I think I’m in love with the mystic chord. I’ve been on this major 7 flat 5 chord then found this mystic scale and it’s crazy sounding. I hope my neighbors don’t mind, kind of out there. Funny ❤
The harmony of Prometheus sounds to me like just a long drawn-out Dominant which only resolves to the Tonic on the last chord. I have heard this symphony dozens of times over a period of about 50 years. That is how it sounds to me. In his middle opuses, he likes to build and build and build to a Dominant and sometimes never resolve the Dominant. In these instances, maybe these works can be analyzed as Mixolydian and the "Dominant" is actually the Tonic. After reading the important work of Dernova, I'm convinced that Scriabin always thought tonally, not atonally. I believe that he always was using traditional harmonies but expanding common-tone modulations and allowing many more added-note chords. Dernova shows Scriabin's use of what she calls the v and w tones (#9th and 13th).
Just to clarify: when you said you move each pitch of the whole tone scale down a step, did you mean half step? and I am little confused because you showed a series of scales, yet the starting note C remained the same on each and did not move down by step. I am sorta green in this field so I am just curious what you meant when you showed those scales? I understand the concept of picking a note in the whole tone scale and raising it up or down, but the scales you showed I didn't quite understand how they related. Thank you!
Mmm yea you’re asking an important question about understanding sets. I have a series “set theory simplified” that might help (episode 2 explains sets). Yes, I mean a half step away from whole tone gives us the mystic set. All the scales start on C so that we can compare them better. You can always transpose a scale back to C. Let’s use the typical whole tone scale as an example (C D E F# G# A#) and let’s move the C down a half step to B -> (B D E F# G# A#). This scale is one of the modes of the mystic scale. To see how it compares, we can transpose it all up by one half step and we get (C Eb F G A B). You can see that on the list as the 1st mode of 6.2a. You could rearrange the interval pattern of this to get other modes. To get the more common mystic chords, you move a pitch from the whole tone scale up a step. The relationship between 6.2a and 6.2b (moving a pitch from the whole tone scale down or up a half step) is an inversional relationship where they’re flipped versions of the same basic shape (3rd episode in Set Theory Simplified explains inversions). Great questions! Lmk if that all makes sense. Cool you’re really trying to understand it. Cheers!
@@jaybeardmusic8074 AHHHH I see. You are showing all the intervallic relations but just all in C for us to better see. Thank you!! thats really helpful!
@FreakedOutWilliams I actually don’t think the mystic chord is derived from the scale you’re talking about (a mode of melodic minor?). You can check out my video Scriabin’s supersets to see the larger scale I think it’s derived from, 8-27. Melodic minor isn’t used by Scriabin much outside Vers La Flamme. What exactly do you mean by Super Locrian? (Can you spell the scale out?)
You’re correct that the mystic scale fits within melodic minor/super locrian. However, there are a myriad of scales that the mystic scale falls within! The question is, why would you suppose super locrian is the superset and not any of the other myriad possible supersets? Melodic minor is well known in theory circles today, but is there any evidence this is what scriabin was thinking? Aside from a few moments in vers la flamme and prometheus, he hardly ever uses the entire melodic scale. He does however consistently use 8-27 which is also a superset for his octatonic sets. 8-27 is: C Db D E F# A Bb. Not what we might expect, but I show how Scriabin repeatedly uses this as his ultimate superset in my video “scriabin’s supersets”. I recommend you watch it as I go over how most people assume the mystic chord comes from melodic minor but it’s actually from this strange superset 8-27!
@FreakedOutWilliams Nobody had heard any of these scales/sets before Scriabin pioneered them :) This scale (along with its many modes) is probably the most important/utilized 8 note scale after the octatonic scale. It’s the octatonic scale but with one note shifted. It has another name in Jazz I think related to bebop. Of course there are more scales that the mystic scale fits into. We could add a Db (which makes 8-27) or add an Eb or F or G (as you mentioned) or Ab or B. Then we could make even more if we create 9 note scales etc. All scales are charted out and available to view! I give multiple examples of scriabin using the entire 8-27 scale in this video (link below). My question is, how would you explain these examples if not by 8-27 being the largest scale that undergirds Scriabin’s music? czcams.com/video/N9w13zvhLUg/video.htmlsi=KxaLko8wiJWlM3UI
I understand the set theory numbers can be intimidating. While I have videos that explain them, you don’t really need to understand them to follow the scales being discussed, as I always show the scale with sheet music and explain them. The point of these numerical labels is to have a label for any possible scale. We don’t really need them for the scales we have colloquial names for, but you can imagine there are indeed many more scales that exist that we don’t have colloquial names for. Thus, set theory allows us to speak about any scale like these obscure scriabin scales, rather than limiting our understanding of scales to the most well known scales.
My brain stopped working
And then you are now dead but able to write? That's pretty whack!!
ah, quantum physics
I think I’m in love with the mystic chord. I’ve been on this major 7 flat 5 chord then found this mystic scale and it’s crazy sounding. I hope my neighbors don’t mind, kind of out there. Funny ❤
The harmony of Prometheus sounds to me like just a long drawn-out Dominant which only resolves to the Tonic on the last chord. I have heard this symphony dozens of times over a period of about 50 years. That is how it sounds to me. In his middle opuses, he likes to build and build and build to a Dominant and sometimes never resolve the Dominant. In these instances, maybe these works can be analyzed as Mixolydian and the "Dominant" is actually the Tonic. After reading the important work of Dernova, I'm convinced that Scriabin always thought tonally, not atonally. I believe that he always was using traditional harmonies but expanding common-tone modulations and allowing many more added-note chords. Dernova shows Scriabin's use of what she calls the v and w tones (#9th and 13th).
Just to clarify: when you said you move each pitch of the whole tone scale down a step, did you mean half step? and I am little confused because you showed a series of scales, yet the starting note C remained the same on each and did not move down by step. I am sorta green in this field so I am just curious what you meant when you showed those scales? I understand the concept of picking a note in the whole tone scale and raising it up or down, but the scales you showed I didn't quite understand how they related. Thank you!
Mmm yea you’re asking an important question about understanding sets. I have a series “set theory simplified” that might help (episode 2 explains sets).
Yes, I mean a half step away from whole tone gives us the mystic set. All the scales start on C so that we can compare them better. You can always transpose a scale back to C.
Let’s use the typical whole tone scale as an example (C D E F# G# A#) and let’s move the C down a half step to B -> (B D E F# G# A#). This scale is one of the modes of the mystic scale. To see how it compares, we can transpose it all up by one half step and we get (C Eb F G A B). You can see that on the list as the 1st mode of 6.2a. You could rearrange the interval pattern of this to get other modes. To get the more common mystic chords, you move a pitch from the whole tone scale up a step. The relationship between 6.2a and 6.2b (moving a pitch from the whole tone scale down or up a half step) is an inversional relationship where they’re flipped versions of the same basic shape (3rd episode in Set Theory Simplified explains inversions).
Great questions! Lmk if that all makes sense. Cool you’re really trying to understand it. Cheers!
@@jaybeardmusic8074 AHHHH I see. You are showing all the intervallic relations but just all in C for us to better see. Thank you!! thats really helpful!
Bravoooo!
Example 1, Op. 59 i believe is No. 1, not No. 2
Which software do you use to illustrate the subsets of a set? I'm referring to the graphs with red/blue/green circles
SONATA NO.5
doesn’t sound like major - don’t sound minor - kinda comes off as dominant. or maybe one of those chords you get to finalize a jazz piece
Yea it can be used as a dominant and it’s definitely used in jazz!
In median/late works (not the latest) by Scriabin it functionally works as a dominant chord like in the 5th Sonata
It’s a chord within itself, full and complete
Wait so at 2:50 is that not G melodic minor without a G?
Yes, indeed the mystic chord is melodic minor missing one pitch. Interestingly, Scriabin hardly ever used the full melodic minor set.
@FreakedOutWilliams I actually don’t think the mystic chord is derived from the scale you’re talking about (a mode of melodic minor?). You can check out my video Scriabin’s supersets to see the larger scale I think it’s derived from, 8-27.
Melodic minor isn’t used by Scriabin much outside Vers La Flamme. What exactly do you mean by Super Locrian? (Can you spell the scale out?)
You’re correct that the mystic scale fits within melodic minor/super locrian. However, there are a myriad of scales that the mystic scale falls within! The question is, why would you suppose super locrian is the superset and not any of the other myriad possible supersets?
Melodic minor is well known in theory circles today, but is there any evidence this is what scriabin was thinking? Aside from a few moments in vers la flamme and prometheus, he hardly ever uses the entire melodic scale.
He does however consistently use 8-27 which is also a superset for his octatonic sets. 8-27 is: C Db D E F# A Bb. Not what we might expect, but I show how Scriabin repeatedly uses this as his ultimate superset in my video “scriabin’s supersets”. I recommend you watch it as I go over how most people assume the mystic chord comes from melodic minor but it’s actually from this strange superset 8-27!
@FreakedOutWilliams Nobody had heard any of these scales/sets before Scriabin pioneered them :)
This scale (along with its many modes) is probably the most important/utilized 8 note scale after the octatonic scale. It’s the octatonic scale but with one note shifted. It has another name in Jazz I think related to bebop.
Of course there are more scales that the mystic scale fits into. We could add a Db (which makes 8-27) or add an Eb or F or G (as you mentioned) or Ab or B. Then we could make even more if we create 9 note scales etc.
All scales are charted out and available to view!
I give multiple examples of scriabin using the entire 8-27 scale in this video (link below). My question is, how would you explain these examples if not by 8-27 being the largest scale that undergirds Scriabin’s music?
czcams.com/video/N9w13zvhLUg/video.htmlsi=KxaLko8wiJWlM3UI
I understand the set theory numbers can be intimidating. While I have videos that explain them, you don’t really need to understand them to follow the scales being discussed, as I always show the scale with sheet music and explain them.
The point of these numerical labels is to have a label for any possible scale. We don’t really need them for the scales we have colloquial names for, but you can imagine there are indeed many more scales that exist that we don’t have colloquial names for. Thus, set theory allows us to speak about any scale like these obscure scriabin scales, rather than limiting our understanding of scales to the most well known scales.