Help with chords

[buffalo man]

i'm currently know the all the major and minor chords but the main thing i want to know is how all the chords blend in together,like is there specific rules when u want to mix major and minor chords or other chords like the diminshed ones or augumented ones...secondly also is what chords to use when i'm making a song,like what are the rules to adhere by when including them. thx alot to those who can advise

 

[yoruka19]

actually my fren...if ur saying ur making a song then i can tell u seriously there r really no rules or whatsoever to follow as long as it sounds nice but of course that is ur chord doesnt clash with the note...yes usually we were taught that in writing a song there are rules or wadever we have to follow, but i remember at the end of the day my teacher tells me, "i've taught u many shit n rules but ultimately the best thing abt music is there r no rulez as long as it sounds nice" so what basically im trying to say is don't limit urself to rules n stuff cuz that will only stop u from being creative ok as for rules or wadever i hope others can hlp u cuz realli i've forgotten most of the rulez my teacher taught me

 

[Cheez]

Oops... controversial topic again! There are certain rules to follow. Otherwise, you piece will not sound good because of harmony. It may sound as if it's good, but when applied certain harmony rules, you'll find it will sound 10x better!

To threatstarter, my suggestion is NOT to start with chords. If possible, start with melody. Then apply the chords the the melody line. The key is this - a good piece of music that gives lasting impression lies on the melody. Because sings (or hums) the melody. A good melody line will leave a deep impression. The chords and chord progressions function to BRING OUT the melody line and giving it more life. Then you'll end up with a piece that will not be easily forgotten by people. You know some of these songs. It's those that stick in your head forever!

 

[futures]

In what way does theory limit your creativity? The way i see it, you can't break the rules without first knowing what they were in the first place. But true, in the end all that matters is how the piece sounds.

I would also suggest starting with chords first, as hearing a melody can be difficult at first. That's why a chord progression will provide a foundation, and hearing a melody over a chord progression is much easier as compared to composing a melody and then trying to harmonise it. Both ways work ! But don't limit yourself to just one.

As for the rules of diatonic harmony, each key can essentially be harmonised using this 'formula'.

For major: Major, Minor, Minor, Major, Major, Minor, Diminished
For minor: Minor, Diminished, Major, Minor, Minor, Major, Major

So if you're in the key of C major. The chords you would get after harmonising the C major scale in triads would be Cmaj, Dmin, Emin, Fmaj, Gmaj, Amin, and Bdim. Same for other major keys and relative minor keys.
As for basic chord progressions, the I-IV-V is a good place to start.

Use this as a guide, there is no need to 'adhere' to them. Hope this helps!

 

[yoruka19]

In what way does theory limit your creativity? The way i see it, you can't break the rules without first knowing what they were in the first place.

ahh haha i think u misunderstood wad im trying to say...i did not say theory limit creativity, im simply saying dun let ur creativity get tied down by all the rulez...theory itself of course is very impt but if a piece is juz made out of theory i feel in a way its gonna sound rigid and no surprise. haha juz my 2 cents worth opinion.

 

[pianomankris]

BTW i'm not saying I agree with what i'm about to write here, but you seem like you haven't thought through some of the things you are saying..

i did not say theory limit creativity, im simply saying dun let ur creativity get tied down by all the rulez.

Or you could say that the person who doesn't know any theory may, by 'happy accident', stumble across something that works one time out of 100, whereas the person who knows theory will be able to produce something that works most of the time. Does this mean the person who stumbled across a good chord progression is more 'creative' than the person who in part used their theoretical knowledge to help create a chord progression?

I don't understand the attitude that learning the 'rules' of something inhibits creativity. The only way you can express your intentions on this forum is by using the medium of language. Did learning English limit the creativity in what you wanted to say, or make you in any way 'predictable' in the content of what you write? Or did it simply act to enable you to express exactly what you mean when you mean to say what you wish to say? Couldn't it be said that the greater the grasp of language you have, the clearer you will be able to express exactly what you mean?

What makes you think music is any different?

Is the artist who learns the rules of perspective more rigid in what he creates than the artist who isn't aware of these rules, or do the rules he knows allow him to create a more accurate vision of what he wishes to create in the first place?

...theory itself of course is very impt but if a piece is juz made out of theory i feel in a way its gonna sound rigid and no surprise. haha juz my 2 cents worth opinion.

What makes you think that a piece sounding surprising is indicative of 'not using theory'??

The most unpredictable/fresh sounding musical pieces are usually created by composers who have a great knowledge of theory/harmony/instrumentation etc. One of the ways to make something sound unpredictable is to know the rules/common patterns, and then intentionally write something that doesn't follow the rules.

Theory is just a way of looking at something, so to say 'a piece is just made out of theory' is a misnomer.



Do you have any examples of, as you say, pieces that sound 'rigid'?

Are minimalist composers 'rigid' (composers such as Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and, more recently, John Adams)? What do you mean 'rigid'? Do you mean 'predictable? And what makes you think it isn't a composers' intention to make something sound 'predictable'? And what's wrong with something being predictable (if this is what you mean)? And isn't what, in your mind sounds 'rigid', not subjective anyway, as to someone else, the piece may sound completely fresh?

 

[pianomankris]

One final thing; you wrote:

i can tell u seriously there r really no rules or whatsoever to follow as long as it sounds nice

Why does music have to sound 'nice' to be valid? Does this mean pretty much everything by composers such as Penderecki, Xenakis etc isn't 'music'? What about death metal? Does death metal sound 'nice'?

Is music only valid when it is soporific?

What sounds 'nice' changes with time also. Some people considered Mozart in Mozart's time 'too dissonant'.

You are using subjective terms (i.e. 'nice') to define things, which isn't really a valid way of justifying something.

but of course that is ur chord doesnt clash with the note

Once again, why? What is wrong with dissonance? If the composer's intention is to create dissonance, then what is wrong with that? You are dismissing the use of rules throughout this thread, then making up your own rules here in the things you are saying (you are pretty much saying 'don't use rules'. Oh, but use this one:' then writing down a rule of your own), when they have no basis in the actual reality of the rules of musical composition.

 

[Lovehurts]

Secondly also is what chords to use when i'm making a song,like what are the rules to adhere by when including them. thx alot to those who can advise

Hello When composing a song of your own, you don't need to adhere to rules. (in my opinion only) You may choose from infinite numbers of chord progressions. You may choose a simple chord progression like : G Em Am D or something a little more complexed like : G Em F C D

Song-writers like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson & Michael Learns to Rock usually use rather intricate chord progressions (especially chords used in "Bridges" of songs) that's far from the usual C Am F G.

It's really up to you! You're spoilt for choice, really!

 

[widdly]

yoruka19 has a point though.

Someone not encumbered with a musical education and encyclopedic knowledge of music theory and
history does have an advantage when listening to a piece of music. They can listen without the "baggage" so to speak. Since they don't have tools of harmonic analysis, or the ability to compare and contrast with in a framework of previous works they must rely purely on their ears.

For example, a learned musician upon hearing a loud trombone glissando in a new orchestral piece would be able to place that phrase with in a historical framework, perhaps noting the simularity with Stravinsky and Varese's work and the controversy they originally generated.

The uneducated listener would probably think it was a rude and funny sound.

Naive artists exist in all artistic fields and provide a nesecary counterpoint to acedemic elitism.

 

[Cheez]

Let's put it this way.

I compose a piece and record it myself in my home studio. I end up with a "raw" recording. There are 2 things I can do. Try to master the end-product myself or send it to a pro engineer who actually KNOWS how to master. The pro engineer hears things I don't hear in the recording sense (not the musical sense). He picks up every small detail, do his magic, and made the tweaks to come up with the final product.

Would I be able to tell the difference? Probably. Would most people be able to tell the difference? Maybe a little, but not to the extent the engineer hears it. So why would I want to send it for mastering by a pro? Because that slight difference, that extra "sweet spot" created in the recording, makes just that difference that makes it worth while.

Back to theory. Without the background, we can compose pieces. Most people will hear it as OK. The trained ear will pick up the unfortunate problems. But with proper arrangements and harmony, it makes just that difference. Will most people be able to pick it up? Probably a little, but not as much as the trained musician. So is it worth it? Absolutely! Because it makes just that difference that separate the excellent music from the good music.

As I'm using a lot of sampling technology in my orchestral compositions, this is becoming more and more important. We strive to create the ultra-realistic sound - such that few can tell the difference whether it is done by my PC or by a real orchestra. However, no matter how great your sample library is (even if you have th $5000USD VSL), a bad arrangement will always sound bad. However, I've heard people who use sub-standard sample sets, but because of the arrangement skills, he made it music sound 10x more realistic than the expensive samples.

We focus a lot on playing and technical skills. We spend time practicing and hone our fingers. Why is it when it comes to composition and writing, we often settle for the second best solution?

 

[futures]

'Academic elitism' is such a loaded term. Very much an uninformed judgment of the educated listener as well.

If a person can appreciate the musicality of both jazz and a britney spears song for example, it just means that he has an open mind, as compared to a person who is content with the mindset that jazz is utter rubbish just because it sounds unconventional. It doesn't mean that the person who can appreciate both has placed himself on a higher academic plane so to speak.

Originally Posted by buffalo man View Post
Secondly also is what chords to use when i'm making a song,like what are the rules to adhere by when including them. thx alot to those who can advise

Hello When composing a song of your own, you don't need to adhere to rules. (in my opinion only) You may choose from infinite numbers of chord progressions. You may choose a simple chord progression like : G Em Am D or something a little more complexed like : G Em F C D

Song-writers like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson & Michael Learns to Rock usually use rather intricate chord progressions (especially chords used in "Bridges" of songs) that's far from the usual C Am F G.

It's really up to you! You're spoilt for choice, really!

Really? Haha. These progressions follow rules as well, just that the user may not always be informed of the harmonic functions of the individual chords that resulted in such chord progressions. We usually pick these up from songs we learn, and they actually do follow rules, its just that lack of theory knowledge may hence result in our ignorance of the rules that govern. Not always a bad thing though! Just my 3 cents.

 

[lester_music]

theory is important...

it don't really helps you to play well...but it helps you to understand music...

you can still play well without theory but you will have less understand what you are doing.......

theory helps you to correct mistakes, it helps you to explain to other musician what u want, I have seen musician having a hard time communicating cause of bad music theory knowledge......

 

[pianomankris]

Song-writers like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson & Michael Learns to Rock usually use rather intricate chord progressions (especially chords used in "Bridges" of songs) that's far from the usual C Am F G.

Non-diatonic chord progressions don't mean there are no rules, or that they are 'intricate'. In the grand scale of things, the progressions used by the artists you mention are pretty much still at the childs-play level.

 

[pianomankris]

yoruka19 has a point though.

Someone not encumbered with a musical education and encyclopedic knowledge of music theory and
history does have an advantage when listening to a piece of music. They can listen without the "baggage" so to speak. Since they don't have tools of harmonic analysis, or the ability to compare and contrast with in a framework of previous works they must rely purely on their ears.

For example, a learned musician upon hearing a loud trombone glissando in a new orchestral piece would be able to place that phrase with in a historical framework, perhaps noting the simularity with Stravinsky and Varese's work and the controversy they originally generated.

The uneducated listener would probably think it was a rude and funny sound.

Naive artists exist in all artistic fields and provide a nesecary counterpoint to acedemic elitism.

No-one is denying that naivete exists in musical composition, or that naivete means the piece is lacking in beauty because it was composed from 'a naive mind'.

Don't you think that a learned musician can listen to something 'fresh', without comparison? After a while, you just accept something for what it is. I mean, I still listen to Dylan, even though I know every chord he's using, and that most of the time he's singing purely diatonic. But understanding the medium doesn't detract from what the result is.

Your view is almost like saying an artist who uses only pencil and paper will be predictable because he's using only pencil and paper, because we all know what a pencil and paper is. Even though the medium is limited, the potential for what can be created with said medium isn't ( as an example - my composition teacher began my lessons by getting me to write a piece with only one note, before allowing me to use two, then three, and so forth and so forth).

Comparitive analysis is only really a way of analysing something when learning the actual rules themselves, as the only way to learn the rules is to look at examples of things that have used said rules. You'll probably find that most people who are pretty enlightened when it comes to composition don't compare any piece of music to any other piece of music - if they did, the result would be a super philosophy i.e. the only music worth listening to would be the most complex.

The beauty is the variety as much as the actual content.

You seem to be misunderstanding the discussion here. I thought the discussion was about whether or not theoretical knowledge helps the creative process. I'd say the answer is most definitely a resounding yes.

 

[pianomankris]

Here's an analogy one of my composition teachers gave me when it came to learning theory, and the pros/cons.

First things first, he told me to think of a river, and with no theoretical knowledge, we are on one side of the river, and can only see the view from this side of the river and can only use the land on this side of the river.

Learning theory is digging a tunnel under the river to reach the other side. Some people dig a little, don't like the darkness and narrowness of the tunnel, and stick to the side of the river they are on, and are happy with the one riverbank, as they think getting to the other side only means darkness and a large effort that only narrows viewpoint - they think the effort only restricts (some views here are at this stage just now. The people who hold this view are usually the people who have learned some theory, and see only the narrowness that it can produce, without realising the end goal).

Others bash on and break through to the other side.

When they reach the other side, they can always choose to stay on the original riverbank, and never visit the other side. But they have the freedom to choose which side of the river they wish to be on, and which view they wish to have. The tunnel they dug remains there, and reaching the other side requires no effort at all, as the tunnel has already been dug.

I hope this makes sense, and helps a little. It certainly helped me. I'd rather be able to choose which riverbank I was on.

Reaching the other riverbank doesn't mean learning absolutely everything there is to learn about theory. It simply means learning enough to give you the freedom to express yourself exactly as you mean to. For some people, this means learning a few chords. For others, it means learning absolutely everything there is to learn. Both ways are the correct way, as the whole point of learning theory is to facilitate expression (Some people have simple ideas/emotions they wish to express, and can do so with simple musical means. Others have more complex ideas/emotions they wish to express. But it should be remembered that in most cases the use of complex theoretical means is to express a more complex musical/emotional idea, rather than the demonstration of technical skill per se. The expression of a more complex idea almost always requires a more developed use of the tools used to express the idea. But it is wrong to hold the view that because something is complex it is complex simply for the case of being so. Others see things differently, and will express things in different ways. Because the message can be difficult to understand, it doesn't mean it is inferior to a musical idea that is simpler to grasp).

Most people who have learned a little, after a while anyway, realise the benefits of the little they have learned, and usually do want to learn more, as they begin to see that the more they know, the freer they are in the musical choices they make. Others can manage fine to express themselves completely with only a few chords.

It's about freedom, not restriction.

If you really think that theory limits, then you should give a complete beginner an out of tune guitar and show them absolutely nothing on it. If, by the view that theory limits, they should, after a while, be able to work out their own tuning and their own chords/sounds on the instrument, as even giving them an in tune guitar would be, from the onset, delimiting their opportunities on the instrument, as you would be placing the instrument within a set and predictable framework i.e. a tuning stsyem. Try it and see how long the person's interest will be held for. Learning theory is inevitable in any field, and shouldn't be considered a negative value. Why is learning how to tune a guitar and how to play a few chords a big help, but learning harmonic theory is not? Like I said, it's about facilitating expression.

 

[widdly]

You seem to be misunderstanding the discussion here. I thought the discussion was about whether or not theoretical knowledge helps the creative process. I'd say the answer is most definitely a resounding yes.

I'm not denying that, I'm merely pointing out that the converse is also true. A lack of theoretical knowledge also helps the creative process. I would argue that it is extremely difficult for an academically trained musician to hear things 'fresh' and outside of the intellectual framework of their training. Ask a Zen practitioner how hard it is to achieve a 'child like mind'.

Further, it is undeniable that traditional music theory has a cultural bias that favours certain modes of creative expression at the expense of others. A music theory derived from Indian Raga or Indonesian Gamelan would look very different and would favour a different kind of expression.

Since you mention giving untrained people un-tuned guitars, Bob Brozman goes to pacific islands and does exactly that. These musicians, operating without training and theory, do end up tuning their guitars differently and creating new modes of expression. Listen to Debashish Bhattacharya's approach to the Guitar to hear the difference a change of perspective can bring to an instrument.

 

[Lovehurts]

Non-diatonic chord progressions don't mean there are no rules, or that they are 'intricate'. In the grand scale of things, the progressions used by the artists you mention are pretty much still at the childs-play level.

Hmmm. Well, I guess everyone's entitled to an opinion. :mrgreen:

 

[buffalo man]

So if you're in the key of C major. The chords you would get after harmonising the C major scale in triads would be Cmaj, Dmin, Emin, Fmaj, Gmaj, Amin, and Bdim. Same for other major keys and relative minor keys.
As for basic chord progressions, the I-IV-V is a good place to start.

Use this as a guide, there is no need to 'adhere' to them. Hope this helps!

Sorry i dun really understand some of your words,let me summarise in simple terms what i think it is and please correct me if i'm wrong,so that means if my melody is based upon the key of c,and i dunno what chords to use so i turn to the basic chord progressions for some tried and tested formula which is the I IV V chords and i can use the c,f or g chord in whatever order,then if my melody jumps to the key of d then i can use the chords d,g or a in any order,is that what u're trying to say for basic chord progressions? that those chords would sound well with the melody if both are in the same key?

 

[pianomankris]

I would argue that it is extremely difficult for an academically trained musician to hear things 'fresh' and outside of the intellectual framework of their training. Ask a Zen practitioner how hard it is to achieve a 'child like mind'.

You couldn't have understood my analogy properly. Like I said, it's actually pretty easy to switch off and hear something fresh once you've reached the 'other side of the river', as it were. Most of the people I know who are very highly developed with regards to academic knowledge don't listen to things in the manner you mention. But they can if they wish to. It's almost like a form of dissociation.

RE the Zen analogy - once again, i'd say that the theory is something that has to be gotten through, and once through it, then you would reach the equivalent of what they would call in Zen 'enlightenment', and can, in fact, see things 'like a child' i.e. hear music 'fresh'.

Further, it is undeniable that traditional music theory has a cultural bias that favours certain modes of creative expression at the expense of others. A music theory derived from Indian Raga or Indonesian Gamelan would look very different and would favour a different kind of expression.

I don't see the connection here with what we are talking about, as you could say that those trained in the styles you mention will let their mind be dominated by the other aspects of creative expression that counterbalance the western tradition of harmonic theory. Same problem, different context.

(Since you're talking about different approaches, and Indonesian music etc, you should go to last fm (lastfm.com) and listen to some Ingram Marshall. But I don't see the relevance of this line of debate with the issue at hand. However, it's an interesting aside.)

Since you mention giving untrained people un-tuned guitars, Bob Brozman goes to pacific islands and does exactly that. These musicians, operating without training and theory, do end up tuning their guitars differently and creating new modes of expression. Listen to Debashish Bhattacharya's approach to the Guitar to hear the difference a change of perspective can bring to an instrument.

They are still being led/guided by someone who has knowledge in the first place. You are misquoting my example. I didn't say they would have guidance.

By your reckoning, theory inhibits. I said that if you hold this view you could say that learning anything inhibits, as otherwise, you have to define the cut-off point of what inhibits and what aids. If you are simply stating that 'theory inhibits', you have to abandon all forms of theory, otherwise you would be contradicting yourself. That, or define the cut off point, and explain why.

I tried to show you in my analogy that this point can be different for each individual.

 

[pianomankris]

Hmmm. Well, I guess everyone's entitled to an opinion. :mrgreen:

It's fact, not an opinion. Harmonically, the music of the artists you mention is very simple.


Note that i'm not saying this is a negative value, or that this detracts from the music. I think you think i'm saying because the music is pretty simple it is somehow lacking. You misunderstand me if this is what you think I mean.