Help with chords

[Cheez]

I think we are deviating from the threatstarter's original intention. Let's try to answer his question.

The first thing you need to know (and what Futures is saying) is that a major and minor key has certain chord that fits in the family. There are of course variations out of this, but for a start, a major chord's family is:

I ii iii IV V vi viidim

(Capital Roman numerals denote major chords, small Roman numerals denote minor chords, dim is diminished). There are lots of variations outside this, but let's just stick to this first. This "rule" applies to any major key.

I would practice simply, by playing a cycle of chord progressions like:

I vi IV V (and keep repeating this)
I vi ii V
I iii IV V


Chord progressions are actually dependent a lot on the harmony, so the melody line is crucial to the progressions. People will tell you that you can jump any chord progressions you want, which makes it appear as if there's no fixed rule. The answer is: yes you can can literally jump from any chord to any chord, but it still depends on the melody line following certain rules. The melody actually determines how to jump, and in some instances, which chord cannot be used in a progression. No need to go there yet.

Some may recall, I wrote a piece not too long ago using the chord progression featuring a chromatically descending bass line throughout the piece (G, F#, E, Eb D, Db, C, B, Bb, A, D). Anything is possible, BUT still following certain rules. The latest piece I wrote also had unsual chord progressions with key modulations from Eb major to Bb major to Eb major to Bb major to F# major to Eb major then ending with Bb major, then repeating the process again starting back from Eb major (and the piece is aptly titled "Changes"... haha!). Wierd modulations? Not so at all (and it actually modulates very smoothly), if following certain rules! But that's about modulation and not progressions per se...

 

[widdly]

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 never said theory inhibits creativity. It facilitates creativity within a certain framework. A different theoretical framework facilitates a different avenue of creativity. A lack of theory facilitates a different kind of creativity. There is no need to reduce every discussion to a dichotomy.

You mentioned John Adams earlier. I think you will find this discussion of his "Naive and Sentimental Music" enlightening. Perhaps a quote...

"Mahler and Ravel, two intensely "sentimental" composers, spent their lives trying to achieve the "naïve" state of mind. Reconstructing the images and emotional tonalities of childhood was their way of trying to attain that impossible "naïve" state of grace"

http://www.earbox.com/W-naive.html

With regards to your river analogy, the naive composer simply swims to the other side and waits for the learned composers to finish toiling underground.

 

[futures]

The I IV V chord progression is the most basic because it best establishes the tonality of the key you're in. In many instances though you don't see the actual I IV V chords, because of something called diatonic chord substitution, as well as the use of chord embellishments. But i think that is a lesson for another day.

In the meantime you can start from the I IV V, and from there swap out chords from the same key to see how the progression changes. Experiment is the word !

 

[futures]

I never said theory inhibits creativity. It facilitates creativity within a certain framework. A different theoretical framework facilitates a different avenue of creativity. A lack of theory facilitates a different kind of creativity. There is no need to reduce every discussion to a dichotomy.

You mentioned John Adams earlier. I think you will find this discussion of his "Naive and Sentimental Music" enlightening. Perhaps a quote...

"Mahler and Ravel, two intensely "sentimental" composers, spent their lives trying to achieve the "naïve" state of mind. Reconstructing the images and emotional tonalities of childhood was their way of trying to attain that impossible "naïve" state of grace"

http://www.earbox.com/W-naive.html

With regards to your river analogy, the naive composer simply swims to the other side and waits for the learned composers to finish toiling underground.

I think the understanding of the word 'naivete' seems to be lost between the two of you. the 'naive state of grace' here i think refers to purity and innocence, while the 'naive composer' that pianomankris is referring to is the uneducated composer that lacks knowledge of the knuts and bolts of music. Do correct me if i'm wrong!

And about the river analogy, the one that swims across either drowns, or reaches the other side learning nothing, because in music, you should never take shortcuts. Shortcuts compromise your understanding, as far as i can see. Do share your thoughts on this, but let's try not to digress too much from the topic!

 

[Lovehurts]

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.

All right, all right. I edit my earlier statement.

Heh. I guess everyone is entitled to the stating of a fact of some sort. :mrgreen:

 

[buffalo man]

In the meantime you can start from the I IV V, and from there swap out chords from the same key to see how the progression changes. Experiment is the word !

So for example i experiment with a melody in the key of c,so in theory c,f and g fits well,but i can try other stuff,so lets say i try another combination of c,f b instead and it sounds well so its fine right?

 

[pianomankris]

I never said theory inhibits creativity. It facilitates creativity within a certain framework.

What's the specific framework you see it facilitating?

RE Ravel/Mahler etc etc - beside the fact that there is much more to their music than 'imitating childhood' (reading any biography of either will reveal this), are you implying that if they didn't learn any theory whatsoever they would have been able to express their true intentions better? Do you have any evidence to back up such a claim? Do you have any direct quotes from Mahler or Ravel that explicitly state they feel that a theoretical knowledge of music has held them back/blocked them from reaching their creative zenith?

I believe theory helps creativity, as theory is unavoidable - it's all about stages. I stand by this view.

The brunt of your argument seems to be that theory of any sort can potentially lead to inhibitions. If this is the case, then we should take things back even further, and say that the use of an instrument is inhibiting, as the design has been pre-meditated by another, therefore using an instrument - unless you create it yourself - is inhibiting, by its' very nature.

That's what I mean by a cut-off point. You should state exactly what specifically it is about theory that you think makes it only valid within a certain framework, and why.

I'm struggling to follow your argument, as you seem to be jumping around from one thing to another, rather than answering something directly.

And as Cheez states - this line of discussion isn't really helping the thread starter. I'm arguing the point because I disagree with what you are saying, as you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claim that an uneducated listener has an advantage over an educated listener, and will never have such evidence, as this is a subjective claim, so the whole line of your argument is, in its' very nature, circular. As such, you seem to be writing here more for the sake of trying to win an argument (with a circular argument) than actually trying to help someone.

I interjected initially in this discussion as someone was potentially putting the thread starter off learning theory, when the thread starter stated their interest in wanting to learn theory. Someone replied to the initial thread by saying 'there are no rules', which is just nonsense, and is off-putting for someone who is looking to learn more. You should be helping the guy out rather than trying to win an argument against me. I've said before - i'm here to help others, not to prove a point. I don't see how your view is helping any. If you want to continue with this line of discussion, then maybe you should PM me and do it there. Otherwise, stop wasting people's time. Your interjection in this thread was to try and counter something I was saying, rather than trying to help the thread starter. That has been the nature of your replies throughout this thread.

Maybe you should post some useful advice/help for the guy rather than trying to prove a point with a pointless argument that cannot be substantiated.

 

[pianomankris]

So for example i experiment with a melody in the key of c,so in theory c,f and g fits well,but i can try other stuff,so lets say i try another combination of c,f b instead and it sounds well so its fine right?

Yes of course you can

You can even use notes not from the key of C.

You can do what you want

But you'll find that the rules of theory will point you towards what is more likely to work.

If you 'try anything', there's a good chance you'll back yourself into a corner and not be able to get out with a certain combination of notes you may end up using. Or you'll just become bored with randomly picking combinations of notes out of the air.

If you had a bag filled with words and randomly picked words out, there's a high chance the sentence you would make would be nonsensical. Then again, if this is your intention, then this is OK Picking words randomly out of a hat may give some beautiful combinations of words that you would never have thought of before. But the probability is that you'll end up with a mess.

You could always have some structure, then try and add a little bit of randomness. But even this has its difficulties.

If you really want to abandon ship when it coms to theory, just randomly hit notes and see what you come up with.


PS by saying you 'want to write a melody in the key of C', you are implying the use of a theoretical structure i.e. writing a 'melody' (which has a fixed definition), and writing 'within a key' (which also has a fixed definition). As such, it would be best to learn some rules for each i.e. how to write a melody, and how to write within a key, otherwise you can't say you are 'writing a melody in the key of C'. It would be a misnomer.

 

[widdly]

I interjected initially in this discussion as someone was potentially putting the thread starter off learning theory, when the thread starter stated their interest in wanting to learn theory. Someone replied to the initial thread by saying 'there are no rules', which is just nonsense, and is off-putting for someone who is looking to learn more. You should be helping the guy out rather than trying to win an argument against me. I've said before - i'm here to help others, not to prove a point. I don't see how your view is helping any. If you want to continue with this line of discussion, then maybe you should PM me and do it there. Otherwise, stop wasting people's time. Your interjection in this thread was to try and counter something I was saying, rather than trying to help the thread starter. That has been the nature of your replies throughout this thread.

Maybe you should post some useful advice/help for the guy rather than trying to prove a point with a pointless argument that cannot be substantiated.

Huh? I'm not trying to have an argument with you, I'm just presenting a different opinion. Why would you take it personally? Your recent comment was, to say the least, condescending . The role and importance of theory is, as Cheez rightly pointed out at the start of the thread, a controversial topic. The ideas I'm presenting are not unique or new. I suggest you read The Language of Music by Deryck Cooke or Emotion and Meaning in Music by Leonard Meyer if you have trouble following what I am saying.

 

[widdly]

Here is a simple idea if you are fitting a melody to a chord progression.

If you use a chord tone ( a note that occurs in the chord) for the LAST melody note before the chord changes, the melody tends to move with the chord changes.

 

[Lovehurts]

Oh oh. I hope this thread doesn't end up like the "Do Singapore vocalists suck" thread.

 

[PatheinRaindropMoe]

even if its turn out like the vocalist thread, do you think its a bad thing??

Perhaps you only see that its seem like trying to out do one another. But what i see, are different views of some depth.

anyway, the people in the thread here aint your teenage next door angsty kinda people. I love reading their different views of such length and depth. Its good for me thinking process musically at times. I can only wish theres more.

Playing music is not just playing, constant evolving ideas, conflicting thoughts give rise to something new. If everything is just plain "i love you, you love me, we are happy family" kinda, i also dont want to listen to those. Its plain ole boring...

anyway, back to topic and more off topic talks!

 

[pianomankris]

Huh? I'm not trying to have an argument with you, I'm just presenting a different opinion. Why would you take it personally? Your recent comment was, to say the least, condescending . The role and importance of theory is, as Cheez rightly pointed out at the start of the thread, a controversial topic. The ideas I'm presenting are not unique or new. I suggest you read The Language of Music by Deryck Cooke or Emotion and Meaning in Music by Leonard Meyer if you have trouble following what I am saying.

I know the books you mention. And I am following what you are saying fine. And i'm not going to be as rude to suggest some books you should read. And every counter I have given to your arguments you have dropped (i.e. the Ravel example, the untuned guitars example - pretty much everything you have mentioned so far) - you seem less interested in reasoning than you do in trying to come across as educated. To me you seem like a troll.

From the onset your 'discussion' is flawed, as you are talking about subjective listening, which isn't the topic of discussion of this thread.

The thread starter asked for help with theory, and you have been spouting forth about how theory can affect subjective listening to a piece of music, which isn't the nature of the thread.

The thread starter wanted to learn some of the rules of harmony. Where is the help you have given him with this so far? And if you aren't helping the thread starter, then why the hell are you posting here?

Do you have anything original or helpful to say, or do you just spout names/quotes/ideas of others? What help have you given here?

Sorry Cheez, this guy is pissing me off with continuing down a line of discussion that has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[pianomankris]

Here is a simple idea if you are fitting a melody to a chord progression.

If you use a chord tone ( a note that occurs in the chord) for the LAST melody note before the chord changes, the melody tends to move with the chord changes.

This is wrong and a false understanding of one of the most basic rules of classical harmony.

It depends on which beat the final melodic note falls on within the bar on what the final melodic note of a bar should/could/can be.


'Tends to move with the chord changes' is vague/obscure in meaning. You should be clearer in what you mean by this.

 

[futures]

Before that, how about first deciding which chord tone is best for 'moving along with the chord changes'? I would suggest emphasising the use of thirds and sevenths since these are the notes that essentially 'characterise' each chord.

Hence if you are playing over a Cmaj7 chord, the chord tones to emphasise or target would be E and B.

But if it is a triad, targeting the root note would then emphasise the move from one chord to another. Hence over a Cmaj triad, the root to target & emphasise would be C itself. If moving to a Gmaj triad, target/emphasise the G note. (not too sure about this so do advise accordingly !)

 

[Cheez]

OK guys. Let's decide to focus back on the topic of discussion. Pianomankris, I think we'll find opposing thoughts to always be there. Sometimes, we just have to accept it. If a person has never eaten a piece of chocolate cake before, there's no point talking about how great it taste. There will always be people who will think that it taste bad without ever tasting it.

 

[betaunknown]

Chord progressions

There aren't any rules whatsoever in music making as far as creative expression is concerned. However those who are trained in classical music would surely know that there are certain chords to avoid eg VII. A pure VII chord is almost regarded as a taboo. (Not VII from C7 but chord VII with reference to a tonic.)

I wouldn't say that chord progressions are rules but rather, they are guidelines to me. Songwriters stick to them because they are familiar with it and they are easy to work with. Some of them are versatile and can accomodate permutations of vocal parts.

The chord progression, I Vb VI V IV III II V, is almost a standard in some songs, especially mandopop.

Indie rock songs like to use, I V VI IV. (Looped) E.g. Boys Like Girls - The great escape.

Or maybe VI IV V I-Vb. (Looped)

These are just your straightforward chords. Jazz and bossanova is loaded with modulation, suspended chords, and definitely diminished and augmented 7th 8th 9th etc.

Listen to a wider genre of music and if you can, play by ear, or get your hands on a score and look at essentially, how the chords change.

I hoped I helped, this is my virgin post!

 

[Cheez]

Actually, the vii chord (or vii dim) is very commonly used. Even in harmony, vii b (1st inversion of vii chord) is extremely common. I use the vii dim chord all the time. One common usage is a passing chord progression to III chord (not iii, but major III; as in viidim - III - vi etc). Many other very uses as well!

 

[futures]

Actually the diminished triad isn't as dissonant as one might assume if as already mentioned, it is used as a passing chord. Anyway if the dim triad doesn't fit, there's always the min7b5 to use instead, which sounds surprisingly melodic. To my ear at least.

Since we're on the topic of swapping chords out for different ones, maybe i'll just touch briefly on diatonic chord subsitution and everyone else can add on?

The chords in each diatonic key can essentially be categorised into 3 'families' - Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant.

The primary function of each family is as follows:
Tonic (Family of the I chord): To temporarily or permanently resolve a piece of music.
Subdominant (Family of the IV chord): To move away from the I chord.
Dominant (Family of the V chord): To move towards/resolve to the I chord.

In any major key, the chords that belong to each family is as follows:
Tonic: I, IIImi and VImi
Subdominant: IV and IImi
Dominant: V and VIIdim

As such, i believe the chords in each family are perfectly substitutable for one another. So do try them out and have a listen!

 

[betaunknown]

Actually, the vii chord (or vii dim) is very commonly used. Even in harmony, vii b (1st inversion of vii chord) is extremely common. I use the vii dim chord all the time. One common usage is a passing chord progression to III chord (not iii, but major III; as in viidim - III - vi etc). Many other very uses as well!

I'm referring to a pure vii. Any examples? Vii sounds almost non-melodious to me. xD

But I do appreciate Vii B and Vb.