Talk:Pitch axis theory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major edits 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundunt? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marty Friedman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relationship to Lydian Chromatic Concept 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chort is wrang 

message: -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)
thread_title:  Relationship to Modal Jazz 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Theory? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading and Unsourced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not of this Earth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Examples? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critic