# Functional Harmony



## Diet Kirk (Nov 19, 2013)

So off the back of the recent thread on modes and a link therein to a longer thread on modes, I've had a thought.

SW I suppose I'm directing this at you as you raised the point of teaching what you called "functional harmony". But I'm happy for anyone else to wade in.

I certainly thought undestanding the relationship between keys and modes was the secret to unlocking songwriting. However what you said in that post really piqued my interest as I think I'm getting ahead of myself and there is something I should learn first.

To give you some context, I picked up the guitar a little over a year ago at the ripe old age of 33, with the intention not of becoming a guitarist persee but allowing me to write songs. To get ideas from my head to the computer in order that I can work with other musicians to create music. I'm a drummer and my first love is rhythm, but I've always felt I had some songs inside me to give.

So my current sticking point in terms of songwriting. I am fine coming up with interesting rhythms and grooves and I have a good understanding of time signatures. I always start with a drum pattern, then I'll pick a chord progression I like and mess around with it over the drum pattern until I get something I like. I'm limited quite a lot by my playing, but I often cut things up in cubase in order to arrange a part the way I hear it in my head if I can't play it.

To come up with these chord progressions I sometimes pick a scale at random, mess around with the single notes using a keyboard sound, derive something for the sake of argument B, D, A# (I realise that is probably nonsense but its just for illustrative purposes). Then I might tab out for myself the power chord shapes using those three notes as the roots and put in a guitar part based off my original noodlings with single notes.

Now here is where I am completely stuck. When it comes to adding other instruments, counter point lines, bass lines, keys etc I don't know where to begin. I suspected the answer using that original scale I had found and playing with that combination of notes until I had a nice melody line over the top or bass line, or whatever.

However I think for building up the song, I think i may have confused the issue, jumped a step too far and instead should be thinking about this idea of functional harmony before I attempt to know more about modes.

I should point out that my ideas at this point are fairly simple, but I would like to develop my songwriting ability and flesh out these tunes with more than just a single voice at a time. I'm equally just as happy trying to understand this stuff with a piano roll as I am with a guitar in my hand as I like to understand the relationship of the notes/frets/keys etc not just become a better guitar player.

Apologies to all if I've missed the point a second time!


----------



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

I'm glad that you found something of value in my posts. Voice leading is a complicated and lengthy thing to teach, so I don't know how far I can get you here. There are books out there that I recommend* (This is the best one, in my experience.), but I can give you some foundational ideas really quickly.

Maybe you know how we build chords. When harmonizing the major scale, we start with the scale...


G A B C D E F#

... then place a diatonic third and fifth on top of each note.

G = G B D
A = A C E 
B = B D F#
C = C E G
D = D F# A
E = E G B
F# = F# A C

This results in a mix of chord qualities, from major to minor and diminished.

G B D = G
A C E = Am
B D F# = Bm
C E G = C
D F# A = D
E G B = Em
F# A C = F#°

For the sake of simplifying things, we can number the degrees of the scale...

G = 1
A = 2
B = 3
C = 4
D = 5
E = 6
F# = 7

... and then number the chords with a slightly modified scheme based on the Roman numeral system.

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

Note the correspondence between the quality of the triad and the letter-case of its representative numeral. Major triads are capital: I IV V. Minor triads are lowercase: ii iii vi. Diminished triads have this little circle thing: vii°.

Now, we can talk about a progression and have the order and function of the chords be perfectly clear. In the key of G major, C Am F#° D G is translated to IV ii vii° V I. The beauty of this is that it is completely transposable. Let's say we wanted the same progression in a different key, E major.

E major scale: E F# G# A B C# D#
Chords: E F#m G#m A B C#m D#°, I ii iii IV V vi vii°
IV ii vii° V I = A F#m D#° B E

Those numerals are universal to every major key. If you know the notes of the scale, it's easy to pound out a chord progression once you have that pattern memorized. Of course, you need to know how to build a chord progression first.

I have this little flowchart, heavily influenced by Kostka & Payne's book, that helps to build a path through a functional progression.







Start anywhere you want and work your way right. Chords closer to the right are stronger harmonic functions, while chords on the left are comparatively weaker. You can take it that V I is a strong progression, as is IV V I. The point of a chord progression is to arrive at I, usually through means of the dominant chord (V). IV I is possible through this chart, but it is not as strong as V I. You'll notice two chords in each of those box things. Those chords are substitutable. So, if you have V I and you want a substitution, vii° I will fulfill the same requirement. IV V I and ii V I are also the same thing, as far as function goes. The arrows from the chords in those boxes indicate that both of them may be used in the same progression, and that is the order that they go in if you have one following the other.

So, IV ii V I is good. ii IV V I is bad. My composition teacher feels that V vii° is considerably weaker than vii° V, and I think I agree, but I've heard vii° come right after V on a few occasions and was not too offended. If anything, it sounds like a seventh is being added to the V chord, so it's almost not even vii° at that point.

When I was chilling in a harmony class in 2007 (before I gained the massive amount of music knowledge I now possess), the teacher gave a mnemonic for the sequence of chords. The Music Theory Hotline: 364-2751. (For those who do not live in the US, our phone numbers have seven digits. I'm not sure you can do the same thing with an Italian phone number or otherwise.)

Now that you have an idea of the order of chords in a functional progression, let's look at voice leading. The basic idea in academic voice leading is to go from one chord to the next while moving the notes by the smallest increments possible. This is an example of really awful voice leading:






Please know that it hurts to write that. I don't even know where to begin. Anyway, I'm supplying a bass note for the root of the chord (we're doing these in root position), and then putting a 1-3-5 block chord voicing on top of that. It's jumping around everywhere, and it doesn't sound good.

This next one is a better solution:






Same story, I'm keeping the root in the bass and then having some voicing of the chord on top of that. This time, you can see that there is hardly any movement when going from one chord to the next. Some tones are common to two or more chords in the progression, so I keep them right where they are. The rest of the motion is stepwise. This is what you are going for.

The next goal of voice leading is to create independence between the voices. This is an interval thing. Simply put, you are only committing an offense if there are parallel perfect consonances between any two voices. Perfect consonances are the perfect fifth, the perfect octave, and the perfect unison. Every other interval is okay. Parallel tritones are okay too, but let's save that for later.






These are examples of parallel octaves and fifths between two voices. You don't want this, because it destroys the independence of the voices.






It's really difficult for me to write like that. The spacing error on the last chord is killing me (a perfect eleventh between the tenor and alto voices; it should not be more than an octave). Right now, you might have to think in order to avoid those kinds of voice leading mistakes, but once you get a hang on how it all works, good voice leading becomes second nature. And yeah, I know, power chords. That's not this style, so don't worry.

My suggestion is to get some staff paper, write out a grand staff and a bunch of key signatures for major keys, and start writing diatonic chord progressions in four voices. You'll suck at first, but it will get better if you stick with it. If you don't read now, you'll be a decent music reader after a few weeks of writing chord progressions. Think about moving individual notes in the chords. Follow that progression chart. If you're cool with all of this, I can show you a bit more.


* For those who aren't looking for such an in-depth approach, I have been reading through the Hal Leonard Pocket Music Theory book by Keith Wyatt and Carl Schroeder, and am generally pleased by how it covers fundamentals. I completely disagree with the discussion on modes (surprise), and the nomenclature system the authors use does not meet my approval, but it is a great little book that reads very easily. The price isn't too bad, either. While we're on tiny cheap music books that are worth buying, Tom Gerou and Dave Black's Essential Dictionary of Orchestration has helped me out when I don't want to lug Adler around with me.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



... must ... not ... post ... that ... big ... chart ... 

Thanks again SW!

Ray


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Nov 20, 2013)

Fantastic post as always SW. Question from my end though, you lost me at the "parallel" intervals, I just can't seem to see what you're getting at with the diagram. What are parallel fifths/octaves etc.? I'm an idiot, so I can't see anything wrong with the picture.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 20, 2013)

^ Ditto. Great post but I'm not sure about that part. I never knew the caps for major and lower case for minor either haha! Though how does that chart apply if using a minor key??


----------



## Osorio (Nov 20, 2013)

The chart for minor is a bit different, because in natural minor you have a "Minor V" instead of the dominant harmony. The III also behaves a little bit differently since it "leads" back to the relative major.






This chart assumes a Harmonic Minor variation. Which is pretty much the form of the Minor scale you "should" default to for "standard" chord progressions. It makes the V7 possible.

Also, the parallel thing in regards to consecutive intervals is a voice leading deal. Basically, you want to avoid going in the same intervals because the sound it produces is not satisfying. As SW pointed out, it destroys line independency. Even if they are going in different directions, like the first example, it results in a very "constrained" sound where you feel / hear voices "merging".


----------



## Solodini (Nov 20, 2013)

Remember, though, OP, that rules can be broken. Filling everything with 5ths and octaves in between voices and jumping around from chord to chord will be incoherent but sometimes it'll be just what a moment is asking for.

Especially leaps in your voicings. One voice's melody may just call for a leap of a 5th. Isn't that right, John Williams. Doesn't mean everything needs to leap with it. Close voicings and intentional contrasts to that will make things stand out. With enough work, they'll stand out well!

Do you have an idea of your own tastes yet regarding what intervals you like the sounds of generally? If not, have your melody play back and play a sustained note a minor 2nd above the first note, but hold it over the rest of the melody. It might sound good in certain places as it interacts with certain notes but not with others. Note down what it sounds good with and what interval it creates with those notes, if they differ from the starting note. 
Next do the same but with the note which is a major 2nd above the first note of the melody, or the same interval as one of those nice intervals you found. For example if F was the note you sustained last time and it worked nicely over a D, that would be a minor 3rd. If the first note of your melody is E, a minor 3rd above that is G so try sustaining a G over everything. Again, take note of where that works. It may work over some of the same notes as you noticed last time. That give you options so the ear doesn't become bored of always hearing a minor 3rd with D.

Your quick way of doing some of this would be to just learn chord tones but there's much more interesting tensions you can learn and use rather than just following comfortable harmony without tension.

Once you have some notes you like, use them as markers for contrary motion. If you have a G over a D and the line leading up to D is ascending, try a descending line to the G. There may be some notes which don't fit. That's fine: just try holding the previous note over to see how that fits, or make the next note start a beat earlier and sustain over both. Sustaining notes to create variation in rhythm, holds in tension will start to create interaction, discussion and flow within the melody's momentum. You could also use that as a chance to try out a line with growing intervals. If your line so far went D C B A but you didn't like the B where it was, you could try DCDB or DCDA. DCDB would set you up to finish with the G, making those last 3 notes (DBG) a descending G major triad which could be a nice contrast and context to a more stepwise main melody.

Once you have some of these lines, try making them a bit more abstract. Try using the countermelody with a much slower rhythm to form the basis of a bass line. Try doubling the note lengths and see how that works. Also note that while you might like F above E, you may not like F below E. Intervals can take on a drastically different character when inverted. When inverted, 3rds become 6ths, minor becomes major and suchlike.

You can also play around with call and response or rounds with different lines. You can move a countermelody back a bar/half a bar or suchlike to have a referentially similar line but leading to a waterfalling effect of slightly separated lines. If a certain note doesn't work like this then fine, change it for another.

There will be notes which don't seem to work in isolation, but there may be that odd moment where a descending line in octaves or that odd aug 4 to perfect 5th harmony fits just right for what you're writing/playing.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on anything.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 20, 2013)

jarvncaredoc said:


> Fantastic post as always SW. Question from my end though, you lost me at the "parallel" intervals, I just can't seem to see what you're getting at with the diagram. What are parallel fifths/octaves etc.? I'm an idiot, so I can't see anything wrong with the picture.



Look again at SW's last figure. In the first half, the top and bottom voices are an octave apart in the first chord, and move in *parallel* (maintaining that constant octave-apart distance) in going to the second chord. The second half of the figure shows a similar parallel-fifths motion in the bottom two voices. Using parallel fifths and parallel octaves in classical counterpoint is a no-no because it destroys the independence of those two voices. You can see that effect by considering other places where parallel fifths and octaves *are* often used. Parallel fifths, of course, are the classic rock/metal power chord; parallel octaves are often used in jazz melodic lines (Wes Montgomery's soloing is a classic example). In both of these cases, what you perceive is a "thickened" timbre of the fundamental pitch, rather than two separate pitches. In counterpoint, this effect collapses the number of voices - it basically converts one voice into a timbral "shadow" of the other - which is counter to the stated aim of maintaining independent melodic lines that collectively spell out the harmony.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Nov 20, 2013)

Perfect explanation, thank you!


----------



## Diet Kirk (Nov 22, 2013)

Gentlemen, all this stuff is fantastic. I'm starting to digest it and try some of the exercises you all suggested, but I definately want to continue learning about this stuff.

No doubt I will have many questions shortly!


----------



## Given To Fly (Nov 24, 2013)

I just wanted to mention that if SchecterWhore was a doctor or lawyer, his post would come with a $100,000 consulting fee. All of this information is what you learn as a music major in college...or if you are weird and just really love music theory. 
Anyways, I just wanted to throw some perspective on how valuable SchecterWhore's posts are and thank him for taking the time to explain a semesters worth of information in a single post!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 25, 2013)

Welcome. I'm no substitute for music school, but I try to recreate the theory stuff the best I can for those who can't afford the conservatory experience lol or who have no interest in that kind of stuff past an isolated explanation here or there.


----------



## Diet Kirk (Nov 26, 2013)

Hi guys,

Right I have been looking at this stuff, thanks again for all the great input, and I have many questions. Apologies if many of them are stupid!



SchecterWhore said:


>


 
So taking the above chart.

1. What if I start at I, is my only option iii? Or does nobody normally start with the tonic? Up until now I've been often assuming that my key is related to my starting chord as I've been assuming that you resolve to it in terms of it sounds like you are going to play it next. Have I been approaching that wrongly?

2. Should I be thinking in terms of the key of the riff/verse/etc is actually your arrival at I? I've read about finding the key of something you are playing, one method being the note that appears most often and the other by ear and the not you are naturally leading to. Is there something I'm missing in terms of finding the key of the progression?

3. I notice a lot of choruses for songs where the last measure does not resolve and instead seems to hold tension into say a verse. Do you follow the same principles here, where say instead of the last measure of the chorus going IV, ii, V, I it could go IV, ii, V and then you can start your verse on I, Vi or Viio?

4. Another silly question, I presume the same flowchart can be used with single notes? ie in a bottom string riffing kind of way?



SchecterWhore said:


> This next one is a better solution:


 
Voice Leading
1. So when tightening up these voicings do I need an appreciation of where the guitar fits on your average sheet music scale? I presume midi instruments are easier to wrap my head around because I know middle C is at the centre of the treble clef and is C1 on a keyboard?

2. As I understand the above this tightening up makes the absolute most out of that instruments movement through the progression, but without knowing where instruments sit on those lines am I in danger of re-writing parts that become unplayable?

3. I got a bit confused about writing out some chord progressions. When you say in four voices, do you mean as in the above? ie the guitar is playing triads and the bass single notes? or did you mean four staves with each taking a single note? This is where I suddeny got confused about the relationship of the treble and bass clef to each other! Again should I be thinking in terms of a piano roll here, ie A0 - A5?

Apologies if those are some dumb questions!

Some General Q's

1. Are there only two of those flowcharts. 1 for major and 1 for minor? what about other scale types? or are they not advised to be considered?

Solodini, the great stuff you posted (can't seem to manage to quote a second source easily in the same reply!)

1. is a major 2nd a whole tone in either direction and a minor 2nd a semi tone in either direction? Just checking I understand here!

2. Am I best to try what you suggest over a very simple melody line?

3. where you talk about a descending major triad, that is effectively allowing you to arpegiate a chord without it necessarily being under the full version of that chord?

Thanks for these bits too there are some ideas there that I can try out often to get a handle on this stuff.

4. This arpegiated chord idea, is this similar to the above "better solution" where if I wanted to give that bass line some movement perhaps inbetween the Bm and Em I could try combinations of any notes in the G major scale to create say a three note run just before the change to Em. Would this have to follow the flowchart idea, ie be something like iii, ii, Viio, Vi for the bass line to get from Bm to Em?

Again thanks for all this great info and apologies if I'm asking stupid questions.

SW if its cool I'm happy to hear step 2!


----------



## Diet Kirk (Nov 26, 2013)

To continue my confusion here!

In your example (I'm assuming a guitar playing the block chord and a bass guitar playing the root), the bass is playing an octave below the guitar. is this not considered ok and in fact normal in this kind of situation?

However the consectutive intervals chart has octaves as being bad! I always thought that a bass guitar more often that not played the root of the chords the guitar was playing, which by definition means its always an octave away from the guitar?

I think I understand the unison argument though, that two voices will get lost playing in unison unless there is something fundamentally different about them. ie you can have to guitarists playing the same guitar line, but each played slightly differently you get a meatier sound out of it, whereas if you double the guitar line (say in cubase or suchlike) it sounds thinner. So the old double tracking method allows the use of unison, but ordinarily it = bad?


----------



## Solodini (Nov 26, 2013)

Diet Kirk said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Right I have been looking at this stuff, thanks again for all the great input, and I have many questions. Apologies if many of them are stupid!
> 
> ...



Any chord in existence is an option! IV is a common option, as you're descending in 5ths: IV vii iii vi ii V I VI vii iii et c.. Key is not determined by starting chord. The starting chord will likely be within the given key but will be shared by multiple keys. Resolution as determined by that diagram is based on what chord sounds like it will be next, yes.



Diet Kirk said:


> 2. Should I be thinking in terms of the key of the riff/verse/etc is actually your arrival at I? I've read about finding the key of something you are playing, one method being the note that appears most often and the other by ear and the not you are naturally leading to. Is there something I'm missing in terms of finding the key of the progression?



The note it seems you are naturally leading to is usually the tonic of your key, yes.



Diet Kirk said:


> 3. I notice a lot of choruses for songs where the last measure does not resolve and instead seems to hold tension into say a verse. Do you follow the same principles here, where say instead of the last measure of the chorus going IV, ii, V, I it could go IV, ii, V and then you can start your verse on I, Vi or Viio?


You can follow these principles, or you can veer of wildly in another direction. Whatever your ear leads you to!



Diet Kirk said:


> 4. Another silly question, I presume the same flowchart can be used with single notes? ie in a bottom string riffing kind of way?


Not quite sure what you mean by this. You can use the scale degrees indicated by the flowchart as notes of your riff, or you can use other notes from within those chords to add more flair and close, singable voicing to the riff. 



Diet Kirk said:


> Voice Leading
> 1. So when tightening up these voicings do I need an appreciation of where the guitar fits on your average sheet music scale? I presume midi instruments are easier to wrap my head around because I know middle C is at the centre of the treble clef and is C1 on a keyboard?


 An understanding of where the notes are on the stave will certainly help, realising that the C at 20th fret of the low E string is the same as that at 1st fret of the B string, for example, will help you to use close voicings in terms of pitch, even though they may be quite a distance from each other on the fingerboard.



Diet Kirk said:


> 2. As I understand the above this tightening up makes the absolute most out of that instruments movement through the progression, but without knowing where instruments sit on those lines am I in danger of re-writing parts that become unplayable?


 Learning what is playable is an important part of learning arrangement of music for ensembles. There is a risk of what you mentioned but even wikipedia will show you the ranges of most instruments.



Diet Kirk said:


> 3. I got a bit confused about writing out some chord progressions. When you say in four voices, do you mean as in the above? ie the guitar is playing triads and the bass single notes? or did you mean four staves with each taking a single note? This is where I suddeny got confused about the relationship of the treble and bass clef to each other! Again should I be thinking in terms of a piano roll here, ie A0 - A5?


 either is fine, as there are 4 simultaneous notes to consider as voices.



Diet Kirk said:


> Apologies if those are some dumb questions!
> 
> Some General Q's
> 
> 1. Are there only two of those flowcharts. 1 for major and 1 for minor? what about other scale types? or are they not advised to be considered?


 Most tonalities are derived from those, if you include melodic minor, as well, but there are more preferable ways to resolve to i in phrygian, so it doesn't sound like it's actually the iii of a major key.



Diet Kirk said:


> Solodini, the great stuff you posted (can't seem to manage to quote a second source easily in the same reply!)
> 
> 1. is a major 2nd a whole tone in either direction and a minor 2nd a semi tone in either direction? Just checking I understand here!


 Correct!



Diet Kirk said:


> 2. Am I best to try what you suggest over a very simple melody line?


 That's advisable. 



Diet Kirk said:


> 3. where you talk about a descending major triad, that is effectively allowing you to arpegiate a chord without it necessarily being under the full version of that chord?


 Yup, implication is a wonderful thing to be able to employ in music.



Diet Kirk said:


> Thanks for these bits too there are some ideas there that I can try out often to get a handle on this stuff.
> 
> 4. This arpegiated chord idea, is this similar to the above "better solution" where if I wanted to give that bass line some movement perhaps inbetween the Bm and Em I could try combinations of any notes in the G major scale to create say a three note run just before the change to Em. Would this have to follow the flowchart idea, ie be something like iii, ii, Viio, Vi for the bass line to get from Bm to Em?


 It could be whatever you want. People these days aren't so prescriptive as those a couple of hundred years back. It could just be C D to lead from B to E, or it could be B C A B or its reverse with the Bs as chord tones in both Bm and Em. It could be B D G B if you want do follow the same sort of shape but with larger leaps.

Again thanks for all this great info and apologies if I'm asking stupid questions.

SW if its cool I'm happy to hear step 2![/QUOTE]


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Nov 27, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> The next goal of voice leading is to create independence between the voices. This is an interval thing. Simply put, you are only committing an offense if there are parallel perfect consonances between any two voices. Perfect consonances are the perfect fifth, the perfect octave, and the perfect unison. Every other interval is okay. Parallel tritones are okay too, but let's save that for later.



I thought I understood pretty much all of this stuff, but in this diagram it labels (perfect) fourths as being OK when used parallel. I had been thinking that they were a no-no equaling parallel (perfect) fifths -- which makes sense to me since they are inversions of one another. Also I think perfect fourths are ugly in general...

So is it actually just as "acceptable" as, say, parallel seconds or thirds to use parallel perfect fourths?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 27, 2013)

Solodini said:


> Remember, though, OP, that rules can be broken. Filling everything with 5ths and octaves in between voices and jumping around from chord to chord will be incoherent but sometimes it'll be just what a moment is asking for.



But don't do this with a voice leading exercise. In your music, do whatever you want. In four-part writing, though, be ruthless: do not allow a single note to step out of line. I went through my entire harmony course without bending a single rule. As a result, I have gotten at least two compliments per year on my contrary motion since completing that program. It's a weird compliment to receive, but I can't begin to tell you how legit it is to hear that. If you allow yourself to let an error go because you can't wrap your head around the solution, then you need to go back and figure it out. Don't say you're pulling a parallel fifth for art when the reality is that you don't know how to do part writing.

There's a saying, "Learn the rules, then break them." Well, you also gotta learn them first.



Diet Kirk said:


> 1. What if I start at I, is my only option iii? Or does nobody normally start with the tonic? Up until now I've been often assuming that my key is related to my starting chord as I've been assuming that you resolve to it in terms of it sounds like you are going to play it next. Have I been approaching that wrongly?



Man, from the tonic, you can go anywhere. Remember, what this chart shows is tonal chord progressions. Progression, progress. How is it progressing? Where is its goal? The goal of these chord sequences is to get to the tonic chord. Once you've gotten there, the goal is complete and you move on to the next thing.

It will help to understand cadences. A cadence, in harmony, is the way that we end a phrase. There are four types of cadence in Common Practice Period (CPP) harmony, broken up into two categories:

Conclusive cadences (Approach the tonic chord, end the progression.)
&#8226; Authentic cadence - V-I or vii°-I
&#8226; Plagal cadence - IV-I

Inconclusive cadences (Go to somewhere other than tonic, urge the progression to continue.)
&#8226; Half cadence - Ends on V.
&#8226; Deceptive cadence - V-vi

We are creating phrases, and these cadences are how those phrases terminate (in a harmonic sense). This is an example of how this plays out in CPP music:






AC = Authentic Cadence, PC = Plagal Cadence, HC = Half Cadence, DC = Deceptive Cadence

This is a takedown I did for a media arranging class, hence the lack of key signature. On the scoring stage, the convention is to write with a neutral key signature (no sharps, no flats), and indicate all sharps and flats as accidentals. Since all of the F's are F# (and since the harmony works out that way), we can infer that the key is G.

Have a look at how the music breaks down visually. There are a bunch of quarter notes, and then half notes. Bunch of quarter notes, half notes. Bunch of quarter notes, half notes. There is a regular pattern: short durations leading to a long duration, and this happens in cycles of two measures. We could say that the piece consists of two-measure phrases. Looking only at the cadences, the way those phrases end, another pattern emerges:

HC, AC :||
DC, AC
HC, DC, PC

Do you see it? Inconclusive cadence is followed by conclusive cadence. Question, answer. Call, response. Up, down. The last *period* (what you get when you put two or more phrases together) is cool. Instead of being four measures, like all the rest, it's five measures. It should be "HC, AC", but by having that deceptive resolution in there, the music is not over, and we need completion. The last cadence is added on to complete that resolution. It's inconclusive > inconclusive > conclusive. There is just a bit more tension there, making resolution all the sweeter. Also, those dotted lines indicate a voice leading no-no: two C's going to two G's? Sounds like parallel octaves. They're not going parallel, though. We call this "consecutive octaves by contrary motion". The effect is the same as parallel octaves: one voice loses independence. Yet, here it is written. In composition and arranging, you need to pick your battles. Don't do this when you are practicing part writing.

Remember when I said "Man, from the tonic, you can go anywhere"? I revise my statement: Man, from a cadence, you can go anywhere. Cadences conclude phrases, meaning that you can start up again without worrying about the harmonic connection of the first phrase to the second phrase.



> 2. Should I be thinking in terms of the key of the riff/verse/etc is actually your arrival at I? I've read about finding the key of something you are playing, one method being the note that appears most often and the other by ear and the not you are naturally leading to. Is there something I'm missing in terms of finding the key of the progression?


Key is something that happens with our ear. In CPP music, it's very easy: you find the leading tone. This is something you can answer for yourself by doing a thousand voice leading exercises and doing score study. Buy a book of folk songs/Christmas carols/barber shop arrangements, whatever, sing all the parts with movable Do solfege, and you'll be able to recognize not only which note is the tonic, but also the dominant, leading tone, subdominant, mediant, submediant, supertonic, lowered submediant, lowered mediant, raised subdominant, lowered supertonic... Relative pitch is a skill well worth learning.



> 3. I notice a lot of choruses for songs where the last measure does not resolve and instead seems to hold tension into say a verse. Do you follow the same principles here, where say instead of the last measure of the chorus going IV, ii, V, I it could go IV, ii, V and then you can start your verse on I, Vi or Viio?


See my answer for #1.



> 4. Another silly question, I presume the same flowchart can be used with single notes? ie in a bottom string riffing kind of way?


You're looking at characters on a page that are an abstraction of an abstraction of music. If you know how to translate that information back into music, then you're good to go. Keep in mind, as ubiquitous as "I IV V" is in music, the progression itself is not music. Music is the organization of sound, a small part of which is harmony.

The answer is "yes", you can look at the flowchart and produce a single-note melody. If you take Good King Wenceslas up there, and extract any one of the lines, you have a melody that fits that chord progression. Other melodies are possible within the same framework. The trick is to know which note to choose, and the way you get a handle on that is by practicing voice leading. This is the basis of chord tone improvisation.



> Voice Leading
> 1. So when tightening up these voicings do I need an appreciation of where the guitar fits on your average sheet music scale? I presume midi instruments are easier to wrap my head around because I know middle C is at the centre (it's the first ledger line beneath treble clef) of the treble clef and is C1 on a keyboard?


Middle C is C4, in common parlance. As far as where the guitar fits in terms of pitch, you need to know a bit of extra information. The guitar is an octave transposing instrument. This means that when a guitar sees middle C (C4) on the page, the way it sounds is actually an octave lower (C3).






The guitar sounds an octave lower than it is written. There are other instruments that go the other way, like the piccolo flute, which sounds an octave higher than written (written D4 sounds as D5; I'm using D instead of C, because D4 is the lowest note they read), or the glockenspiel, which sounds two octaves higher than written (written C4 sounds as C6).



> 2. As I understand the above this tightening up makes the absolute most out of that instruments movement through the progression, but without knowing where instruments sit on those lines am I in danger of re-writing parts that become unplayable?


Potentially. That's on you, though. What you can do to prevent those voicing errors, and what I strongly urge you to do, is to practice voice leading without the intent of ever putting it to use on instruments. I know, that sounds so wrong. Hear me out: get some pencils and manuscript paper and do four-part writing, eight measures at a time, just to practice voice leading. Later on, you can figure out how to arrange it (i.e. put instruments to what you write), but you should be doing voice leading now for its own sake. I mean, what if your guitar is tuned to E standard and the melody really wants the D# that's right below the range of the instrument? What if you're doing these exercises on the piano and your hand can't quite reach a tenth in the tenor and bass voices? Worry about it later, when you're studying arranging (and picking instruments to match the range and technical requirements of the music). You'll only cause yourself trouble if you mix technical considerations into your theory exercises.

That said, you need to be able to hear harmony and voice leading in action. I suggest Finale Notepad as notation software that will play back what you've written.



> 3. I got a bit confused about writing out some chord progressions. When you say in four voices, do you mean as in the above? ie the guitar is playing triads and the bass single notes? or did you mean four staves with each taking a single note? This is where I suddeny got confused about the relationship of the treble and bass clef to each other! Again should I be thinking in terms of a piano roll here, ie A0 - A5?


Four voices means four independent musical lines. This can be done on one instrument or 1000. If five people are playing the same melody, it's only one voice. If those same five people are playing five different melodies, it's five voices. If four of those five people are playing different melodies and the fifth person is playing the lowest melody an octave lower, it's four voices (plus an octave doubling). The number of voices depends on the number of independent melodic lines. Good King Wenceslas is four voices.

Here's a piece that is not as clear:






In the first measure, it might look like there are four voices. In reality, it's only three: two voices in the upper stagg and one in the lower staff. The spacing between those two notes in the bass clef staff for the entire first system is an octave. Consecutive octaves are not independent. It sounds like one voice, with a lower color on it. This is extremely common: take a three or four voice texture, then expand the highest voice by putting the same thing an octave higher, and the lowest voice by putting the same thing an octave lower.

This, on the other hand, is inadmissible:






In the second measure, the bass voice and the soprano voice are parallel at the octave (at the fifteenth, actually). That's no good - you can't have voices dropping in and out as you please. Not without musical reason, anyway. That phrase is either three voices or in unison/octaves, not both. This one is technically correct:






And you can do this, from an arrangement standpoint:






The extra octaves aren't part of the essential voice leading, they are merely add-ons. Note that I am not doubling the inner voice at the octave. Inner voices generally stand alone, as octave doublings on the inside will inevitably interfere with what is going on in the other voices. Just see how awful it looks when I double the alto voice:






Can you see which voice is the soprano? You're not going to hear it, for sure.



> 1. Are there only two of those flowcharts. 1 for major and 1 for minor? what about other scale types? or are they not advised to be considered?


Stick with major for now. Minor has some funky stuff; I'll elucidate those little peculiarities later. Don't worry about the rest, because major and minor was good enough for 400 years of Western civilization: it'll be good enough for you for at least one year. This isn't music - it's homework. Treat it as such.




> 4. This arpegiated chord idea, is this similar to the above "better solution" where if I wanted to give that bass line some movement perhaps inbetween the Bm and Em I could try combinations of any notes in the G major scale to create say a three note run just before the change to Em. Would this have to follow the flowchart idea, ie be something like iii, ii, Viio, Vi for the bass line to get from Bm to Em?


Bm Em (in G major) is iii vi, and that's that. If the bass is doing something funky, the progression is still iii vi. The chords are either what they are, or they are not. Let's take this progression:






That's the basic skeleton. If we want a more active bass line, we can add some extra notes in there.






I am using chord tones to achieve the motion. If you just pick any old tone out of the scale (don't!) then you're leaving it up to chance. There are three notes in a triad: pick one, and you're good to go. Notice that there are no "hidden parallel octaves" when I do this. Now I have F# going to E in the first bar. There is another F# in the Bm chord, but it is going up to G in the next chord, so it's okay. If I had two F#'s going down to E or up to G, we'd have a problem. Parallel octaves, no? As it is, the essential voice leading is alright, so whatever crap I put in there now is almost guaranteed to work.

More florid this time:






A little bit of chromaticism in there. We are starting to venture into the realm of non-harmonic tones (tones that are not in the chord), but notice that the downbeat of each chord has the same notes as the original example. The essential voice leading stays the same. The chords are still iii vi ii V I. Nothing has changed about that.

And now to go crazy:






There is a lot going on in terms of pitch, but the harmony is still going to be heard as the same, as the essential voice leading has not changed. If I took the time to work out the counterpoint, I could have all four voices going against each other with all that chromaticism (I got up to three just now, but it could sound better), and you'd still hear iii vi ii V I.

These aren't particularly musical examples, but the semantics are what's important here: when you arpeggiate a chord, G B D does not become I iii V, it's all going to be I. Remember, numerals refer to chords. If the key is G, and there are twenty measures of A D A D F# A C A D F# D A C C F# D A C D A C C A C F# C D F# A, it's all V7. Every last note. If there is enough to indicate the harmony and the pitch content is completely chromatic and going everywhere, it's still V7.



> Again thanks for all this great info and apologies if I'm asking stupid questions.
> 
> SW if its cool I'm happy to hear step 2!


They're not stupid questions, but you're getting ahead of yourself. Honestly, do exercises. One chord at a time, *one bass note to a chord* (and one of every other voice to a chord, at that), four voices, don't do objectionable parallels. It's good to be curious, but nobody online is going to be able to steer you toward a usable discipline in voice leading, so you have to filter out all the noise and make it as simple as possible on yourself. I've done four-part writing for a long time now, I use it every day, I teach it in person, I teach it over Skype, and I think it's one of those things that you can't practice enough. You'll be able to sate your curiosity much more effectively by doing dirt simple chorale harmonizations with pencil and paper. That's how voice leading worked for me: I practiced it as abstract as possible several times a week, then went to see how I could apply it later, and I mean like two years later.



AugmentedFourth said:


> I thought I understood pretty much all of this stuff, but in this diagram it labels (perfect) fourths as being OK when used parallel. I had been thinking that they were a no-no equaling parallel (perfect) fifths -- which makes sense to me since they are inversions of one another. Also I think perfect fourths are ugly in general...
> 
> So is it actually just as "acceptable" as, say, parallel seconds or thirds to use parallel perfect fourths?



Parallel perfect fourths are okay. They are ultimately a different beast than perfect fifths: where a perfect fifth is a consonance, the perfect fourth is a dissonance. They don't sound lame in voice leading at all. It's not recommended that consecutive fourths be present for an extended period of time, but consecutive anythings for a long time sounds bad.

Edit: I'll add that perfect fourths are to be avoided in counterpoint, and their only presence is as a dissonance that requires resolution. In no circumstances would you use parallel perfect fourths where counterpoint is concerned. In harmonic music, perfect fourths and their parallel motion is unavoidable.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred (Nov 30, 2013)

ElRay said:


> ... must ... not ... post ... that ... big ... chart ...
> 
> Thanks again SW!
> 
> Ray



not to hijack, but could someone post the big one?


----------



## Diet Kirk (Dec 2, 2013)

SW

I hear you, thats good advice, treat this stuff as homework and just learn and absorb and don't get hung up on working the ideas into writing straight away. Treat them as seperate things.

Ok cool, I'm off to go get on with some learning. I don't know where you are at with the amount of knowledge you want to prvide me here or if I should return with proof of homework done before we continue to explore this?


----------

