"Inverted" Picardy Third?

I assume you're referring to me, Corbin.

Ok, fair enough. Even if minimalism isn't necessarily "cutting-edge" (which is a vague term, by the way), it is clearly still successful (John Adams, Phillip Glass, etc.), and the point was that you can still use simple, tonal, "I-IV-V" ideas and be successful (of course the music is much more complex than that on the surface). For instance, John Adams uses chordal progressions in his music (I hear I-iii a lot in his pieces). He's still alive and well, and successful.

But like I mentioned it's not as simple as just I-IV-V. Ravich put it nicely, "Just because music has ties to music of the past does not mean that it must be restricted to the realms of past centuries."

As for your second sentence, I hope that you didn't get the impression that I was being personal with you. I'm not. I don't think that have a "lack of knowledge", and neither do I pretend to have a "good argument". I'm just offering my opinion in contrast to yours so that Chem. may see both sides of the coin. But if you think that your opinion is absolute fact then please, prove it.

Maybe if I write with gratuitous cynicism I'll have a better argument...yeah, that was personal.

I assume you're referring to me, Corbin.

Ok, fair enough. Even if minimalism isn't necessarily "cutting-edge" (which is a vague term, by the way), it is clearly still successful (John Adams, Phillip Glass, etc.), and the point was that you can still use simple, tonal, "I-IV-V" ideas and be successful (of course the music is much more complex than that on the surface). For instance, John Adams uses chordal progressions in his music (I hear I-iii a lot in his pieces). He's still alive and well, and successful.

But like I mentioned it's not as simple as just I-IV-V. Ravich put it nicely, "Just because music has ties to music of the past does not mean that it must be restricted to the realms of past centuries."

As for your second sentence, I hope that you didn't get the impression that I was being personal with you. I'm not. I don't think that have a "lack of knowledge", and neither do I pretend to have a "good argument". I'm just offering my opinion in contrast to yours so that Chem. may see both sides of the coin. But if you think that your opinion is absolute fact then please, prove it.

Maybe if I write with gratuitous cynicism I'll have a better argument...yeah, that was personal.

See, I don't need to say anything because John Adams STILL isn't cutting edge for music today... and that just goes with what I already said. It is okay. Things have to be opposite of each other to be on two sides of a coin, and anything I believe and KNOW, well... it has nothing to do with talking about being cutting edge while using I-IV-V.

You rats all talk about tonality and atonality.. when they are both HISTORY. Seriously... everyone should go get a theory degree... because tons of people here aren't composers at all... at least not in a "cutting edge sense," or an academically "respectable" sense, or "trendy," or "aware" of what's going on today in music.

I don't care about succesful... I care about people trying to act like there's a backlash at the way people compose. Compose like you're dead and no one will like you. Compose like you live in 2009, and yeah... you'll get jobs, girls and money.

Just get with it.

Compose like you live in 2009, and yeah... you'll get jobs, girls and money.

Just get with it.

It's the 21st century...there are a million "accepted" styles in art muzak today.

...cough.

For those of you saying this has never been down before, if you look on wikipedia the first paragraph contains the following:

"The "reverse" Picardy third, where an expected major chord is replaced by its minor equivalent, is almost never used at the end of a work - an example of this rarity is in Mendelssohn's Characteristic Piece Op. 7 No. 7 in E. A similar effect, often used, is created with a deceptive cadence in the relative minor key (for example, in C major, replacing the expected tonic chord with A minor); this effect utilises the lowered third but without affirming the tonic key."

So maybe it should be called the Mendely 3rd?

None of which are baroque, classical, romantic, post-romantic, or even early 20th century.

None of which I mentioned in the first place.

EDIT:

Not that those are really even "styles" to begin with...

See, I don't need to say anything because John Adams STILL isn't cutting edge for music today... and that just goes with what I already said. It is okay. Things have to be opposite of each other to be on two sides of a coin, and anything I believe and KNOW, well... it has nothing to do with talking about being cutting edge while using I-IV-V.

You rats all talk about tonality and atonality.. when they are both HISTORY. Seriously... everyone should go get a theory degree... because tons of people here aren't composers at all... at least not in a "cutting edge sense," or an academically "respectable" sense, or "trendy," or "aware" of what's going on today in music.

I don't care about succesful... I care about people trying to act like there's a backlash at the way people compose. Compose like you're dead and no one will like you. Compose like you live in 2009, and yeah... you'll get jobs, girls and money.

Just get with it.

For one, I did not say that John Adams was "cutting edge". In fact I said that he wasn't, but that he is still successful today. He gets jobs, and money (don't know about girls) and composes music in the present day, but as we both agree, is not "cutting edge". So I don't understand your argument. Oh, and by the way, imagine how much Bach would be making today: Radio, TV, CDs, Movies, even weddings :D

Let's assume that you're the "cutting edge" composer in question. You eschew tonality and atonality because they're things of the past. What is left? The tacet void of space. Let's get rid of instruments too while we're at it, those are things of the past. Instead, you, the omniscient composer, will imagine a "composition" and after its completion instruct the audience to recreate the "composition" in their own minds via telepathy. I'm sorry I was enjoying myself :P. But can't you see what I'm saying?

Well there clearly is a "backlash" at the way people compose because you stated previously that, "people who actually knows(sic) how non-functional and functional harmony WORK do a lot more than people who don't... and I mean do a lot more GOOD work." (you also commented about "using brains effectively", implying that those who supported the OP's chord don't). My accusations of "backlash" are well-founded.

Look, if you're really interested in music then YOU should get a theory degree. If you think you're better than us "rats" then prove yourself, provide us with substance. If you think that ("classical") music is somehow remotely about success, money, possession, and fame, then you're incredibly mistaken. I and others aren't planning on majoring in music so we can be famous or even succesful one day. We play and compose because we love to. Music is a beautiful thing and when you try to stifle that beauty by suggesting that one should just "get with it", do it for the money, or not even simply use a specific chord, then you sour it for everyone. You and others think you know everything, and you parade around your cynicism and supposed knowledge of all things "cutting-edge", putting down everything in disagreement. I don't know everything and I don't pretend to. I'm not even 1/100th of a composer that the worst published composer is/was, even 1/1000th. But I can tell you that "getting with it" will get you nowhere you'll want to be.

Let's assume that you're the "cutting edge" composer in question. You eschew tonality and atonality because they're things of the past. What is left? The tacet void of space. Let's get rid of instruments too while we're at it, those are things of the past. Instead, you, the omniscient composer, will imagine a "composition" and after its completion instruct the audience to recreate the "composition" in their own minds via telepathy. I'm sorry I was enjoying myself :P. But can't you see what I'm saying?.

Just so everyone's clear; this has already been done.

None of which are baroque, classical, romantic, post-romantic, or even early 20th century.

Where are you getting this from? What do you even mean by that?

Yeah, I know... kinda funny since I performed a moderately impressionistic piece last fall and it was pretty well received. It also helped me get into to school. My orchestra director and orchestra members also rather enjoyed the piece I got read last month, and I wrote it in a mere late 19th century language... but I digress.

Nico: "I think he was just trying to say if you want to write music that will bring something new to the table... "

I just think Corbin doesn't understand that there exist people that actually aren't too concerned with being innovators. In fact, incidental music isn't particularly innovative at all... most of the hit soundtracks I can think of off the top of my head sound like they could have been written in the early 20th century. The big film composers are making big bucks without being anywhere near as experiemental and innovative as concert music composers today. People are happy listening to 100+ year old music, why not write more and appease them? There are these two groups of people - people that are happy listening to classical music of past styles regardless of when it was written, and other people that are looking for something completely new and "cutting edge." People in the world that enjoy "old" type music outnumber people that want the "new" in music, so get over it. Who are you composing music for anyways, the general public, or a handful of theory professors in top tier schools? I think it's you Corbin that seems to be stuck in the centuries past. Today we're free to compose music of any stylistic era we please and people will still accept it. It's not the 19th century anymore where people aren't interested in style galant, madrigals and older styles. We have a choice now, let people make their own decision on what they want to write. If you want to push music forward, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. So quit souring it for everyone else, as RavingSpleen put it.

OH YEAH, and if you want to bring in the idea that it is imperative to be successful, it would seem that Yanni is an ideal role model. ;)

Yeah, I know... kinda funny since I performed a moderately impressionistic piece last fall and it was pretty well received. It also helped me get into to school. My orchestra director and orchestra members also rather enjoyed the piece I got read last month, and I wrote it in a mere late 19th century language... but I digress.

Nico: "I think he was just trying to say if you want to write music that will bring something new to the table... "

I just think Corbin doesn't understand that there exist people that actually aren't too concerned with being innovators. In fact, incidental music isn't particularly innovative at all... most of the hit soundtracks I can think of off the top of my head sound like they could have been written in the early 20th century. The big film composers are making big bucks without being anywhere near as experiemental and innovative as concert music composers today. People are happy listening to 100+ year old music, why not write more and appease them? There are these two groups of people - people that are happy listening to classical music of past styles regardless of when it was written, and other people that are looking for something completely new. People in the world that enjoy "old" type music outnumber people that want the "new" in music, so get over it. Who are you composing music for anyways, the general public, or a handful of theory professors in top tier schools? I think it's you Corbin that seems to be stuck in the centuries past. Today we're free to compose music of any stylistic era we please and people will still accept it. It's not the 19th century anymore where people aren't interested in style galant, madrigals and older styles. We have a choice now, let people make their own decision on what they want to write. If you want to push music forward, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. So quit souring it for everyone else, as RavingSpleen put it.

OH YEAH, and if you want to bring in the idea that it is imperative to be successful, it would seem that Yanni is an ideal role model. ;)

Since when has appealing to the masses ever been a good idea in art?

Well, the Star Wars theme (for one example) isn't serial, is it? It had to have appeal, and apparently something atonal didn't quite make that cut. And now everybody knows it and orchestras have done medleys on it. It became popular and became a very profitable and altogether successful theme. That's because it appealed to the masses... so it was a good idea, I suppose. Same thing with somebody like Whitacre. He's popular because... he's well... popular. Obviously he profits from this status and people go to him for commissions. If you wanna get somewhere, it's in your best interest to appeal to as many folk as possible so they will eventually come back to you.

lmao...

As soon as you said "two groups of people"... fail.

Yes, well, attempting to have a conversation with you was clearly worthwhile.

Well, the Star Wars theme (for one example) isn't serial, is it? It had to have appeal, and apparently something atonal didn't quite make that cut.

Clearly, there is only tonal and atonal. And they're in total disagreement with each other.

And now everybody knows it and orchestras have done medleys on it.

It became popular and became a very profitable and altogether successful theme. That's because it appealed to the masses... so it was a good idea, I suppose.

Same thing with somebody like Whitacre. He's popular because... he's well... popular.

Obviously he profits from this status and people go to him for commissions. If you wanna get somewhere, it's in your best interest to appeal to as many folk as possible so they will eventually come back to you.

So Salieri is worse than Mozart because more people know Mozart? So Ornette is better than Ayler because more people have bought Ornette Coleman albums?

Really? The vox populi and test-of-time arguments?

....REALLY?

Hi graham,

Picardy third is a wrong translation from the french term f "tierce picarde".

Picardie is a French county. Picard(e) is an adjective describing what is from picardie.

Besides,in British English Picardy third is named "Third of Picardy" which is a better translation but also ,in my opinion,inaccurate. As a matter of fact "picart" meant "Sharp" in old French so it is a better explanation of the origin of this major third ending a minor piece and known beyond french borders.

The reason of ending with a major third stems from an old rule of couterpoint so the reverse of a picardy third would have no sense.

Hope this will help

Cheers

First of all, granted, Corbin is being a little anal about this whole thing lately, but...he's got something up there, so I'm going take what he says at face value. And I don't think that's what he was trying to say. I think he was just trying to say if you want to write music that will bring something new to the table, you obviously have to do something, well...new. But if you're a hobbyist, then obviously that doesn't matter.

Well, of course. I definitely got sidetracked but yes, you're right: if you want to do something new you have to do new things. But my argument (probably wasn't clear enough) was that you can do new things with old things...after all that's what composers do. The OP is suggessting that an old thing be used in a new way, and I think it rash to shoot that idea down.

And lol @ Voce, I din't know that. Who thought that one up?

Edit: Oh, and one more thing. I think it's great to use older forms, as Enigmus mentioned (madrigal, dance suite, etc.). But I don't believe (at least now) that writing in an outdated way is the best plan. (Look up John Williams's clarinet concerto; I think you'll realize that there's a less "commercial" side to even him).

lmao...

As soon as you said "two groups of people"... fail.

If you care to actually explain your sentiment, I'll listen. :dry:

Clearly, there is only tonal and atonal. And they're in total disagreement with each other.

There is music that uses tonal centers (no matter how obscure), and there is music that simply does not. They can also be mixed to varying degrees. So sure, I would say there is only tonal and atonal. Feel free to explain my fault, I'm open to correction.

So if recognizability is quality... where does that leave us?

Wouldn't you be happier if everybody was always talking about YOUR piece? Humming your themes as they washed the dishes? If everybody knows your piece and likes it, you must have done something right. I personally believe that if my music does not appeal to anybody, than I am vehemently failing as a composer. I want other people to enjoy my music - it is my choice to bring it to them for their enjoyment. Music isn't purely science, it's supposed to be art.

Wait, didn't the board whale on Exan for making the exact same argument? So you're saying the music has nothing to do with his popularity then. So Salieri is worse than Mozart because more people know Mozart? So Ornette is better than Ayler because more people have bought Ornette Coleman albums? Really? The vox populi and test-of-time arguments?

We all know who Borodin is. Who knows the name Anatol Liadov? How many people have heard his music? The fellow was depressed by the fact that he wasn't receiving the amount of recognition as some of his contemporaries were. Because of that he lost confidence in himself and his compositional efforts dwindled. I don't know where you got that I was saying music has nothing to do with popularity. I think it has a lot to do with it. I find it simple - if you want to be a successful composer, you can pursue a certain criteria. Maybe you want to make money. Maybe you want to be remembered in history. Maybe you simply want others to enjoy your music. If somebody writes music that they consider amazing but it never gains any recognition, they won't attain any of those particular criteria. Yes, Mozart was more successful because look at his recognition today. Salieri doesn't even begin to reach the impact that the more popular Mozart made on music.

Clearly, there is only tonal and atonal. And they're in total disagreement with each other.

So if recognizability is quality... where does that leave us?

Wait, didn't the board whale on Exan for making the exact same argument? So you're saying the music has nothing to do with his popularity then.

So Salieri is worse than Mozart because more people know Mozart? So Ornette is better than Ayler because more people have bought Ornette Coleman albums?

Really? The vox populi and test-of-time arguments?

....REALLY?

Haha, and I said the same things without all of the quotes. Just let the kidsss do what they want. ;-)

Haha, and I said the same things without all of the quotes. Just let the kidsss do what they want. ;-)

The kids take offense to your condescension.

Of course anything is "accepted". Nobody's going to hurt you if you write music in pastiches. But no history book will care about you in the future. And since you don't care about that, then really, this entire debate is pointless.

Trying to define history before it has been written?

History books of the future will likely care more about Madonna than they will about Steve Reich.

The kids take offense to your condescension.

As long as I'm writing good music, it doesn't matter... does it?

I'll talk to anyone about this topic in great detail over AIM.

schwanendreher89

Cool.

As long as I'm writing good music, it doesn't matter... does it?

I could swear I've heard that from a different person before.

But if it's not a tongue-in-cheek jab at said person (I'm too slow to know-), mine answer is-

Yes, it does.

Writing good music (which is subjective anyway, I could think your music is total scraggy) doesn't mean you can be a deeeekkkk.

I could swear I've heard that from a different person before.

But if it's not a tongue-in-cheek jab at said person (I'm too slow to know-), mine answer is-

Yes, it does.

Writing good music (which is subjective anyway, I could think your music is total scraggy) doesn't mean you can be a deeeekkkk.

:-p You caught it!

Well yeah, and this topic is really silly. There's too much polarizing going on by people trying to make a "point" against "my point." But... well, they don't get it or whatever... so like I said... anyone on AIM... I'll gladly clarify what you are missing.

Of course you can never write something wholly unoriginal just as you can never write something completely new. The music I write myself I think is very archaic in lots of ways, and I think it's almost essential to include the old in the new. But to write a "new" piece of music in an "old" style is different than writing something actually new, that has elements of the old. If we uncovered some lost Mozart concerto, theoretically we've never heard it before, but because it's Mozart, we really have, see what I mean?

Yes, you're exactly right. I agree completely. It's just that I'm assuming that the OP plans on using the device in a modern idiom; otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all to use it, as people have previously said.

Well yeah, and this topic is really silly. There's too much polarizing going on by people trying to make a "point" against "my point." But... well, they don't get it or whatever...

I think you're taking it the wrong way. We're here to learn, not to listen to you tell us how you "get it" and how things should be. I was, at first, providing an opposite opinion on the matter that the OP brought forth. I realize I've gotten a bit heated in my defense, and I apologize for that. But I see things your way. I understand what you're saying and it could very well be true. I don't think that you fully comprehend what my argument is, so you're inclined to think that it's "wrong". I'm just suggesting that the OP give it a try, and that it could possibly be successful based on the points I've brought up.

To be clear: they will also likely care more about John Williams and Hanz Zimmer than Steve Reich.