Classical music

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 3 Dec 2002 2:11 pm

Mike, it ain't cheating - it's just using technology to make music in a new way. It's basically no different than any other recording which allows you to do some mixing and manipulating and then make a final copy that allows anyone to play the thing over and over forever.

Thinking of what you went through is what gives me the idea of several people contributing one or two cuts each. In 6 months or a year I could work up to playing a couple of short classical adaptations in real time. I've almost got one or two now, but if I drop them for awhile to do other things, when I get back to them after a few weeks, I almost have to start over from scratch relearning them. I don't have the taping and mixing skills to do what you do. The only way for me would be to work up a number, and then do single takes of it over and over until I got it right.

By the way, I saw your plaint about the price of the new Milleniums on another thread, and advised you there to go for it.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 3 Dec 2002 2:20 pm

anyone who can understand the chord structure and theory behind pedal steel would have an easy time with most classical music theory

How can that be? Classical music theory covers the major, harmonic minor, melodic minor, double harmonic major and minor scales, all the modes of the scales (Dorian, Lydian, etc.), counterpoint, the theory of many kinds of cadences/resolutions (the IV-V-I being the most common, but there are a couple of dozen others I believe), and many other things. That statement makes no sense to me. What I hear in classical music is far, far more complex theoretically than what the very large majority of E9 players know or play.

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 3 Dec 2002 2:59 pm

Jeff, classical theory covers much more than the average country player ever would want or need to learn, but it does cover the basics that every country player should know. Like mathamatics, it's an open ended science.

The fact is few, if any of us know calculus, but we all know our basic arithmatic. Music theory is like that. The more advanced aspects of it have little or no practical application to country music or the steel, but the basics of harmony definatley apply to the kinds of things most of us do.

I think every steel guitar player owes it to him or herself to take a class in basic harmony at their local community college.

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 3 Dec 2002 3:28 pm

b0b said

I have read that Bach's music went undiscovered for nearly a hundred years after his death. He was incredibly prolific, and often had a second job playing in bars (sound familiar?).

These are myths, except for the one about his prolifitude.
Here is a link I posted in another thread where you can read some Bach myths. http://www.classicstoday.com/features/f1_0900.asp

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 3 Dec 2002 3:40 pm

Jeff, yes it would take anyone quite awhile to learn all that stuff you mentioned. We're talking about a few hundred years of musical variations on the basics. But all classical music derives from simple folk music. It's still just the basics any E9 player knows, plus some other stuff.

My point is that before getting into formal music theory training, the basic E9 player is already a leg up on most classical music students (I'm talking about harmony and chord progressions, not about simply reading musical symbols). Except for the piano, classical musicians play strings and horns that play only single note melodies, harmony lines, and counterpoints. They don't need to know any theory. They simply learn to read the music well. You don't need to have a clue about what harmonies and counterpoints the other musicians in the orchestra are playing, you just play your part as written.

A young student, with practice, can learn to play, and even memorize, very complicated stuff, without knowing any of the theory. After 5 years of piano, when I was 13, I could read and play very complicated Bach, Mozart and Beethoven piano pieces, without using any theory or even knowing various scales and chord progressions from memory. It's all about reading. You can play in the key of C# without knowing the scales and chords in that key. The key signature tells you the sharps or flats to use, and you just play what is written. The composer knew all the theory and put it there for you.

At some point it does help to get some experience with the various scales and chord progressions in the various keys, especially when playing in odd keys. But, once you learn to read well, you can play anything simply by reading the music without knowing any theory.

If you play by ear instead of reading, then you need to know theory. An that's how all steelers play. They learn a lot of basic theory by necessity. The rest of theory is just more of the same. You've already got the concept of chord progressions and scales in an instinctual way that classical students who only play by reading do not have. They have great difficulty going from doing everything by reading to playing by ear.

One of the neat and unique things about steel is that once you have learned one key, you know them all. You learn to hit the chord strings and pick the scale and melodies at a particular fret. Then to play the same thing in any key, you just move the bar to a different fret. What you do with the strings, pedals and knees is the same at the new fret. No other instrument is like that (except electric keyboards that can now transpose to any key while you play like in the key of C). All other instruments, when you change keys, you have a completely different set of notes all the way up the scale. To play in different keys without reading music, you have to memorize the scales and chords for all 12 keys (or at least the several keys you are likely to have to play in).

To read classical music, you don't need to know much theory (although it does help, especially for sight reading in strange keys for the first time). But to play steel by ear, the way we all do, you have to learn a lot of basic theory, whether or not you realize it and give it all the technically correct terminology. I learned more theory the first week I played pedal steel, than in 5 years of piano, and 7 years of sax. For those instruments I can read, but only know chords and scales in two or three keys. On pedal steel, I can play basic chords and scales in any key, but I can't read a note.

Roy Thomson · Post by **Roy Thomson** » 3 Dec 2002 5:04 pm

When I studied classical guitar back in the
80's for five years it was surprising to note that the early composers did not think in terms of Chords. In fact stated chords did not then nor even now formulate a part of Classical Guitar music instruction.It would be interesting to know how the minds of those classical masters worked behind their music. When I play I am always
thinking chords. Maybe they did too but with a different mental terminoligy.
I like to play some of it but I stick with the lighter works.

------------------
<A HREF="http://www.clictab.com/royt/tabmenu.htm ... abmenu.htm
</A>

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 3 Dec 2002 7:38 pm

This might be the real foundation of the classical theory that you guys are talking about.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039300277 2/qid=1038972291/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6518578-3100128?v=glance&s=books

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Editorial Reviews

Ingram
The most celebrated book on counterpoint is Fux's great theoretical work GRADUS AD PARNASSUM. Since its appearance in 1725, it has been used by and has directly influenced the work of many of the great composers, including J.S. Bach, Haydn, and Beethoven. Originally written in Latin, this work has been translated in to the principal European languages. The present translation by Alfred Mann is the first faithful rendering in English, presenting the essence of Fux's teachings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff,
Where the heck did you find out about the double harmonic major scale ? That is some obscure and barely functional information even for hard core classical composition students ! For those of you wondering it a sort of arab sounding scale that can be used over a (classical) neopolitan aug 6 chord or (jazz) altered dom 7 chord or for you guys that play E9 :
<pre>
string
5 3 2
6 3 2B 3B
7
8 2L 3
9 3
10 3A

</pre>
Its that chord in the middle.

Bob[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 03 December 2002 at 08:42 PM.]

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 3 Dec 2002 8:58 pm

Where the heck did you find out about the double harmonic major scale ? That is some obscure and barely functional information even for hard core classical composition students

Bob, I cannot answer your remark because I have absolutely no idea at what you are getting at. Please reread my post. It clearly makes a point about how I feel it is unreasonable to compare what a a classical theorist knows to a steel player. Toward that end, I list a number of theoretical points. You grabbed one, and are attempting to make some point. I can't tell if you are trying to refute something I said, add some additional insight, or whatever.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 3 Dec 2002 9:14 pm

For those of you wondering it a sort of arab sounding scale that can be used over a (classical) neopolitan aug 6 chord or (jazz) altered dom 7

Oh, and by the way, you are over-complicating your description of that chord in the center. The modern interpretation of that chord (which is what would interest steel players), it would very rarely be considered an aug6. That would cause more confusion than clarification amoung modern players applying theory. It is a C#7, which is a tri-tone substitution for the G7 chord which would resolve to the C chord. I'm not sure "where the heck" you are finding your theory information, but nothing that I've researched would call that chord an "altered" dominant. This is a technicality, but from the point of view of a G7, the C# note is "diminished" in nature and the numerous descriptions of an altered dominant that I have read require there to be at least one altered augmented note (#9 or b13). [This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 03 December 2002 at 09:19 PM.]

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 3 Dec 2002 9:23 pm

Earnest (or others),
Would you please offer some tips and suggestions on how to best go about learning to read on steel? I find it such slow-going, since the same note can appear in so many places, even without the pedals and KLs and then when you add those in... well!

Appreciate any tips!
Jimbeaux[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 03 December 2002 at 09:24 PM.]

Gordon Borland · Post by **Gordon Borland** » 3 Dec 2002 10:38 pm

When I see a keyboard or a guitar neck I see mathamatics. When I hear the melody I picture a chordal structure to keep under it and support it. That comes from a formal study of music theory I guess. When I listen to classical music like Bach or Motzart my enjoyment comes from understanding
the genius of how they took the melody over the course of the progression. Chopin, List,
and the more "romantic" composers are my favorite because of their art of resolving dissonance and their use of quite and loud.
When I was a kid I imprinted to hillbilly music because thats what I was exposed to and thats what they called it then. So when I hear Don kick off cheating heart or the start of a Bob Wills swing or such like that I always pointed to the steel player and said
"I want to be that guy" because of the expression and emotion the steel enabled him to use. I did not get a steel gutiar until
I got to my late fortys because I could never aford one or dare to think I could play one. I took lessons from Denny Mathis
and even got invited to play in a band. Iam so very lucky because of the absolute pleasure I get being on the bandstand and when I get a chance to take a ride on a tear jerker I just become one with my rig and pour every ounce of emotion I can muster into
my want to and just enjoy what comes out of the amp. What a wonderful tool for expression
the steel gutiar is. Iam not suprised at all
to see these kinds of post on this subject in this fourm. What a great topic and if you are still reading this far down my post maybe I said what I was trying to which was dont ever let reading music interfere with your playing.
[This message was edited by Gordon Borland on 03 December 2002 at 10:47 PM.]

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 3 Dec 2002 10:59 pm

all classical music derives from simple folk music. It's still just the basics any E9 player knows, plus some other stuff.

David, I agree with 99% of your post, but I must differ with you on this statement. When I play all the orchestral parts of a piece, as is did in Firebird, I see what the composer is doing in a way that a player who only plays one part cannot. I KNOW what Stravinsky's harmonic thinking was when he wrote the Firebird, and trust me, it wasn't 1, 4, and 5 chords. It wasn't even major or minor chords as we know them.

Likewise the piece I just finished has a section where the chords were based on stacking fourths together instead of thirds.

Earlier I used the analogy of calculus and arithmetic. That analogy apples here too. Folk music and country music and classical music of an earlier period of time all use simple triad based harmonies, 1, 4 and 5 chords, etc. The 20th century composers are LIGHT YEARS a head of this.

There is a book by composer Nickolas Slonimsky called the Thesaurus of Scales and Chords or something like that. When I tried to read it I was lost on page one. Slonimsky's concepts are that advanced. (BTW Slonimsky lived to be 101, and one of his students was Frank Zappa.)

I did an article in microtonal music for SGW and got exposed to musicians and composers who are working with scales of 19 and 31 notes to the octave. The late Ivor Derrig, who passed away shortly after I interviewed him, had a home made steel (no pedals) that was 6 feet long, with 20 strings, all tuned to low C for a massive chorus effect. That instrument has several sets of frets, painted in different colors. Each set was for a different microtonal scale including 19 notes to the octave, which seems to be a favorite among microtonal players. Derrig also had a Fender stringmaster, on which he also had painted different frets to mark microtonal scales.

Harry Partch, used a 43 note to the octave system. Partch first invented the 43 note system, then invented approximately 30 instruments capable of playing all these notes, and then wrote a bunch of compositions for them. Among the instruments Partch invented was a pedal steel guitar like instrument called a Surrogate Kithera, in which a glass rod similar to a steel bar was placed UNDER the strings and moved up and down along the neck, but where the player could also depress the string behind the bar, causing it to go sharp, almost the exact same way our pedals do. The Surrogate Kithera resembeled a modern steel guitar so much, it even had 2 necks

In terms of complex musical theory, The stuff these guys did and are doing is leaving us in the dust.
[This message was edited by Mike Perlowin on 03 December 2002 at 11:17 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 3 Dec 2002 11:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They don't need to know any theory. They simply learn to read the music well. You don't need to have a clue about what harmonies and counterpoints the other musicians in the orchestra are playing, you just play your part
as written.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This couldn't be further from the truth. In every line in every piece of western music there is a hierarchy of important notes and notes of lesser importance. The player has to know how to analyze what he or she is playing and how it all fits together and where it's going. It's what separates the great players from the mechanics. All of the great players study and analyze every aspect of the pieces they play.

Classical music theory covers the major, harmonic minor, melodic minor, double harmonic major and minor scales, all the modes of the scales (Dorian, Lydian, etc.), counterpoint, the theory of many kinds of cadences/resolutions (the IV-V-I being the most common, but there are a couple of dozen others I believe), and many other things.

I would add that music theory covers a lot more than this, these are just some of the tools, theory is more about how does it all fit together, why does it fit that way and how does it relate to all of the music that preceded it and where is it going.

But all classical music derives from simple folk music.

Very little classical music derives from folk music. The reason why there is so much church music is because the church and the royalty had all the money. If a composer wanted to get paid, that's who he wrote for and those people didn't want to hear folk music, in fact they were contemptuous of the masses. I can't think of any piece of classical music in the 20th century that would have derived from folk music. All of the 12-tone or "set-technique" pieces are about structure, in fact Boulez was quoted as saying "I don't care what it sounds like, I only care about how it is constructed" or something to that effect. That's a long way from folk music. Folk music is about melody and harmony and these are not important issues in 20th century classical music. Actually, the emphasis on melody over harmony that we are so familiar with today doesn't really happen until the mid 18th century. There is a difference between lines that create harmonies and single line melody over harmony.[This message was edited by chas smith on 04 December 2002 at 12:57 AM.]

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 4 Dec 2002 10:40 am

Jeff,
You are right about the Jazz chord. It is a tri tone sub chord for the most part. One professor I had called those chords altered. In classical theory the aug 6 chord is a big part of theory training. Its the first big break from straight diatonic harmony that isn't just called a passing tone.

I'll work up a bio for my edumacation stuff at some point for you if you want

Bob

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 4 Dec 2002 11:35 am

edumacation

Please leave your spelling teacher off the bio.

BTW, I guess my point was that once you start tabbing for the steel, as you did in your post, and are addressing the Forum audience, as you did in your post, then you've advanced from classical theorization to modern music (jazz, pop, rock, etc.) It is within those contexts that the literal definitions do not always agree with practical application (i.e the "popular" way of looking at certain things strays away from traditional academia). Your usage of the technical terms "aug6" and "altered dominant", while technically correct, would not, IMO, be recognized by the large majority of people who would tend to use those kinds of terms in every day use. .. Jeff

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 4 Dec 2002 1:33 pm

Okay, Mike and Chas, you guys caught me being overly simplistic. I was just trying to encourage steelers to not be afraid of theory, and also demystify the connection between academic music theory and the playing of classical music.

Of course it's true that only the earlier classical music was based on folk music. And of course even then they had to disguise that from some of the snootier patrons. Another thing they did was incorporate folk music from exotic clutures, like Mozart's Turkish march, tarrantellas, and such. Apparently exotic folk origins were more acceptable than the local stuff. So I was talking about the origins of classical music, not from the late 19th century on.

But even as late as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Dvorak there was a tradition of starting from a folk song and elaborating variations. Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony has a movement that starts with "In a Field a Birch Tree Stood," and Dvorak did the "Going Home" thing in the New World Symphony (although I understand he made it up himself to sound like an old folk song).

But, yeah, from Stravinsky on they were off into pure theory and new sounds. Then again, if they considered jazz and other world musics, particularly primitive music, "folk", then they were still getting a lot of inspiration from folk music (Le Sacre du Printemps). But as you said, they went miles beyond that.

Now about playing from theory versus playing by ear and reading - I was getting the impression that some people who had studied little or no music theory were thinking extensive theory knowledge was a requirement for playing, or even listening to, classical music. Of course any professional level classical musician of any instrument has studied plenty of theory, and they use it in their reading and playing (we're not talking about composing here). But plenty of student musicians can learn and play very complicated stuff before they get all the theory under their belt. And that doesn't mean they play mechanically - they can still put their heart and their trained ear into the music.

I would say that as you listen to somebody playing a sonata or concerto, you would be hard pressed to say how much theory they knew or used in their playing. Even composers can write very complicated stuff, because they want that particular sound, without necessarily knowing the academic theory behind what they are doing. You can pick out the melodies and harmonies you want by ear on a piano, write it down (or have a computer write it for you), and then convert that to parts for other instruments, without knowing any theory at all.

The same is true for jazz. Jazz uses much more complicated music theoretically than country and pop. But most of that came from musicians who were striving for sounds they wanted, not for theoretical constructs they wanted. Sure, some jazz musicians knew some theory, and did their own theoretical explorations, but most jazz was arrived at by ear, not from theory. The fact that academics can go back after the fact and tell us all the complicated theory that describes what Charlie Parker, or Coltrane or Ornette Coleman were doing, does not mean that those guys were thinking out every note in theory before they played it. They played from their ears and their hearts, and they had magic fingers trained by years of practice that could play what their ears and hears wanted.

Now composers, especially modern classical ones, are different. They do write a lot of stuff just based on the theoretical structures, possibly without knowing exactly what it will sound like. But a lot of composers are amazing at being able to know what the structures will sound like. In the old days when things were less dissonant, the composers were really good at that. Beethoven knew what the structures he was writing would sound like - that's why he could keep composing whole symphonies even after he was deaf.

At any rate, I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about. These are just some thoughts. This is a great thread.

And I'm with Jim Cohen, if anyone knows any tips on how to read music on a pedal steel, let's hear them. The major problem is that there are so many ways to play the same note or chord. To a lesser extent this is also a problem with 6-string guitars. How do they deal with this problem?

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 4 Dec 2002 3:52 pm

Jeff,
The classical world looks at chords a bit different than jazz. The aug 6 thing makes sense from a classical voice leading point of view. Classical harmony classes still often revolve around figured bass methods of analysis.

What I was wondering about was how you learned about the more obscure scales. I'm not trying to get at anything. I was just wondering a bit about your theory influences.

You dudes that say you want to read:

How many hours per day do you practice reading ? Its hard but can be done with a bit of work like everything else.
My reading has gotten pretty weak these days because I have too much other work I need to keep up with. There is no big secret to it. You just need to put in the hours.

Bob

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 4 Dec 2002 6:35 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>if anyone knows any tips on how to read music on a pedal steel, let's hear them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote an article about this.If somebody here can host it on their web site I'll E-mail it to them so they can post a link.

Whoever is willing to do this, please E-mail me.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 5 Dec 2002 4:19 am

just wondering a bit about your theory influences

Mostly, but not totally, from the Internet. Jazz theorists, authors, forums (including right here!). Things that anyone can find just by poking around.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 5 Dec 2002 12:38 pm

But plenty of student musicians can learn and play very complicated stuff before they get all the theory under their belt. And that doesn't mean they play mechanically - they can still put their heart and their trained ear into the music.

I was one of them. I've been actively involved in music since I was 8 yrs old. It's what I studied and I think it's one of the most meaningful things one can do in their lifetime. As an aside, I once heard a Composer describe orchestra players as "art supplies", "you want to hear art, you need art supplies."

I would say that as you listen to somebody playing a sonata or concerto, you would be hard pressed to say how much theory they knew or used in their playing. Even composers can write very complicated stuff, because they want that particular sound, without necessarily knowing the academic theory behind what they are doing. You can pick out the melodies and harmonies you want by ear on a piano, write it down (or have a computer write it for you), and then convert that to parts for other instruments, without knowing any theory at all...I was just trying to encourage steelers to not be afraid of theory, and also demystify the connection between academic music theory and the playing of classical music.

I'm sure that your intentions are honorable and anything that will get people involved in the arts should be encouraged. What I took issue with, and please don't take this as a personal attack, is that one doesn't need to know anything to play classical music. You just play the notes and there it is. "It's so easy, anyone can do it". I'll admit to being a little oversensative about this and I'm sure that you didn't intend to be irreverant.

We live in a culture that's dominated by the entertainment business. A business that is predicated on an endless supply of insubstantial and disposable products. The movie or show or CD we bought/watched this week is soon forgotten and we buy the one that's for sale next week and so on and so on. So there is a constant blizzard and overload of information, most of which is about nothing. It trains us to expect to be 'spoon-fed' our entertainment, "just sit back and get comfortable, we'll bring it to you", it's effortless, it's without substance, we never get enough and there is always room for more.

I have a close friend who teaches music composition on the graduate and post-graduate level. We were recently commiserating and he was complaining of how he's getting students who are almost completely ignorant of the literature beyond what they've heard on the radio (Classical 24). In his class he was making a point and used Webern as an example. He was then looking at a room of blank faces. One student had heard of Webern, but didn't know anything about him. This isn't high school music appreciation, these are college level composition students.

I don't know the answer. The future of the steel guitar is a recurrant theme on the forum. I suspect that part of the concern is because it's such a difficult instrument to master and that only the most obsessive among us will make the effort to learn it. By the same token my concern is that the composers to follow will be too unmotivated to carry on. Ok, that's my diatribe for the day.

Dave Van Allen · Post by **Dave Van Allen** » 5 Dec 2002 2:20 pm

Mike Perlowin's article on Reading Music on E9th Pedal Steel, originally written several years ago for Steel Guitar World magazine but never printed is now here

it is in MS Word document format.

ebb · Post by **ebb** » 5 Dec 2002 6:17 pm

this blew my drawers off the other day
Naive and Sentimental Music
http://www.earbox.com/frames-html/low-frames.html [This message was edited by ebb on 05 December 2002 at 06:19 PM.]

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 5 Dec 2002 6:53 pm

Thanks Dave for posting the link.

I think it's safe to say that just as for every major league Nashville session player there are a hundred or so of us weekend warriors, so too, for every serious professional classical musician, there are hundreds of amateurs who can play what they read, and who may even play in community orchestras, but who have not studied theory.

We've all met people like that. They play music for the sheer enjoyment of it, without worrying about how much (or if) they're being paid.

The serious professionals do study theory. Perhaps some of those who play as a hobby do too. My guess is most don't.

Gerald Menke · Post by **Gerald Menke** » 6 Dec 2002 9:25 am

Dear Chas,

Wow, your anecdote about your colleague mentioning Webern at the college level and getting little or no response was really heartbreaking!! How can this be? Hearing Anton Webern for the first time is an experience I'll never forget, it was like someone letting me in on a really amazing secret: here is a really different way to compose music...anyone ever tried a pointillistic approach on PSG? That sounds like a job for Bob Hoffnar...Thanks for your reasoned, thoughtful post Chas.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 6 Dec 2002 10:59 am

Rob, thanks for that MP3...that was a beautiful interpretation of one of my favorite classical pieces. Nice playing!