# A couple of theory questions.



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

Hey there,

Slowly but surely I'm studying music theory, in order to improve myself as a guitar player. Whilst I am perfectly capable to write music, it would still be nice to understand why certain things sound good. Also, some chord progressions leave me in awe, and I definitely want to learn how to create those.

Now, I have started reading up on the basics of chord progressions, scales, intervals, and key signatures. However a couple of things leave me a bit confused.

1. The harmonic minor scale's chord progression is: 
Triads: 1=minor, 2=diminished, b3=augmented, 4=minor, 5=major, b6=major, 7=dim
Extended: AmMaj7  Bm7b5  CMaj7#5  Dm7  E7  FMaj7  G#dim7

Is there any way to figure out what the chord progression should be or do you just have to study the different chord progressions? 

2. Something that's left me confused for quite some time is whether all chords in a chord progression should fit the scale. For instance, a D#5 doesn't fit in the C harmonic minor scale, does that mean that chord shouldn't be used?

3. When you fully master this knowledge, how do you utilize it? Is it a real help when you write music? I can understand it will help a lot when jamming.

Thanks a lot!


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 4, 2014)

I can't write up a super detailed response at the moment for various reasons, but one thing I think it's important to understand is that what you term "chord progressions" for example the one you listed above for the harmonic minor, are actually not progressions at all - just a list of the chords that correspond diatonically to one scale matched to their function. For a sequence of chords to become a progression they actually have to "go somewhere" - that is there must be a conscious effort to manipulate tension and resolution rather than just dropping diatonic (or completely random) chords in a random order, as 99% of X-factor singer-songwriters like to do.

To answer your second question, theory has been around for a very long time and as with anything creative that lasts a while, people have needed to evolve it and create change. In a lot of genres, metal especially, the diatonic rules are broken on a regular basis, and non-diatonic chords like the D# you mentioned are used all the time. Use your ears - adding a D# to a C harmonic minor progression doesn't sound wrong per se, it sounds interesting. It breaks the rules and does something unexpected. 

That's what theory's really about. You spend 20 years researching pentachords, Lydian dominant scales, altered functioning dominants and then break all of the rules in the first five minutes of composing. The key to it all is knowing why your rule breaking sounds good, and theory helps you with that. 

I'm sure someone will chime in with an awesome response soon but I hope that helped.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> 1. The harmonic minor scale's chord progression is:
> Triads: 1=minor, 2=diminished, b3=augmented, 4=minor, 5=major, b6=major, 7=dim
> Extended: AmMaj7  Bm7b5  CMaj7#5  Dm7  E7  FMaj7  G#dim7



What you have here is not a chord progression, but a chord scale (for A harmonic minor). This is just listing the chords in sequence as you do when spelling the notes of the scale, but for chords.

A chord progression is a sequence of chords whereby the chords either pull towards or away from one another in order to create tension and resolution within the music. Classic examples would be the I-IV-V progression used in blues or the ii-V-I used in jazz.




Ramy said:


> Is there any way to figure out what the chord progression should be or do you just have to study the different chord progressions?



Yes. If you are referring to the chord scale above, you'll notice that the chords are constructed of intervals of a third stacked on top of each other. Triads (major, minor, diminished and augmented) have three notes: the root of the chord, a third above it, and another third above that. Depending upon on how the scale is constructed, these thirds could be either major or minor, and the various combinations of major and minor thirds is what gives the various type of chord.

To extend this to seventh chords, just add another third on top of the last note in a triad built on the same root.




Ramy said:


> 2. Something that's left me confused for quite some time is whether all chords in a chord progression should fit the scale. For instance, a D#5 doesn't fit in the C harmonic minor scale, does that mean that chord shouldn't be used?



Traditionally, when playing in a minor key, we can use the notes and chords built from three scales and still be in key: the natural minor, the harmonic minor and the melodic minor. They are all part of the minor key, so any chord from any of them can be used. But if you want to stick to the harmonic minor sound, you'll need to use the notes and chords from it (at least primarily) in your solo or composition or you'll start to lose some of it's character.




Ramy said:


> 3. When you fully master this knowledge, how do you utilize it? Is it a real help when you write music? I can understand it will help a lot when jamming.



It can be used to help provide some direction, but it is best used to analyze why you like or dislike something after the fact rather than as something entirely prescriptive.


----------



## Lokasenna (Dec 4, 2014)

Just wanted to chip in with a couple of things, since the two posts above me were quite thorough:

2. There are different ways to approach this. Metal, particularly, will often use root-fifth power chords in which the root follows a scale, but the fifth is always just a diatonic fifth up. In this case the fifth is there to make the root sound beefier, rather than a harmony or separate voice.

However, if you DO build all of your chords from the "legal" scale notes, it means your solos/melodies can use any note in that scale at (pretty much) any time.

Another approach that works nicely when you're just fooling around would be to take a few chords that sound nice together, look at the notes, and work out what scales would be legal in all of them. 

Depending on what you've got, you might find that they all fit into E Minor except for one note in the third chord. If there are a couple of notes in your scale that don't sound good with that particular chord, just make a point of avoiding those notes while you're playing over it.

3. Music theory, at least for rock music, is more of a toolbox than anything else. If you're playing and you come up with something that sounds cool, knowing theory will help you figure out what to do with it. If you know you want riff A and riff B to go together, but they're in different keys and don't flow well, theory will help you figure out why and suggest ways to work around it. Maybe adjust the scale one of the riffs is in, or add a section in the middle where you play riff A in B's key. That sort of thing.


----------



## Lokasenna (Dec 4, 2014)

Random double post. Weird.


----------



## viesczy (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Hey there,
> 
> 1. Is there any way to figure out what the chord progression should be or do you just have to study the different chord progressions?
> 
> ...



Music is expression. If you look at some of the more avant-garde pieces, there is less "traditional" music theory in those pieces than there are dramatic scenes in all of Sylvester Stallone's movies. 

Now my answers...

1) The way to figure out what the progression "should be" is easy, how does your ear hear it and how does it "sound" when played back to be listened to? 

2) Maybe, where/how do you use that with regard to the greater piece of music. Look at Over the Rainbow's true chord progressions to see how you can use a passing tone for a beat. 

3) As your ear, physical abilities to express your ear and style grow, it won't be so much a conscious thing but a spontaneous thing. You'll be able to hear the character of the progression and put lines together that work within that character. 

Example I tend to hear progressions as colors and feel the neck as melodic/geometric shapes that either blend with that color or contrast that color. 

Derek


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Also, some chord progressions leave me in awe, and I definitely want to learn how to create those.
> ...
> 1. ...
> Is there any way to figure out what the chord progression should be or do you just have to study the different chord progressions?


Nope. I mean, there are "standard" chord progressions, but you don't want those, right? _(uses Jedi mind trick)_ These are not the chord progressions you are looking for.

If you ever want to be totally messed with, there's this really great chord in Pink Floyd's "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" -- it has an F# on the bottom, and an F-natural on the top. It should be dissonant, but because of the way it's voiced... It's one of those magic moments that you are searching for. Keep studying.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 4, 2014)

Dusty Chalk said:


> If you ever want to be totally messed with, there's this really great chord in Pink Floyd's "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" -- it has an F# on the bottom, and an F-natural on the top. It should be dissonant, but because of the way it's voiced...



Is it an F natural, or an E#? I'm not super familiar with the song, but it could easily be a simple F#M7, and M7 chords don't really _feel_ dissonant.

Alternately, it could be an F over a Gb. What key is the song in?


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 4, 2014)

Well it's a weird inverted D thing, so F natural, I think.
F#-A-C-D-Fnat

At least, that's what it is on the piano. I'll see if I can find the sheet music and take a pic.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 4, 2014)

D7(#9)


----------



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

Thanks a lot for all of your thorough answers, it's definitely awesome help! Greatly appreciated! When I said chord progression, I actually meant chord scale. So, I meant if there is a way for each scale to figure out the chord scale? Or is it something that just has to be studied?

As Viesczy mentioned, finding out the chord progression is quite ''easy'', as it's just listening (then finding out which key, scale etc. is a different story ).

Dusty, I have just listened to "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", and you're absolutely right. Sounds very cool!

Another confusing thing came up. So when building chords I've been reading different things. When building chords on for instance the C major scale, and I want to make a Dmin7 chord (1 b3 5 b7), do I find those notes on the D scale (so that would be D F# A C#), or do I just stay on the C scale, but start counting from D (so D F A C)? I have been reading both to find the notes on the D scale, and then flatten the notes that are not on the C major scale, and I have read that you should just find them on the C scale.

I have been playing guitar for about 5 years, and have been getting into theory only some months ago, as I thought it will only make me improve as a player. In the metal scene, I'd say the majority of musicians (whom I met) don't know a lick of theory. I very much agree with what all of you are saying, that theory will help understanding music more, and (hopefully) improve the music I write.

When did you start studying music theory seriously? Immediately when you picked the guitar up, or did you get this sudden epiphany as well?

Thanks again!


----------



## Keytarist (Dec 4, 2014)

I'ld spell F natural as E# (enharmonic equivalent). From D to E#, we have a #9.

However, this consideration applies more to analysis. When you're writing a part for a player, some enharmonic equivalents can be confusing during sight-reading.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> So, I meant if there is a way for each scale to figure out the chord scale? Or is it something that just has to be studied?



It's very simple, fella. Take C major as the most simple example. Your scale is as follows:

C D E F G A B

or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Imagine that as a scale on the staff. Now stack a generic third on top of each scale degree. So an E on top of C, F on top of D etc.

These give you the chord qualities of each chord. Stacking a fifth on top gives you the chords themselves:

C Dmi Emi F G Ami B°

If we take each of those chord qualities and give them an appropriate numeral, we have:

I ii iii IV V vi vii°

Thus, every major scale follows that format when speaking diatonically. To be more specific to your question, we'll look at an alteration.

The mixolydian mode is often viewed relative to the major scale with a _lowered seventh degree_. From this perspective, the C mixolydian mode and corresponding numbers would be:

C D E F G A B&#9837;

and

1 2 3 4 5 6 &#9837;7

To find out the diatonic chords for this, we'll look at the diatonic major chords with their appropriate numbers.

I/C: C E G
ii/Dm: D F A
iii/Em: E G B
IV/F: F A C
V/G: G B D
vi/Am: A C E
vii°/B°: B D F

To see how the mixolydian chords would be different, we find the note that's different - in this case the &#9837;7, B&#9837;, and see which chords in the original scale have a B in them. The answer being the iii, V, and vii° chords. We change the B notes therein to B&#9837; and rewrite the chords.

I/C: C E G
ii/Dm: D F A
iii°/E°: E G B&#9837;
IV/F: F A C
v/Gm: G B&#9837; D
vi/Am: A C E
&#9837;VII/B&#9837;: B&#9837; D F

Thus the diatonic scale functions for the mixolydian mode of any tonic are:

I ii iii° IV v vi &#9837;VII

That's a long-winded way of doing it but it was the simplest way I could think of to set it out.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

jarvncaredoc said:


> It's very simple, fella. Take C major as the most simple example. Your scale is as follows:
> 
> jarvncaredoc's awesome quote



That's exactly what I've been looking for, thanks a lot!


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> That's exactly what I've been looking for, thanks a lot!



You're more than welcome bud! Glad we got to the _root_ of the problem.

Get it? Root? Chords? Nope? ...okay.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

jarvncaredoc said:


> You're more than welcome bud! Glad we got to the _root_ of the problem.
> 
> Get it? Root? Chords? Nope? ...okay.



Haha, good one! Now, I was still wondering about a final thing, which is: When building chords I've been reading different things. When building chords on for instance the C major scale, and I want to make a Dmin7 chord (1 b3 5 b7), do I find those notes on the D scale (so that would be D F# A C#), or do I just stay on the C scale, but start counting from D (so D F A C)? I have been reading both to find the notes on the D scale, and then flatten the notes that are not on the C major scale, and I have read that you should just find them on the C scale.

I kind of found out that I should just count the first, third, and the fifth notes in the scale, without needing to check the notes in the other scales. Is this correct?

Last question, I promise


----------



## spectrrrrrre (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Haha, good one! Now, I was still wondering about a final thing, which is: When building chords I've been reading different things. When building chords on for instance the C major scale, and I want to make a Dmin7 chord (1 b3 5 b7), do I find those notes on the D scale (so that would be D F# A C#), or do I just stay on the C scale, but start counting from D (so D F A C)? I have been reading both to find the notes on the D scale, and then flatten the notes that are not on the C major scale, and I have read that you should just find them on the C scale.
> 
> I kind of found out that I should just count the first, third, and the fifth notes in the scale, without needing to check the notes in the other scales. Is this correct?
> 
> Last question, I promise



Stay in C. A D in other keys will make different chords. In D major, D is the tonic chord so it would be major, but it's diminshed in C major.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Haha, good one! Now, I was still wondering about a final thing, which is: When building chords I've been reading different things. When building chords on for instance the C major scale, and I want to make a Dmin7 chord (1 b3 5 b7), do I find those notes on the D scale (so that would be D F# A C#), or do I just stay on the C scale, but start counting from D (so D F A C)? I have been reading both to find the notes on the D scale, and then flatten the notes that are not on the C major scale, and I have read that you should just find them on the C scale.
> 
> I kind of found out that I should just count the first, third, and the fifth notes in the scale, without needing to check the notes in the other scales. Is this correct?
> 
> Last question, I promise



A Dmi7 chord is a Dmi7 chord no matter which key it's in. You got the intervals right - 1 &#9837;3 5 &#9837;7 - and since D is the root of the chord you just take the intervals from that note. 

It's the same for every other chord, no matter how complex. If for example you wanted to construct a C5 chord - the intervals of which are 1 5 - you'd start with C, the root of the chord, and add the perfect fifth, G. 

If you wanted to construct an A9(#11) chord - with the intervals 1 3 5 &#9837;7 9 #11 - you'd start with the root, A, and add the major third, perfect fifth, minor seventh, major ninth and augmented eleventh - A C# E G B D#.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

spectrrrrrre said:


> Stay in C. A D in other keys will make different chords. In D major, D is the tonic chord so it would be major, but it's diminshed in C major.



Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks!

(Awesome profile pic btw. Gotta love Lil' Kev!)


----------



## Ramy (Dec 4, 2014)

jarvncaredoc said:


> A Dmi7 chord is a Dmi7 chord no matter which key it's in. You got the intervals right - 1 &#9837;3 5 &#9837;7 - and since D is the root of the chord you just take the intervals from that note.
> 
> It's the same for every other chord, no matter how complex. If for example you wanted to construct a C5 chord - the intervals of which are 1 5 - you'd start with C, the root of the chord, and add the perfect fifth, G.
> 
> If you wanted to construct an A9(#11) chord - with the intervals 1 3 5 &#9837;7 9 #11 - you'd start with the root, A, and add the major third, perfect fifth, minor seventh, major ninth and augmented eleventh - A C# E G B D#.



Cool, I think I was overcomplicating it. Now it's time to memorize it all!


----------



## spectrrrrrre (Dec 4, 2014)

Ramy said:


> Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks!
> 
> (Awesome profile pic btw. Gotta love Lil' Kev!)



:>

If you're wanting to build only the chords, you can use the cycle of thirds to arbitrarily construct chords.

A C E G B D F A

A <m3> C <M3> E <m3> G <M3> B <m3> D <m3> F <M3> A

A minor triad is built from the root note, adding a minor 3rd on top of that, and then a major third on top of that.

So a C minor triad could be built from the cycle by looking at C, seeing that E is a third away from C, and G is a third away from E. Immediately though it's a C major, but if you flat the E, it becomes Eb, which is a minor third away from C, and flattening it distances itself one semitone away from G, making the minor third into a major third. C Eb G -> Cm

Minor Triad: 1 <m3> 3 <M3> 5
Major Triad: 1 <M3> 3 <m3> 5
Diminished Triad: 1 <m3> 3 <m3> 5
Augmented Triad: 1 <M3> 3 <M3> 5


----------



## Solodini (Dec 5, 2014)

Ramy said:


> 3. When you fully master this knowledge, how do you utilize it? Is it a real help when you write music? I can understand it will help a lot when jamming.
> 
> Thanks a lot!


 
You start to develop a vocabulary. Music theory explains the sounds in your head. You want something which sounds a certain way, your knowledge of music theory gives you some possibilities or hints as to what may sound that way.

Wanna write something happy? Major is a good starting point. Want tense? Try lots of close harmony, 2nds, sus4 chords, 7th chords as the 7th is right next to the root. Want exciteable? Use fast bursts of notes with regular rests between phrases and play ahead of the beat. Want it to sound shimmery and etherial? Put the close voicings near the top of the chord, such as a C and a D in the same octave, on neighbouring strings. 

You become familiar with these ideas and learn to use them quickly and naturally, in the same way as you can easily tell someone a story of what happened during your day, or say "I'm frustrated and I feel undermined" as those words and their meanings make sense to you, as well as knowing how to emphasise words to make your point (strong beats in music help emphasis as that's what your ear hears as important).

Hope that helps. Let me know if you'd like me to explain anything further.

Adam


----------



## Aion (Dec 5, 2014)

Ramy said:


> 3. When you fully master this knowledge, how do you utilize it? Is it a real help when you write music? I can understand it will help a lot when jamming.



First of all: everything Solodini said. In addition to all of that, it's a huge help in writing music because you can fully understand what you're writing and maybe expand on some musical ideas you wouldn't have noticed otherwise. It also serves to stop you from reinventing the wheel. "Hey guys check out what I just came up with!" "Dude, that's just a secondary dominant. Congratulations, you've caught up with the 17th century."

And one other thing worth pointing out, theory does not have a chicken and egg origin. We know which came first, music. And while I am a huge advocate for learning and understanding theory, remember that the only real "rule," of music is that if it sounds right, it is right. Everything else is analysis, now do what the meme said and learn all the chords


----------



## viesczy (Dec 5, 2014)

As musicians, we guitarists tend to spend a lot of time either getting the physical abilities and the theoretical properties DOWN. Often at the expense of playing/creating/composing music. Immersing yourself too deeply into theory w/o a solid example/understanding of what/why things are happening can be counterproductive to your total growth as a musician. It is like learning to read a language but not being able to speak the language, or vice versa. 

Or even worse, we'll learn just a little bit of several genres of music, attempt to put those all together and it comes across (to me at least) as just gibberish. It goes nowhere, it develops no theories, often is sloppily played at a breakneck speed w/o every resolving with/through/over the progression. Like the person go the "fake" books w/o understanding who to use the "fake" books. It is almost as if they don't hear the progression or hear themselves with the progression. 

Personal example, my guitar instructor was/is still a JAZZ CAT. Study in Philly with Pat Martino and all. So when I got to the age that playing Bach on my dad's Hammond B3 wasn't cool, I moved to guitar as that was cool. Since I had years of music already in me, my instruction was more the mechanics of guitar and applying what I already knew. Well Gene, was a JAZZ CAT and as soon as I got respectable alt picking speeds down he was all into Parker, 'Trane and a little bit of Miles. 

After nearly a decade of Bach (and his sons) I didn't (don't still) hear those lines in/within my expression. I can play them, repeat them back all day long all over the place and "get" why I should/why they "work", but my ear doesn't hear it. 'Trane's sheets of sound diminished arpeggios/scalar work I get/hear the most of any of Jazz.

Derek


----------



## Ramy (Dec 6, 2014)

I see how theory could be a massive help, so hopefully I'll get it down sometime soon. It has already been a good help when playing now, as I can get some interesting new sounds that are beyond the typical metal riffs.

So how can I tell the difference between the different ''intervallic values''? For instance, the third chord in A harmonic minor is Caug (C E G#). Why is it called Caug? How can you tell whether it is 1-3-5#, and not 1-3-6b. As it could be Root-Maj3-min6/Aug5, why is it Aug5 (5#) and not min6(b6). Same goes for Am (A C E), why is it 1-3b-5, and not 1-2#-5.

I'm starting to get the hang of it a little bit, and it is a lot of fun!

And again, thanks a lot for all your detailed responses!


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 6, 2014)

Ramy said:


> I see how theory could be a massive help, so hopefully I'll get it down sometime soon. It has already been a good help when playing now, as I can get some interesting new sounds that are beyond the typical metal riffs.
> 
> So how can I tell the difference between the different ''intervallic values''? For instance, the third chord in A harmonic minor is Caug (C E G#). Why is it called Caug? How can you tell whether it is 1-3-5#, and not 1-3-6b. As it could be Root-Maj3-min6/Aug5, why is it Aug5 (5#) and not min6(b6). Same goes for Am (A C E), why is it 1-3b-5, and not 1-2#-5.
> 
> ...



You've virtually answered your own question there, fella.

Let's go back to our C major scale:

C D E F G A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The letters and numbers are tied together. A B in the key of C is going to be 7 no matter what you do to it. An E is going to be 3. So if you go C E G#, the C is 1, the E is 3 and the G is 5, though it's sharped so it's #5. If it were 1 3 &#9837;6, it would be C E A&#9837;, which is far more likely to be called A&#9837;+, although the notes are enharmonically the same. 

It's also worth noting that a minor sixth chord is not 1 3 &#9837;6 but 1 &#9837;3 5 6. It's a minor triad with an added major sixth. All sixth chords have major sixths on top, otherwise they would be notated thus: Cm(&#9837;6), though admittedly I've never seen that as their extensions are generally added on top of ninths and elevenths and thus notated as &#9837;13.


----------



## Aion (Dec 6, 2014)

Ramy said:


> So how can I tell the difference between the different ''intervallic values''? For instance, the third chord in A harmonic minor is Caug (C E G#). Why is it called Caug? How can you tell whether it is 1-3-5#, and not 1-3-6b. As it could be Root-Maj3-min6/Aug5, why is it Aug5 (5#) and not min6(b6). Same goes for Am (A C E), why is it 1-3b-5, and not 1-2#-5.



Ah, yes. Now we are truly getting into arcane theory majyks. Nah, but really, this where theory becomes contextual (and sometimes a little bit grey/up for interpretation). The specific answer is that you can't tell the difference between C-E-G# and C-E-Ab, at least not aurally. They are the same notes and if you're working on transcribing or just general ear training, whether or not you write G# or Ab is relatively unimportant. Though if you decide to give those transcripts out to musicians, you're best off double checking/revising your work to figure out which makes the most sense.

So let's say you're transcribing something in A harmonic minor and you reach that chord and name it Ab+ (the + means augmented, it's just another shorthand like "aug"). If you've been in A the entire time, and you're still in C afterwards, you should probably change it to C+. If there's a melody line above the chord with G#/Ab, it will probably be easier to read if you have the G# rather than the Ab since the musician is/has gotten used to seeing it in this piece.

On the other hand, if you've been in F harmonic minor, you would go with Ab+.

Later, however, this can get especially tricky. Let's say you've been in A harmonic minor. Then there's an augmented chord and it is used to modulate (change keys) into F harmonic minor. Now this chord has become a little bit more ambiguous. Is it a C+ chord, or is it an Ab+ chord? I actually can't give an answer here because it would become really specific to context and your interpretation. I might decide that since we've been in A this whole time with no previous indication of a modulation that it's C+. You might decide that since it is an ambiguous chord, it is how it resolves that determines the type of chord. That would make it an Ab+. And a third party might decide that it is 100% ambiguous and neither answer is wrong and it really doesn't matter which way you write it out. But what we all should be able to agree on is that it's an augmented chord with C, E, and G#/Ab and so long as we all play the right notes and play them in a way that makes sense to us, who cares what we call it.

I hope that made sense, and it's kind of what I meant when I talked about the only true rule: if it sounds right, it is right.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 6, 2014)

Ramy said:


> So how can I tell the difference between the different ''intervallic values''? For instance, the third chord in A harmonic minor is Caug (C E G#). Why is it called Caug? How can you tell whether it is 1-3-5#, and not 1-3-6b. As it could be Root-Maj3-min6/Aug5, why is it Aug5 (5#) and not min6(b6). Same goes for Am (A C E), why is it 1-3b-5, and not 1-2#-5.


These are two different questions, actually. I'll try to answer the second one first, because to my mind, the answer's clearer. It's 1-3b-5 not 1-2#-5 because those are the notes of the scale. It's actually just 1-3-5, it's flat because it's minor, built on the notes of a minor scale (in this case, a-b-c-d-e-f-g#-a [harmonic minor]).

In the first example, you're right, it could be an inverted dim, it depends where you're coming from. It's usually called augmented because in this case you're playing a half step up from a perfect fifth. You would only call it the other if you were using it to play a variation of 1-3-6 (in which case, the 6b is really a half step down from the tonic).

To my mind, notes come in multiple flavors. Start with perfects -- octaves, fifths, and fourths. These don't vary -- you can augment them or diminish them, but then they stop being perfect. Next come the ones that differentiate between major and minor: thirds and 6ths. These are the only ones that come in two flavors, major and minor. Then come the seconds and the 7ths, and then come the half-steps -- this last is where I would usually categorize augmented and diminished fifths and fourths.

I'm not a teacher or have any sort of degree in musical theory, so if someone knows a more correct way of saying this, please feel free to speak up.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 6, 2014)

Aion said:


> Ah, yes. Now we are truly getting into arcane theory majyks. Nah, but really, this where theory becomes contextual (and sometimes a little bit grey/up for interpretation). The specific answer is that you can't tell the difference between C-E-G# and C-E-Ab, at least not aurally. They are the same notes and if you're working on transcribing or just general ear training, whether or not you write G# or Ab is relatively unimportant. Though if you decide to give those transcripts out to musicians, you're best off double checking/revising your work to figure out which makes the most sense.
> 
> So let's say you're transcribing something in A harmonic minor and you reach that chord and name it Ab+ (the + means augmented, it's just another shorthand like "aug"). If you've been in A the entire time, and you're still in C afterwards, you should probably change it to C+. If there's a melody line above the chord with G#/Ab, it will probably be easier to read if you have the G# rather than the Ab since the musician is/has gotten used to seeing it in this piece.
> 
> ...



Super post. 

Only thing to add here is that if we take your example specifically, you asked what the third chord in A harmonic minor is. Seeing as your tonic is A here, the third chord must be a C as the letters in scales must go up stepwise. A harmonic minor would therefore look like this (relative to A major and A natural minor):

A Major:

A B C# D E F# G#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. A C# E - A (I)
2. B D F# - Bm (ii)
3. C# E G# - C#m (iii)
4. D F# A - D (IV)
5. E G# B - E (V)
6. F# A C# - F#m (vi)
7. G# B D - G° (vii°)

A Natural Minor:

A B C D E F G

1 2 &#9837;3 4 5 &#9837;6 &#9837;7

1. A C E - Am (i)
2. B D F - B° (ii°)
3. C E G - C (&#9837;III)
4. D F A - Dm (iv)
5. E G B - Em (v)
6. F A C - F (&#9837;VI)
7. G B D - G (&#9837;VII)

A Harmonic Minor:

A B C D E F G#

1 2 &#9837;3 4 5 &#9837;6 7 

1. A C E - Am (i)
2. B D F - B° (ii°)
3. C E G# - C+ (&#9837;III+) 
4. D F A - Dm (iv)
5. E G# B - E (V)
6. F A C - F (&#9837;VI)
7. G# B D - G#° (vii°)

Notice how the harmonic minor scale harmony shares two very important chords with the major scale harmony - V and vii°. This is essentially why the harmonic minor scale was invented in the first place, and will become super obvious and important once you start studying chord progressions and cadences. 

If you start thinking about scales as relative to the major scale (for example seeing the phrygian mode as 1 &#9837;2 &#9837;3 4 5 &#9837;6 &#9837;7) it will help you a hell of a lot. For example, seeing the third chord in D natural minor as &#9837;III will mean you know your D major scale - D E F# G A B C# - you find the third chord, F#, you flatten it and make it major, and you know the third chord of D natural minor is F major.


----------



## Lokasenna (Dec 6, 2014)

Short answer: Because Cmin6 would be C Eb G A. That is, C minor (C Eb G) with the sixth (A) on top.

(Disclaimer: My music theory is pretty spotty, so this might not be ENTIRELY correct)

In a chord, "maj" or "min" is always referring to the third. The flat-sixth interval by itself is called a minor sixth, but calling a chord Cmajmin6 seems pretty silly so we get aug and dim in there to help out. 

There are also, often, two or three different legal names for the same chord depending on which note you choose as the root. My chord dictionary is telling me that Cmin6 is the same thing as Am7b5, for example.

As a general rule, the names are the way they are to try and reduce any confusion as to which chord you mea (well, once you know how the naming works, at least). If you just see "C", with no 5s or augs or maj or anything, it defaults to being root, major third, perfect fifth. Any extra suffixes start to modify that default. 

"Caug", therefore, keeps the major third but augments (two sharps) the fifth. 
"C7" is C major with an extra seventh (A#) on top.
"C5" seems a little redundant, but it's just a slangy way of saying "root + fifth" - you technically need three notes to form a chord, so it falls outside the normal naming rules.

These sites have a number of really handy tools, incidentally:
JGuitar
Scales to Chords guitar tool
Chord Identifier - Reverse Chord Finder - Search chord by notes


----------



## tedtan (Dec 6, 2014)

Just to clarify a few things:




Lokasenna said:


> In a chord, "maj" or "min" is always referring to the third.



Seeing "maj" after a chord name typically refers to a major seventh interval in the chord. For example, Cmaj7 is a C major triad (the "C") with an added major seventh (the "maj7"). A Cmin-maj7 chord is a C minor triad (the "Cmin") with an added major seventh (the "maj7").

Similarly, seeing "min" after a chord often refers to the third, but can refer to the seventh, too.




Lokasenna said:


> "Caug", therefore, keeps the major third but augments (two sharps) the fifth.



Augmented refers to raising the fifth degree by a one half step above the perfect fifth interval. Depending on the key you're in, this may involve a flat, a sharp, a double sharp or no accidental at all. It depends on whether the natural fifth is already flat, sharp, natural, etc.




Lokasenna said:


> "C7" is C major with an extra seventh (A#) on top.



C7 is a dominant seventh chord. A dominant seventh is constructed 1-3-5-b7. In the case of C7, this is C-E-G-Bb. You are correct is saying that it is a major chord with a seventh (specifically, a minor seventh) added, but note that the seventh of C is a B, with the minor seventh being Bb. This is because C Major is C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C, so any variation of the seventh degree will be B of some type, any variation to the sixth degree will be an A of some type, and so on.




Lokasenna said:


> "C5" seems a little redundant, but it's just a slangy way of saying "root + fifth" - you technically need three notes to form a chord, so it falls outside the normal naming rules.



There are some oddball type of chords names. In this case, C5 refers to adding an interval of a fifth to the C. Because this is just a C and a G, this is an interval rather than a chord.

sus2 and sus4 chords are a couple more examples of oddball chord naming conventions where the sus means suspend the third in favor of the second or fourth, respectively. But I'm derailing the thread at this point.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 6, 2014)

I have actually found those websites you've linked Lokasenna, very useful! For now I think I understand as far as I have studied. This has been very informational, so thanks a lot, your help definitely made studying something I had no previous knowledge of MUCH less frustrating!

I've gotten a couple of books as well that I'm planning to read on the subject to further delve into music theory. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Aion (Dec 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Seeing "maj" after a chord name typically refers to a major seventh interval in the chord. For example, Cmaj7 is a C major triad (the "C") with an added major seventh (the "maj7"). A Cmin-maj7 chord is a C minor triad (the "Cmin") with an added major seventh (the "maj7").
> 
> Similarly, seeing "min" after a chord often refers to the third, but can refer to the seventh, too.
> 
> sus2 and sus4 chords are a couple more examples of oddball chord naming conventions where the sus means suspend the third in favor of the second or fourth, respectively. But I'm derailing the thread at this point.



WARNING: TOTAL THEORY DORKERY TO FOLLOW, WEAR ALL PROPER SAFETY GEAR *puts on nerd glasses* I'm going to have to disagree with you there, at least a little bit. Maj does refer to the third unless there is a numeral following it. If you see CMaj that's a triad. When you get into more complex chords the Maj following the root is assumed if no other information is given. Really CMaj7 means CMaj-Maj7. And the numeral does not even need to be a seven. You could write C6 as CMaj6 or CMaj-Maj6. It's kind of like when there's a 9, 11, or 13 you assume there's a Dom7, Maj9, and P11, and Maj13 unless otherwise stated. So if you were to see C13 and you wanted to be a jerk about it, write it out as CMaj-Dom7-Maj9-P11-Maj13. It's assumed, and because of that not stated, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. *takes off nerd glasses*

And just a slight correction, suspensions get their name not because the chord tone that isn't being played is "suspended," like a child from school, but because the nonchord tone is both leftover from the last chord and generally resolves by falling downwards, like a child being left hanging on a flagpole by their underwear.

Happy to help you derail the thread further my big pile of manure. Minutia? No, definitely manure.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Just to clarify a few things:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At risk of derailing further, might as well delve into chord naming.

*TRIADS:*
C - major - 1 3 5 - C E G
Cmi - minor - 1 &#9837;3 5 - C E&#9837; G
C° - diminished - 1 &#9837;3 &#9837;5 - C E&#9837; G&#9837;
C+ - augmented - 1 3 #5 - C E G#
Csus4 - suspended fourth - 1 4 5 - C F G
C5/2 / Csus2 - suspended second/five-two chord (depending on who taught you and how anal they are) - 1 2 5 - C D G

*EXTENDED TRIADS/whatever you want to call them:*
C6 - major sixth chord - 1 3 5 6 - C E G A
Cmi6 - minor sixth chord - 1 &#9837;3 5 6 - C E&#9837; G A
C6/9 - six/nine chord - 1 3 5 6 9 - C E G A D (an exception to the rule, usually chords with no sevenths indicate ninths as 2s)
Cadd2 - added second (also known as add9) - 1 2 3 5 - C D E G

*SEVENTH CHORDS:*
C7 - dominant seventh - 1 3 5 &#9837;7 - C E G B&#9837;
Cma7 - major seventh - 1 3 5 7 - C E G B
Cmi7 - minor seventh - 1 &#9837;3 5 &#9837;7 - C E&#9837; G B&#9837;
Cmi7(&#9837;5) - minor seven flat five (also called half-diminished) - 1 &#9837;3 &#9837;5 &#9837;7 - C E&#9837; G&#9837; B&#9837;
C°7 - diminished seventh chord - 1 &#9837;3 &#9837;5 &#9837;&#9837;7 - C E&#9837; G&#9837; B&#9837;&#9837; (note the double flat, enharmonically equivalent to A)
Cmi(ma7) - minor-major seventh - 1 &#9837;3 5 7 - C E&#9837; G B

*From now on an arbitrary rule is used: *
If the chord lists either 9, 11 or 13 without any alterations, it is ASSUMED that all of the intermediate intervals, or at least the seventh, are already there. i.e. C9 assumes that the intervals within the chord are 1 3 5 &#9837;7 9. If any of the notes are altered, the alterations are listed in brackets afterwards. For example, Cma9(#11) is a common alteration that contains 1 3 5 7 9 #11 (C E G B&#9837; D F#)- the eleventh is raised a semitone due to a dissonant minor ninth interval existing between the major third and perfect eleventh. C13(&#9837;9) includes 1 3 5 &#9837;7 &#9837;9 11 13 (C E G B&#9837; D&#9837; F A).


----------



## yingmin (Dec 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Seeing "maj" after a chord name typically refers to a major seventh interval in the chord. For example, Cmaj7 is a C major triad (the "C") with an added major seventh (the "maj7"). A Cmin-maj7 chord is a C minor triad (the "Cmin") with an added major seventh (the "maj7").
> 
> Similarly, seeing "min" after a chord often refers to the third, but can refer to the seventh, too.


To add on to this, there's an alternate way of describing chords primarily used in jazz, where there are basically three types of chords: Major, with a major 3rd and a major 7th; Minor, with a minor 3rd and a minor 7th; and Dominant, with a major 3rd and a minor 7th. To refer back to TedTan's examples, a C7, with no other qualifiers, is assumed to be dominant: C E G Bb. Adding min or maj to the chord name changes the chord to either minor (C Eb G Bb) or major (C E G B)


----------



## tedtan (Dec 7, 2014)

Aion said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you there, at least a little bit. Maj does refer to the third unless there is a numeral following it.



I did say typically. 

In practice, the only people I see write Cmaj for a C major chord are those unfamiliar with theory or writing for beginners. The "maj" is redundant in that case and only beneficially descriptive in cases with some other tone following it, wherein it would typically refer to that tone. So while it's possible to put "maj" after a major triad, there is no need to do so unless there is a specific reason to clarify (e.g., if a piece is in C minor and you want a C major chord to be played without modulating to a key where C major occurs, you might put the "maj" after the chord to clarify that you do indeed intend a C major to be played rather than having made a mistake in your notation).




Aion said:


> And just a slight correction, suspensions get their name not because the chord tone that isn't being played is "suspended," like a child from school, but because the nonchord tone is both leftover from the last chord and generally resolves by falling downwards, like a child being left hanging on a flagpole by their underwear.



What you've said is correct in traditional music theory as applicable to art music, but that definition relies on the preparation and the resolution.

What we see in modern music (outside of art music) are sus2 and sus4 chords used for their characteristic sound often with neither preparation nor resolution. And given that theory is largely descriptive of actual usage, I tend to prefer Berkley professor Michael Johnson's explanation put forth in Pop Music Theory: "In classical music the suspended fourth chord is usually expected to resolve to a major chord, with the movement of the fourth degree down to the third. However, in pop music the suspended fourth chord, usually called a 'sus4,' is not necessarily expected to resolve".

All we have to do is look to the prog metal scene to hear plenty of examples of these suspensions that don't fit the traditional definition and usage in art music. So I tend to say that the third is suspended in favor of the second/fourth in order to achieve a specific sonority. And that tends to hold true in actual practice in modern non-art music.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> What we see in modern music (outside of art music) are sus2 and sus4 chords used for their characteristic sound often with neither preparation nor resolution. And given that theory is largely descriptive of actual usage, I tend to prefer Berkley professor Michael Johnson's explanation put forth in Pop Music Theory: "In classical music the suspended fourth chord is usually expected to resolve to a major chord, with the movement of the fourth degree down to the third. However, in pop music the suspended fourth chord, usually called a 'sus4,' is not necessarily expected to resolve".



Actually, I'm not sure I can think of a single example of a sus4 not resolving to a major chord. Sus2, on the other hand, are used very freely, and there are several riffs (Natural Science by Rush, Message in a Bottle by the Police, etc.) that contain nothing but sus2 chords.


----------



## Aion (Dec 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> What we see in modern music (outside of art music) are sus2 and sus4 chords used for their characteristic sound often with neither preparation nor resolution. And given that theory is largely descriptive of actual usage, I tend to prefer Berkley professor Michael Johnson's explanation put forth in Pop Music Theory: "In classical music the suspended fourth chord is usually expected to resolve to a major chord, with the movement of the fourth degree down to the third. However, in pop music the suspended fourth chord, usually called a 'sus4,' is not necessarily expected to resolve".
> 
> All we have to do is look to the prog metal scene to hear plenty of examples of these suspensions that don't fit the traditional definition and usage in art music. So I tend to say that the third is suspended in favor of the second/fourth in order to achieve a specific sonority. And that tends to hold true in actual practice in modern non-art music.



Yeah, my "Maj7," bit was super nitpicky XD

As for suspensions, I'm tempted to continue to disagree with you. Going on with my totally serious metaphor, a child hanging by his underwear from a flagpole is suspended whether they are brought down off of the flagpole or not. A rather large bird could snatch the child up and feed them to a killer walrus. Besides, what I brought up was an issue of etymology, not a matter of usage.

This is actually a good example of where conventional theory practices have failed to keep up with the time. Often times when a supposed "sus4" is written, but not prepared for or resolved as it would be in classical music, it's not really suspension at all. It's usage, especially in a lot of metal bands (both prog and otherwise) is closer to the quartal harmony found in modal jazz. Especially since a lot of their musical training can be traced back to Berklee/chord-scale methods of writing music, which is itself derived from modal jazz. The fact that they are still called "suspensions," is simply a misleading and inaccurate naming convention, itself suspended from its classical origin. But once again, the etymology doesn't change just because the usage does and there should probably be a different word used to describe it. But it's the popular word and there's no real sense in fighting the convention. After all, I really don't care how anyone thinks of it so long as they understand how it sounds, how its used, and how to play it.

I live for these types of pretty much inane arguments. It's like crack to me


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 7, 2014)

For what it's worth, I consider "sus4" and "sus2" chords that are not prepared, and do not resolve, to be chords with substituted members. (I like to use "sub4" and "sub2", but I think I'm the only one.) As with many of the structures of Western music, the sonority emerged from a functional and contrapuntal context and later became isolated and dissociated from that context. Chord symbols are a relatively new item in Western musical practice, excepting thorough bass, and conventions have not yet been established to deal with the emergent sonorities of the 20th and 21st centuries. It's difficult to create a tool that works equally well for performance as for analysis, particularly when the population that uses those symbols is not typically trained in a formal setting and therefore are not driven to an accord.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 8, 2014)

yingmin said:


> Actually, I'm not sure I can think of a single example of a sus4 not resolving to a major chord. Sus2, on the other hand, are used very freely, and there are several riffs (Natural Science by Rush, Message in a Bottle by the Police, etc.) that contain nothing but sus2 chords.



Yeah, examples with sus2's are what immediately come to mind for me as well. But if get off my lazy ass and actually look , I can find examples of sus4 chords either not being prepared (much more common) or not resolving (much less common).




Aion said:


> This is actually a good example of where conventional theory practices have failed to keep up with the time. Often times when a supposed "sus4" is written, but not prepared for or resolved as it would be in classical music, it's not really suspension at all... The fact that they are still called "suspensions," is simply a misleading and inaccurate naming convention





Mr. Big Noodles said:


> conventions have not yet been established to deal with the emergent sonorities of the 20th and 21st centuries.





No argument from me. I suspect that theory will catch up with ways to describe the current usages derived from jazz and other pop music in the next 100 years or so, but that doesn't help us now (and will be outdated by then, anyway ). 




Aion said:


> the etymology doesn't change just because the usage does and there should probably be a different word used to describe it. But it's the popular word and there's no real sense in fighting the convention.



Agreed regarding etymology, at least as it applies to the proper suspension. But to continue the inane discussion, we all agree that the usage is different from a traditional suspension in many cases, so does that etymology still apply in these cases? Sometimes you just go with popular naming convention and that ends up changing the rules, though in this case it needs to be understood as being something different from a traditional suspension, even if they end up sharing a name. And how many English words have more than one meaning?




Aion said:


> I live for these types of pretty much inane arguments. It's like crack to me








Mr. Big Noodles said:


> For what it's worth, I consider "sus4" and "sus2" chords that are not prepared, and do not resolve, to be chords with substituted members. (I like to use "sub4" and "sub2", but I think I'm the only one.)



That's an interesting take on how to separate this usage from a proper suspension. Do you come across anyone else doing this or similar in your studies or is it still pretty uncommon?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 8, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Yeah, examples with sus2's are what immediately come to mind for me as well. But if get off my lazy ass and actually look , I can find examples of sus4 chords either not being prepared (much more common) or not resolving (much less common).



Strictly speaking, suspensions resolve downward, so a "sus2" chord that resolves to a triad (2-3) is not representative of a true suspension. In the literature, they call that procedure "retardation." I can't readily think of an example of a 2-3 retardation, but I'm sure that I could find one without too much digging if I looked at some Bach chorales or maybe some late Romantic works. I would venture to guess that 2-3 retardations are more common when the resolving chord is minor. It sounds more natural to me.



> That's an interesting take on how to separate this usage from a proper suspension. Do you come across anyone else doing this or similar in your studies or is it still pretty uncommon?


I probably picked up the nomenclature from somewhere, but I've since forgotten from where. Kostka & Payne use "Vsub6" to describe augmented sonorities in minor keys that do this thing:







I put a slur from the substituted member in the dominant chord to its resolving tone, since that's the unique thing about the sonority that the authors use to distinguish it from true augmented dominant chords. You could spell that as V+ (A C# E#), but E# exists in the key of D minor enharmonically as F, which is the sixth in relationship to the dominant. F (the sixth) is replacing E (the fifth), hence "Vsub6".

There is also V7sub6:






I'm guessing that my terminology is related.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 8, 2014)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Strictly speaking, suspensions resolve downward, so a "sus2" chord that resolves to a triad (2-3) is not representative of a true suspension. In the literature, they call that procedure "retardation." I can't readily think of an example of a 2-3 retardation, but I'm sure that I could find one without too much digging if I looked at some Bach chorales or maybe some late Romantic works. I would venture to guess that 2-3 retardations are more common when the resolving chord is minor. It sounds more natural to me.



That makes sense. I definitely use the sus2 with minor chords more often than major. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever used one with major chords unless the 2 was part of a melodic line within/atop the chord and it happened briefly by chance.




Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I probably picked up the nomenclature from somewhere, but I've since forgotten from where. Kostka & Payne use "Vsub6" to describe augmented sonorities in minor keys that do this thing:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm guessing that my terminology is related.



That also makes sense for consistency.


----------



## Aion (Dec 8, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Agreed regarding etymology, at least as it applies to the proper suspension. But to continue the inane discussion, we all agree that the usage is different from a traditional suspension in many cases, so does that etymology still apply in these cases? Sometimes you just go with popular naming convention and that ends up changing the rules, though in this case it needs to be understood as being something different from a traditional suspension, even if they end up sharing a name. And how many English words have more than one meaning?



Fair enough, though if you're going to make a new definition you should probably acknowledge that it's not the standard one when you give it 

I like the Sub4 and Sub2 as a replacement term. I'm gonna have to start using that.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 8, 2014)

Aion said:


> Fair enough, though if you're going to make a new definition you should probably acknowledge that it's not the standard one when you give it


That's a prescriptive view of language, though. A startlingly high percentage of the words in everyday English used to mean something else, and most people rarely or never think about what the previous definition of a word was, or how it came to mean what it means now. The only real difference here is that music theory is almost intrinsically an academic pursuit, with a strong pedigree of tradition, so the people who even know what these terms mean in the first place tend to put more stock in that tradition. If the contemporary definition of suspension, which is internally coherent, doesn't accord with the traditional definition, I would encourage you to simply accept it as a distinct and separate word. It would be a little like insisting that someone should acknowledge when they use a word in a different way than it was used in the Declaration of Independence or Shakespeare.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 8, 2014)

This has gone waaaaay off topic. 

Still interesting as fvck though.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 16, 2014)

Very interesting! Kind of didn't understand the last bits back when they were posted. I do understand it somewhat now though.

I've stumbled upon a slightly confusing thing (again).

So lately I've been trying to figure out key signature, by matching the notes (taken from tabs or something) with the scales, just to be able to memorize all the scales and whatnot. However, hardly ever (in metal that is) a song actually matches a whole scale. I have three examples:

Art of Life by X japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqmkgSeYjI

This is mostly regarding the solo starting at 26:43. The notes mostly follow A# minor, so no problem there. However, the problem is the A and the D that sometimes comes up. Also, at about 26:46 you hear the rhythm guitar playing a c# dim, with the G as root. What's happening in this song, and how does it happen? How can I find out the scale they are using with these 'out of scale notes' popping up? Are there rules regarding this? 

Then the next one is Heir Apparent by Opeth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1wW6yPDqwY


This song is apparently in no scale. I guess it's the key of E since the first chord's root is an E. (I think it's a tritone, R-diminished fifth- octave of R- octave of dim5) I checked the notes of the solo, that didnt fit any scale, nor did the main riff. Therefore, is this riff written purely by ear, with no theory involved? Did the band just mixed a bunch of notes, not thinking about how it fits where and all?

I hope my questions are clear. If it is confusing, please let me know, then I'll rephrase. Thanks! Learning a lot here!


----------



## Aion (Dec 16, 2014)

For X Japan, it's probably easier to talk about the scale as being Bb minor rather than A#. You can totally do either, and string players are especially likely to refer to everything as sharp rather than flat, but basically if we're in A# minor it becomes a little more annoying to talk about certain chromatic notes because they're now more likely to be double sharps rather than naturals or sharps. Like I said, you're welcome to think about it the other day, the most important thing is that you can understand and hear it.

So the reason you're seeing A and D naturals is because of things called secondary dominant chords and secondary diminished chords. A secondary dominant chord is when you treat a chord that is not the dominant and use it like one (like Gmaj is in the key of C maj). In other words, you take a minor chord, make it major, and generally resolve the chromatic tone (the minor-turned-major third) up a half step. This means that the secondary dominant is followed by a chord a fourth above/fifth below. There are other ways to resolve it, such as moving up a whole step to a minor chord or up a half step to a major chord, but most of the time you'll be moving up a fourth. It is very common for these chords to be dominant seventh chords.

A secondary diminished is similar, but instead of being a major chord, it is a diminished chord usually formed by raising the root of a major chord by a half-step. It is almost always followed by a chord a half-step up. Sometimes a seventh is added, usually dominant 7 (making it a half-diminished chord or a min7b5 chord if you're into jazz), sometimes it's a diminished seventh (sometimes referred to as a fully-diminished chord)/

You might have noticed that there is a relationship between secondary dominants and secondary diminished chords. If we're in the key of C minor and play G7 as a secondary dominant, we have G-B-D-F, and if we remove the root we have B-D-F, which would be the secondary diminished. If mostly just important that you understand the first two paragraphs, but if you have any questions about these concepts I'd be happy to elaborate.


It's also worth noting that in the key of Bbminor, if you make the Ab an A natural you get what's called the Bb harmonic minor. Bb-C-Db-Eb-F-Gb-A-Bb. This is very common for minor scales because having that A as a "leading tone" helps to make Bb sound like the tonic.

As for the D natural, another accepted music theory practice is "borrowed chords." Basically instead of using a chord from the Maj/Min scale you're in, you use one from what's called the "Parallel Minor." Bb Major and Bb minor are parallel scales because they start on the same notes. It sounds to me like they're mostly using secondary dominants, but I'm not doing as close of a listen as you probably are, so I thought I would bring it up.


As for Opeth, I believe Akerfeldt writes music mostly by ear. Having said that, it doesn't mean there isn't theory involved. Just because you don't think, "I'll stick a secondary dominant here," doesn't mean that's not what's happening. The goal of really getting to know theory is to get to the point where you don't need to think about it while playing and can just let the notes flow out. You want to internalize them so they become tools for creating emotion, telling a story, or playing with an idea. You don't want to have to wait to play a note before you spend some time thinking about it, you want to think a note and instantly be able to play it. Theory describes music, music does not describe theory.

Opeth is influenced by a number of things, including Scandinavian folk music. While some Scandinavian folk uses western scales, some of it does not, so it's pretty easy to find non-tradditional scales and ideas in Opeth's music. The major/minor scales are not all there is. Octatonic scales, the Tcherepnin (I might be spelling that wrong) scale, and many more cannot be described in terms of tradditional major/minor tonality and scales Additionally, Opeth and a lot of extreme metal are atonal and never really fit into any key signature. It's a way to create a sound that is uncomfortable and strange (and when combined with high volume, BR00TAL!). If you are looking for more classical theory type stuff, focus on power-metal and neo-classical metal. Maybe with a bit of celtic-influenced folk metal for variety.


----------



## Ramy (Dec 16, 2014)

Aion said:


> Aion's great post.



Thank you so much for your answer!

Alright, Opeth I get now. I am indeed going to look for so neo-classical, as I am VERY interested in classical theory, hence the X Japan song. I am indeed trying to internalize it by just practicing and doing these kind of exercises.

But regarding X Japan. So I've gone through the whole song, and the notes played outside of the scale are *A* *B* *D* *E* *G*. So in other words, all notes get played. In the solo it's only A B and D though. So, how do I know whether the note is actually a secondary dominant/diminished, and not just part of the scale. Even though most notes are in the Bb minor scale, how can I tell it is indeed the Bb minor scale and not another scale if pretty much all notes get played. And in turn in which key the song is in. Do they change scales often, as it does sound like they really play in scales in those solos. The riffs, I can understand were written without real scales in mind, but not the solos I think.

Thanks!


----------



## Aion (Dec 17, 2014)

Ramy said:


> But regarding X Japan. So I've gone through the whole song, and the notes played outside of the scale are *A* *B* *D* *E* *G*. So in other words, all notes get played. In the solo it's only A B and D though. So, how do I know whether the note is actually a secondary dominant/diminished, and not just part of the scale. Even though most notes are in the Bb minor scale, how can I tell it is indeed the Bb minor scale and not another scale if pretty much all notes get played. And in turn in which key the song is in. Do they change scales often, as it does sound like they really play in scales in those solos. The riffs, I can understand were written without real scales in mind, but not the solos I think.
> 
> Thanks!



The unfortunate answer is that there is no science to determining these things. You need to use your own ears. You might be in one key, but classical theory includes ways to use all 12 notes, not just the 7 diatonic ones. What you want to listen for is how the phrase resolves. Does the phrase come back to the chords in the main scale (usually the I or V)? If so, then it's just a temporary deviation. I outlined the immediate resolutions frequently found with secondary chords, but it's also worth mentioning that you can follow up a secondary dominant with another dominant. In the key of C you might see the chord progression V/ii, V/V, V7, I. This being Amaj, Dmaj, G7, C. However, because we end up resolving the phrase on C, and the non-scale chord resolves by fourths, we know the Amaj and Dmaj are temporary deviations that ultimately lead back to the key of C.

When playing a secondary dominant, it is common to use the notes found in the major/minor scale of the scale the dominant is from. So when we play Amaj, that is the dominant from a D scale. It could be from a D Major scale, or a D minor scale, it honestly doesn't matter much.

It's also worth mentioning that most pieces do not stay in one key. They go through a process called modulation, which is how they change keys. There are a few different ways to do this. There are sudden or unplanned modulations which is when you're playing in one key and switch to another with absolutely no connection (it can be very effective if done well, but doing it well is hard). Common chord, where a piece will use a combination of chords shared by two keys and non-diatonic chords to eventually move from one key to the next. Parallel modulations, which is when you are in one key and switch to a different key (or sometimes a mode) that has the same root note. For example, the piece is in C and then you switch to C minor (it can be done suddenly or prepared with using common chords). And Sequential Modulations (really common in metal, especially thrash) which is when you play a phrase in one key and then repeat that phrase in another key and that is now the key you're in.

The difference between a temporary deviation and a modulation can be somewhat fuzzy. It really comes back to where "home" sounds like. If we started in C, does Cmaj and the C major scale still sound like home? Or does it feel like home is in a different place? It's part of what makes theory and musical analysis interesting, there can be differing interpretations of a piece, or even just a phrase. If you look at romantic and post-romantic music (which will use more complicated non-diatonic chords and weirder modulations), there are a ton of different opinions. Rather than being a strict set of rules, theory becomes a set of tools to creatively understand and explain what we hear.


----------

