tone, Random and some of their Related Composition
Styles, as of the Mid-1990's! I had to deal with 12-
Tone Nazis at Cal Arts in 1977, who wanted to force
me to like 12-Tone Works that even they couldn't
stand. I find their hypocrisy to be no more valid than
the Babyish 3-Chord-Wonder Music Addicts among
the American Public.

Let me also be clear. I think of myself as being
JUST as FAR BEHIND on subject like Math, Finances,
understanding how to build Mechanical, Automotive,
and Computer things, as most Americans are about
understanding Harmony. I'm the first to loudly admit
that I'm a Total Moron with such things! I have to use
a Calculator to try to balance my checkbook with
Simple Arithmetic, and I STILL manage to mess it
up, more often than not! I'm a Music Theory Geek,
NOT a Math Geek. Unfortunately, I'm a Math Moron,
and I have NEVER been one to pretend to expertise,
when I don't know a subject! I may offend a lot of
people by pointing out their 3-Chord-Wonder limita-
tions, but I NEVER lie about where I'm a Moron too!

But I admit that a microchip calculator IS more
modern than an Abacus! I don't lie about simple facts!
However I know plenty of people, who don't even
know what "Music Theory" means, and yet try to insist
that this Country/Western song, that only uses I, vi, IV
and V, MUST be Modern Harmony, because it was
written down 2 months ago.

I just keep telling them. "If you build a Stage Coach
out of old Space Shuttle parts, but if the ONLY way
to make it move, is to have it pushed or pulled by a
human or an animal, then the Concept of this form of
Transportation is still THOUSANDS of YEARS OLD!!!
If you use 1650 Simple Tonal or Modal Chords, but
jazz up the rhythms, and use modern electric guitars,
electric keyboards, and add drums, is the HARMONY
any Newer! No, but you DO have Standard Rock
Music in the year 2001!"

Sorry, but those are facts. Any good Music Theorist
has to agree. That doesn't make most Americans any
smarter at harmony, or me any smarter at math, but
facts are facts.

By the way, in case you didn't know, we've had
Visiting Composer Lectures here in Arizona. about
3 to 7 times a semester for nearly 10 years. Some of
them are Pulitzer Prize Winners. They all talk about
the Latest Trends among Modern Classical Composers
being a Return to the Lyricism of the Mid-20th Cen-
tury Chromatic Modal Composers, like: Hindemith,
Bartok, Prokofieff, Shostakovich, etc. It's not a crime
to be lyrical in Modern Classical Music anymore.

Bear Woodson
Fat Fuzz-Faced Theory Geek and
Composer in Tucson, Arizona, USA

---------------------------------------------------------------------