# Need help with some theory



## Zeetwig (Jan 15, 2013)

Greetings

Lately I have found myself getting more and more interested in making more "theoretical" or "planned" music, i.e. actually thinking a few more steps when composing music rather than just noodle around and just record whatever sound good. For instance, I'd like to be able to write chord progressions and then play stuff over them that makes theoretical sense, not just "aural sense".

I'll try to formulate my thoughts of what I want to accomplish/learn:

1. Be able to write chord progression, understand why each chord is played/used where it's played/used, why another chord can or cannot be chosen instead of any chord in the progression, and know which chords sounds good together.
2. Know how to play a backing track over these chords, i.e. play the chord without playing it as a straight chord (maybe a silly question but it's still a question I have). This is mainly so that I can play the chords on bass and rhythm guitar without playing the chords as normal strummed chords (I like to make it more interesting).
3. Know what scales/modes that I can play over the chords for melodies and solos.

I am mainly interested in chord progressions closer to jazz, progressive music, more technical metal and classical music rather than the 4-chord stuff  My goal is to be able to write some semi-technical metal stuff (not taking the purely technical aspect into account now, just the theoretical). I do not want to copy a band, just make some music where the rhythm guitar plays some intricate broken-up chords with a melody guitar playing melodies over that chord. (Sorry if I don't explain very well :/ )

I don't know whether this is a good example but I found this and it sounds like something I would like to be able to play (or at least understand why he uses the chords that he uses, and why he uses them where he uses them)

Sweeping with Tapping Lesson
(Although it doesn't sound very much like the generic technical death metal - more like some kind of jazz or fusion or something else that I don't know the name of  )

If this would be the the melody/solo guitar part, and then I would like to play a rhythm track beneath this, but a rhythm track that doesn't just play the chords strummed, but rather broken up and alt picked or something.



So, if anyone feel like they've got some time off and want to help a fellow musician achieve his goals and dreams, feel free to do so  I will be forever grateful!

ps. I know some theory (yes I actually do), but sometimes I have some trouble with understanding new stuff/"new" theory, so please explain as simply and thoroughly as possible for starters, and then increase the level of difficulty.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 15, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> Greetings
> 
> Lately I have found myself getting more and more interested in making more "theoretical" or "planned" music, i.e. actually thinking a few more steps when composing music rather than just noodle around and just record whatever sound good. For instance, I'd like to be able to write chord progressions and then play stuff over them that makes theoretical sense, not just "aural sense".



Do you have anything you've written that you can show us? There is no difference between what you call "theoretical sense" and "aural sense" - one merely aims to describe the other. Perhaps a good place to begin is to learn to analyze your existing work. In doing the analysis, you might find things that work for you and realize how you can change the things that you don't like to work better.



> I'll try to formulate my thoughts of what I want to accomplish/learn:
> 
> 1. Be able to write chord progression, understand why each chord is played/used where it's played/used, why another chord can or cannot be chosen instead of any chord in the progression, and know which chords sounds good together.


This is fairly easy. You're first going to want to know how to abstract the chords of a key. Let's start with the key of D major, D E F# G A B C#. If you stack a couple of diatonic thirds on top of each note of the scale, you get these chords: D Em F#m G A Bm C#°

Now let's use some numeral markers to tell us the location of those chords in the key: I II III IV V VI VII. Each one of those numerals corresponds to the respective chords. Let's go one step further and change these numerals' appearance in order to reflect the quality of the chords: I ii iii IV V vi vii°

Altogether, this is what the key of D major looks like:

I = D
ii = Em
iii = F#m
IV = G
V = A
vi = Bm
vii° = C#°

You'll notice that the uppercase numerals correspond to major triads: I IV V. The lowercase numerals represent minor triads: ii iii vi. And, finally, that little bubble indicates a diminished triad: vii°.

Let's try it with another key, F major: F G A B&#9837; C D E. Those notes yield the chords F Gm Am B&#9837; C Dm E°. Do the same numeral reduction, and you get I ii iii IV V vi vii°. Hey, different keys, same numerals. As it turns out, all major keys have the same pattern of chords. What this means for you is that if you're in a key like F# major and you want to know what chords you can use, all you have to do is spell out the scale (F# G# A# B C# D# E#), then plug in the triad qualities according to the numerals for major keys.

I = F#
ii = G#m
iii = A#m
IV = B
V = C#
vi = D#m
vii° = E#°

Now that you know how to assign diatonic chords to a given key, we can get on with constructing progressions. To save a lot of time, I suggest that you try experimenting with plugging in various keys into this diagram:













This is a flow chart for chord progressions in major keys. Everything goes from left to right, with a few paths back here and there, and the chords are ordered in such a way that things should eventually get to I. From I, you can start over at any point in that chart. The numerals in the boxes are substitutable chords: IV and ii can replace each other, as can V and vii°. This chart does not give us every possible chord combination ever, but rather looks at the way that functional harmony works (i.e., the order of root movements that result in successfully resolved tendency tones - a chord progression). The stuff near the end is particularly important, as we can see the three big functional groups.

Subdominant group : IV, ii
Dominant group: V, vii°
Tonic group: I

A chord progression has an inherent desire to progress from Subdominant to Dominant to Tonic. SD>D>T is the basis of all chord progressions.*

* Let me state again that chord progressions are functional in nature and have tendencies that need to resolve. You'll hear shit like I vi I iii V IV in pop music all the time - there is no progression there, just a bunch of chords coming one after another, called a 'chord succession'. Everybody calls these things chord progressions anyway, despite the fact that there is nothing in that order of chords that suggests any tendency to resolve, no actual structure or progression to the harmony. In fact, some of those root movements would be considered chord *retrogressions*. Ask any normal person, they'll say that V IV I is a chord progression. Ask me, I'll bitch about how wrong they are. 

===============

What about minor keys, you say? Similar situation. Let's take A minor. A B C D E F G. Harmonized, that's Am B° C Dm Em F G, or i ii° III iv v VI VII. You'd like to think that it ends there, but it doesn't. We have this thing called harmonic minor, which, as it turns out, is better for making chord progressions. So, let's take A harmonic minor: A B C D E F G#. Harmonized, that's Am B° C+ Dm E F G#°, or i ii° III+ iv V VI vii°. The augmented chord is weird, so let's replace it with its equivalent from the natural minor scale: Am B° *C* Dm E F G#°, which makes our numerals i ii° III iv V VI vii°.

Let's do it with another, G minor: G A B&#9837; C D E&#9837; F. Make it harmonic: G A B&#9837; C D E&#9837; *F#*. Plug in the chord qualities: Gm A° B&#9837; Cm D E&#9837; F#°. Coolio, now we can move along to putting these into a chord progression.






Looks familiar, huh? Everything is basically the same, except you can tack &#9837;VII (from the natural minor) on before III if you feel like it. The same format is in play here, as well: there's the Subdominant>Dominant>Tonic thing once more.

===================

That should give you a start on organizing your pitches. I've only given you a very precursor glance at diatonic harmony. Technically, every chord and pitch is available in any given key, but that stuff is more involved and you have to have a solid understanding of diatonic harmony before moving on to chromatic harmony. I'll write on that if you feel ready for it and ask me to.



> 2. Know how to play a backing track over these chords, i.e. play the chord without playing it as a straight chord (maybe a silly question but it's still a question I have). This is mainly so that I can play the chords on bass and rhythm guitar without playing the chords as normal strummed chords (I like to make it more interesting).


Break up the chord. Let's say you've got an Em, E G B. Why not play the G and the B on the guitar, and have the bass grab the E? Or you get E and B, and the bass grabs G. The plus side of this is that your chords will be a lot lighter and you'll have more room to work with melody and counterpoint. Also, arpeggiate.



> 3. Know what scales/modes that I can play over the chords for melodies and solos.


Eeeeeeeeh. If you have a chord progression in G major, then your melody is going to be in G major. However, *melody should be considered part of the chord*. If the chord is G and you're laying down a C (the note, not the chord), expect the melody to sound off, because the chord is saying "gimme dat B". You can have a C in the melody over that G chord, but it'll probably be somewhere within a moving melodic line, like B C D, D C B, F# C B, or whatever. The chord tones are G B D at that given point, so we naturally want to hear a resolution of any dissonance to a chord tone (such as C going to B, or F# going to G). My advice? Learn to play the chord tones, then fill the rest in with your ear.



> I don't know whether this is a good example but I found this and it sounds like something I would like to be able to play (or at least understand why he uses the chords that he uses, and why he uses them where he uses them)
> 
> Sweeping with Tapping Lesson
> (Although it doesn't sound very much like the generic technical death metal - more like some kind of jazz or fusion or something else that I don't know the name of  )


Chromaticism. Chromatic mediants, common tone chromatic chords, sidestepping, and chromatic planing. I'll get to it later.



> If this would be the the melody/solo guitar part, and then I would like to play a rhythm track beneath this, but a rhythm track that doesn't just play the chords strummed, but rather broken up and alt picked or something.


It's pretty busy. You might play roots for that, to be honest. The bass seems to be doing just that in his backing track.


----------



## JLP2005 (Jan 15, 2013)

Don't have time to read all this at the moment, but I really want to say that I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this all out, Schecter Whore. I had planned on asking this question myself here.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 15, 2013)

Wow thanks for the thorough reply!  The construction diagrams was something new to me but they make sense so thank you very much  (At least make sense as in they will be useful for further experimenting and understanding)

Here's some follow-up questions etc

1. I'll show you some snippets of things I've recorded to show the difference between aural and theoretical writing as I mean it. Just gotta make appropriate sound files out of them. In the meantime: some other questions.

2. First, here's a question (silly or good; decide for yourself  )
Why does a chord want to resolve/move into another? For instance, what is it with the iii chord that wants to move into the vi? Or the V into the I. I guess there is an aural explanation, but what is the theoretical one?

3.1. What you've shown covers what I would call the basics, and chord wise it covers major, minor, some major sevenths and a few diminished chords. However, I often see chords and chord progressions (or whatever to call them  ) with a lot more diminished chords, minor sevenths, augmented chords, suspended chords, 9ths, 11ths, and combinations of these (and maybe some more stuff). For instance, my brother is a jazz trumpet player and when I look at the notations of songs he's playing all I see is a bunch or sevenths (minor or major, I cannot remember), with some diminished thrown in there as well. Where do all of these come into play? I would like to learn more about them. 

3.2. To show some examples: here are some chord progressions/succession/retrogressions that I have seen and that I am intrigued by (intrigued as in I want to know how and why they work). These are not from my little brother btw

a. Am Asus2 Am Asus2 Cm Csus2 Cm Csus2

b. Gdim A#dim C#dim Edim
Only diminished chords here. Speaking of which: this morning I found a video with a guy playing a 12-tone series of notes/"scale", and grouped in 4 the notes formed diminished chords (4 diminished chords per 4 notes to be exact). I was very intrigued by how this works, and this ties quite well together with the above written chord progression.
Here's the video
RON JARZOMBEK - Oscillation Cycles - YouTube
Disregard the video and the 12-tone scale thing if you like or if it makes this whole thing more confusing to explain

4. Regarding my second question and breaking up the chords and playing them in the rhythm track: when I listen to some technical death metal bands like Obscura and Gorod one guitar seems to play a higher-pitched melody, and the second is either harmonizing with the first or playing some rhythmic backing on the lower strings. However the rhythmic backing is not just the chords strummed, but rather a series of notes that together give the music the feeling that there is a chord played then and there (which I assume that there actually is). To my question: is the backing guitar doing what you've described? Playing the chord tones in a more "melodic" fashion, i.e. not strumming them?

5. Regarding the third question "what scales/modes work over these chords". What I meant is this:
Lets say the song is in Am, so the chords available to us are Am B° C Dm E F G#°. I can play A aeolian over it all, but I can also play B locrian, C ionian, etc (I assume this much ) over any of the chords. However are there any other scales/modes that work over these chords? I know from my so called "aural writing" that if the song is in Am then I can play A harmonic minor over it as well and it sounds good. I can also play A pentatonic. A melodic minor and A blues works to some extent (some notes will be avoid notes I assume, but as my theoretical knowledge is rather limited I don't know which notes that are avoid over each chord, so up until now I've just used my ears to hear which notes not to land on). I also like the A byzantine scale and that too works over these chords to some extent. I assume that all of their modes work as well.
So, are there any other scales that work over these chords? Diminished scales for instance?

6. If you have the time please feel free to continue with the chromaticism etc. I think I have a firm enough grasp of what you've written so far. However if you think that writing that AND answering the questions above is too much then I can ask for the chromaticism later. However if you feel like you've got time and want to help me out then I will be very thankful!


Super thanks SW!!! This is really kind of you


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 15, 2013)

Here's some snippets of a few songs that I'm working on

https://soundcloud.com/zeetwig/theoretical-1
https://soundcloud.com/zeetwig/aural-2
https://soundcloud.com/zeetwig/aural-1

Both of the 'aurals' are written by ear, i.e. I have just played the notes that sound good (although there's always some theory involved as I know the scale and its notes etc, however compared to the 'theoretical' there is very little "theory" involved.

The theoretical is theoretical in the backing synth mainly. The chord progression is
Cm G Bm-5 Cm+5 Cm
Cm Am7-5 (the 7th is a G) Abmaj7 Gsus4 G
The guitar is more or less '"aurally" written

You can hear the difference (at least I can  ). The theoretical sounds much more though-out and well... "theoretical", whereas the aurals sound a lot more "aural" and not as though-out. (We're diving rather quickly into semantics here...)

Hope this helps to illustrate what I mean with "theoretical" and "aural" 



ps. Sorry for the poor quality and poor playing in all instruments. As I said these are songs in progress and so far they are all at the writing stage, so I haven't really spent much time on recording perfect takes. One of the aurals and the theoretical is still without bass, and the drums are not done yet either.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jan 15, 2013)

Music theory is designed to *describe* what's happening in music aurally.

Even if you don't know any theory you can play chords that sound good together in some order be it a progression, succession or retrogression.

You can write something whether you know any theory or not, but what you wrote could be *described* by theory in some way.

'Music theory' is simply a codified attachment of words to sounds.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 15, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> 2. First, here's a question (silly or good; decide for yourself  )
> Why does a chord want to resolve/move into another? For instance, what is it with the iii chord that wants to move into the vi? Or the V into the I. I guess there is an aural explanation, but what is the theoretical one?



The progression from which we derive all other progressions is V7-I, and it has to do with how we perceive all other pitches in relationship to the tonic. The tonic triad is considered to be the most structurally stable, or "consonant", chord in the tonal system. Everything else is unstable, or "dissonant", in comparison. There are varying degrees of dissonance, but the way it works out is that the V triad and seventh chord are the most dissonant structures. Note that by 'dissonant' I don't mean "sounds like a dying cat", but rather "sounds like it really really wants to go to the tonic". Why V? Let's go through the notes of a V7 chord and find out.

Let's do this in the key of A. The V7 chord is going to be E7, E G# B D. The root of this chord wants to resolve to A, for a physical reason. Play the open A on your guitar. Next, play the harmonic at the twelfth fret. This is an octave above the fundamental pitch, A. The most closely physically related note to A, unsurprisingly, is A. Remember that A is our tonic in this exercise. The next harmonic is at the seventh fret. If you play that harmonic, you get E. This E is the next most closely related pitch to our tonic.

So, there is a quantifiable reason for E wanting to go to A: it has a prominent place in the overtone series, and our ear perceives a link between the two. After that, everything is subject to our cultural perspective. The third of the chord, G#, wants to pull up to A because G# is a minor second below A. Stepwise motion is the basis of all melody, so stepwise approaches to chord tones tend to sound good. B is kind of the reverse: it is a second above A, so it wants to go down to A. B has another option: it can approach C# (the third of the tonic chord) by step. Lastly, D, the seventh of the V7 chord, is only a minor second above C# , so it wants to step down to C#. E might also stay right where it is, becoming the fifth of the tonic chord when everything finally resolves. Overall, this is what these tendencies look like:






One of the ways that has developed for explaining tonal chord progressions is as an extension of the principles that related dominant to tonic: simply put, the dominant (V) is a diatonic fifth above the tonic (I). It stands to reason that similar structures can be found by going back in the scale by fifth until all the notes are used. So, if we keep with the key of A, then V I is E A. B is a fifth above E, so let's make that our next destination: B E A gives us ii V I. If we continue in this manner until we complete the cycle, we get A D G# C# F# B E A, which is I IV vii° iii vi ii V I. We call this kind of progression a "cycle of fifths". It's really just an extension of the dominant-tonic relationship.

There are other cycles, too: a cycle of seconds and a cycle of thirds. (Fourths, sixths, and sevenths are note included, because those intervals are inversions of fifths, thirds, and seconds, which would make such a thing redundant.) Here are all of the diatonic cycles listed with functional symbols. Key of B&#9837;, just to change things up.






Note that we omit iii in the cycle of thirds, because it gets between V and I, and we can't have that.

When you start mapping out the tendencies for each and every note in the key, a lot of information piles up fast, and the tendency for each note changes depending on which chord it is a part of. Instead, we can follow some general rules: we like to have complete chords, and we like individuality, so it helps to envision a chord progression as many separate melodies that come together to form chords that move around in a satisfying manner. Without getting into the intricacies of voice leading at this time, this is what it looks like when one of those basslines is harmonized:






I've drawn in lines between the notes to show you the contour of the melodies. See how each voice has its own shape? Well, all except for #1, that is. The thing about the "cycle of seconds" is that it's kind of a lame way to do this chord progression thing. I refer to it as a succession, because it completely disregards the dominant-tonic relationship, which is, as I said, the basis of all other chord progressions, and it also takes away from the individualism that we like to hear between voices. However, we do like the sound of stepwise motion, so #2 gives us an alternate way of thinking of a stepwise bassline. Notice the inversion symbols. That stuff is a little bit ahead of where we are now, but it demonstrates how one would factor the "cycle of seconds" into writing a chord progression.



> 3.1. What you've shown covers what I would call the basics, and chord wise it covers major, minor, some major sevenths and a few diminished chords. However, I often see chords and chord progressions (or whatever to call them  ) with a lot more diminished chords, minor sevenths, augmented chords, suspended chords, 9ths, 11ths, and combinations of these (and maybe some more stuff). For instance, my brother is a jazz trumpet player and when I look at the notations of songs he's playing all I see is a bunch or sevenths (minor or major, I cannot remember), with some diminished thrown in there as well. Where do all of these come into play? I would like to learn more about them.


Triads are the most basic and functional form of harmony in Western music. They are like the little economy car that you use to commute to work: very functional, not very flashy. Seventh chords are similarly very functional, but have a tiny bit more aesthetic focus, like a car that gets good gas mileage but doesn't look like shit. When you start sussing this and extending that, then you get into the "shiny red sports car" territory: you buy it because you want something that looks (or, in our case, sounds) cooler, perhaps at the price of functionality.

Prince - Purple Rain


The chord succession for the verse is B&#9837;sus2 Gm7 F E&#9837;sus2. How do we go about analyzing this? Imagine for a moment that these are triads instead of anything else. B&#9837; Gm F E&#9837; is I vi V IV in the key of B&#9837; major. It's one of those damn four-chord songs! What do you see when you analyze the progression? It's mostly a retrogression - there is no insistence to get to the tonic. That's fine, because it's a pretty laid back song and we have to hear the same chords over and over again for seven minutes; a progression would make things sound more tense. He goes back to progressions every now and then when he needs that tension, but it's not a constant journey toward a harmonic goal. To make everything sound more colorful (since he's certainly not doing it with modulations and functional chromaticism), Prince chooses to use more colorful versions of the chords than just triads or seventh chords, which is where we get the sus2 - it sacrifices the functionality of having a third in the chord for the colorfulness of having some weird non-tertian thing.

If you're building a cake, the triad and seventh chord is your actual cake, and 9th's/11th's/13th's/sus4/sus2/#11/&#9837;13 is your icing.

As for the diminished chords everywhere, those have to do with secondary functions. The augmented chords are likely around as a coloration of a dominant triad/seventh chord or as shorthand for a certain melodic motion, such as E6 E+ E (which I would analyze as C#m/E E, with a chromatic passing tone between them, but that doesn't convey the desired effect on a leadsheet).



> 3.2. To show some examples: here are some chord progressions/succession/retrogressions that I have seen and that I am intrigued by (intrigued as in I want to know how and why they work). These are not from my little brother btw
> 
> a. Am Asus2 Am Asus2 Cm Csus2 Cm Csus2



"Am Asus2 Am Asus2" is shorthand for a melodic procedure. The actual harmony is Am, and the B that appears in every other "chord" is what we refer to as a "neighbor tone". So, we can reduce that big ol' thing to Am Cm, which is a form of chromatic root movement that we call a "chromatic mediant relationship" - two triads of the same quality (in this case, minor) that are a third (in this case, a minor third) apart.

Another succession based on the same principle: G B E&#9837;m Cm Gm E&#9837;m Bm G E

You won't be able to analyze that with numerals: those chords don't belong to a key, or even a single scale (unless you count the chromatic scale, which you shouldn't).



> b. Gdim A#dim C#dim Edim
> Only diminished chords here.



Correction: only a diminished _chord_ here. This is how an A#°7 chord is spelled: A# C# E G

Look familiar? What you have is a bunch of different inversions of the same chord, but spelled as if they are different chords. Diminished seventh chords are completely symmetrical, so there are actually four enharmonic spellings for each diminished seventh chord. Depending on what you consider to be the root (how you name the chord), the key will change. For instance, G° A#° C#° E°, if we consider it to be A#°7, becomes this:

A#°7/G A#°7 A#°7/E A#°7/G

That's completely impractical. Whenever I see that, I label the entire thing as A#°7. For tonal analysis, A#°7 is vii°7 in the key of B minor.

If you make C# the root, then the chord becomes C#°7, which is vii°7 in the key of D minor. If the root is E, the chord is E°7, which is vii°7 in F minor. Finally, G as a root makes G°7, which is vii°7 in the key of A&#9837; minor.

As a side note, diminished seventh chords and dominant seventh chords are very frequently involved in what we call "tonicization", in which case they fall under the category of "secondary functions", which is a form of "applied chromaticism". I'll let somebody else do the work for me on that one, because it'll take up a lot of space. I can clarify further if you need.





> Speaking of which: this morning I found a video with a guy playing a 12-tone series of notes/"scale", and grouped in 4 the notes formed diminished chords (4 diminished chords per 4 notes to be exact). I was very intrigued by how this works, and this ties quite well together with the above written chord progression.
> Here's the video
> RON JARZOMBEK - Oscillation Cycles - YouTube
> Disregard the video and the 12-tone scale thing if you like or if it makes this whole thing more confusing to explain



Ah, yes. The tone row explanation is a bust - the way he organizes the chromatic scale merely results in a bunch of secondary diminished seventh chords that want to resolve to a tonic, but there's not enough information to secure a single definite tonic. Not atonal, but tonally ambiguous for sure.



> 4. Regarding my second question and breaking up the chords and playing them in the rhythm track: when I listen to some technical death metal bands like Obscura and Gorod one guitar seems to play a higher-pitched melody, and the second is either harmonizing with the first or playing some rhythmic backing on the lower strings. However the rhythmic backing is not just the chords strummed, but rather a series of notes that together give the music the feeling that there is a chord played then and there (which I assume that there actually is). To my question: is the backing guitar doing what you've described? Playing the chord tones in a more "melodic" fashion, i.e. not strumming them?



In a word, yes. Harmony is only one way to make sense of pitch organization, and a very vertical one at that. Melodies, motives, themes and 'riffs' form a more horizontal approach to understanding music. I'm going to get dinner in a little while, but I can talk about this later.



> 5. Regarding the third question "what scales/modes work over these chords". What I meant is this:
> Lets say the song is in Am, so the chords available to us are Am B° C Dm E F G#°. I can play A aeolian over it all, but I can also play B locrian, C ionian, etc (I assume this much ) over any of the chords.



What you're talking about is going to sound like A minor. Modality is largely misunderstood, so I advise staying away from anything other than major and minor *keys* (note: I didn't say scales) until you understand tonality and harmonic progression a little better. Remember, you refer back to the tonic of the key, not the root of the chord.



> However are there any other scales/modes that work over these chords? I know from my so called "aural writing" that if the song is in Am then I can play A harmonic minor over it as well and it sounds good. I can also play A pentatonic. A melodic minor and A blues works to some extent (some notes will be avoid notes I assume, but as my theoretical knowledge is rather limited I don't know which notes that are avoid over each chord, so up until now I've just used my ears to hear which notes not to land on).



This all falls into the category of A minor. 

I'll get back to the rest of your questions when I have some time later on.



> Super thanks SW!!! This is really kind of you



You're welcome.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jan 15, 2013)

All_¥our_Bass;3362526 said:


> Music theory is designed to *describe* what's happening in music aurally.
> 
> Even if you don't know any theory you can play chords that sound good together in some order be it a progression, succession or retrogression.
> 
> ...



This. It's called music _theory_ for precisely this reason. Think of it as "theory" in the scientific sense, ie a substantiated explanation for an existing phenomenon (musical structure). It does not dictate the form of music, only describe it. There is no fundamental divide between "aural" and "theoretical".


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 16, 2013)

All_¥our_Bass;3362526 said:


> Music theory is designed to *describe* what's happening in music aurally.
> 
> Even if you don't know any theory you can play chords that sound good together in some order be it a progression, succession or retrogression.
> 
> ...





InfinityCollision said:


> This. It's called music _theory_ for precisely this reason. Think of it as "theory" in the scientific sense, ie a substantiated explanation for an existing phenomenon (musical structure). It does not dictate the form of music, only describe it. There is no fundamental divide between "aural" and "theoretical".



Yes I know that, but the point of this thread is not to debate over whether theory is useful or not, or what theory really is. It can be a great tool to theoretically understand what you are practically/aurally doing, and it may open a whole bunch of new doors to your playing, hence the reason why I want to learn a bit more theory.

Some people can write amazing stuff without knowing a thing about what they are theoretically doing, and for some it takes a bit more time to reach that. Therefore I want to get better at theory as it might/will explain some of the questions I have. I one of those "I wanna know everything about this, how it works, why it works, etc"-guys 

@SW
Please feel free to do so whenever you have time  In the meantime I will try to internalize this and experiment a bit to see if any questions pop up.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jan 16, 2013)

InfinityCollision said:


> This. It's called music _theory_ for precisely this reason. Think of it as "theory" in the scientific sense, ie a substantiated explanation for an existing phenomenon (musical structure). It does not dictate the form of music, only describe it. There is no fundamental divide between "aural" and "theoretical".


That's what I was saying. I think you got it across better though.

I know that's not what this thread is about, but the you seemed to be thinking of it as two separate things (or at least you didn't appear to relate the two very well), and I wanted to clarify they aren't separate, but two facets of a greater whole.



Zeetwig said:


> I one of those "I wanna know everything about this, how it works, why it works, etc"-guys


 I'm like that too!!

Unfortunately there's a great deal of rock/metal/folk (basically many self-taught musicians) who think learning theory is a waste of time or will make them less creative.

I know you don't need to know _*exactly*_ how many things work to use them, but it certainly can be helpful if said thing needs to be fixed or simply to get the most out of it.

Even knowing just a tiny bit of theory can be immensely helpful for many musicians, like how to make a chord out of thirds, what some basic scales are, and what a key is.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 18, 2013)

Hi again  I've spent some time on this and a lot has become a lot more clearer  I am still very curious about the chromatic harmony, chromatic mediants, common tone chromatics, sidestepping and chromatic planing you mentioned earlier. You also mentioned modulation, voice leading and vertical/horizontal pitch organisation. It might be too much to ask you to explain all this so I will try to read up on it and then maybe I can ask questions about it. However if you do feel like helping me out then I would be very thankful if you could explain all or some of this, as I often find explanations from a person easier to understand than explanations from a book (if you know what I mean).


I have a few questions however 

1. First of all we need to brake the language barrier. Although I might have at least a moderately firm grip of music terminology in swedish the english counterpart is not up to par. Would you mind giving a quick description of each term so that I can get back on track, or at least confirm if I'm right or wrong in my description of them.? (For instance when you explain my 5th question in the last post I got a bit confused as I thought that you messed things up, but it's more likely a language confusion thing that actually messing up).
Key = Determines the functions of chords, which scales that are diatonic (and thus which scales that you "can" use)
Scale = A series of notes. Applied to a key each of the notes get a sort of "function" based on the interval to the tonic/first note of the key. There are many scales that "can" be used in a key, and often if the key is for instance A major the A major scale is used with it, however other scales are possible to used too.
Mode = A scale, but with the starting tone not being the tonic of the scale. For instance in the scale of A major (or A ionian), playing the notes of the A major scale but starting on B will yield B dorian. All modes in a scale can be applied to the same key, i.e. both A ionian and B dorian can be used in for instance the key of A major.
Note = A note, for instance an A (440Hz). Can be noted in notation.

Also, something can confuses me a lot is "note" and "tone" :S Is this correct:
Tone = The sound properties of a note. For instance you can play the same note on a guitar but alter the tone with effects etc. Or do "tone" have another meaning?

2. What do you mean with "secondary" and "secondary functions"? You've mentioned it a few times and it is also mentioned in the video.

3. What do you mean with "individuality" (in the context of harmonizing)? That if we have two chords (or a chord progression), with each note having a number of tendencies we like to hear each note do different intervallic jumps, and thus create separate melodies? If the chord progression wasn't very individual then all notes in the first chord would do the same, or to a large extent similar intervallic jumps?

4. The IV V I progression is the basis of all chord progressions you say, and this has to do with the tendencies of each note in each chord. Are there any other "true" progressions like this? If no why don't we see this progression in all music ever written? How important is it really to have progressions in music, and how important is it to get back to the tonic?

5. To follow up on chord progressions a bit. Here's a snippet of the chord progression in the 'theoretical' that I posted earlier.
Cm G/3 Bm-5 Cm+5 Cm

My question regarding this is: in my ears the G/3 wants to go to the Bm-5, and the Bm-5 to the Cm+5. Not as much as a G7 wants to go to a C for instance, but I can still hear a need to move somewhere. The same applies to the Cm+5 to the Cm, but stronger this time than in the previous two cases (still not as much as the G7 C though). Is this just me being weird or can you also hear it? I know it's not the same kind of "want to go to" as in a fall from dominant to tonic, but it's still a kind of "want to go to", but in a more "loose" way. It's like I can just keep adding chord after chord and they all want to move somewhere else/they don't want to stay where they are. Not until we get back to Cm. Only then does the "progression" feel "finished". How does this tie in with the IV V I thing, and how do I analyze things like this?
Thank you very much for your help!

ps.
(Bm-5 is the same as B°no7 here I suppose)
(I don't know how the nomenclature is in the US but here in Sweden "+" indicates an augmented note, so a Cm+5 means a Cm with a G# instead of a G, and "-" indicates a diminished note, so Bm-5 is a Bm with an F instead of an F#)


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 18, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> Hi again  I've spent some time on this and a lot has become a lot more clearer  I am still very curious about the chromatic harmony, chromatic mediants, common tone chromatics, sidestepping and chromatic planing you mentioned earlier. You also mentioned modulation, voice leading and vertical/horizontal pitch organisation. It might be too much to ask you to explain all this so I will try to read up on it and then maybe I can ask questions about it. However if you do feel like helping me out then I would be very thankful if you could explain all or some of this, as I often find explanations from a person easier to understand than explanations from a book (if you know what I mean).



I'll try to answer all of your questions in due time. For the moment, the difference between vertical and horizontal pitch organization is that vertical means harmony (what pitches belong to a scale, what tones make up a chord, etc.) whereas horizontal refers to how a melody is constructed (cells, motives, transformations of motivic material).



> I have a few questions however
> 
> 1. First of all we need to brake the language barrier. Although I might have at least a moderately firm grip of music terminology in swedish the english counterpart is not up to par. Would you mind giving a quick description of each term so that I can get back on track, or at least confirm if I'm right or wrong in my description of them.? (For instance when you explain my 5th question in the last post I got a bit confused as I thought that you messed things up, but it's more likely a language confusion thing that actually messing up).


I can't even imagine. We have a lot of international members on this forum, and I always think of how it must be hell for them to decipher what I say half of the time. 



> Key = Determines the functions of chords, which scales that are diatonic (and thus which scales that you "can" use)
> Scale = A series of notes. Applied to a key each of the notes get a sort of "function" based on the interval to the tonic/first note of the key. There are many scales that "can" be used in a key, and often if the key is for instance A major the A major scale is used with it, however other scales are possible to used too.
> Mode = A scale, but with the starting tone not being the tonic of the scale. For instance in the scale of A major (or A ionian), playing the notes of the A major scale but starting on B will yield B dorian. All modes in a scale can be applied to the same key, i.e. both A ionian and B dorian can be used in for instance the key of A major.
> Note = A note, for instance an A (440Hz). Can be noted in notation.


This is correct, except for key, I would say this:

Key = The note that has the most tonal gravity at a given time. For instance, you can have any chords in the world in a progression, but so long as the music sounds as though it wants to come to rest on B, then the key is B. We often say "Major" or "Minor" to qualify a key further, but key is truly about pitch centrality and the modality (major/minor/phrygian/lydian/etc.) is excess information where key is concerned. Also, key = tonality.



> Also, something can confuses me a lot is "note" and "tone" :S Is this correct:
> Tone = The sound properties of a note. For instance you can play the same note on a guitar but alter the tone with effects etc. Or do "tone" have another meaning?


Note = tone = pitch. They are all the same. However...

Tone = timbre = the way an instrument sounds.

"Tone" has a double meaning. I am using the former.



> 2. What do you mean with "secondary" and "secondary functions"? You've mentioned it a few times and it is also mentioned in the video.


"Primary functions" are diatonic chords (not to be confused with "primary chords" and "secondary chords", but let's leave those alone for now). For example, in the key of F minor, these are primary functions: Fm G° A&#9837; B&#9837;m C D&#9837; E° (also include Cm and E&#9837; for natural minor). "Secondary functions" are chords that are utilized in a progression, but are foreign to the key of that progression.

Fm B&#9837;m B°7 C7 D&#9837;

We can explain this progression in the key of F minor: Fm is i, B&#9837;m is iv, B°7 is... uh-oh. Leave that one alone for the moment. C7 is V7 and D&#9837; is VI. All in all, we have enough material to say, "Yeah, this is F minor," but we need an explanation for that B°7. If you look for keys that have B°7 in them, you will find that B°7 is the vii°7 of the key of C. We're not in the key of C for this progression, so what we do is find out C's relationship to F minor. Looking in the scale, it's the fifth degree. So, B°7 is going to be vii°7 of scale degree 5, which ultimately translates to "vii°7/V" (pronounced "seven diminished seven of five"). This progression is very much the same:

Fm B&#9837;m G7 C7 D&#9837;

G7 is the V7 of the key of C, and C is V of F minor, so we label G7 as V7/V.

Fm B&#9837;m G7 C7 D&#9837; = i iv V7/V V7 VI

Because secondary functions are borrowed from other keys, they briefly impart the flavor of that key to the progression by adding a little more tonal gravity to a note other than the tonic. This is called "tonicization", and is a perfect example of why I don't equate key to scale: the progression is still in F minor, but you can't explain some of the notes in that G7 chord if you're only looking at the F minor scale.



> 3. What do you mean with "individuality" (in the context of harmonizing)? That if we have two chords (or a chord progression), with each note having a number of tendencies we like to hear each note do different intervallic jumps, and thus create separate melodies? If the chord progression wasn't very individual then all notes in the first chord would do the same, or to a large extent similar intervallic jumps?


All I mean is that when we harmonize, we have two options: have all the notes of every chord move completely parallel to each other and get the sense that there is only one melodic line that is being harmonized, or have each note of the chord move in different directions (or the same direction at different intervals) and get the sense that there are multiple separate melodies that come together to form harmony. You can preserve the individuality of multiple lines by following the tonal tendencies of certain members of the key, because our ear is conditioned to hear certain resolutions. It's not so easy to explain to someone who has never encountered voice leading before. You'll notice that I don't write my chords with the same voicing all the time, but rather as four individual voices that move around with different contours.



> 4. The IV V I progression is the basis of all chord progressions you say, and this has to do with the tendencies of each note in each chord. Are there any other "true" progressions like this? If no why don't we see this progression in all music ever written? How important is it really to have progressions in music, and how important is it to get back to the tonic?


I said V7 I. IV is important, but leave it out for now.

Chord progressions are the stuff of Western tonal music since the 1600's. There are elements of the V I progression in music all over the world, though: every musical culture has at least one scale with a tonic and a perfect fifth. The other notes vary. This is likely due to the physics of our cochlea, but it is also an easy interval to make. Blow on a bottle, and you get the fundamental pitch of that bottle. Blow a little harder, and you will likely get a pitch an octave above the fundamental (depending on the shape of the bottle, but more likely than not). Blow even harder, and you will get a pitch a fifth above that note. (As a sidenote, my vuvuzela overblows at a major seventh. Irregularly shaped resonators have bizarre harmonic series.) Play the natural harmonics on any string on your guitar. The two strongest overtones are the octave (at the twelfth fret) and the perfect fifth above that (at the seventh fret).

Humans tend to approach melody in a stepwise fashion, moving about in intervals like those we know as major and minor seconds, perhaps with the occasional leap of a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or octave. When we do leap, going from the fifth of a scale to the tonic sounds pretty good, because we can find it fairly easily. In Western harmony, our V-I cadence is an expansion of this melodic tendency. You won't see V-I in every chord progression ever, but when we do come up to it, it has a very particular sound with a myriad of associations that are deeply rooted in our musical history. It is the most final of our harmonic cadences.

I had written something up on your compositions, and I was actually getting into the progression in your "theoretical" piece.

Aural 2 is in the key of C minor. It's a basic modal progression: i III VII i, on and on.You're using the C minor pentatonic scale. VII is acting as a dominant function, although without the leading tone that characterizes V and vii°. Very bluesy.

Aural 1 is also in C minor. You're playing a tonic pedal while the upper part of the riff descends diatonically, C B&#9837; A&#9837; G. That walkdown to the dominant scale degree is a common feature in Western music. It's very straight here, but you can find countless elaborations in styles going back to the Middle Ages. (By the way, throw around "walkdown to the dominant scale degree" at a jam, and everybody will piss their pants.) The synth is doubling that descending part. There is another synth sound that goes E&#9837; D D&#9837; C, which is a chromatic descent from the third of the scale to the tonic. The entire thing seems pretty static due to the tonic pedal and everything basically pointing to the tonic triad (C E&#9837; G). In other words, there is no actual harmonic progression: just an expansion of the tonic triad. This sort of harmonic stasis isn't uncommon, although it's certainly not something I would go for. Many musical cultures in the world have instruments that create a drone pitch (similar to having one chord all day, every day) against which a modal melody is played: bagpipes in Scotland and Eastern Europe, the tambura in India, Appalachian fiddle, etc. What you're writing is safe, and while it's not bad, I would encourage you to have real chord changes and learn to modulate somewhere down the line.

Theoretical 1 is also in C minor. Do you mind if I ask how your guitar is tuned? Many guitarists get comfortable writing and playing in the keys of their open strings, most commonly the lowest one. Obviously, you have a harmonic progression on this track. You have the tools to analyze the chord progression, so why don't you take a crack at it? A few things regarding notation: Bm-5 is not a chord symbol I would use. This must be a Swedish thing, because I've seen a couple of your countrymen use it. I favor "B°" or "Bdim", because diminished triads are diminished triads and not some bastardized version of a minor triad. Your instinct is correct with "Cm+5", though I wouldn't use that notation there, either. Why? Spell it out: C E&#9837; G#&#8230; Sharps and flats in the same chord, that's kind of weird. Change that G# to an A&#9837; and you have an A&#9837; major triad (A&#9837; C E&#9837. I did say that your instinct is correct, though, so let's have a look at why that is.

Remember when I said that you should call that chord A&#9837; two seconds ago? It's really Cm. I know, I know, hear me out. What you're dealing with is called a "suspension". Suspensions result from the delayed resolution of chord tones. This is essentially what's going on in your music:






See how the A&#9837; is being held from the previous chord before resolving to G? You're not using a fully diminished seventh chord, so yours sounds like a suspension coming out of nowhere, but it works out just the same harmonically.

Some other examples of suspensions:






The first measure is what I just spoke about. I indicate the intervals involved in the suspension with "6-5", meaning that the suspended tone is a sixth above the root of the resolving chord, and it then falls to a fifth.

The suspension in the second measure involves a ninth above the root of the chord falling to an octave. If the suspension occurred in the bass, it would be "2-1".

The third suspension is perhaps the most common: a fourth above the root falling to a third.

The fourth measure is a related procedure called "retardation". Whereas suspensions involve a melodic descent, retardations ascend. This retardation is a seventh above the root rising to an octave. (Erratum: The Roman numeral analysis should read vii°6,5 i6.)

The fifth measure demonstrates multiple suspensions in a chord. This can happen, but in order to be a true harmonic suspension, something needs to resolve. In this case, the leading tone in the bass resolves to the tonic and all of the other voices are suspended.



> 5. To follow up on chord progressions a bit. Here's a snippet of the chord progression in the 'theoretical' that I posted earlier.
> Cm G/3 Bm-5 Cm+5 Cm
> 
> My question regarding this is: in my ears the G/3 wants to go to the Bm-5, and the Bm-5 to the Cm+5. Not as much as a G7 wants to go to a C for instance, but I can still hear a need to move somewhere.


Ah, G/3. Is that G/D? I would argue that what you are hearing, instead of G and B°, is one big G7. At first, it's just G [G B D]. Then, you add the seventh later when you get to B° [B D F]. Altogether, it's G7 [G B D F], and the added insistence comes from the presence of the tritone, B F. You see, both V and vii° are what we call "dominant functions" or "leading tone functions", because they both contain a leading tone (scale degree 7), and have an inherent desire to progress to the tonic. V vii° I happens occasionally, and you can usually bracket both V and vii° as being the same chord. I might suggest turning that vii° into vii°7 (B D F A&#9837 to give it a bit more edge. That will also make the two chord more separate and interesting.

If you look at the reductions I've done to your progression, it looks like i V7 i, which is typical classical harmony.



> The same applies to the Cm+5 to the Cm, but stronger this time than in the previous two cases (still not as much as the G7 C though). Is this just me being weird or can you also hear it? I know it's not the same kind of "want to go to" as in a fall from dominant to tonic, but it's still a kind of "want to go to", but in a more "loose" way.


That's the suspension thing.



> It's like I can just keep adding chord after chord and they all want to move somewhere else/they don't want to stay where they are. Not until we get back to Cm. Only then does the "progression" feel "finished". How does this tie in with the IV V I thing, and how do I analyze things like this?
> Thank you very much for your help!


Finality in a harmonic progression comes from a dominant function moving to the tonic chord. So, V I or vii° I, or perhaps &#9837;II7 I.

In order to make our harmonic progressions more interesting (as in not tonic-dominant-tonic all the time), we can expand the key with other chords. The general order in that case is Mediant (iii) > Submediant (vi) > Subdominant (IV and ii) > Dominant (V and vii°) > Tonic (I), and you can also take little detours here and there. Sometimes vi sneaks its way into subdominant functions.

Let's look at the progression for the second phrase of "theoretical 1".

Cm Am7-5 Abmaj7 Gsus4 G

I would analyze this as i #viø7 VI&#8710; V. It's a chromatic progression, sort of. #viø7 comes from the melodic minor. That chord is more of an accessory to the A A&#9837; G chromatic line that you happen to make. This is an instance of the submediant function (vi or VI) acting as a subdominant. The suspended C in the Gsus4 comes from the A&#9837;&#8710;, and resolves to B shortly after. By ending this phrase on V, you make what is called a "half cadence". It's an incomplete cadence that creates a need for the music to continue.



> ps.
> (Bm-5 is the same as B°no7 here I suppose)
> (I don't know how the nomenclature is in the US but here in Sweden "+" indicates an augmented note, so a Cm+5 means a Cm with a G# instead of a G, and "-" indicates a diminished note, so Bm-5 is a Bm with an F instead of an F#)


It's similar to the system we use. G+ = G B D#, G = G B D, Gm = G B&#9837; D, G° = G B&#9837; D&#9837;

Edit: 4000 posts! Woo!


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 19, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> I'll try to answer all of your questions in due time. For the moment, the difference between vertical and horizontal pitch organization is that vertical means harmony (what pitches belong to a scale, what tones make up a chord, etc.) whereas horizontal refers to how a melody is constructed (cells, motives, transformations of motivic material).



Ok that makes sense 



SchecterWhore said:


> I can't even imagine. We have a lot of international members on this forum, and I always think of how it must be hell for them to decipher what I say half of the time.



For most of the time it's ok but sometimes there's just too many new words and expressions and it all just messes things up.  I'll ask you whenever I encounter a difficult word.



SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> This is called "tonicization", and is a perfect example of why I don't equate key to scale: the progression is still in F minor, but you can't explain some of the notes in that G7 chord if you're only looking at the F minor scale.



 Yeah I should probably have figured that out from the video you linked (which btw was very good! One thing was a bit unclear though but I'll ask you that later).



SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> It's not so easy to explain to someone who has never encountered voice leading before. You'll notice that I don't write my chords with the same voicing all the time, but rather as four individual voices that move around with different contours.



I think I understand what you mean but I guess things will clear up even more when I get more understanding of voicing and in particular voice leading. I guess that will come in due time 



Regarding (SD)>D>T, cadences and why we use the V I more or less in music: I guess that's just something that cannot be completely explained (yet). Music is very subjective, cultural and complex, so I guess it's not as "empirical" as other fields of science. We don't really "know" why out ears (or rather our brains) are behaving and reacting to music and sound, so getting a defined answer might be impossible at the moment. Thanks for the answer though 



SchecterWhore said:


> I had written something up on your compositions, and I was actually getting into the progression in your "theoretical" piece.
> 
> Aural 2 is in the key of C minor. It's a basic modal progression: i III VII i, on and on.You're using the C minor pentatonic scale. VII is acting as a dominant function, although without the leading tone that characterizes V and vii°. Very bluesy.
> 
> Aural 1 is also in C minor. You're playing a tonic pedal while the upper part of the riff descends diatonically, C B&#9837; A&#9837; G. That walkdown to the dominant scale degree is a common feature in Western music. It's very straight here, but you can find countless elaborations in styles going back to the Middle Ages. (By the way, throw around "walkdown to the dominant scale degree" at a jam, and everybody will piss their pants.) The synth is doubling that descending part. There is another synth sound that goes E&#9837; D D&#9837; C, which is a chromatic descent from the third of the scale to the tonic. The entire thing seems pretty static due to the tonic pedal and everything basically pointing to the tonic triad (C E&#9837; G). In other words, there is no actual harmonic progression: just an expansion of the tonic triad. This sort of harmonic stasis isn't uncommon, although it's certainly not something I would go for. Many musical cultures in the world have instruments that create a drone pitch (similar to having one chord all day, every day) against which a modal melody is played: bagpipes in Scotland and Eastern Europe, the tambura in India, Appalachian fiddle, etc. What you're writing is safe, and while it's not bad, I would encourage you to have real chord changes and learn to modulate somewhere down the line.



Not trying to be defensive or something but the song doesn't go on like that for its entire duration.  There's approximately 5 minutes of symphonic intro preluding it and then some more metal stuff after with more chordal activity. I just picked this riff/part as I like it quite a lot and it sounds massive, and I didn't construct it on a "theoretical" basis.

Also: modulation? What is that?



SchecterWhore said:


> Theoretical 1 is also in C minor. Do you mind if I ask how your guitar is tuned? Many guitarists get comfortable writing and playing in the keys of their open strings, most commonly the lowest one.



Yeah my current main guitar is tuned to C standard (or whatever its called), and I do like to have the low C string to chug on. I want to break the chugging up a bit though and involve some other keys (without tuning the guitar), and I was hoping that by learning some more theory I would be able to incorporate key changes into my songs seamlessly  For instance playing the dominant of a dominant of a dominant or something to elude people that the third dominant is actually the (sort of) tonic, and then throw in the real tonic a while later. I know you can do think though I might have explained it poorly.

(As a side note I may add that I do have and will acquire more guitars that are tuned differently. That doesn't do much for the guitar playing however as I still use the lowest string for chugging, which means that all notes will be at the same place regardless of tuning. It does affect playing the keys though as I feel that retuning the synth to be able to play for instance the B minor scale using A minor is cheating  But then I don't chug on the piano so  xP



SchecterWhore said:


> Obviously, you have a harmonic progression on this track. You have the tools to analyze the chord progression, so why don't you take a crack at it? A few things regarding notation: Bm-5 is not a chord symbol I would use. This must be a Swedish thing, because I've seen a couple of your countrymen use it. I favor "B°" or "Bdim", because diminished triads are diminished triads and not some bastardized version of a minor triad. Your instinct is correct with "Cm+5", though I wouldn't use that notation there, either. Why? Spell it out: C E&#9837; G#&#8230; Sharps and flats in the same chord, that's kind of weird. Change that G# to an A&#9837; and you have an A&#9837; major triad (A&#9837; C E&#9837. I did say that your instinct is correct, though, so let's have a look at why that is.



I think the reason why I call it a Bm-5 is that here in Sweden a Bdim written as Bdim would indicate a 4-note diminished chord (or fully diminished seventh chord as I think it's called in english). I don't want that high G# since the rhythm of the playing only allows for 3-note chords and thus I would have to notate the Bdim as a Bdimno7, which can be a bit more confusing that Bm-5. Other than that I have no idea why I call it a Bm-5. Probably a cultural or national/local thing.

Regarding Cm+5 I guess it's just another swedish thing  I cannot recall ever hearing that using both flats and sharps at the same time was something bad, but then my main notational experience comes from playing the violin and clarinet; not your typical chord-playing instruments 



SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> What you're dealing with is called a "suspension". Suspensions result from the delayed resolution of chord tones.
> ...



Ah so basically by displacing a note from a chord (for instance the third or fifth) you create suspension. Suspension that wants to resolve into a more stabile chord, for instance the tonic (or maybe only the tonic). By jumping around with the other "unsuspended" notes but keeping the suspended note suspended you can play a series of chords that all have that "want to go" feeling, and then you can finally resolve the suspended note to where it wants to go to close the entire thing up, yes? Does this work with any chord notes, or rahter: can I suspend any other notes than the tonic, third and fifth (your examples show these three are viable for suspension if I'm not mistaken)?



SchecterWhore said:


> Ah, G/3. Is that G/D?



That's a G played B D G. The 3 indicates that it played from its third position. I could have written it G/B too but I chose not to (for some strange reason  )



SchecterWhore said:


> I would argue that what you are hearing, instead of G and B°, is one big G7. At first, it's just G [G B D]. Then, you add the seventh later when you get to B° [B D F]. Altogether, it's G7 [G B D F], and the added insistence comes from the presence of the tritone, B F. You see, both V and vii° are what we call "dominant functions" or "leading tone functions", because they both contain a leading tone (scale degree 7), and have an inherent desire to progress to the tonic. V vii° I happens occasionally, and you can usually bracket both V and vii° as being the same chord. I might suggest turning that vii° into vii°7 (B D F A&#9837 to give it a bit more edge. That will also make the two chord more separate and interesting.
> 
> If you look at the reductions I've done to your progression, it looks like i V7 i, which is typical classical harmony.
> 
> ...



Yeah that actually makes sense.  Thanks ^^



SchecterWhore said:


> Let's look at the progression for the second phrase of "theoretical 1".
> 
> Cm Am7-5 Abmaj7 Gsus4 G
> 
> I would analyze this as i #viø7 VI&#8710; V. It's a chromatic progression, sort of. #viø7 comes from the melodic minor. That chord is more of an accessory to the A A&#9837; G chromatic line that you happen to make. This is an instance of the submediant function (vi or VI) acting as a subdominant. The suspended C in the Gsus4 comes from the A&#9837;&#8710;, and resolves to B shortly after. By ending this phrase on V, you make what is called a "half cadence". It's an incomplete cadence that creates a need for the music to continue.



Whoa! Would you mind repeating that again? The combination of new symbols and all info was a bit too much :S Why do you write both vi and VI?


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 19, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> Whoa! Would you mind repeating that again? The combination of new symbols and all info was a bit too much :S Why do you write both vi and VI?



I think I got this. If I don't got this, SW will doubtless correct me.

The VI chord of a minor progression is normally a major VI, four semitones below (or eight above) the key. So, C minor, VI is A&#9837;. 

You've got *Amø7* (or Am7&#9837;5, however you want to spell it - A minor diminished seventh, or A minor seventh flat five) and *A&#9837;&#916;* (A flat major seventh). One of these chords doesn't really "belong" in the key if we're going only on primary functions. *A&#9837;&#916;* is the *VI* (capitals 'cause it's major) so *Amø7* has to be described as *#viø7* (sharp six is where in the key it is placed - a semitone above the normal VI, half-diminished seventh is the type of chord it is).


----------



## Acreator (Jan 19, 2013)

Hey Zeetwig,
Your questions are great. 
There are excellent replies throughout this thread, so I won't contribute any specific theoretical discussion. What I would recommend is that you consider enrolling in a college music program. Composition, music theory, ear training, and musicology training would give you a thorough foundation in what you want to accomplish. 

H


----------



## Osorio (Jan 19, 2013)

@#$%. I love this place. So much learning.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 19, 2013)

> Whoa! Would you mind repeating that again? The combination of new symbols and all info was a bit too much :S Why do you write both vi and VI?


Let me give you a guide to my seventh chord symbols.

&#8710; - puts a major seventh on the chord (ex. C&#8710; = C E G B, Dm&#8710; = D F A C#)
7 - puts a minor seventh on the chord (ex. D7 = D F# A C, Bm7 = B D F# A)
ø7 - a diminished triad with a minor seventh on top (ex. Gø7 = G B&#9837; D&#9837; F, F#ø7 = F# A C E)
°7 - a diminished triad with a diminished seventh (ex. Gø7 = G B&#9837; D&#9837; F&#9837;, F#°7 = F# A C E&#9837

i VI V in C minor is Cm A&#9837; G. When we add in Aø7, we need to find some way of notating that. It's not diatonic, so it can't be i ii° III iv V VI vii°. It's not a secondary function, so we can't call it viiø7/X or vii°7/X or V7/X. It's not any sort of augmented sixth chord or any of that. The next best thing is to call it by its position: if A&#9837; is VI, then and sort of A must be #vi, #VI, #vi°, or #VI+. Since this is Aø7, it is therefore #viø7.

I said that the chord comes from the melodic minor scale. Let's look at that.

C melodic minor: C D E&#9837; F G A B

When we harmonize that, we get these chords:

```
B  C D  E&#9837; F G  A
G  A B  C D  E&#9837; F
E&#9837; F G  A  B C  D
C  D E&#9837; F  G A  B
```
Cm&#8710; Dm7 E&#9837;+&#8710; F7 G7 Aø7 Bø7, i&#8710; ii7 III+7 IV7 V7 #viø7 viiø7

It's a melodic scale, not meant to be used harmonically (hence _melodic_ minor), so you won't find many chord progressions derived from this collection. There are a couple of odd cases here and there that do use a chord or two out of the melodic minor, however. In your progression, as I pointed out, Aø7 is acting as an accessory to A&#9837;&#8710;.

Like I said, it's rare. Off the top of my head, I only know of one other instance of borrowing from the melodic minor in a Tchaikovsky children's song (measure 11).



Zeetwig said:


> Yeah I should probably have figured that out from the video you linked (which btw was very good! One thing was a bit unclear though but I'll ask you that later).



Cool. We are jumping around a bit, so it's good that you're still able to keep up.



> I think I understand what you mean but I guess things will clear up even more when I get more understanding of voicing and in particular voice leading. I guess that will come in due time


Voice leading is sort of the half-way point between vertical (chordal) and horizontal (melodic) writing: voice leading is how notes move from one chord to the next. The most blatant example is a leading tone in the context of V or vii° (let's say we're in C major, so the leading tone is B) - it will always want to go up by half-step, resolving to the tonic (C). However, the same note will want to move downward in the context of a progression such as I&#8710; IV&#8710; (B will want to move down to A).






Try moving between two chords by moving every note the smallest amount you can, and you'll see what this stuff is about.


```
e-
B-6-----6
G-5-----7
D-7-----8
A-6-----5
E-
-F7/E&#9837;--B&#9837;/D
```



> Regarding (SD)>D>T, cadences and why we use the V I more or less in music: I guess that's just something that cannot be completely explained (yet). Music is very subjective, cultural and complex, so I guess it's not as "empirical" as other fields of science. We don't really "know" why out ears (or rather our brains) are behaving and reacting to music and sound, so getting a defined answer might be impossible at the moment. Thanks for the answer though


Yes, there is a tangible explanation, but if you read too much into it, then you run the risk of believing in a fiction. For instance, some theorists have noted that by taking seven consecutive perfect fifths...

F C G D A E B

... and compressing them into a single octave...

F G A B C D E

... you get a diatonic scale. They make this assumption that there is some physical law that preordains the existence of the diatonic scale.

BAIN: A Pythagorean tuning of the diatonic scale

It's a lot of mystical bullshit, unfortunately. The interval of the perfect fifth is very prominent in music worldwide, but it's not uncommon to find scales that disregard that interval (such as the slendro scale of Indonesia). Humans create scales by stepping up and down by seconds rather than leaping constantly by fifth. Finding the perfect fifth in the harmonic series is significant, but more as a rough guideline than as a steadfast rule. One can also find a major triad in the harmonic series (try the natural harmonics at frets 5, 4, and 3 on any open string), yet Western Europe is really the only place for a long time that thought the major triad was the shit, and this only started happening in the 1400's (see Contenance angloise), which really is a blip in the history of human existence.



> Not trying to be defensive or something but the song doesn't go on like that for its entire duration.  There's approximately 5 minutes of symphonic intro preluding it and then some more metal stuff after with more chordal activity. I just picked this riff/part as I like it quite a lot and it sounds massive, and I didn't construct it on a "theoretical" basis.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yeah my current main guitar is tuned to C standard (or whatever its called), and I do like to have the low C string to chug on. I want to break the chugging up a bit though and involve some other keys (without tuning the guitar), and I was hoping that by learning some more theory I would be able to incorporate key changes into my songs seamlessly  For instance playing the dominant of a dominant of a dominant or something to elude people that the third dominant is actually the (sort of) tonic, and then throw in the real tonic a while later. I know you can do think though I might have explained it poorly.


That's fine. I'm only pointing that I hear a harmonic similarity in all three of your examples. The positive side of this is you have an easy way to make an improvement: if ever you want to break out of a rut, write music that does not use open strings. 



> Also: modulation? What is that?


Changing key.



> (As a side note I may add that I do have and will acquire more guitars that are tuned differently. That doesn't do much for the guitar playing however as I still use the lowest string for chugging, which means that all notes will be at the same place regardless of tuning. It does affect playing the keys though as I feel that retuning the synth to be able to play for instance the B minor scale using A minor is cheating  But then I don't chug on the piano so  xP


You could also try changing what the chuggy note is. For instance, keep everything tuned to C standard and write a riff in F minor, so C becomes the dominant degree. I don't think in terms of tuning, personally (it's an awful way to go about music), and the violinist in my band hates me because whenever I put sheet music in front of him, the key signature is always five or six sharps or flats. 



> I think the reason why I call it a Bm-5 is that here in Sweden a Bdim written as Bdim would indicate a 4-note diminished chord (or fully diminished seventh chord as I think it's called in english). I don't want that high G# since the rhythm of the playing only allows for 3-note chords and thus I would have to notate the Bdim as a Bdimno7, which can be a bit more confusing that Bm-5. Other than that I have no idea why I call it a Bm-5. Probably a cultural or national/local thing.


That's why we use a separate notation for sevenths.

Triads: B+, B, Bm, B°
Sevenths: B+&#8710;, B+7, B&#8710;, B7, Bm&#8710;, Bm7, B°&#8710;, Bø7, B°7

It's a modular system, completely closed.



> Regarding Cm+5 I guess it's just another swedish thing  I cannot recall ever hearing that using both flats and sharps at the same time was something bad, but then my main notational experience comes from playing the violin and clarinet; not your typical chord-playing instruments


Having sharps and flats in the same spelling is not necessarily wrong, but it should raise some red flags. If I see C E&#9837; G#, I'm going to look at it and say, "Hey, that doesn't look right," and very quickly see that it's not a Cm triad at all but rather an A&#9837;. However, I might see F# A C E&#9837;, go through the same process of scrutinizing the spelling, and resting assured that it's supposed to be like that because it's F#°7. Another one: B&#9837; D F#. That one is okay, because it's an augmented triad, so the fifth should be spelled as some sort of B to some sort of F, and depending on the size of the fifth, the spelling will be different.

But Cm+, I wouldn't do. Why make multiple names for a single chord?



> Ah so basically by displacing a note from a chord (for instance the third or fifth) you create suspension. Suspension that wants to resolve into a more stabile chord, for instance the tonic (or maybe only the tonic). By jumping around with the other "unsuspended" notes but keeping the suspended note suspended you can play a series of chords that all have that "want to go" feeling, and then you can finally resolve the suspended note to where it wants to go to close the entire thing up, yes? Does this work with any chord notes, or rahter: can I suspend any other notes than the tonic, third and fifth (your examples show these three are viable for suspension if I'm not mistaken)?


It works best with root, third, and fifth, because that's the core of the chord. You can't have a suspension resolving to the seventh, because that's just going to be a root, and you can't have a suspension resolving to the ninth, because that's going to be the third, and all the other situations are all very similar to that. A situation such as a 6-7 retardation, though, is perfectly feasible. You really have to have a minute sense of what is and what isn't a chord tone, lest you end up thinking that a chord is different from what it actually is (case in point: Cm+).



> That's a G played B D G. The 3 indicates that it played from its third position. I could have written it G/B too but I chose not to (for some strange reason  )


I see. "3" indicates the third. Some universities in the US teach some weird way of notation inverted chords, so G1 would be G/B, G2 is G/D, but then there are systems that derive from this that get it all wrong (because it's a stupid system to begin with) wherein G1 is G/G, G2 is G/B, and G3 is G/D. These are awful, awful notation systems. Just say what the bass note is, and every musician in the entire world will understand what you're trying to get at. None of this abstraction bullshit.



Acreator said:


> Hey Zeetwig,
> Your questions are great.
> There are excellent replies throughout this thread, so I won't contribute any specific theoretical discussion. What I would recommend is that you consider enrolling in a college music program. Composition, music theory, ear training, and musicology training would give you a thorough foundation in what you want to accomplish.
> 
> H



Agreed, although I will go on to say that studying music in college/university is a huge time commitment for something that doesn't have a lot of application. I love doing it, but I also want a career in composition and music education. If you're planning on pursuing another field in your education, see if you can take a harmony series and a couple ear training classes, and you'll have the meat of what you need to get started in composition.


----------



## Given To Fly (Jan 19, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Do you have anything you've written that you can show us? There is no difference between what you call "theoretical sense" and "aural sense" - one merely aims to describe the other. Perhaps a good place to begin is to learn to analyze your existing work. In doing the analysis, you might find things that work for you and realize how you can change the things that you don't like to work better.
> 
> This is fairly easy. You're first going to want to know how to abstract the chords of a key. Let's start with the key of D major, D E F# G A B C#. If you stack a couple of diatonic thirds on top of each note of the scale, you get these chords: D Em F#m G A Bm C#°
> 
> ...



Thats a year of college right there!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 19, 2013)

^ Well, minus some of the trimmings, yes. 

Edit: Jesus Christ, was SS.org even around in 2004?


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 20, 2013)

More follow-ups and loose ends to tie up  Bear with me 



SchecterWhore said:


> Edit: 4000 posts! Woo!



Congratulations! ^^ Still working on my first 500 



Acreator said:


> Hey Zeetwig,
> Your questions are great.
> There are excellent replies throughout this thread, so I won't contribute any specific theoretical discussion. What I would recommend is that you consider enrolling in a college music program. Composition, music theory, ear training, and musicology training would give you a thorough foundation in what you want to accomplish.
> 
> H



Yeah I probably should, however I do not have any plans on making it as a musicians (and much less as a composer) through an education (if I make it as a musician at all). I am one of those that as soon as you label something with a "must do", i.e. homework or school I loose interest and then stop doing it. I want as much freedom as I can, and therefore I keep my music at a hobby level. If I manage to find a band and gig around (whole time or part time) then it's wonderful, but I do not plan on achieving that through educating myself (though it sounds really stupid when I put it that way  ). I am currently studying geology and earth sciences at the university and I hope to graduate, get a good job with a decent pay, buy me a house and then convert one room (or two) into a home studio (for both personal use and for work - letting smaller bands record themselves, mostly for fun and not the money as I will already have a job), and another room into a workshop. I love playing, and I love recording, and I love building guitars (although I have just started with that  ) and that's what I want to do. So there you go: the plans of my future and the reason why I'm not that interested in studying music at school. Maybe I'll take a course someday if I feel the need for it, but until then this forum is more than enough ^^
Thanks for the help btw SW! 

Oh btw, I really like geology and earth sciences so it's not like I'm doing something that I don't like, because if music was the only thing I was interested in I would definitely attend some music school  It's just that it can be quite hard to make it as a musician, and even harder to make it as a producer or luthier. Especially the latter two as you need quite a bit of funds to buy all the stuff for the studio and all the tools, woods, etc. Therefor I chose the "safe" path as I find it really interesting, and I KNOW that I will get a job, and I have good chances at getting a well-paid one too. 



SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> Aø7 is acting as an accessory to A&#9837;&#8710;.
> ...



Makes sense. Thanks for the thorough explanation! 



SchecterWhore said:


> Cool. We are jumping around a bit, so it's good that you're still able to keep up.



Doing my best sir 



SchecterWhore said:


> Voice leading
> ...



Yeah the "move each finger as little as possible"-thing makes sense, and if you follow it then you won't always get chords like A/A G/G C/C etc (which can sound a bit boring or even "amateur-ish" if too many are playing in a row).

Though, when I hear "voice *leading*" it sounds like there should be some kind of "lead" or "leading" melody line, i.e. one note in the chord that follows a melody while the others follow other sub-melodies that together with the "leading melody" form chords and chord successions/progressions. I guess the tonic can be seen as this maybe? Or is is just the language barrier once again? That voice leading is just a word used and has nothing to do with a "master melody" and "sub melodies" forming the chords?

(This question might sound stupid to some of you but, well, I still have it so why not ask it?  As my old chemistry teacher always said "there is no such thing as a stupid question, except for the question never asked".  )



SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> It's a lot of mystical bullshit, unfortunately.
> ...



I think we'll let the thinkers do the thinking 



SchecterWhore said:


> That's fine. I'm only pointing that I hear a harmonic similarity in all three of your examples. The positive side of this is you have an easy way to make an improvement: if ever you want to break out of a rut, write music that does not use open strings.



Yeah I guess  I do have a love for that type of genre and playing style, and so far it hasn't become boring. I will try to change it up more in the future though, if not for variety then at least for improving on the instrument 



SchecterWhore said:


> Changing key.



Ah



SchecterWhore said:


> You could also try changing what the chuggy note is. For instance, keep everything tuned to C standard and write a riff in F minor, so C becomes the dominant degree. I don't think in terms of tuning, personally (it's an awful way to go about music), and the violinist in my band hates me because whenever I put sheet music in front of him, the key signature is always five or six sharps or flats.



Chugging on the dominant might sound a bit weird in my ears but I'll give it a shot 

Oh man you're one of those guys :S I can definitely relate to your bandmate since I've played viloin for quite a few years myself 

Btw do you mind asking what kind of music you play? I seldom hear about bands with violin players in (at least in the kind of music that I listen to). 



SchecterWhore said:


> If I see C E&#9837; G#, I'm going to look at it and say, "Hey, that doesn't look right," and very quickly see that it's not a Cm triad at all but rather an A&#9837;.



I've looked this up and apparently it's notated as an A&#9837; if it sounds like a major chord, and Cm+5 if it sounds like a minor chord (at least here in Sweden). But his might be utterly subjective and I don't really know if there is such a thing as a swedish/local type of notation. (One reason why you should at least take a course in music theory  ). The main thing is that people understand IMO, but I will try to remember to look for options how to write out chords. 



SchecterWhore said:


> It works best with root, third, and fifth, because that's the core of the chord. You can't have a suspension resolving to the seventh, because that's just going to be a root, and you can't have a suspension resolving to the ninth, because that's going to be the third, and all the other situations are all very similar to that. A situation such as a 6-7 retardation, though, is perfectly feasible. You really have to have a minute sense of what is and what isn't a chord tone, lest you end up thinking that a chord is different from what it actually is (case in point: Cm+).



So, just to clarify: it is possible to take for instance a C6 and resolve it to a C7 or Cmaj7 (C&#8710? Or have I missed something?

Also, another retardation could be the 2 to the 3 (a sus2 to a triad), no?



SchecterWhore said:


> I see. "3" indicates the third. Some universities in the US teach some weird way of notation inverted chords, so G1 would be G/B, G2 is G/D, but then there are systems that derive from this that get it all wrong (because it's a stupid system to begin with) wherein G1 is G/G, G2 is G/B, and G3 is G/D. These are awful, awful notation systems. Just say what the bass note is, and every musician in the entire world will understand what you're trying to get at. None of this abstraction bullshit.



I know that this is now things are notated here in Sweden, although in the context of a song G/3 is rarely used. G/3 is mainly an analytical thing, as it points out that it is a G major chord played from the B. A G/B could be interpreted as just a straight forward G B D and then a B played one octave down, but a G/3 specifies how the triad is played. However as I said in the context of a song G/B is always used. Also, this is only possible if the exact voicing of the chords isn't written out, for instance in songs where the piano or guitar have primarily a backing/comp role.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 20, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> Yeah I probably should, however I do not have any plans on making it as a musicians (and much less as a composer) through an education (if I make it as a musician at all). I am one of those that as soon as you label something with a "must do", i.e. homework or school I loose interest and then stop doing it. I want as much freedom as I can, and therefore I keep my music at a hobby level. If I manage to find a band and gig around (whole time or part time) then it's wonderful, but I do not plan on achieving that through educating myself (though it sounds really stupid when I put it that way  ). I am currently studying geology and earth sciences at the university and I hope to graduate, get a good job with a decent pay, buy me a house and then convert one room (or two) into a home studio (for both personal use and for work - letting smaller bands record themselves, mostly for fun and not the money as I will already have a job), and another room into a workshop. I love playing, and I love recording, and I love building guitars (although I have just started with that  ) and that's what I want to do. So there you go: the plans of my future and the reason why I'm not that interested in studying music at school. Maybe I'll take a course someday if I feel the need for it, but until then this forum is more than enough ^^



Smart man.



> Thanks for the help btw SW!


Welcome.



> Yeah the "move each finger as little as possible"-thing makes sense, and if you follow it then you won't always get chords like A/A G/G C/C etc (which can sound a bit boring or even "amateur-ish" if too many are playing in a row).


Not so much moving you fingers as little as possible, but moreso the actual notes. The guitar is built for parallel harmony.







A simple and very straight ii V I. The first progression is realized with a more "voice-leady" approach. The second progression is all YYYYEAH BOY BAR CHORDS! Which is easier? Probably the one that I could still do if I lost a finger in an industrial accident. The guitar can do the voice leading, but it prefers lazy root position chord shapes. If you eliminate the bass note, however, that voice leading becomes much easier.



> Though, when I hear "voice *leading*" it sounds like there should be some kind of "lead" or "leading" melody line, i.e. one note in the chord that follows a melody while the others follow other sub-melodies that together with the "leading melody" form chords and chord successions/progressions. I guess the tonic can be seen as this maybe? Or is is just the language barrier once again? That voice leading is just a word used and has nothing to do with a "master melody" and "sub melodies" forming the chords?


Nope. Voice leading is how the notes of one chord move to the notes of the next chord. No melodic line is necessarily seen as superior or subordinate. That's more of a textural decision.



> (This question might sound stupid to some of you but, well, I still have it so why not ask it?  As my old chemistry teacher always said "there is no such thing as a stupid question, except for the question never asked".  )


Not stupid questions at all. Keep asking.



> Chugging on the dominant might sound a bit weird in my ears but I'll give it a shot


It will sound weird, but maybe you can find some context for it. In metal, it's usually an awful sound. The other solution is to utilize a moving pedal point.



> Oh man you're one of those guys :S I can definitely relate to your bandmate since I've played viloin for quite a few years myself


"Why don't you write it in D?" "We have three songs in D."



> Btw do you mind asking what kind of music you play? I seldom hear about bands with violin players in (at least in the kind of music that I listen to).


 Annoying bullshit, mostly. I've been trying to get a prog rock thing off the ground for a while, but it gets crushed with lineup changes and schoolwork every few months. The violinist is a friend of our former singer. We let him play with us, despite the fact that there really wasn't much room cut out for him. We couldn't hear him 90% of the time, though, so it worked out.



> I've looked this up and apparently it's notated as an A&#9837; if it sounds like a major chord, and Cm+5 if it sounds like a minor chord (at least here in Sweden). But his might be utterly subjective and I don't really know if there is such a thing as a swedish/local type of notation. (One reason why you should at least take a course in music theory  ). The main thing is that people understand IMO, but I will try to remember to look for options how to write out chords.


Okay. It's going to sound like a major chord, though, because, you know, it's a major chord. 



> So, just to clarify: it is possible to take for instance a C6 and resolve it to a C7 or Cmaj7 (C&#8710? Or have I missed something?


Eeeeeeh... Yeah, sorta. The non-classical non-composer types like to reduce everything to a chord symbol. Admirable, but you can't communicate all musical nuance through a chord symbol.






This is all C7 to me. No C6 going to C7. The A is not even in the chord. (I also don't believe in 6 chords, but that's a story for another time.)



> Also, another retardation could be the 2 to the 3 (a sus2 to a triad), no?


Yes.



> I know that this is now things are notated here in Sweden, although in the context of a song G/3 is rarely used. G/3 is mainly an analytical thing, as it points out that it is a G major chord played from the B. A G/B could be interpreted as just a straight forward G B D and then a B played one octave down, but a G/3 specifies how the triad is played. However as I said in the context of a song G/B is always used. Also, this is only possible if the exact voicing of the chords isn't written out, for instance in songs where the piano or guitar have primarily a backing/comp role.


Strange. I would consider "G/3" and G/B analytically identical by your description.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 20, 2013)

A few more questions and some closing words for "sub-topics" 

If you feel like going on into the chromatics then please feel free to do so.  I think I've got everything so far down (although I suppose that you can never really say that as learning is a continuos process, and very few can really grasp all this stuff (I mean REALLY grasp it - AND apply it flawlessly) in this short period of time. I think that I have a fairly good grasp of it, and there's not too many "blind spots" or "gaps in the knowledge", but then applying it is a totally different story (working on that atm  )).



SchecterWhore said:


> Voice leading



Yeah bar chords are your best friend if you suck at playing chords but want to use them anyway  You can however (as you said) skip the bottom two strings/the tonic and fifth and just play the 4 higher strings. Then different voicings will be easier to play (although I guess piano is still superior when it comes to voicing chords). I will look into this some more.  How to do play chords in different voicing and so on.



SchecterWhore said:


> Nope. Voice leading is how the notes of one chord move to the notes of the next chord. No melodic line is necessarily seen as superior or subordinate. That's more of a textural decision.



So why is it called voice *leading*?  Just because it is called that, or what? (Language language language...)



SchecterWhore said:


> Not stupid questions at all. Keep asking.



Thanks! 



SchecterWhore said:


> It will sound weird, but maybe you can find some context for it. In metal, it's usually an awful sound. The other solution is to utilize a moving pedal point.



I'll experiment. Continuos chugging on the dominant like in the 'aural 1' will probably not sound as good as chugging on the root, but letting a second guitar chug on the dominant for a short amount of time (perhaps over the other guitar chugging on it like in the 'aural 1') will probably work out (it WILL work out, in the correct context). 



SchecterWhore said:


> "Why don't you write it in D?" "We have three songs in D."



D is ok. G is better  E and upwards are horrible 



SchecterWhore said:


> Annoying bullshit, mostly. I've been trying to get a prog rock thing off the ground for a while, but it gets crushed with lineup changes and schoolwork every few months. The violinist is a friend of our former singer. We let him play with us, despite the fact that there really wasn't much room cut out for him. We couldn't hear him 90% of the time, though, so it worked out.



Haha poor lad   Give him a Yamaha SV, a Marshall and a TS-9 and *you* won't hear yourselves any longer 



SchecterWhore said:


> Okay. It's going to sound like a major chord, though, because, you know, it's a major chord.



Depends on context I would say but then again; music is subjective  But hey I'm just a geologist who likes rock (no pun intended  ); you're the pro ^^



SchecterWhore said:


> Eeeeeeh... Yeah, sorta. The non-classical non-composer types like to reduce everything to a chord symbol. Admirable, but you can't communicate all musical nuance through a chord symbol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But it is going to work? Your example will work? If not then would you mind giving a few more examples?



SchecterWhore said:


> Strange. I would consider "G/3" and G/B analytically identical by your description.



This is probably just one of those things that are different in different countries and cultures, so there really is no point in going much further into it. It could be that I'm wrong too (at least we shouldn't rule that out  ). Perhaps it is more common to write the function of the chord and then the digit, so if the key was C then G/3 or G/B would be V/3 or something like that. However V/3 does not tell us if it is a triad played first-third-fifth and with the third played in the bass an octave below or if it's a triad played third-fifth-first with/without the third in the bass an octave below too. In both case the result is the same and there is no difference chord-wise, but there is a difference in how it's played.

Or whatever


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 20, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> If you feel like going on into the chromatics then please feel free to do so.  I think I've got everything so far down (although I suppose that you can never really say that as learning is a continuos process, and very few can really grasp all this stuff (I mean REALLY grasp it - AND apply it flawlessly) in this short period of time. I think that I have a fairly good grasp of it, and there's not too many "blind spots" or "gaps in the knowledge", but then applying it is a totally different story (working on that atm  )).



I will later.



> So why is it called voice *leading*?  Just because it is called that, or what? (Language language language...)


I don't know. Because there is a sense of continuity between a chord tone in one chord and a chord tone in the succeeding chord. The previous leads into the following. This establishes independent voices, as opposed to random chord voicings that leap around everywhere and may have three notes in for one chord and five notes in the next. It is the horizontal realization of what is otherwise a vertical idea.

A webpage that talks about this: http://www.tonalityguide.com/tkvoiceleading.php

Dolmetsch uses this definition:

"A term used in America to describe writing a succession of harmonic notes in the inner voices so that they form coherent melodic lines of their own, or, at least, move in a smooth, mainly step-wise motion, that is like part-writing in polyphony. Bach did this to perfection, writing 4 or more independent melodies so that they worked together to form perfect chordal harmony. In Schenkerian analysis, the term 'voice leading' is used in preference to 'part-writing.'"

I've heard "part-writing", and I would use the two terms interchangeably, but I probably use "voice leading" more often.



> I'll experiment. Continuos chugging on the dominant like in the 'aural 1' will probably not sound as good as chugging on the root, but letting a second guitar chug on the dominant for a short amount of time (perhaps over the other guitar chugging on it like in the 'aural 1') will probably work out (it WILL work out, in the correct context).


This makes me cringe, but if you like it, go ahead. 



> Haha poor lad   Give him a Yamaha SV, a Marshall and a TS-9 and *you* won't hear yourselves any longer


As soon as he starts getting more confident with his playing, I'll consider that. As for now, I'd rather leave the weedly-weedly to the guys who know how to dig into a note.



> Depends on context I would say but then again; music is subjective  But hey I'm just a geologist who likes rock (no pun intended  ); you're the pro ^^


While it is true that context determines a lot of how we hear music, that context is created by familiar structures. The major triad is perhaps the most familiar structure there is in Western harmony. To say that it sounds like anything but a major triad is like looking at red and saying it's blue.



> But it is going to work? Your example will work? If not then would you mind giving a few more examples?


Anything can work, given the proper context. I composed a couple examples really quickly just to demonstrate the concept. (If you end up playing these, please don't think that they're an accurate picture of my compositional ability.)






Alrighty. In measure 2, we cave a C7 with a 6-5 suspension (can also be analyzed as an accented neighbor tone). This demonstrated an instance when a sixth is played above the root of the chord, is a non-chord tone, and resolves downward. In measure 3, the Am7/C is, to all appearances, a C triad with an A stuck on top (C6, by some people's account). The A is heard as a chord tone, however, so this is a case of a sixth being played above the bass note and not having any particular tendency.






In measure 3, we have another sixth above the root of a chord. This one is more appropriately classified as an accented passing tone. However, the point of this one is that the D# is a non-chord tone that resolves to E.

In all three of these cases, the same sort of situation (a sixth above a bass note) has been handled differently depending on where the note is coming from and where it is going to.



> This is probably just one of those things that are different in different countries and cultures, so there really is no point in going much further into it. It could be that I'm wrong too (at least we shouldn't rule that out  ). Perhaps it is more common to write the function of the chord and then the digit, so if the key was C then G/3 or G/B would be V/3 or something like that. However V/3 does not tell us if it is a triad played first-third-fifth and with the third played in the bass an octave below or if it's a triad played third-fifth-first with/without the third in the bass an octave below too. In both case the result is the same and there is no difference chord-wise, but there is a difference in how it's played.
> 
> Or whatever


I'd look into that, if I were you. In practice, I've never encountered numbers being used to indicate bass notes in leadsheet symbols, and the inversion symbols that I know of that do use numbers come out of Baroque shorthand for continuo players. G/B is any voicing of a G chord with B in the bass, be it BDG, BGDG, BGGGGGGD, BG, BBBBBBGD, BGGDBGDDGBG, or whatever.

And then there's the Nashville Numbering System. Uuuuuuuuggggggghhhh...


----------



## Acreator (Jan 20, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Agreed, although I will go on to say that studying music in college/university is a huge time commitment for something that doesn't have a lot of application. I love doing it, but I also want a career in composition and music education. If you're planning on pursuing another field in your education, see if you can take a harmony series and a couple ear training classes, and you'll have the meat of what you need to get started in composition.



That goes without saying. One has to be pretty sure about a music-related vocation to dedicate such prime years to its study. And it's a difficult field indeed...
That being said, many colleges offer double majors (e.g. music & applied sciences), music minors, or even individual music courses that are open to all matriculants.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 20, 2013)

^ That's why I love going to Hindustani music concerts. The performer descriptions are always, "So-and-so, world renowned sarod player, protegé of pandit What's-his-face, last surviving practicioner of the style of Something-something gurukul. Oh, and he also has a PhD in Molecular Genetics and Microbiology from Prestigious University."


----------



## Acreator (Jan 20, 2013)

^Yep. My wife is doing her PhD in Composition now, but started with a double-bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering and Music Performance. Go figure.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 21, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> Voice leading
> ...



Ok that cleared things up a little  Thanks!



SchecterWhore said:


> As soon as he starts getting more confident with his playing, I'll consider that. As for now, I'd rather leave the weedly-weedly to the guys who know how to dig into a note.



Violin is rather hard to play IMO (compared to for instance guitar or the clarinet) so if you want so see how confident he is how much potential he has give him a song in a good key, not too complex runs, etc. Something that he thinks he can play rather decently, and then see if he "loosen up" a bit more. It is very easy to, in the face of difficult song, not play as "flourishing" and "vividly" as you normally do (but you probably already know this). Also: earplugs! The best friend of a violinist (and I mean the sonically good earplugs, not the crappy yellow marshmallows). They let you play just as vividly as you want without having to worry about damage to the hearing, and most importantly, they let you play loud and good because you aren't constantly cutting your ear drums with a machete every time you play something above mezzoforte! 



SchecterWhore said:


> While it is true that context determines a lot of how we hear music, that context is created by familiar structures. The major triad is perhaps the most familiar structure there is in Western harmony. To say that it sounds like anything but a major triad is like looking at red and saying it's blue.



Yeah it will most likely sound like a major triad when played on it's own, but when I play it in that chord succession then it sounds rather minorish to me. However it would probably sound more majorish if I stopped there an played it over and over a few times. I might be weird but that's how my ears interpret it  It's probably the minor third between the C and D#, and the fact that the part is in C minor that makes it sound like a minor chord. If the song was in a major key, or perhaps in some other minor key than C then it could probably sound more like a major triad than a minor triad. But then I do have a very strong "sense" for the tonic of the key. Whenever I come up with riffs in my head away from the guitar, and then try to play them on the guitar they are almost always in the key that I usually play in (for the moment C). 



SchecterWhore said:


> (If you end up playing these, please don't think that they're an accurate picture of my compositional ability.)



Oh so far you seem like an omnipotent organic encyclopedia for music theory so I have no doubts that you can compose awesome music 



SchecterWhore said:


> In all three of these cases, the same sort of situation (a sixth above a bass note) has been handled differently depending on where the note is coming from and where it is going to.



Ok thanks!  The examples was really helpful  Applying it might be more difficult though, but that's another story 



SchecterWhore said:


> I'd look into that, if I were you. In practice, I've never encountered numbers being used to indicate bass notes in leadsheet symbols, and the inversion symbols that I know of that do use numbers come out of Baroque shorthand for continuo players. G/B is any voicing of a G chord with B in the bass, be it BDG, BGDG, BGGGGGGD, BG, BBBBBBGD, BGGDBGDDGBG, or whatever.
> 
> And then there's the Nashville Numbering System. Uuuuuuuuggggggghhhh...



I'll ask someone who really knows and then chime back in when I know.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 21, 2013)

Acreator said:


> That goes without saying. One has to be pretty sure about a music-related vocation to dedicate such prime years to its study. And it's a difficult field indeed...
> That being said, many colleges offer double majors (e.g. music & applied sciences), music minors, or even individual music courses that are open to all matriculants.





SchecterWhore said:


> ^ That's why I love going to Hindustani music concerts. The performer descriptions are always, "So-and-so, world renowned sarod player, protegé of pandit What's-his-face, last surviving practicioner of the style of Something-something gurukul. Oh, and he also has a PhD in Molecular Genetics and Microbiology from Prestigious University."





Acreator said:


> ^Yep. My wife is doing her PhD in Composition now, but started with a double-bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering and Music Performance. Go figure.



Hmm. I will look into some courses for next year maybe. What kind of courses would you recommend?


----------



## Acreator (Jan 21, 2013)

Zeetwig said:


> Hmm. I will look into some courses for next year maybe. What kind of courses would you recommend?



Well, judging by this thread, you'll definitely want to take some music theory courses, particularly Harmony. At first this will cover learning to analyze and write music that uses functional tonality (which applies mostly to Baroque/Classical/Romantic). 
More advanced harmony and analysis courses will deal with "newer" developments, such as non-functional tonality, set-class theory, atonality, serialism & integral serialism, minimalist and aleatoric (chance) procedures, etc..
Tonal & modal counterpoint would likely be interesting to you as well (i.e. composing independent musical lines that work together). You'll develop melody writing and harmonic control simultaneously.

Ear training (musicianship) courses are great for developing your ability to hear and understand music on a deeper level while building up your reading skills. Makes sense for musicians to hear accurately, right? 
Singing in your university choir is also a great way to develop your hearing and reading. Also feels great to sing in a large ensemble where it doesn't matter so much if you make mistakes - it's like getting an internal massage every time.

I would highly recommend a "music appreciation"-type or music history survey course. You listen to and learn a lot about the Western musical canon - giving you a sense of context - and it will introduce you to 20th- and 21st-century developments that can be very inspiring as far as creating more original music.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 21, 2013)

^ Absolutely this. Harmony and musicianship/ear training are the most important classes when you begin studying music. Form and analysis are next. Counterpoint is also nice, and music history will help contextualize everything you learn. That's how things are laid out over here. In Sweden, I can't say what is emphasized. My composition professor went to a Romanian music conservatory since he was five or six years old, and musicology was an important part of their curriculum. It changes, depending on where you go, but the core is usually the same.



Zeetwig said:


> Violin is rather hard to play IMO (compared to for instance guitar or the clarinet) so if you want so see how confident he is how much potential he has give him a song in a good key, not too complex runs, etc. Something that he things he can play rather decently, and then see if he "loosen up" a bit more. It is very easy to, in the face of difficult song, not play as "flourishing" and "vividly" as you normally do (but you probably already know this). Also: earplugs! The best friend of a violinist (and I mean the sonically good earplugs, not the crappy yellow marshmallows). They let you play just as vividly as you want without having to worry about damage to the hearing, and most importantly, they let you play loud and good because you aren't constantly cutting your ear drums with a machete every time you play something above mezzoforte!



Thanks for the input. I bought some of my favorite earplugs for him (Etymotic ER20's, which he hardly wears), and I recently composed a more virtuosic passage for him in C minor (he plays a five-string), so we'll see how that goes. It's a little harder than what he's used to, but there are a lot of open string and it's nothing outside of his current playing ability. Maybe we can see about that silent violin you brought up earlier.

And then there's the matter that a good chunk of our music doesn't have key (at least in the diatonic sense)... Oh well.



> Yeah it will most likely sound like a major triad when played on it's own, but when I play it in that chord succession then it sounds rather minorish to me. However it would probably sound more majorish if I stopped there an played it over and over a few times. I might be weird but that's how my ears interpret it  It's probably the minor third between the C and D#, and the fact that the part is in C minor that makes it sound like a minor chord. If the song was in a major key, or perhaps in some other minor key than C then it could probably sound more like a major triad than a minor triad. But then I do have a very strong "sense" for the tonic of the key. Whenever I come up with riffs in my head away from the guitar, and then try to play them on the guitar they are almost always in the key that I usually play in (for the moment C).


It can also be the context in which the chord is played. &#9837;6 is a very "minor" scale degree, so anything that you play that's diatonic to C minor that has an A&#9837; in it (D°, Fm, A&#9837;, B°7) is going to have some of that heaviness, even if it's some chord like A&#9837;&#8710;. If someone were to ask me about the emotional flavor of &#9837;6, I'd say it's "bittersweet", gives you a feeling of longing.

I haven't forgotten about chromaticism, modulation, and counterpoint. Just haven't found the time yet.


----------



## Zeetwig (Jan 21, 2013)

Regarding taking classes
I did take a single class of "music theory" in secondary high school (or whatever it's called - the three-year education after the initial 9 years) and it was comprised pretty much what you described here, in that order, but "light" versions of them of course. But I'll look in to university-level courses  Thanks 



SchecterWhore said:


> Thanks for the input. I bought some of my favorite earplugs for him (Etymotic ER20's, which he hardly wears), and I recently composed a more virtuosic passage for him in C minor (he plays a five-string), so we'll see how that goes. It's a little harder than what he's used to, but there are a lot of open string and it's nothing outside of his current playing ability. Maybe we can see about that silent violin you brought up earlier.
> 
> And then there's the matter that a good chunk of our music doesn't have key (at least in the diatonic sense)... Oh well.



Those should be more than enough (I use similar ones), he just has to get used to the feeling of hearing the violin in a different way. Shouldn't take too long though. And if he has problems hearing himself (which he shouldn't have because the left ear is very close to the instrument and the entire body and skull resonates if you play loud enough), he can always pull the right earplug out a little, letting more sound in on that side (not on the left side though as that ear is too close to the sound source). Also, if he gets a silent/electric violin then adding effects and such is really a blast!  Then he can use in-ears as well, which is really useful in a loud band setting.

Oh I have wanted to play a 5-string since I first discovered them!  I just have to get my playing up to the level I had before I "quit"...



SchecterWhore said:


> It can also be the context in which the chord is played. &#9837;6 is a very "minor" scale degree, so anything that you play that's diatonic to C minor that has an A&#9837; in it (D°, Fm, A&#9837;, B°7) is going to have some of that heaviness, even if it's some chord like A&#9837;&#8710;. If someone were to ask me about the emotional flavor of &#9837;6, I'd say it's "bittersweet", gives you a feeling of longing.



I can agree to that 



SchecterWhore said:


> I haven't forgotten about chromaticism, modulation, and counterpoint. Just haven't found the time yet.



Perfect! ^^ Take your time, no rush.  I am super grateful for you doing this! Thank you!


----------



## Zeetwig (Feb 6, 2013)

Hi again!

I just want to say that I am still very interested in learning more  I assume you've been busy and there's no rush at all, but if you find the time and feel like it I would be very happy to take up this thread and continue 

Cheers


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 6, 2013)

I was thinking about this thread yesterday, actually. You're right in supposing that I'm busy, but I'll post more soon.


----------



## Zeetwig (Feb 8, 2013)

I have always believed that some kind of telepathy is possible, since these things happen all the time 

Thanks!  Take your time though, no rush.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 16, 2013)

Alright, finally getting around to this one.

Chromaticism comes in two flavors: functional and non-functional chromaticism. Functional chromaticism is built on principles of tendency. Any time you hear "functional", it's a chord that has a need to go somewhere. Non-functional chromaticism, as you might guess, has no particular need to resolve (not to anywhere specific, anyway), and is usually used for coloristic purposes. We'll talk first of functional chromaticism, then I'll get around to the non-functional stuff once you get a chance to digest all this.

We have already encountered one form of functional chromaticism: secondary functions. The aural effect of a secondary function is an emphasis of a non-tonic tone. We will see that functional chromaticism usually does want to emphasize something. Secondary functions can take a lame chord progression&#8230;

C Am F G C

&#8230; and make it much more interesting.

C E7 Am C7 F D7 G7 C

What I've done there is prepare each chord with its own secondary dominant. The overall effect that this has on the progression is that instead of hearing the commonplace diatonic I vi IV V I that annoyingly insists on a single key (C major), we get flavors of a bunch of different keys (C major, A minor, F major, G major, and back to C major).

So we can make some chromatic interest by borrowing from other keys. Another way to do it is by borrowing from other modes. One of the most well-known modal borrowings is the Neapolitan chord, so called because of a supposed link between this sonority and the Neapolitan School composers of the 1700's, although the Neapolitan chord was used long before that period, there is nothing to really suggest that it was a stylistic feature of these composers, and there are doubts as to whether the Neapolitan School actually existed. Go figure. At any rate, the name stuck.

The Neapolitan chord itself may be described as a major triad built from the &#9837;2 scale degree (meaning it consists of &#9837;2 4 &#9837;6). We could label it as "&#9837;II", even, but I prefer "N" because this chord has a very particular function. If you spell out a phrygian scale (on E, for example: E F G A B C D), you can see &#9837;II right there: F A C. There are rare instances of minor neapolitan chords ('n', degrees &#9837;2 &#9837;4 &#9837;6), but there is a reason that the major version is more prevalent.






Above, you see the way that Neapolitan chords really came into being: you can come up with N is by taking ii° in a minor key, then lowering the root. I have also provided the context which makes a Neapolitan chord what it is. N is always found in conjunction with V (or V7). Notice that the roots of the two chords are a tritone apart. This makes the movement between the two rather dramatic. In the second system, I have inverted the first chord in each example. This does a couple things. First, having scale degree 4 in the bass of that chord makes it sound more like iv, which is a stronger function than ii°. It also allows for the V7 to be in root position, which, again, is a stronger sound. Secondly, when we get to the N6 (first inversion Neapolitan chord), it puts the altered tone in an inner voice so it doesn't sound so jarring. I'd like to call your attention to what that altered tone is doing.






This is the isolated voice leading of the N V i progression. Notice that the tonic is being surrounded chromatically from both above and below. You already know that D# is the leading tone of E. In ancient modal music, the &#9837;2 scale degree was known as the "upper leading tone" because it has the same half-step relationship to the tonic as the regular leading tone, just from a different direction.

You're probably wondering where N goes in a progression. It's what we call a *"predominant chord"*, indicating that it should always precede V. It can substitute for iv or ii° (it's more common in minor keys, but it can stand in for IV or ii in major keys, too), so long as they are succeeded by V.

i VI iv V i

i VI N6 V i

Otherwise, you can plop it in right before V.

i III VII iv V i

*Plop!*

i III VII iv N6 V i

Some examples of Neapolitan chords in context:

The Human Abstract - Complex Terms


At 1:11 - N6 V7 i (i is elided into the next phrase)

Natasha St. Pier - Plus simple que ça


At 1:23. N6 V7, part of a half-cadence.

Forgive me for posting French-Canadian pop in a metal forum. I don't know too many modern examples of the Neapolitan, and the chord is a little more exposed here than in the Human Abstract tune.

Theme from Star Trek (2009)


An example of what I think is lazy and tasteless composition. The score for this film is about an hour of i iv N V being arpeggiated over and over again. Don't get me wrong, I thought that some of the music was done well, but the Neapolitan chord can get cheesy real fast.


====


Now that I've spent way too much time talking about the Neapolitan chord, let's get into the other modal borrowings. Just as secondary functions suggest other tonalities, we can hint at the sounds of the parallel mode of whatever key we are in. Let's take the key of D, both the major and the minor.

D major: D Em F#m G A7 Bm C#ø7
D minor: Dm Eø7 F Gm A7 B&#9837; C#°7 (Am C) < The parenthesized chords are from the natural minor.

I've included sevenths on those chords where they are important.

Remember that the structures are analogous in major and minor keys. IV V I in major is the same as iv V i in minor, for instance. It probably isn't surprising, then, that you can exchange a few of these across the modal barrier. If we wanted to do iv V I or IV V i, that's perfectly permissible. So long as the numeral is the same, you can interchange chords all over the place. Let's start with a major progression.

I iii vi IV ii V7 I

Now let's trade the chords in the middle.

I &#9837;III &#9837;VI iv ii° V7 I

Notice the &#9837;III and &#9837;VI. I indicate "&#9837;" because those scale degrees (&#9837;3 and &#9837;6) are not available in the major mode. Therefore, I need to indicate that the roots of these chords are not diatnic. If we were to do the same thing in minor, check out what happens. Here's where we're starting:

i III VI iv ii° V7 i

Swap out the middle:

i #iii #vi IV ii V7 i

Since 3 and 6 aren't in the minor mode (they exist as &#9837;3 and &#9837;6), I change the label to indicate the alteration.

Those aren't the best progressions to listen to, but they demonstrate the concept. Some borrowings are more common than others, and the progressions are usually more balanced. Here are the chords that are usually borrowed into the major mode: i ii° &#9837;III iv v &#9837;VI &#9837;VII vii°7. That's pretty much all of them. i, iv, ii°, and vii°7 are the most common. Here is the equivalent for the minor mode: I IV. Not quite as extensive.

I think it's important to consider the particular color of the borrowed chords on an individual basis. I won't go through each of them in this post, simply because there are a lot of them, but we can check out a couple of them.

David Bowie - Space Oddity


Leadsheet with chordal analysis: Page 1, Page 2

There is actually "borrowing" from the get-go on this one - Em is taken from F lydian. We've been talking about borrowing between major and minor, but it can occur between other pitch areas. For now, ignore that fact. Harmonically, it's not very clear where those opening measures are coming from (same at measure 27, but the B&#9837; in 31 gives us a clue).

Look at what's happening starting in measure 20. The chord progression: C E7 F Fm C F Fm C F

Analyzed: I V7/vi IV iv I IV iv I IV

Hear how it toggles between IV and iv? It sounds like two different perspectives on the same thought. Chords involving the &#9837;6 scale degree tend to have a tinge of melancholy, as I stated earlier in this thread. Also, the progression from E7 is F is a deceptive resolution of a secondary dominant, in case you were wondering. There are a lot of unresolved dominant sonorities in this song, but we can offer functional explanations for at least some of them.

Another weird one: the A's in 34 and 35 are neither borrowed chords nor secondary functions. The best term I've heard for that, "constant structure", (unfortunately) comes from Wikipedia. Ignore that for now, too. The discussion is on borrowed chords.

Johann Sebastian Bach - Messe in H-moll - Missa, Mvt.1, Kyrie eleison 1


I won't annotate the score for this one because I'd be at it forever, but you can hear what's going on. There is a lot of minor stuff, yeah? Then at 9:03, we get B major. A happy end to this sad story. Woo! Jesus didn't die after all! What you heard is called a "picardy third", a major tonic chord tacked onto the end of a minor phrase, usually on the final cadence. Its effect is obvious. This sort or borrowing was a part of the Baroque aesthetic, so much that it is a bit of a cliché. Thankfully, they only ever used it at the end of the tune. The reasoning is that V7 I sounded as a stronger resolution than V7 i to the ears of that era.

Here is a similar situation to the David Bowie tune:

Jerry Goldsmith - something from the soundtrack of Total Recall


4:55 - i, 4:57 - I

By placing two parallel modalities next to each other, you get strong emotional contrast. i I, IV iv, ii ii°, v V, whatever. Doesn't work quite the same with vi and &#9837;VI, though, because of the root movement, but you might be able to swing it since they are functionally identical.

I can talk more on borrowed chords later if you want me to. There is a lot to cover yet, though.


====


I mentioned *predominant chords* when discussing the Neapolitan chord. Neapolitans aren't the only ones, though. In fact, there are all sorts of predominant sonorities. One of the most important groups are the augmented sixth chords.






Augmented sixth chords are named for the augmented sixth interval (+6). Above, you can see how this works. The +6 expands chromatically in contrary motion to arrive at an octave. It's very contrapuntal. The way that +6 chords came into existence is through an ordinary iv6 V progression. It's important to note that this procedure originated in minor keys. The first inversion iv chord is a nifty chord, because it allows for that half-step motion in the bass to get to the root of the V chord. If this were in A major, we'd have F# moving to E, and that's not nearly as fun. Anyway, to replicate the chromatic motion in the bass, a bunch of old dead guys tried raising the root of the iv to get the chromatic motion in the other voice. Thus a chord was born.

Augmented sixth chords have regional names based on some centuries-old backwards ethnocentric analogy. The first one on our list, the one that derives from iv6, is called the 'Italian augmented sixth chord'. It sounds like a dominant seventh chord without its 5th (1 3 #6). You can see that there is chromatic movement in all voices. The second is the 'German augmented sixth chord', which sounds like a full dominant seventh chord (1 3 5 #6). Ger+6 is a tricky chord, because if you resolve it straight to V, you end up with parallel fifths. Some composers didn't care about that so much, favoring the sound of the sonority over exacting voice leading, and others thought they'd better not do that, so they stuck a I6,4 in there to evade the problem. Other composers devised another way of getting around the problem of parallel fifths: eliminate the fifth altogether. The 'French augmented sixth chord' has the fifth of the resolving chord already in it, so there is oblique motion rather than parallel motion (B stays right where it is while F goes down to E).

The last system contains chords that you probably won't find described anywhere unless I'm telling you about them. The first is an augmented sixth chord with a half-diminished seventh sonority. My harmony teacher taught this one to my class, and I have yet to see it used anywhere but in my own music and in the composition projects of my classmates. I imagine that there is precedent in the literature, though. It operates on the same principle as the Fr+6: B and G# are both held as common tones to the next chord. There is no name for it that I know of, but I think my harmony teacher labeled it Frø+6. The last one is of my own invention: I added in a C# to get a chromatic ascent to the seventh of the next chord. That's an awful voicing for it, though. Needs to be spread out more, and probably inverted. No name for that one, either. I've labeled it "++6", or "augmented augmented sixth". The name's not important as the idea of chromatic voice leading. You can come up with all sorts of crazy chords that make perfect logical sense if the voice leading principles are solid.

Context:

Never Shout Never - Robot


2:42 - i Ger+6 V I (Em C7 B E, got a little mode mixture in there too.)

Stevie Wonder - Sir Duke


Right at the beginning. I vi Ger+6 V (B G#m G7 F#, there's no F on that G, but it's still functioning in the same way. You might be more comfortable calling G &#9837;VI, making it a borrowed chord.)

Franz-Joseph Haydn - Piano Sonata in B&#9837; Major, Hob XVI:2, Mvt.2


0:32 - Ger+6 V (E&#9837;7 D) I like how he keeps the C# as a retardation. The +6 chords are already very striking, but then to have that non-chord tone sounding like the major seventh of the next chord is kind of cool (especially considering that C is the diatonic note, not C#).

Stay tuned...


----------



## Zeetwig (Feb 17, 2013)

What can I say? You're awesome!  Eagerly waiting the rest!


Just one thing: the David Bowie and Jerry Goldsmith clips didn't work due to copyright stuff or whatevs... :S I found another clip of Bowie so I could listen, but not for the other tune.


----------

