# Non-traditional theory resources?



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 13, 2014)

I've been playing guitar for a pretty long time, but my theory has always lagged behind my technique. I took lessons in high school, I know the modes, understand chords, etc. I even know a bit of jazz theory. 

But 90% of the actual chord progressions and movements in the theory books I've read have revolved around II-V-I or I-VI-II-V, or rhythm changes, with altered chords basically fulfilling those same central roles over and over again. This is completely useless for most metal music, since we tend to want to write stuff in minor keys and so much of this is focused on major key theory and harmony. I want to write more interesting music with some of the progressions you see in melodic death metal, djent (to the extent more than 1 string is used, of course), folkier Opeth-type stuff, etc. Any recommendations for sites or books that would help me along? Thanks!


----------



## InfinityCollision (Mar 13, 2014)

You need to go deeper. Sounds like you've barely covered introductory theory at most. The Kostka book gets recommended a lot around here and it's solid. I like Piston's book too, but it's not really suitable for self-teaching. I forget what SW usually recommends, he'll probably be along soon enough.

Believe it or not, much of what you may think of as "non-traditional theory" in metal still falls squarely within common practice, or not far outside it. You could figure out most of what's going on with about a year's worth of theory education, which doesn't even get you into 20th century harmony. Opeth for example is basically sus2/sus4 chords everywhere.

I'd also suggest diverting some time into ear training and transcription if you aren't already.

EDIT: Forgot he changed his name. Mr. Big Noodles, formerly known as SchecterWhore


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 13, 2014)

musictheory.net

Hal Leonard Pocket Music Theory: A Comprehensive and Convenient Source for All Musicians: Carl Schroeder, Keith Wyatt: 0073999309683: Amazon.com: Books

^ Good resources, very practical. You're going to find that nearly every theory text/site/resource you find will start with major harmony as its basis. There is a reason for this: it's simpler than minor harmony, and it's also the basis for what goes on in the minor mode. By informing yourself on how the major scale works, you are also informing yourself on how the minor scale works. It would be difficult to turn it around. Therefore, any traditional text will do ya. Kostka & Payne's Tonal Harmony is a more comprehensive reference than the stuff I listed above. Piston is a standard text, but I don't like it as much. If you do buy Piston, go with the third or fourth edition.

Like InfinityCollision said, you need to delve a little deeper. Here is the flowchart for major diatonic progressions from Kostka/Payne's book:







Here is the one for minor diatonic progressions:






Ignoring the lettercase of the numerals, it's the same chart, exempting the &#9837;VII in the minor chart (which is used to briefly refer to the relative major key).


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 13, 2014)

Thanks guys. Appreciate the recommendations, and those charts are great. I'll pick up the Hal Leonard book and see how it goes.


----------



## Poltergeist (Mar 13, 2014)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Like InfinityCollision said, you need to delve a little deeper. Here is the flowchart for major diatonic progressions from Kostka/Payne's book:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could you briefly explain how you are suppose to approach a chart like that when making a chord progression? Are you basically suppose to perceive it like a flow chart that is leading back to the I or i chord?


----------



## InfinityCollision (Mar 14, 2014)

Pretty much. That chart more or less sums up functional diatonic progressions in common practice harmony, and the way they've illustrated it highlights the more important relationships and functions (ii and IV/V and vii each function similarly, the IV/V/I families are the core of your progressions, etc). What may not be immediately clear if not familiar with the chart is that you can go anywhere from I, you don't have to start again at any specific point in the chart. The rest of the common practice harmony learning experience revolves around how to move between these chords, how to connect them into phrases, and then how to embellish them, prolong them, and manipulate (or even subvert) them in various ways.


----------



## skeels (Mar 14, 2014)

Is anyone familiar with the Kodaly method?

For me, just learning to sing Do Re Me Forwards and backwards and inside out really opened me up to a lot.

It seems simple and stupid, but the circle of fifths and relative pitch came easily from it and also less logical music, which was right up my alley.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 14, 2014)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Thanks guys. Appreciate the recommendations, and those charts are great. I'll pick up the Hal Leonard book and see how it goes.


I think you'll like it. It's a very good introduction and a surprisingly easy read.




Poltergeist said:


> Could you briefly explain how you are suppose to approach a chart like that when making a chord progression? Are you basically suppose to perceive it like a flow chart that is leading back to the I or i chord?



Correctamundo. I/i is the tonic chord. In tonal music, the goal of any progression is to reach the tonic. We do that by way of producing a "conclusive cadence": using a relatively dissonant chord to lead back to the tonic. We recognize two kinds of conclusive cadences: the plagal cadence (IV I) and the authentic cadence (V I). You can see that the flowchart allows for both of those. There are also two kinds of "inconclusive cadences", which are cadences that really want to go to the tonic chord but don't quite make it. These are the half cadence (a phrase ending on V) and the deceptive cadence (V vi). 

Another feature of diatonic harmony is that there is a set of "primary chords" that make up the principle harmony of the key. These are IV, V, and I. Notice that in the major mode these are all major. You can think of the primary chords as presenting the primary color of the mode. "Secondary chords" also exist, and constitute the other colors of the mode. Notice that these are _not_ major in the major mode: ii, iii, vi, vii°. (Note that in the natural minor mode, the primary chords are iv, v, and i. All minor, so they too represent the primary color of the mode, but we change v to V in the harmonic form. The secondary chords are ii°, III, VI, and VII [vii° in the harmonic form], so the secondary chords once again are the other colors of the mode.) The secondary chords sound a lot like some of the primary chords, on account of the fact that they share two notes with a given primary chord at any time. In the key of C:


Tonic group:
I = C E G
vi = A C E

Subdominant group:
IV = F A C
ii = D F A

Dominant group:
V = G B D
vii° = B D F

Because of this, we can substitute a secondary chord for a primary chord and still maintain the same functions. Hence, where there is a V I, you can replace it with V vi (note: deceptive cadence), vii° I, or vii° vi. Likewise, where there is IV I, you can do ii I (theoretically; this doesn't happen very often in tonal practice), or IV V becomes ii V, or ii vii°, and so on.

One of the things we do when composing is prolong the chord progression. This is done for a variety of reasons, but is ultimately performed to make the music more interesting or expressive. There are many ways to prolong a progression, and the study of harmony takes you through how to do all of that. One way is to use both the primary and secondary chords in a given functional group.

Bare bones, no prolongation: IV V I
Prolonged: IV ii vii° V I

And we can prolong this further by using an inconclusive cadence.

IV ii vii° V vi IV ii V I

Of particular interest is the dominant chord. You'll often see a long string of "pre-dominant" harmonies, finally concluding in the dominant, which proceeds to tonic. Nearly all chromaticism is dominant function (as in secondary functions, which are different from the previously discussed secondary chords), or ornaments a dominant function. You could almost say that the dominant is more important to tonality than the tonic.

The Beatles - I Want You (She's So Heavy)


The introduction:






The chord progression:

Dm Dm/F E7(&#9837;9) B&#9837;7 A+7

In the key of D minor: i i6 V7/V Ger+6 V+7

&#8226; i6 is just the tonic in first inversion. Prolongation of the tonic chord.

&#8226; E7(&#9837;9) is a secondary dominant, meaning it is acting like the dominant (V) of another key, specifically of the key of A. But we're not in A, we're in D. What is A in D? It's the V. Therefore, E7 is the V of V (or V/V) in the key of D.

&#8226; B&#9837;7 can have two analyses in the context of this progression. I have analyzed it as a German augmented sixth chord, which is a kind of predominant harmony. That holds up, voice-leading-wise, but I think a pop or jazz theorist would rather look at this as &#9837;II7/V, which is a tritone substitution of V/V.

&#8226; V+7 is V7, but with a raised (augmented) fifth. We call this an "altered dominant" for the reason that it is a dominant chord that is altered in some way.

With all of that stuff in there, this is still basically I V with some prolongation in between. This phrase ends in a half cadence.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 14, 2014)

skeels said:


> Is anyone familiar with the Kodaly method?
> 
> For me, just learning to sing Do Re Me Forwards and backwards and inside out really opened me up to a lot.
> 
> It seems simple and stupid, but the circle of fifths and relative pitch came easily from it and also less logical music, which was right up my alley.



Yes. This is more of a musicianship/ear training thing, but it is a really really really good idea to get on board with (really). I've done Kodaly stuff in musicianship classes, but my university used a composite of a bunch of different methods, so I don't know how much Kodaly I've actually done. I believe Curwen hand signs are a waste of time, and I know for a fact that La-based minor is a waste of time. Singing solfege (both movable Do and fixed Do) and doing rhythmic syllables is a wise investment in your musicianship, though. If anyone is interested, Lars Edlund's Modus Vetus is a great book for learning to sing tonal solfege. Use movable Do.


----------



## Poltergeist (Mar 14, 2014)

That reply was excellent Mr. Big Noodles! That brought a lot of clarity for me that was confusing me so much. I'm going to re read that several times and study those charts. Is the resource you suggested the best source to expand on the knowledge of your above post?
+1 man! Again, thanks for that reply.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 14, 2014)

Hal Leonard's Pocket Music Theory will get you a good chunk of this stuff and is easy to understand. It's meant for students of pop music and specifically shies away from the more in-depth compositional approach. Note: this does not teach you composition, and I question how well it would teach you to analyze music, but it's a very good introduction to harmony, particularly for those who don't want to be wizards. What it lacks is instruction on melody: everything is vertical, and there is nothing about voice leading or counterpoint (horizontal elements).

Kostka & Payne's Tonal Harmony will give you more, and in greater detail. Plus, it tells you about voice leading and gives you tools to create your own chord progressions, unlike Wyatt & Schroeder's Hal Leonard book. Kostka/Payne won't do the legwork for you: you're the one who has to internalize their models of voice leading, and the vertical nature of their approach means you'll have to pick up a counterpoint book at some point (Kent Kennan is great) if you really want to have a complete understanding of Western tonal style. And of course, actual composition is up to you, for which I suggest imitating the "greats".

One book is 170 pages of lite music theory for singer/songwriters and jazzers for not too much dough, and the other is a 670-page study of tonal practice from the year 1600 to 1970 (although 1900-1970 is more of an aside; the tonal period is more adequately represented) that you'll have to pay more for.

I found another free online book that looks decent: Music Theory at LearnMusicTheory.net

What is good about this one is that it discusses voicing chords, voice leading, and resolution. The typeface and page layout are awful, but the content is good. I agree with most of the book. It could do with more examples from the literature, seeing as Bach is in the public domain.

Scroll down on this one: http://learnmusictheory.net/PDFs/pdffiles/02-03-HarmonicProgressionDiagrams.pdf

Look familiar?


----------

