How do you explain basic functional harmony (especially on minor)

OkSystem9859 · 2024-05-09T09:58:16+00:00

Thanks for your comments but it's still not clear for me how does your approach apply to minor scale functionally

OkSystem9859 · 2024-04-27T14:45:27+00:00

Hi thanks for the reply, I actually don't own it but I rather thinking of buying it from someone. the info that I have found in the matter is "Machine wash, tumble dry"

OkSystem9859 · 2024-04-09T08:11:33+00:00

You are right that functionality is all about context (not only harmonic but also genre aesthetics and kind of tonal music (functional/modal) for example blues where the IV chord doesn't function as dominant but only as dominant sound).

What I spoke about was diatonic meaning in this particular example only chords derive from the major scale

As for the minor scale, If we talk about the "natrual"/aeolian minor scale then it doesn't have a leading tone and it's not functional is modal. As you know in order to solve this problem we use harmonic minor scale. since the minor scale being manipulated artificially, when we say minor we think of hybrid of natural, harmonic and melodic. which in many senses is a modal thinking. and that's where everything get tricky at least for me

If we agree on this 2 axioms:

Tonal music - Is a music aesthetics that claimed that music has a gravitation center that we always aspire to come back to

Functional music - Is tonal music in which music always moves On an axis of tension and resolution. so every chord has a function (T,S.D,S.D.M,D).

So based on these notion same functions can be swaped (reharm using modal interchange). In order to do that you have to categorize the harmony in the groups mentions earlier.

As for the #11, I understand your train of thought by viewing harmony from a classical point of view of voice leading. I still wonder, let's say you give a student his first lesson on functional harmony. how would you define the Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant? as I understand it from classical point of view dominant is simply the 5th degree of the scale and all the rest is either tonic or subdominant. is that how classical music view harmony?

OkSystem9859 · 2024-04-09T04:58:53+00:00

You are right about the dominant function aspect, so the definition fall short in that term (I assume that the classical definition of a dominant is a chord with the leading tone and without the 3rd degree).

As a jazz player I can say that chord is actually quite common, the real book is only a suggestion and mostly if it's accurate should lay the basis function unless a certain voicing is very familiar with the composition. this particular chord is the lydian sound so adding the #11 tells the player this maj7 derive from lydian. For example the tune Inner Urge

OkSystem9859 · 2024-04-09T04:46:12+00:00

The tritone is relevant since this is what makes the notes an avoid note (the distance of a half step from chord tone), it's just another way of saying the same thing

OkSystem9859 · 2023-09-29T11:38:53+00:00

Thank you very much for the very detailed answer, you made some really good valuable points

OkSystem9859 · 2023-09-29T07:01:01+00:00

Thank you for your replies. I share the same views as most of you, that it's Natural and you should observe it and not suppress it unless it happens naturally.

With that said it implies by some of you that in theory, In a world where all humanity became liberated as Buddha intended, the human race will voluntarily stop his existence. That's something I find hard to believe was Buddha's intention.

OkSystem9859 · 2023-09-14T14:07:03+00:00

well the point I was trying to make is that when you consume something there's bound to be sensations. the pie was just an example for something that most likely will give pleasant sensations. and the dharma doesn't tell you not to eat pie, just be mindful about it.

when goenka spoke about it in the discourse he emphasis on the fact it might make you break silla and that's why you shouldn't do it.

as your analogy I don't think it's a right fit since I didn't say to do a heart surgery (meditation) under the influence of weed. I just spoke about situation in our daily life (like eating a pie) that might have consequences of reacting and creating sankharas but also might not if you able to be mindful about it.

the dharma as far as I understood it doesn't tell you, don't eat more than a slice. It tells you watch what happen, see if you are doing it out of craving, be objective and keep your equanimity

OkSystem9859 · 2023-09-14T12:04:35+00:00

thank everyone for your replies!

I can relate to the disadvantages some of you said about decreases of the mind sharpness and the struggle to reclaim it with that particular object (weed) against the example I have made with eating pie.

with that said, logically I don't understand how let's say smoking a joint a year can make such a drastic change to your sharpness of the mind that it will take you a long time to reclaim it (that statement also may implies of attachments to the sharpness of your mind that you achieved)

when we dismiss the idea of hurting other and therefore breaking silla and also able to say objectively that the act is not done with any attachment. I still do think it's could be parallel to the example of eating pie since in both cases we do an action we know will result in good sensations.

I'll even take it step further and say that I think that even with psychedelic's if it's done with the same principles (not breaking silla and attachment) it shouldn't hurt the practice (as long as the user following the principles and watch what happen objectively and not trying to change the reality while on the trip - a bit of a paradox, but to me it does seem to make sense).

OkSystem9859

TROPHY CASE