# Question regarding upper structure chording to relative minor melody



## smackhead999 (Nov 29, 2012)

So, I am working on some ideas and have become overwhelmed, confusing myself.

I am a noob lurker by the way.

The idea begins with a short arpeggio "I-vi-ii.." type progression in chords, answered with a strummed "I" that is held for a while. Im trying to conceive whether that progression was "enough" to substantiate going right to a natural minor melody (over the original tonic/key), or if I should transition to the natural minor more eloquently via an arpeggio progression with extended range, morphing into other chords step-wise, until reaching the natural minor...(over the original tonic/key)...

I have some basic rhythm in the key worked out and a relative minor lick that I am working on. The minor melody would ideally modulate to another mode at some point, but I havent gotten there yet. Trying to set it up for a super smooth introduction to the minor "chorus" melody.

Insight appreciated.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about polymodality (major and minor happening at the same time) or polytonality (two keys going on at the same time), or something else? You would analyze upper structures in terms of the chord that is ultimately being represented. For example, if you're dealing with I vi ii V I (let's say in the key of A major), then your progression is going to be some version of A F#m Bm E A. If you're messing with upper structures, you might have something like G#ø7/A (A G# B D F#), but it's going to be representative of A&#8710;13 (A C# E G# B D F#).


----------



## smackhead999 (Nov 29, 2012)

I didnt represent my thought in the best terms.

Polymodality. I think.

Say Major key of D for a two guitar introductory... I vi ii V I.

One guitar remains on the original key of D, for simplicity, playing a D or D5.

Second guitar starts shooting for relative minor, vi (b).

My question was about the path to b for the second guitar. The result would be a minor melody/solo over the original key of D. 

To further explain... Once the first instrument takes over the responsibility of maintaining D via Major key progressions, or even just the tonic chord... the second instrument could either jump into the relative minor of b, assumed because of the passing of the vi chord in the earlier progression, or find a more interesting way of getting there.

I propose the second instrument approach the natural minor scale for melody/solo via an arpeggiated progression of chords smoothly, utilizing extended tones to mask the jump in chords. Essentially to modulate to vi, b, without the obvious chord/arpeggio/scale change.

Does this make more sense?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 29, 2012)

Doesn't quite work like that. If you have a B minor melody over a D major chord progression, the melody is going to sound like D major. The harmony determines tonality more than melody does. Polymodality would be D major and D minor happening at the same time.


----------



## smackhead999 (Nov 29, 2012)

So pretty much any mode other than bm...?

Putting the bm over D would be a common practice though right? Because it harmonizes and has a different focal point?

Or am I going about this all wrong?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 29, 2012)

Don't worry about B minor. If your chord progression says D major, it's D major. If your chord progression says B minor, it's B minor. The two are not going to be happening simultaneously, or at least not that you're going to be able to distinguish, because the two modes have the same notes. What sometimes happens is that the tonal center is ambiguous, and you could have music that has as much potential to be in one relative key as it does to be in another relative key. Observe, for example, Debussy:

Claude Debussy - Pour le piano - Mvt. 2, Sarabande


This piece is most convincingly in E major at the beginning. We have a bunch of phrases that suggest that E is the tonic. Then, at the end of the A section, at 1:30, there is one last statement of the opening motive that ends on E... and keeps going to C#, suggesting that that the tonality is C# minor. Debussy is deliberately avoiding anything that unequivocally says "E major" or "C# minor" (V7-I chord progressions, etc.). The music is melodically driven - it is modal, rather than harmonic.


----------



## smackhead999 (Nov 29, 2012)

I understand what you are saying. I know that is what the theory says. But because of this, there is no difference between any of the modes/scales in a given key, others than where you start counting from. In this light, why have modes at all? What purpose does it serve?


----------



## smackhead999 (Nov 29, 2012)

I did read an interesting thing in another thread regarding Tosin Abasi and his interest in using chord tones for melodic work rather than scales. I can imagine how much more of a direct approach this is to achieving g the desired mood.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 29, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> But because of this, there is no difference between any of the modes/scales in a given key, others than where you start counting from. In this light, why have modes at all? What purpose does it serve?


 
Each mode has a very unique sound to it, but you have to use it in certain ways to hear that sound. Think of it like this.

In the key of C major (just to keep things simple. e.g., without and sharps or flats in the key signature), the notes are C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. 

- If you play a C major chord and then play C major or any of its modes (D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolidian, A Aeolian, or B Locrian) over that C Major chord it sounds just like you're playing C Major because 1) the notes are the same and 2) you are referencing them against the C major chord.

- If you play each of these modes (C Ionian, D Dorian, etc.) by itself (without chordal accompaniment), it kind of sounds like itself, but it also kind of sounds like C major. It is a little bit ambiguous played solo, so you have to emphasize certain notes to get the feel/sound of each mode because otherwise there is nothing to reference it against.

- If you play C Ionian over a C chord and D Dorian over a D minor chord, E Phrygian over an E minor chord, etc., you will hear each mode jump out at you, sounding like the unique scale it really is. Why is this? Well, it works this way because you are referencing it against the tonic from which it is built.

I don't want to complicate this too much, but suffice it to say that each mode has different chord progressions/cadences that it works well with because they suggest that mode. So as concerns your original question, when you play B minor over a D major chord progression, it sounds like D major because the chords you are referencing the B Aeolian mode against say it's D major instead of B Aeolian, so thats what the ears & brain hear.

To make an audible transition from D major to B Aeolian you really should change the underlying chords to reflect the key change. You can also try emphasizing certain notes, but keep in mind that this approach will only work sometimes based on what chord you are playing over.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 30, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> I did read an interesting thing in another thread regarding Tosin Abasi and his interest in using chord tones for melodic work rather than scales. I can imagine how much more of a direct approach this is to achieving g the desired mood.



The way that the terminology has evolved in recent years is, in my view, quite silly. The chord tones _are_ scale tones. Let's look at how this works. You start with a scale, let's say A major.

A B C# D E F# G#

One of those notes is made to be more important than the others. We call that one the tonic. In this particular scale, the tonic is A. There is a hierarchy that dictates the importance of the rest of those tones. E is next, G# is pretty close by. The rest follow in no uncertain order, but suffice it to say that there is a hierarchy and that they all eventually answer to the head honcho: the tonic. Hierarchy, of course, means organization. The way that we organize all of these tones is through chords and harmonic progression. Chords tones are the organization of the scale, not the exception.

A long video, but worth the watch if you have the time:





smackhead999 said:


> I understand what you are saying. I know that is what the theory says. But because of this, there is no difference between any of the modes/scales in a given key, others than where you start counting from. In this light, why have modes at all? What purpose does it serve?



There are two levels of information to consider when talking about scales: tonality and modality. Tonality is the physical location of the key. If you say the tonality is A, the corresponding scale is going to have its tonic on A. That is going to be the point of resolution. If you say the tonality is C, it's going to be C. D# is D#. B&#9837; is B&#9837;. No matter what, if your tonality is what you say it is, then it is precisely that. Modality is the "mood" of the scale, and that mood is established by the other pitches that follow the tonic. Modality is the name of the scale. If you say "major", all that tells us is intervallic content. It's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. If you say "dorian", same thing: just numbers; 1 2 &#9837;3 4 5 6 &#9837;7.

We don't have the actual notes of the scale until the tonic (the key) and modality (the scale) are specified. Those two pieces of information can exist independently, but when you start making music, you have to put them together. Now, it just so happens that some of these modalities overlap their pitch content with other modalities in other keys. Don't confuse one key/mode combo with another key/mode combo, just because they have the same notes. E major and F# dorian have the same pitch selection, but both their tonality and modality are completely different. What Debussy does in the sarabande I posted is go between different keys that contain the same pitch material (also known as relative keys). There is a certain readiness when you have a situation like that: you can go back and forth between pitch centers, merely because of some common tones that are otherwise unrelated.

It's also possible to have multiple modalities happening for a single tonality. It's not uncommon to find elements of, say, E major as well as E minor within close proximity of each other. Of course, then you are dealing with different pitch collections, but they still gravitate toward the same tonic. You can even have a complete chromaticization of a scale and still be within the confines of one tonality and a single modality. It all depends on how you organize your pitch material. Of course, the kicker is that you need to put some thought and most likely some study to effectively organize your diatonic and chromatic pitch palette. Check out what's happening in this video (particularly at 4:40):


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 1, 2012)

I started watching the longer video... got about 40 minutes into it. That's very interesting stuff. I will finish this one and look for the rest of his lecture.

Watched Professor Shred and some of his other series videos. I do like how he ended that. That kind of clears it up. Its where you put the notes, not where the notes are.

So, it seems like a more appropriate way to answer my own question would have been, whatever mode or scale you play, it will sound more harmonious if it shares more notes with the key. Furthermore, it will be more pleasant if those harmonious notes tend to fall in parts of rhythm where the ear naturally wants to hear them... like the down beat.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 1, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> So, it seems like a more appropriate way to answer my own question would have been, whatever mode or scale you play, it will sound more harmonious if it shares more notes with the key.



Kind of vague. If you're playing a scale, you are playing within the key of that scale (roughly speaking). When you play F major, you're playing F major, not D minor or C mixolydian or whatever.

It _IS_, however, possible for two tonalities to be occurring simultaneously.

Bartók - Mikrokosmos, Book 5 - No.105 - "Game"








Notice that Bartók is using two discrete collections, and he gives them to two separate "instruments" (each of the two hands). This is an advanced technique called bitonality. Most people stick with one tonality at a time. Also a point of interest, he avoids the third of each scale (C# minor in the left hand and D minor in the right hand, although the right hand could arguably be E minor, since it certainly becomes E minor by the end of the piece). Certainly not at all a prerequisite of bitonality, but I'd like to point out that he omits some stuff for the hell of it. The last chord is a little misrepresented, or at least requires further explanation: it sounds like C#m7, but considering where the counterpoint is coming from, it is analytically an E5/C#5 polychord. The composite sound is merely the result of the two tonalities coming together with their tonic fifth at that point - C# G# and E B.

And here is an example of bimodality from the same books. The right hand voice is giving us F minor, while the left hand is giving us F major. Same tonic, different modes.

Béla Bartók - Mikrokosmos, Book 2 - No.59 - "Major & Minor"









> Furthermore, it will be more pleasant if those harmonious notes tend to fall in parts of rhythm where the ear naturally wants to hear them... like the down beat.


More or less, yes.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 1, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Kind of vague. If you're playing a scale, you are playing within the key of that scale (roughly speaking). When you play F major, you're playing F major, not D minor or C mixolydian or whatever.



What I was intent on implying was the KEY of section, composition, or whatever is going on during the scale. I realize the scale will have its own key, but generally I would assume, that the intended key of a piece of music would kind of stay with the "rhythm" section... only because I would assume that the melodic portion could have more potential to move around a bit in order to express whatever it wants to express.

Example: Some thing in D major, rhythm maintains the key of D major, melody does something weird like D major, C mixolydian, A locrian, D minor. Im just throwing stuff out there.

My original suggestion was that the more common notes one of these not-obvious-choice scales has with the rhythms key of D, the more harmonious it would be. That much seems obvious to me. 

I think I need to learn more about these modes and try to understand when it is appropriate to use "whatever key" of "whatever mode" over "whatever original key the rest of the song has". Do's and don'ts type stuff.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 2, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> What I was intent on implying was the KEY of section, composition, or whatever is going on during the scale.



Some funkiness going on here. Key and scale are usually synonymous. You can have a piece in D major that modulates to B minor, then back to D major. That's fine. You are probably not going to have the same thing with some melody in E&#9837; minor on top of that, unless you do some crazy Bartók shit.



> I realize the scale will have its own key, but generally I would assume, that the intended key of a piece of music would kind of stay with the "rhythm" section... only because I would assume that the melodic portion could have more potential to move around a bit in order to express whatever it wants to express.


Note choice in melody is typically dictated by harmony, unless you're going for an effect like bitonality (once again, like the Bartók example from above). Harmony is meant to support melody, not to act as some separate and independent layer.



> Example: Some thing in D major, rhythm maintains the key of D major, melody does something weird like D major, C mixolydian, A locrian, D minor. Im just throwing stuff out there.


So, you're saying the harmony parts are doing everything they can do express D major, while the melody noodles around in all of these other keys. Harmony is really going to tell you where the melody wants to go, trust me on this. Harmony evolved from melodies being stacked on top of each other (more or less - look at organum for the beginnings of Western harmony), so harmony is ultimately a codification of melodic tendencies. If you have a bunch of chords going on in one key, then a melody in another key, you are very likely going to end up with a melody that sounds wrong. This is because harmony puts strong demands on melody. Even in bitonal textures, the underlying fabric is more about counterpoint and creating space for two tonalities than it is about harmony. Don't stratify it so much. Melody and harmony are inextricably linked.



> My original suggestion was that the more common notes one of these not-obvious-choice scales has with the rhythms key of D, the more harmonious it would be. That much seems obvious to me.


"Harmonious" has nothing to do with it. Chords have functions. If you play the chord tones and play around the chord tones in a way that does not interfere with their function, then the melody is expressing the harmony and the harmony is supporting the melody. It's a good place to be. And, hell, even "outside" playing is eventually based on ideas relating to functional harmony. If you're playing "fuck it, whatever", disregarding what chord you're on, you might end up obscuring the harmony and make the harmony sound like it's in disagreement with the melody. For now, you will not have two separate planes of keys. Harmony and melody will together work to the same harmonic goal.

Don't take my word for it, though. Record yourself doing what you're saying, bring it back, and let's have a discussion. I love polytonality; it's a difficult commodity to come by. It does have a few more requirements than "let's smash these two things together that are in different keys", though.



> I think I need to learn more about these modes and try to understand when it is appropriate to use "whatever key" of "whatever mode" over "whatever original key the rest of the song has". Do's and don'ts type stuff.


Forget about playing "over" things. In reality, this does not happen - you are playing within harmony, not around or over it. Melody is factored into harmony, precisely because any two tones played at once are going to produce harmony. Try this out:


```
e-5
b-6
G-5
D-6
A-
E-
```
If you don't think there's anything nasty about that, then isolate the two outside notes:


```
e-5
b-
G-
D-6
A-
E-
```
A cool effect, but our ear tends to want to hear this:


```
e-5
b-6
G-5
D-7
A-
E-
```
Or this:


```
e-4
b-6
G-5
D-6
A-
E-
```
The first one, though, is an amalgamation of those two triads. That is easily the sound you will get if you try playing C mixolydian, A locrian, or D minor over a D major triad. Follow the chords, though, and you'll never go wrong.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 2, 2012)

Im with you. 

I know some of my questions seem a little annoying, I just like to fully understand why before accepting indoctrination.

Thanks. More stupid questions will follow.


----------



## Varcolac (Dec 2, 2012)

Thanks SW, now my evening is going to be spent watching all six lectures of Bernstein applying Chomskian dialectics to music. 

Not sure if that was sarcastic at all. I'm really enjoying it - some interesting stuff.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 2, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> I know some of my questions seem a little annoying, I just like to fully understand why before accepting indoctrination.



Oh, they're not annoying. I wouldn't spend half my evening talking about this stuff if they were annoying.  I'm not a very dogmatic person, so if I sound like I'm trying to indoctrinate you, you'll have to excuse me as this is not my intention. Polyphony and harmony do work in a certain way, though, and while there are many many ways to work within that medium, it's important that you understand what happens when you stick two things together.



> Thanks. More stupid questions will follow.


Bring it on. Stupid questions are the best kind.



Varcolac said:


> Thanks SW, now my evening is going to be spent watching all six lectures of Bernstein applying Chomskian dialectics to music.
> 
> Not sure if that was sarcastic at all. I'm really enjoying it - some interesting stuff.



You have more time than I do, friend. I'm glad I could turn you on to those lectures; Bernstein is a good speaker.


----------



## Varcolac (Dec 3, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> You have more time than I do, friend. I'm glad I could turn you on to those lectures; Bernstein is a good speaker.



Make that "my evenings for the rest of the week." There's so much stuff there! Watched two last night but had to be up this morning. I'm taking it slow. A lot of the music=language analogies are really helpful, and his taking apart of Beethoven's 6th as process music with every part as a "metaphor" for the ideas first expressed in the introductory bars is quite enlightening and inspiring.


----------



## GuyB (Dec 3, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> I think I need to learn more about these modes and try to understand when it is appropriate to use "whatever key" of "whatever mode" over "whatever original key the rest of the song has". Do's and don'ts type stuff.



Different modes can create varying amounts of tension over a chord.

Playing over a D Major triad = D F# A
with a D Lydian D E F# G# A B C# has less tension notes compared to playing
a D Lydian Augmented D E F# G# A# B C# over the D major triad.

Guy


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 5, 2012)

GuyB said:


> Different modes can create varying amounts of tension over a chord.
> 
> Playing over a D Major triad = D F# A
> with a D Lydian D E F# G# A B C# has less tension notes compared to playing
> ...


Yeah, this is what I have come to figure out. I was under the impression previously, that there were corresponding modes (in different keys) that you would play with a chord. 

I found a useful explanation on another website that explained otherwise, that you would maintain the same key as the chord, but use different modes in the melody/solo to utilize notes not necessarily found in the chord, as an accompaniment with the chord to set a "mood." Typically harmonizing the 1,3,5/1,b3,5/etc... but the modes would allow you to throw in the b2, b7, etc... to further add tension depending on the desired mode/mood. 

I think that is a good way to explain it.


----------



## davidadd9 (Dec 8, 2012)

this has to be one of the more interesting things I've come across this forum


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm going to bring this back. 

I've been applying what I have learned, and am trying to compose a piece utilizing these new techniques that I am not as familiar with. It is working well.

One thing that I want to use that I don't understand enough that SW mentioned, bitonality. I have spent the last two days trying to research it and understand its function better, to no real result. Maybe I can promote a better discussion about it...

Obviously, it is two keys occurring simultaneously. As a result of this, some combination of keys will be more closely related to each other than others. Keys that share more common notes will harmonize to some effect more frequently. Others will be less likely to do so. I figure that the less likely that two keys are to harmonize naturally while played simultaneously, the more pronounced/obvious the two keys will sound.

So, there is a section in the piece that I am writing that I would like to use bitonality to kind of drive the idea home. It is somewhat of a chorus type section that I would like to maintain the overall feel of the whole piece in D Phrygian, while departing with a melody in another key. I think this will make the point that I desire to convey in this section.

What I would like to discuss is:

Is choosing another key to use like choosing a mode, where you chose based on the mood of the key? 

If so, by itself, or in relation to the original key/mode?

Are there some general guidelines for choosing and applying two keys?

Thanks for the consideration.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

Had another thought too. On the way to work this afternoon, listening to Dream Theater's Outcry.

Specifically the beginning that comes to mind between :45 and 1:30. There is some guitar stuff going on and some keyboard stuff going on. These two instruments are clearly using different progressions to set different "thoughts." Maybe someone can tell me if they are from the same key or from different keys. It seems to me, that the two independent parts are harmonious at times but very separately defined in others. I am aware that they have individual timbre because they are two different instruments, and using different progressions, but maybe it is because of the timbre difference that I cant determine if its bitonal or monotonal.

My ear is not very good at analyzing these things. But I really like that and aspire to achieve that form(<--used loosely). Would that section have seemed so separately defined had it been two guitars?

That section makes me feel like the keyboards are applying a "setting" while the guitar has a more bumpity rhythm that communicating the "plot."


----------



## Bakerman (Dec 30, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> Had another thought too. On the way to work this afternoon, listening to Dream Theater's Outcry.
> 
> Specifically the beginning that comes to mind between :45 and 1:30. There is some guitar stuff going on and some keyboard stuff going on. These two instruments are clearly using different progressions to set different "thoughts." Maybe someone can tell me if they are from the same key or from different keys.
> 
> My ear is not very good at analyzing these things. But I really like that and aspire to achieve that form(<--used loosely). Would that section have seemed so separately defined had it been two guitars?



All B minor (Aeolian), gtr. & keys playing the same chord progression. Maybe by "progression" you mean something else like voicing or melody. 

Re: last question, probably not. Having a different timbre/attack/everything between sounds makes the parts more distinguishable.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

Bakerman said:


> All B minor (Aeolian), gtr. & keys playing the same chord progression. Maybe by "progression" you mean something else like voicing or melody.



Well, had they been different keys, I imagine it would have been different progressions... as it is not, and it is the same progression, then what I am hearing is the different voicings.

I have been a long time fan of DT, not just JP, (actually, not a big fan of Liquid Tension) but never really took the time to analyze their work. Lately I have been though and I think what I noticed most, is that where typical metal seems to overuse progressions, JP will use many voicings of the same chord to deliver the rhythm, rather than relentless progressions. What I used to think were chord changes in some sections of some songs, I think is more likely alterations and voicing changes. To me, it seems like that kind of achieves the moving away from the tonic chord building tension, resolving... like fretting a chord and then changing rhythm a little and using an inversion of the same chord.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 30, 2012)

Yeah, the guitar and keys aren't playing the same part in that DT example, but they're playing the same progression and key. I think what you are asking here is really about arranging techniques for multiple instruments rather than polymodality.

It's a pretty common arranging technique to have different instruments play different parts because:

1) It is usually more interesting for the listener, and

2) so they don't step on each others' toes.

In fact, I typically only like to hear everyone gang up on a riff for heavy parts or interesting rhythmic grooves. Otherwise, find something else to play. 

Something else to consider is chord voicing as spread over over multiple instruments. You don't have to have a single instrument play all the notes. In fact, it can be more interesting to have each instrument play some (different) notes in the chord, with the overall effect being that chord. 

And some notes aren't really necessary. Most jazz guitarists will drop the 5th from their chord voicings (because it doesn't really add anything except in a power chord, which jazz players don't use) and often leave out the root, as well (because the bass, keys or horns are playing it). So jazz voicings often focus on the 3rd, 7th and any extensions (9th, 11th, 13th).

Anyway, this is a very deep topic and I haven't even scratched the surface here, but hopefully this will inspire you to delve deeper into arranging. It is something that can really set you apart from all of the wanna be's.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

Yes. This. 

I am absolutely interested in both things that I mentioned. Bitonality and arrangement.

Like you said, heavy riffing sounds cool with many instruments playing the same part, but it is boring when its done all the time. Bands that have 3 guitar players that all play the same stuff...

These thoughts have come from trying to determine what I am hearing that I like, and figuring out what is going on to achieve this. I definitely want to expand my toolbox.

For the arrangement discussion, in that song, Jordan seems to be using what appears to be a more simple movement/rhythm/whatever... whereas JP's part feels to me to be more involved. Is it that keyboards are putting down the foundation of the chords: 135 and guitar is doing more of the unique voicing: extensions? As you noted with jazz.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

Did you guys acquire musical notation to confirm that this is whats happening or do you hear it? Because I cant tell that this is the same chord progression by ear. I guess I am dull.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 30, 2012)

You're asking a few separate questions here, so I'll address them in sections.

Arranging - In the section of the song you linked to, the keys are basically playing a pad, which is just a part consisting of sustained chords. There is a little bit of movement, but it serves mainly as a pad. Meanwhile, Petrucci is playing a busier riff than the part the keys are playing. JP's riff consists of power chords and single note lines from the same scale.

Ear Training - As for hearing the chords and such, you will get accustomed to the sound of different intervals, scales, chord types and progressions after you hear them enough. It just takes a bit of time listening and practicing - the more you hear it the better you can recognize it.

Polymodality - You won't hear polymodality when playing different chords at the same time - the ear doesn't really work that way. Fundamentally, a chord is a combination of three or more notes. Octave repeats of a note don't count - they have to be different notes. A triad is a chord consisting of three notes, typically the root, 3rd and 5th. Note that it doesn't have to be these specific notes to be a triad, it just usually is.

Now let's take a look at what you get when you play different chords simultaneously. Here's an example:

If you have one guitar playing an E minor triad (E-G-B) and one keyboard playing a G major triad (G-B-D) at the same time, the ear won't perceive two chords. It will instead hear a single E minor 7 chord.

Why is this?

Well, E minor is spelled E-G-B and G major is spelled G-B-D. Both chords have G and a B notes, so we can ignore the repetition there. What we are left with is E-G-B-D, which is Emin7.

This is a simple example, but it always works out this way regardless of the specific chords - the ear hears a single larger chord (e.g., one with more notes) rather than two or more separate chords. Some will work better together than others, but you will still get this effect.

To get polymodality, you really need to contrast a major key melody against a minor key couterpoint or chord progression; something that will allow both to sound simultaneously. Because with chords, the notes just blend into a single chord.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 30, 2012)

Thanks. That is a good start. Im not sure what else to ask at the moment.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 31, 2012)

smackhead999 said:


> I'm going to bring this back.
> 
> I've been applying what I have learned, and am trying to compose a piece utilizing these new techniques that I am not as familiar with. It is working well.
> 
> ...



First, where are you looking? Youtube is a washout for this stuff. These videos don't explain bitonality, despite having it in the title:



^ This guy is explaining something else. Tensions on chords, sure. Playing outside, sure (which, in my opinion, has to do with an extension of ideas such as harmonic suspension more than bi/poly anything). Polychords, yeah. Polytonality? Nuh-uh.



^ I don't even know what this guy is trying to demonstrate. Clearly not atonal, also not polytonal. Maybe polymodal at some parts, but all this dude is really doing is breaking up a chromatic scale into thirds. A polychordal analysis is appropriate.

So, what's the problem with the above 'explanations'? They're looking at the composite sonority. It's not bitonal if you're relating everything to one key or one chord. I think of polytonality as less of a harmonic procedure and more of a contrapuntal procedure. Counterpoint adds dimensionality to music. It adds levels to what might otherwise be a very one-dimensional image. Traditionally, counterpoint reinforces tonal harmony. If you look at Bartók and Stravinsky, though, the counterpoint exists in its own harmonic layers, dissociated (to some degree) from the 'point'. Have a look at Bach's Two-Part Inventions to get a sense of what counterpoint is and how it can be used, and then seek out Bartók's Mikrokosmos (non-PD, so I can't post a link to the real deal; trust that it can be found with a little bit of searching). The Mikrokosmos books use the same kind of counterpoint, but informed by late nineteenth/early twentieth century chromatic harmony and Bartók's own self-invented system of tonality.

I should really stress that polytonality and polymodality are advanced techniques, and rely on a solid understanding of motivic music. If there's one thing that is lacking modern popular music (including metal), it's an understanding of motives and form. Interestingly, like polytonality, good resources on motivic development are difficult to come by, despite the fact that melodic motives are the basis for the history of Western music. An awful article on musical motifs: Motif (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A decent introduction to motivic development: www.gottrypercussion.com/musictheory/handoutpdf/MotivicDevelopment.pdf

A motivic analysis of a very economical piece (Hey, check it out, it's from that book I recommended.):



Another (Hey, check it out again, it's from that other book I recommended.):





> So, there is a section in the piece that I am writing that I would like to use bitonality to kind of drive the idea home. It is somewhat of a chorus type section that I would like to maintain the overall feel of the whole piece in D Phrygian, while departing with a melody in another key. I think this will make the point that I desire to convey in this section.


D phrygian harmony and a melody in another key? Might work. Might not. This is the effect you'll get:



^ Ease up on the left hand, buddy.



> What I would like to discuss is:
> 
> Is choosing another key to use like choosing a mode, where you chose based on the mood of the key?
> 
> ...


For bitonal textures? Depends on what you are trying to evoke. For changing from one key center to another? Also depends on what you are trying to evoke.



smackhead999 said:


> Had another thought too. On the way to work this afternoon, listening to Dream Theater's Outcry.
> 
> Specifically the beginning that comes to mind between :45 and 1:30. There is some guitar stuff going on and some keyboard stuff going on. These two instruments are clearly using different progressions to set different "thoughts." Maybe someone can tell me if they are from the same key or from different keys. It seems to me, that the two independent parts are harmonious at times but very separately defined in others. I am aware that they have individual timbre because they are two different instruments, and using different progressions, but maybe it is because of the timbre difference that I cant determine if its bitonal or monotonal.
> 
> ...



As has been addressed, no polytonality going on here. Everybody is following the same harmony. The guitar is adding little melodic elaborations onto the texture, which kinda takes it close to counterpoint, but not really.



smackhead999 said:


> I am absolutely interested in both things that I mentioned. Bitonality and arrangement.
> 
> Like you said, heavy riffing sounds cool with many instruments playing the same part, but it is boring when its done all the time. Bands that have 3 guitar players that all play the same stuff...
> 
> These thoughts have come from trying to determine what I am hearing that I like, and figuring out what is going on to achieve this. I definitely want to expand my toolbox.



If you're serious about all this, my advice is to grab a harmony book (Kostka & Payne is my go-to), and pour some time and effort into that thing. Learn how to read music, learn four part harmony, look at that Bach book, look at that Bartók book, and you'll be ready to tackle anything. My guess is that you're not aware of the function of the dominant seventh chord. Get that down before you try to tackle putting things into two keys at once.



> For the arrangement discussion, in that song, Jordan seems to be using what appears to be a more simple movement/rhythm/whatever... whereas JP's part feels to me to be more involved. Is it that keyboards are putting down the foundation of the chords: 135 and guitar is doing more of the unique voicing: extensions? As you noted with jazz.


Careful. Just because it isn't in the triad doesn't mean it's an extension, or even a part of the chord.



smackhead999 said:


> Did you guys acquire musical notation to confirm that this is whats happening or do you hear it? Because I cant tell that this is the same chord progression by ear. I guess I am dull.



It's plainly audible. You just need to train your ear to hear this stuff.

musictheory.net



tedtan said:


> Polymodality - You won't hear polymodality when playing different chords at the same time - the ear doesn't really work that way.



smackhead is asking about polytonality, not polymodality. And polymodality is totally hearable. D/F = polymodal chord. The ear might not pick up on the constituents of a *polychord*, simply because we hear the composite sound most of the time. However, I think this is a case of familiarity. Something like the Petrushka chord, for example, is a polychord that many many people recognize. There is truth in saying that G + E does not yield a polychordal sound, because it's not really a polychord, but there are plenty of true polychords out there that do sound polychordal.

A recent thread on polymodality:
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/music-theory-lessons-techniques/221980-polymodality.html


----------



## tedtan (Dec 31, 2012)

^ Good catch, man.


----------



## smackhead999 (Dec 31, 2012)

I definitely hear the motives in dream theater music. Seemingly new riffs but sound to be some relation to previous riffs. I think the most obvious are rhythmic motives. I hear them recurring, slightly altered, etc... later in the song.

Polytonals are probably out of my league at the moment. Last night I started experimenting with multi part arrangements. To some success, but could use some work in the creative realm. I whipped together a three guitar part and recorded it in about five minutes just so I could hear it and recognize what's going on.

Can you elaborate on what you mean SW, on not being in the triad and not being extensions, yet still being part of the chord? You lost me there.

I'll see about getting a book on harmony. The wikipedia articles suck. Everything related to music on there is very mystical. The second suggestion was better.

Thanks


----------



## Osorio (Dec 31, 2012)

Do get the Tonal Harmony book by Kostka and Payne that SW suggested if you are up for some serious study. I managed to score a copy and I'm studying by it. It is a "heavy" book; however, it takes you in from the very beginning (which is awesome, in case you need a review or are coming in blind) and seems to drop you very close to what most people would consider the end.

It is very dense though. You will probably need some time to go through the chapters properly. Don't make the mistake of rushing through because you think you know something that sounds obvious, or because you think something is not relevant or not useful to you. 
And don't forget to do some Ear Training. The book itself says this, but I'll doable it here: "Intellectual understanding cannot substitute for the secure tactile and aural familiarity that will result from the hours of practice".


----------



## tedtan (Dec 31, 2012)

The Kostka & Paine book is a great resource. When I first went to college I was a performing jazz guitar major and we used this textbook, paced out over the course of four semesters, in our theory & harmony classes. So like venneer said, don't expect to get through it in a month and understand what you read. Pace it out over a year or so and actually go through and do the exercises listed in each chapter. And definitely check out the theory and ear training exercises SW linked to in his last post at musictheory.net.


----------



## smackhead999 (Jan 2, 2013)

Does it really make a difference which edition of Tonal harmony is had? Im sure newest would be best... but the 6th edition is pretty cheap.

I started trying to wrap my head around polychords last night. I understand what they are. Just trying to figure a relevant way to use them. On two instruments anyway, with out both instruments playing the same thing.

Perhaps some band suggestions where this is performed tactfully? I have been listening to my DT, and most of the time, I hear chorded pads as mentioned before by one instrument or another, with only real movement from one of the instruments. Once in a while they both put out a melody or some complimentary movement, but not as often as I had previously thought. But, I think it would be easier to conceptualize with two similar instruments.


----------



## tedtan (Jan 2, 2013)

The only way I see it making a huge difference is if you are studying in a class or with a private teacher, in which case go with the instructor's recomendation. It will be easier for everyone even if it costs a bit more.

If you decide to go through it on your own, consider which is more important to you.

On the one hand, music theory and harmony hasn't really changed in a good while, so you should get the same information from any edition of the book, even the older ones.

On the other hand, most newer college/university style textbooks have links to a lot of online resources to help you understand the material, and the newer the book, the more up-to-date those links will be.

If you can afford the latest edition, I would say grab it just to avoid hassle. Otherwise, if you have a college/university near you, try to get your hands on a physical copy of the book before you buy so you can look it over for links, etc. (look in the school's book store).


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jan 2, 2013)

Pretty sure the sixth edition is the latest, theory textbooks don't get updated as often as some other fields. I recommend Kostka's book mentioned above or Piston's _Harmony_; the former is more open to private, unguided study in my opinion. Each has its merits and disadvantages. I do recommend finding a teacher regardless of your textbook of choice.


----------



## smackhead999 (Jan 2, 2013)

I am a student currently and my school bookstore doesnt offer that book... atleast not this semester. I attend a satellite location where there are 4 colleges at one campus, but there is not a big music department at any of them... just music appreciation and the likes.

Edit: My state library system has the 3rd edition available that I could have sent down to my local county library.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 2, 2013)

smackhead999 said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean SW, on not being in the triad and not being extensions, yet still being part of the chord? You lost me there.



I said that just because it's *not* in the triad, doesn't mean that it's an extension or something. For example, if the harmony is Em and you see an F# somewhere, I wouldn't be so hasty to call the F# an extension, or call the chord Em(add9), because that F# may very well not be part of the harmony. For example:







The F# is acting as a non-chord tone known as a 'passing tone' here. E and G are the chord tones, the F# is less significant. It's important to realize when something is or isn't a chord tone.



InfinityCollision said:


> Pretty sure the sixth edition is the latest, theory textbooks don't get updated as often as some other fields. I recommend Kostka's book mentioned above or Piston's _Harmony_; the former is more open to private, unguided study in my opinion. Each has its merits and disadvantages. I do recommend finding a teacher regardless of your textbook of choice.


There is a seventh edition now. It's very... orange.



smackhead999 said:


> Does it really make a difference which edition of Tonal harmony is had? Im sure newest would be best... but the 6th edition is pretty cheap.



There isn't going to be a whole lot of difference from one to another, just because this stuff is hundreds of years old (for the most part). The differences are chiefly editorial. I like the sixth edition, because that's what I learned from. If you can score a CD for whatever edition you have, you'll be set. On other authors, I avoid Aldwell & Schacter because they're very dense, and Piston because he's old school and uses modally neutral numeral analyses. Schoenberg is good, but I feel that Structural Functions of Harmony and Theory of Harmony are best approached as books on music philosophy rather than aides to learning harmony (you won't find mention of 'vagrant harmonies' in any other text).



> I started trying to wrap my head around polychords last night. I understand what they are. Just trying to figure a relevant way to use them. On two instruments anyway, with out both instruments playing the same thing.


You should look into part writing and voice leading (what Kostka/Payne will teach you). The essence of tonal part writing is giving different members of the chord to different instruments or "voices". For example, if you have a progression that's Em Am B, rather than this...






... you can do this:






That's the first step, anyway. It frees up the instruments to play individual notes of the chord rather than the entire chord itself. It's not a very idiomatic procedure for the guitar, but at the base of things, you want to learn how to construct independent lines.



> Perhaps some band suggestions where this is performed tactfully? I have been listening to my DT, and most of the time, I hear chorded pads as mentioned before by one instrument or another, with only real movement from one of the instruments. Once in a while they both put out a melody or some complimentary movement, but not as often as I had previously thought. But, I think it would be easier to conceptualize with two similar instruments.


Classical music. People don't do counterpoint in metal. When they do, it's usually by mistake (as much of the writing philosophy seems to gravitate), or it rips off Bach.

Spastic Ink - To Counter And Groove in E Minor


You could change that if you want. A good place to start looking? Well...

Bach's Two-Part Inventions

Bartók's Mikrokosmos

To show you how it's done:



(Go to 2:50 and bring a condom, because your mind is about to get fucked.)


----------



## smackhead999 (Jan 2, 2013)

That was awesome with the visualization. Thats about a metal as an organ can be.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 3, 2013)

Your ear knows a lot of what your conscious mind doesn't. For SW that knowledge is one and the same... He seems to have a very vast understanding of everything he hears.  In your song where you want a melody to come in thats not following the main key do some experimenting. Play the song up to that point and focus on creating the melody. Then when you reach that part try to find the continuation of the melody that conveys what you want. Make sure that if you have a recording or guitar pro or whatever, that you mute the rhythm in that part. Let the melody come to you first and then find the harmony (bassline and or chords) that best frames that melody to get the sound you want. If it doesnt come naturally you can try different modulations and see if one has that sound you want.

This is not a sustitute for learning more, just an approach to letting your crativity guide you towards the sound naturally. Experimenting on the level of pure intuition will help you develop, and analysis will help you understand.


----------



## smackhead999 (Jan 5, 2013)

This is kind of unrelated, but I spend a lot of time in this subforum, so I may just keep updating this with my exploration of theory material.

The last couple of days I have been experimenting with (dare I say) jazz chord shapes. I have almost always employed barre chords obviously incorporating more notes than really necessary. The barre chord also sounds like poo when you start adding uncommon notes into it. So, I have been focusing on shell chords, but I do like the sound of doubling a note here and there sometimes. Also, some drop shapes, an instead of the thirds harmony, some fifths harmony sounds good too, but usually sounds too major for me.

The other thing I am really struggling with is creative rhythms. I dont know, I am at a loss lately. I have been trying to inspire myself with jazz here and there, but I lose interest because I dont really care too much for jazz as a whole. How ever, I do like the chord flexibility/voicings and the rhythms.

The reason for the focus on both of these tasks is because I have noticed in some of my favorite music, I am hearing rhythms emphasized with what I always thought was diatonic chord changes, but after observing some jazz, I notice you can emphasize the rhythms by using one chord and changing voicings, or chord qualities like Cm7, Cm9, Cm6, Cm/A. 

Ramblings.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 12, 2013)

You should spend some time on inversions, open voicing, and chord melody... you'll really enjoy it. Kiko Louriero's DVD has a really nice section on chord melody.


----------



## smackhead999 (Jan 13, 2013)

I just got Kiko's video... I demo'd it on you tube and it seemed like good stuff. I got the whole thing and will start watching that. Thanks.


----------

