ok, no happy 200, oh well, life goes on.

Hey guys - to whoever asked, Anything with Alan Partridge in it has got to be my favourite, all time classic, new series startign tonight for all those in the UK - it's gonna be so sweet, 10pm BBC 2. As for things other people might identify with (outside of Britain) - Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Blackadder, even a bit of Red Dwarf. I loved the Naked Gun films, they ruled.

Silmarien - Changing from A Major to it's dominant.....

Well I haven't been taught this yet thoroughly, but first, notice that the only difference between the two keys is that E major (the dominant) has a D#. So you need to have a strong chord within the key of E major that has a D# in it... answer? that's right, a B major chord, probably a B7 chord. that's chord II in A major, and that chord is called "the enhanced dominant"- which basically means the dominant of the dominant.

Note: I have referred to a general composer as a he, as throughout history there have been very few female composers of prominence, partially due to sociological reasons (eg. women's place in society), and partially due to psychological reasons (eg. men tending to have more devloped parts of the brain which deal with maths, which along with imagination, whether you like it, know it or not, is undeniably linked with music)

Local Person - so isn't it that when I want to change to dominant
I just add sharp with 'full' notes and lose it with flat ones?

I'm not an expert on modulation, I'm sure clarky's post soon will cover it better than I could hope to. As you say, if you are in a sharp key (or C major) then the dominant key will have one more sharp. That sharp is the leading note in the new key, and therefore is part of it's dominant chord.

Say I'm modulating from C (no flats/sharps) to G (the dominant of C). I therefore work out that G major must have one sharp (something most of us know anyway). So, when you change into the dominant's key you add one sharp (or as you pointed out, lose a flat in a flat key).

Now, just throwing in those notes randomly isn't a great way of establishing a new key. Most composers want to make the progression from the original key to the new key as smooth as possible. So they think, what is the difference between C and G major scales? And they work out (as we just have) that the only note that is different is the F# (which was previously only F natural, in the previous key)

So when it was C there were lots of F naturals in all sorts of chords and tunes. Then, they will compose a passage (which could be any length, sometimes it's only one chord, other times it's entire musical sections) which don't have any F notes of any kind. The idea behind this is that you will forget that F is natural. Then, when the composer thinks that is long enough, he will introduce F# notes all over the place.

Another thing they want is for it to be obvious that they are now in G major. The simple, most obvious way of doing that is to have the dominant 7th of G major, followed by a G major chord (on a strong beat). This is because it contains lots of unstable intervals (eg. the diminished 5th), and lots of unstable scale degrees (eg. the leading note)- for these to be stabilised they have to go to the tonic. So when he first introduces the F# (in this example), it will probably be part of the dominant 7th chord, with the notes D F# A C.

So when as you do, you want to have a passage in A major, and you want to modulate to E major smoothly, you include a passage without Ds of any kind in between the two, then have a B dominant 7th chord (with the D# in it) which resolves to E major, the new key centre.

If you want it to be less smooth and more in your face, just do it straight off (at the end of a passage in A, just have a B7 chord).

I hope that has helped you, if you don't understand the terms I am using, I strongly suggest you read and do all the exercises that clarky has written in his theory posse posts, then read through this again.

happy bithday, d'ah i mean happy 105 megaboyd

clarky - i truly empathise with you. Men have gone severely wrong so many times. They continually warp the word of God to make the things that they want to do seem right. I am church of england, and the birth of the church of england was completely godless. as were crusades, as have many wars (particularly ireland).

I mean the church around the time of Paul has major problems... also major weaknesses (all sorts of sexual sins, bad doctrines etc.). It's been like that in parts through history.

I mean so many people twist what's being said, and add to it. I have tonnes of atheist/agnostic friends who think that if they find something on the internet which claims to disprove the bible then it must be right. And so i look at it and find it packed full of incorrect quotations and meanings.

Avarice (whom i realise you know in some way, you seem to think suspiciously alike) , last time round went on at length about "gospels" of disciples other than the 4 included in the bible. so i look them up and find that they were hoaxes, forgeries, created a couple of hundred years late (and the first copies of which that still exist are hundreds of years later than the true gospels).

Aand that's the problem. People look at the world and people who call themselves christians who kill other people and think it's right, and think God can't exist. They must be wrong. And so they find out some theory that completely makes a mockery of what is said to be the word of God, in the bible. And they do it, mostly to aggravate Christians, who then often through themselves in at the deep end and think they know more than they do.

I suggest you read a book called "who moved the stone" if you want to see what proper arguments look like- althoguh if you wish to inflame things, it would be great for you to do it elsewhere. Though it's entirely up to you. Keep up with the theory posts ;)

Oh, does anyone like my new composition's title?

Neoclassical Variations on a Theme by Johann Sebastian Bach for Electric Bass Guitar Quartet.

clarky- yeah, i can think of tonnes of priests/vicars who do just that. It makes me cringe when i hear on the news that "the church of england" has said "blah blah blah", which is clearly not right if you actually look at the bible. Deeply annoying as it is though, the C of E has got it better than many people. I am also very lucky cause my church has a good bunch of clergy who really do attempt to challenge people. I go to a big youth service called cords once a month and that has speakers who are very challenging and biblically correct. I tell you what, I am very priveleged to be with these kindsa people. A church not far from here has a a vicar who's dodgy with boys and another church as a vicar who doesn't believe in God and insists on putting really rubbish quotes up outside his church. Anyway, back to the point, I can see exactly where you're coming from and I think it's sad that that's happened.

I vote Banana

Banana 2 Forgotten 2 Bells 1

Phrygian Dominant - my mp3s are hid within the safety of my computer/ a single pressing (burning) of a cd for the rest of my band...Their only purpose is to show my band how new songs i've written go.

And the drum solo was in the middle of a song. The Guitars play Em G C B (with lead guitar over top) then stop on the next Em, and the drums solo for 2 bars. This happens 4 times then back into the chorus.

I think when we said odd time, we meant asymmetrical (sp) time.

If my vote didn't count before, FC-7 T-9

ice 5 - cool 1

happy 200 crystal.

tobes of ethn - nope, 9/8 usually refers to 3 beats a bar in compound time. so, say you have three beats in a bar of even length, and each beat is subdivided into 3 - that would be 9/8. The same but with 2 beats in a bar is the familiar 6/8, with 4 beats in a bar it's the also familiar 12/8. 15/8 has a prime factor of 5 though which makes it odd, since 5 is divided up into a 3 and a 2 (usually)

So any number on top of the time signature, which only has prime factors of 2 and/or 3 is in simple, or compound time signature.

And that's why 5 is "odd". and 7, 11, 13, and every other prime number. of course when it gets that high it becoms either unnoticable or so easily forgotten... eg. some of dream theater/lte stuff you could probably say it's in 17/4 or something, divided up into lots of smaller beats.

Maybe what I said about asymetrical time sigs has been taken slightly differently to how i meant it... all i was saying is that 9/8 in classical sense is simply compound time (like 6/8 but with an extra beat). Now modern bands and suchlike may play in 9/8 and divide it up into a 2,5,2 or something but that's not what i'm talkign about.

If you're scared of elementary mathematics, stay home:

When I was talking about primes, I was talking about prime factors. Any number can be represented by prime numbers being multiplied together so many times... for instance, 24 = 2^3 X 3

I vote Baroque

that's nice...

Rubina 5 - 5 Rubina's BSH