@Andrew I like that - leading and flattened leading.
I've been getting kind of obsessed over the last few years with leading notes. Check out Conway Twitty's "Hello Darling" for some great leading note (or flattened leading note) singing.
I put that song on repeat and drive my neighbors crazy.
Leading tone (not leading note) is a standard term in classical music. It indicates a specific function - the leading tone leads up to the tonic by a semitone. The subtonic, because it is two semitones away, lacks that tendency. It's just the note below (sub) the tonic. These usages go back several centuries and are central to the development of "western" (i.e., European) music. =========== Winslow
The way I remember which scale degree name is which is by sorting the key into the circle of fourths. The names seem to make more sense to me in that order.
B - 7 - Leading tone E - 3 - Mediant A - 6 - Submediant D - 2 - Super tonic G - 5 - Dominant C - 1 - Tonic F - 4 - Subdominant Bb- 7b- Subtonic
The mediant is called the mediant because it's midway between the tonic and the dominant. The submediant is the mirror image of this between the subdominant and the tonic above. ---------- Andrew. -----------------------------------------
words words words....trying to describe how music works. Sometimes all the words can confuse the issue.
I like to think of the leading tone as any note 1/2 step below the note you are aiming for....the leading tone seems to have a gravitational pull towards the note you aim for - kinda like a brief stop on the way there.
For instance, Mutha of All Blues Licks is based, in part, on that 4 hole inhale bend which seems to want to resolve up to that 4 hole inhale - tension/release (the basis for most if not all of music). I call this a leading tone, too. The concept is easy to understand. Don't wish to get into a semantics debate regarding "it must be 1/2 step below the tonic" or some such direction.
@iceman - leading note/tone has a general meaning (the one you are using) and a specific meaning (the one the thread is about) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading-tone ---------- Andrew. -----------------------------------------
As a teacher of all things musical, I prefer not to confuse students in discussing concepts like this at great length. The intellectuals may want to get very wordy and debate specifics here and there, but I prefer to keep it simple and convey the idea in an easy to grasp format - especially to folk that are more interested in playing music rather than discussing the rules/definitions.
Would a proponent of adopting the use of these labels please make a statement as to how spending the time learning and understanding this framework and the relevant labels would benefit players, blues harmonica players in particular?
This Western European pedagogy seems at odds with blues and with improvisational music in general, and more suited to the composition of classical music and songs. There are many ways to use words to describe music (the map is not the territory!) and what are the advantages of this analytic approach?
I find that with harmonica it is more productive to think of modal scales as related to positions rather than the note substitution of a b7 for a major 7 and calling them subtonic vs. leading tones. How do these names help us make music?
How can using this analytical framework of a dynamic art be useful to those on the Modern Blues Harmonica forum? ----------
A while back in a different theory thread I mentioned that a lot of beginners eyes begin to glaze over when the theory talk gets thick. This was of course met with some sarcastic derision later in the thread. Well, I'm in eye glaze territory right about now. I'm the last person to suggest one shouldn't try to learn some theory and I have stepped my game up in that area, or at least have attempted to.
I guess I'd like to see Doug's eloquently stated questions answered before I attempt to clear up the fog for myself on this one.
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Sep 29, 2017 9:45 AM
It's a case of either no theory or some theory. And if you opt for some theory, then how much? To me it's looking like it's too much whenever someone shouts "diss is fake nooz", something that, oddly, was never shouted 5 years ago when I was last around here.
---------- Andrew. -----------------------------------------
Last Edited by Andrew on Sep 29, 2017 10:23 AM
first of all, let's lose the "fake news" reference...to0 divisive and political in today's world.
second of all, theory is GREAT. Makes one a better musician...how much? Take a bite at a time and commit to a few years of study - part or full time. Most importantly, find a teacher that resonates with you and understands how to feed it to you so you swallow every bite - not stuffing so much in your mouth that you gag. ---------- The Iceman
Last Edited by The Iceman on Sep 29, 2017 11:26 AM
I 'learned' this stuff in music theory years ago, but I kind of was in the glazed over category. I've been watching a YouTuber recently though, 12tone, who goes through songs and explains what is going on in them. He uses the terminology, but sort of in a way where you learn it in context, which seems to be helping it sink in better. It gives you a context for not doing things that you've been taught to do, which can make your music more interesting. It also helps you quickly communicate with other musicians, and helps with making arrangements and songwriting.
I have sought out theory regarding music and harmonica for the last 20 years, and use theory to inform my playing.
My question asks for someone to point out the specific application to harmonica of the above concepts as opposed to the more commonly referenced major 7 or b7.
I could spend the rest of my lifespan trying to learn and internalize the plethora of pedantry generated by the academic analysis of music, including many published paradoxical professorial theories.
I don't think Ozzy used these words, just the music itself (IMHO).
What, musically, does this framework offer to a player that is useful to a harp player and not available using more familiar terminology? ----------
Theory is just as much a hobby for me guitar or harp. In other words, it's just a hobby and I don't take it too seriously. But now I can recognize things when I hear them which is helpful.
As far as the harmonica goes, learning about temperment helped me more, and the modal qualities of the positions. These things seem more specific to harp, whereas traditional theory probably helps me more with guitar.
@ValleyDuke Thanks for answering. I have no objection to being exposed to unfamiliar musical concepts. Thanks for posting!
However, I will not spend much time memorizing new terminology unless I see practical application in playing the music I enjoy with other musicians.
Locally, interval and chord numbers are very useful in communicating. Modes are unfamiliar to many (though useful to me) and while I am familiar with tonic, dominant, and subdominant, I seldom hear those designations used. The other terms above I have never heard spoken. People use interval numbers. ----------
@DougHarps Yes, I'm finally getting a grip on intervals and how important they are. We move through the music with intervals. I see this one as a good one to know for my style of music.
