Talk:Pitch axis theory

Major edits 2021

Stumbled across this looking for a quick overview on the concept... indeed none of the article made any sense (even though people have been complaining on the talk page since 2008!!). So I just did my own research elsewhere then went ahead and tried to tidy everything up. As far as I can see it's all just about applying major-scale modes (and occasionally other scales) to a pedal point progression, but if I missed anything then feel free to revert or add more. Euan Richard (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Redundunt?

How is this different from pedal tones and modal music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.114.100 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like re-inventing the wheel. And if it's not, it should be clearly explained in the article.79.191.57.129 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Marty Friedman

Although it may sound like it, Marty Friedman knows almost no music theory. He has said himself that he doesn't know a single scale that he did not create himself. Therefore it is impossible for Marty Friedman to be able to apply Pitch axis theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zofar (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to Lydian Chromatic Concept

This a simpler way of looking at George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization, published in 1953. Nothing new, just, well, dumbed down to guitarists.

BTW, I am a guitarist.

• Actually, although perhaps a bit similar, this is not a simpler way of looking at the Lydian Chromatic Concept.
  
  For example, Dude (a rock guitarist who uses PAT as much as he can), and Cat (a jazz guitarist who approaches everything via LCC) get together to jam:
  
  Dude creates a chord progression using PAT, say Emaj7, Em7, E7, Emaj7, and thinks E Lydian (or Ionian), E Dorian (or any other minor 7 scale/mode), E Mixolydian, E Lydian as he solos over the changes.
  
  Cat on the other hand is thinking E Lydian, G Lydian, D Lydian, E Lydian if he wants to play "inside" and "vertically" (roughly meaning "with the chord changes"), he may also decide to go "outside" a bit and think E Lydian Augmented, G Lydian Diminished, D Lydian b7, E Lydian (back inside again), as an example. He finds his LCC tonic for the chord he's on, then selects his scale color. It gets a lot more involved, but that's the gist of it.
  
  ... Oh, and I am also a guitarist, FWIW
  
  *--Tedclaymore (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Chort is wrang

The chord progression for "Lie" shows a B diminished not a B minor. Didn't check any of the other chords, but that one at least is definately wrong.

Pretty correct. That image must be taken care of.59.93.215.168 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through the tab for "Lie" and I'm pretty sure the chords are actually supposed to be from "The Mirror" which was originally supposed to be the same song (they flow together continuously on the Awake album), so I changed it to say "The Mirror / Lie" because they still play those two tracks together live. That being said, I'm still not sure if those chords are accurate, but John Myung does play the low B on his 6 string bass when the chords change during "The Mirror."71.251.172.212 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Modal Jazz

-Isn't this just basic music theory? Miles Davis used modes all the time in his compositions. See 'modal jazz'

• This is similar to Modal Jazz, but not exactly the same thing. In most modal jazz tunes, the composition is based on one mode (say Dorian). Usually a single tonic (say D) is used for an extended period as well (D Dorian for 16 bars...) but there may be some tonic relief as the tune switches to a different tonic (say Eb Dorian for 8 bars). Pitch access theory doesn't change the tonic. It changes the modes/scales/chords built up from the tonic. To my ears, the effect is rather similar (though not identical), but the approach to composing and improvising is a bit different.
  
  --Tedclaymore (talk)

• • Then should something be said in the main article? --Rfsmit (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The real PAT in basic

-This whole thing is nothing to do with pitch axis theory. PAT is basiclly about to give functions (tonic, dominant, subdominant) to chords wich arent bulid upon a note of the scale so you can use all the chromatic notes to create chords, but you will remain in tonality. For example: You are in C major, you can use Eb maj7 as a tonical chord, while there is no Eb in the C major scale. The reason why this called PAT 'cause the functions build over three axis'.(there is a diagramm for that) All the root notes of an axis are a note of a diminished chord. Therefor in C major the 4 tonical chords according to PAT are C maj7, Eb maj7, Gb maj7 (called F# in jazz, cause of C maj13#) and Bbb major (called A). It's similliar with the dominant and subdominant modes, except they use mostly dominant 7 chord. The dominant axis based on 4. note of the scale (F) the dominant is the 5. (G). So new dominant chords are (G7), Bb7, Db7, E7. Subdominants: (F7), Ab7, B7, D7. The rules are a bit different in (harmonic)minor. With the PAT you can create a lots of new chord progressions, for example D7 Bb7 C maj7 bacame an authentic cadence in C major. The creator of theory was Béla Bartók [1]

• The 3 axis in hungarian (in hungary and german B is called H and Bb is B!)
  The 3 axis in hungarian (in hungary and german B is called H and Bb is B!)
• The use of PAT in Bartók's bluebeard's castle (he used the tonical axis for the 4 scenes)
  The use of PAT in Bartók's bluebeard's castle (he used the tonical axis for the 4 scenes)

Need sources

What the hell is "pitch axis theory"? If you learnt this from a credible book/website, then tell me what book/website you learnt it from. If you learnt it from banter on an internet forum, then you know as much as I do, which is *not* enough for Wikipedia. This article reads like a piece of pseudoscience, and I'm partially convinced it is just made up internet hearsay. Please prove me wrong, because it sounds like a very interesting idea (yes, I'm hoping this is real, but I'm calling "bullshit" just because we won't know anything until somebody backs it up).

A Google search on "pitch axis theory" gives me i) this Wikipedia page, ii) sites quoting this page, iii) a bunch of infomercials, and iv) the occasional very spurious quote with the use of the term by one of three guitar players (I'm sure you can guess who they are).

So come on, if you are an advocate of this theory, tell me where you learnt it from, and be honest. If there can be found no sources to back up the claims of this page, it should be removed. It has been tagged as unsourced for two years already. (217.155.61.70 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I am not an advocate of the the theory, but I don't think the page ought to be removed. (I originally arrived here looking Lydian Chromatic Concept, hoping to have an online source to direct someone to).

As nearly as I can tell, the name is applied by Satriani, who claims that he learned it from a music teacher. He further claims that the technique was developed in the early 20th century (or perhaps the late 19th).

I have this link for your reference (interview with Satriani). http://www.musicplayers.com/features/guitars/2006/0606_Joe_Satriani.php

I've noted Satriani has mentioned this in guitar periodicals for quite some time (at least since the 90's, but perhaps as far back as the 80's).

I have a number of texts on Harmony, but the closest I can find to what Satriani seems to be talking about is called "Modal Mixture" by Piston [Harmony, 5th Ed. 1987 pp 514-517.], perhaps with the addition of a pedal point or ostinato base. The article is currently linking to "Polymodal Chromaticism", which may also be close in a sense, but my understanding there is that the modes may be used simultaneously, whereas PAT seems to be serial in nature.

So, Satriani may have applied his own name (or he may have a source that calls it exactly that... music theory is notorious for having different terms for the same concept from different reputable sources), but the theory appears to be documented in music theory literature. And even if his term is "incorrect", his term seems to be catching on. When I search Google, I also see this article and pages referencing it, but I'm also seeing a number of pages 'teaching' the theory.

I can see an argument for merging this article with Joe Satriani, or even creating an article for Modal Mixture (which I can source), but an outright deletion seems to be overkill.

Tedclaymore (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to remove the whole thing, just the bits that can't be backed up with sources. Unfortunately, with the sources so far, that is the majority of the article. Sure, that interview gives us that Joe Satriani uses the term Pitch Axis Theory, and that it is a compositional technique involving changes of key over a repeated bass note. What about that table under concept? Where did that come from? That's a lot more specific, and definitely needs a source (though I believe this bit may be false, given that one out of the only two examples given does not follow it exactly). The way JS talks about it in the interview, it's used everywhere, like dance and hip-hop and stuff (which i. is not such a narrow definition as proposed here, where a key shift must be matched with certain chords, and ii. suggests there should be a lot more examples from different genres to look at). I've found one website that says a simple shift between major and minor pentatonic (like a lot of electric blues players do) is a type of PAT. I know a lot of Scottish folk tunes that are predominantly hexatonic and play around the alternative diatonic completions (like switching between Mixolydian and Dorian, or Dorian and minor, with the same root), do these use PAT? On the one hand, this phrase seems to be used only by a very few select guitarists, and on the other hand it seems to describe a technique used by a lot of people, in all kinds of instruments and genres. I'm totally getting that this is an alternative name for something everybody else calls something else, but I can't figure out what; the linked pages are similar, but not quite the same. 217.155.61.70 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Theory?

Ok, as mentioned above, this is not exactly something that is widely accepted like the Lydian Chromatic Concept. While the article makes the theory very clear, can someone please explain how this is different from just modulating from mode to mode? Is this just a name for a specific type of modulating between modes? And further, what makes this a theory? It seems like an application of already understood concepts, not a theory. Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pitch Axis Theory is not actually a "theory," but a composition technique. Joe Satriani might have called it a theory because it is based on advanced music theory. It is unusual for songs to shift modes as often as Satch Boogie, and pitch axis theory offers possible chord and scale pairings when the root note is held constant.71.251.172.212 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading origin

The beginning of this article suggests that Joe Satriani invented this theory, which he did not. This should be made clear, and the origin of the theory should be explained. 24.7.67.85 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know who invented it, what makes you think Satriani didn't? Hyacinth (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading and Unsourced

Basically to sum up what everyone else has already said, this page is misleading and unsourced. This "Pitch Axis Theory" is almost identical to other concepts in jazz. The Axis System is a completely different theory developed mainly by Bartok. Furthermore this page looks like it was written by a huge fan of Joe Satriani. It says he invented it, with no source, and in the examples, it says "Not of this Earth" is the greatest example of this theory. The source for that statement is the sheet music . . .

For those of you looking for Barok's theory, search Axis System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.7.57 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not of this Earth

First: »Not of this Earth« is not completely built on pitch axis method. There is a little break (I didn't see the sheet music, but my ears tell me there is a break before the tapping part comes, although one could say it's a 7sus4 chord, but I don't think so). Second: Emin7(#5) enharmonically fits E aeolian as #5 and b13 are the same then [Besides this, it is written that one should think of an Emin add6 chord, but there exists nothing like "add 6". Jazz chords are different from baroque's basso continuo and what you mean is "add b13", because c is the flat thirteen, not the 13/6. However, one could also write Emin7(b6)]. And also I want to question the statement that a #5 doesn't exist in conventional music theory. What do you understand by "conventional"? It may not exist in classical or baroque music, but in Jazz it is absolutely common to alter the intervals of dominant chords (step V), e.g. by tritone substitution. Although "Emin7(#5)" implies that it is minor, not dominant, that doesn't tell much in jazz theory as you can see in descriptions like "Bmin7(b5)" for B half-diminished. It just doesn't matter if we call it #5 or b13, just as it doesn't matter if we call it minor third in blues or #9 in jazz when we mean the blue note. If "conventional" refers to classical theory, I'd just call it senseless, because there is not sense in analyzing Satriani's music under aspects of classical music, just as you won't find ii-V-I-IV progressions in Mozart's music.

Finally I want to add that, although Satriani is not the inventor of the method, he was the one who made it popular, just like Eddie van Halen was not the inventor of the tapping technique. Whenever one is asked for pitch axis method, everyone will refer to Joe being the master. This should be noted in the article as well. --84.133.111.124 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---
About the Second Chord, I agree..
Since it's a Minor chord it should be labelled Em7b6. Or even Em7b13, but Not #5, that's for Major triads. (imo/afaik)

Em7add6 is wrong, because it's simply a b6,
and yeah there's no need to call it "add"..

Also the part that reads "Otherwise, the E diminished scale (E-F♯-G-A-A♯-C-C♯-D♯-E) could have been used"
is just Bogus..

First they are referring to the WH Diminished scale.
Problem is, E WH Dim scale doesn't contain a D note (the b7th), so you should not use it over the Second Em7b6 chord.

I'm gonna just Edit and try to fix this part of the article,
since it can be confusing/misleading for learning musicians.

PS: I also went ahead and included the Third and Fourth chords of the progression,
trying to describe them while keeping/developing the line of thought

PS2: Of course, another way of improving this section would be,
doing an actual Analysis of which scales/modes is Joe Satriani using in the original track..
But since it's not a track I play/ever played I cannot do it on the spot, I will have to take a look at it some other time. Quintessence7 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

More Examples?

I think it would be good to substantiate/develop this article further, by giving more case examples.
Right now the only one I can think of Could be, Vivo Sonhando by Jobim.

Given the initial 4 chords of the progression:
Gmaj7 - G6 - Cm9/G - Cm7/G

And given that the the notes included would be...

Gmaj7: 1-3-5-7
G6: 1-3-5-6
Cm9/G: 1-b3-5-b6
Cm7/G: 1-b3-b6

Gmaj7: G F# B D (played in this order on Guitar)
G6: G E B D
Cm9/G: G Eb Bb D
Cm7/G: G G^ Bb Eb

A modulation is surely happening in the third chord,
where the initial Major/Lydian scale would become a regular Aeolian or probably Harmonic Minor scale,
another option could be Aeolian b5/Locrian nat2 scale if you wanted to preserve the #4/b5 note.
Or even a "Aeolian b5 nat7" or "Locrian nat2 nat7" scale, which is the third mode of Hungarian Major scale,
if you wanted to preserve both the b5 and the nat7, while adhering to the Minor tonality of that moment.

Also the progression could be described as featuring a chromatic 7>6>b6 voice leading movement,
where notably when the b6 comes, also the nat3 goes b3..

Couldn't this be considered an actual Example of Pitch Axis modulation??

And how would it be Labelled/Cataloged or Described from the traditional Orthodox/Acadmic point of view?? Quintessence7 (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Critic

Pitch axis is simply an old Classical Music called "Common Tone" and IT WAS NOT invented by Joe Satriani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAOMUSIC ARTS (talk • contribs) 05:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)