Circle of 5ths

[headquest]

Also, although headquest sort-of has a point, he seems to be confusing several different things, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the cycle of fifths.

I was responding to the OP and haven't read in detail all the points others have made tbh. But could you explain where I am getting mixed up here please?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Also, although headquest sort-of has a point, he seems to be confusing several different things, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the cycle of fifths.

I was responding to the OP and haven't read in detail all the points others have made tbh. But could you explain where I am getting mixed up here please?

Well I don't mean to offend, but you talk about the Mixolydian mode, chords of the flattened seventh (not necessarily the same thing), improvisation, diatonic chords and chromatic chords. None of it is wrong per se, but not terribly helpful when trying to explain the cycle of fifths. - You're right of course that it is not the be-all and end-all of music, but it is used heavily in jazz (II-V-I being one of the most basic progressions in different keys). It is certainly not specific to classical music.

In any event, I believe the original poster said he was now quite satisfied ("completely cleared up now").

[iain_morland]

I gather that Mike Oldfield's (ahem...) song "Earth Moving" is based on a circle of fifths. Don't know enough about the theory to analyse it though.

[headquest]

Possibly there's some confusion of terminology between us (for example, the II-V-I chord progression has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of the circle of fifths, key signatures, transposition, etc as raised in the OP).

Also I wasn't trying to explain the cycle of fiths - merely caution against becoming too bogged down with classical theory in a commercial songwriting context (I've seen plenty of students make that mistake). It's a point I often also stress in the teacher training lectures I give and in my published books.

But as you say the OP seems satisfied for now with the answer you have given, so that's cool

[eddu]

UH..hot topic now...too many thoughts..

So as a general rule..can i change minor/major and see what works best for any movement inside the circle?

Jumpingjackflash thank you for the link!

[JumpingJackFlash]

Possibly there's some confusion of terminology between us (for example, the II-V-I chord progression has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of the circle of fifths,

On it's own, perhaps not. But often it is chained to the same progression in other keys, so for example, take II-V-I in C major. Then you might move to
F major, where that V in C becomes II in F, and that I in C becomes V in F, and then you finish with I in F, so a modification of my original diagram:

Code: Select all

C : II - V - I
F :     II - V - I
Bb:         II - V - I
Eb:             II - V - I
Ab:                 II - V - I
etc.

You will see this all the time in Jazz, it's the basic foundation of so much.

Also I wasn't trying to explain the cycle of fiths - merely caution against becoming too bogged sown with classical theory in a commercial songwriting context (I've seen plenty of students make that mistake).

Well yes, that's fair enough. But the cycle of fifths is not confined exclusively to classical music. - And even if it was, this would still be going off on a tangent because the original poster asked specifically about the cycle (and only about the cycle). This is obviously an area of theory that he wants to learn about, and I believe that he has now done so. No need to complicate matters any further.

[JumpingJackFlash]

So as a general rule..can i change minor/major and see what works best for any movement inside the circle?

Always go with what you think sounds best. Experiment and go with what works. The theory will attend to itself.

[BosseJo]

"The backcycling technique" could be helpful here I think,. You will learn how to make progressions more interesting no matter what style you play be it jazz, trance or pop (or whatever).

Play two chords (actually any two chords would do, but let's keep it simple):

C-Am like this:

C C C C Am Am Am Am

A bit boring after a while? Now play this

C C C C E7 E7 Am Am.

A tiny bit more interesting (and very common as you probably heard).
You have placed a chord a fifth below the Am chord - the E7 chord - you "back cycled". Let's continue:

G7 G7 C C E7 E7 Am Am.

Now we have placed the G7 before the C. The G7 is a fifth below C. You can continue this as long as you want:

Dm7 G7 C C E7 E7 Am Am

Dm7 - a fifth below G7

A7 Dm7 G7 C E7 Am Am

A7 - a fifth below Dm7

If you want and if you think sounds good, it's not uncommon to change some minor chords into dominant 7 chords:

A7 D7 G7 C E7 Am Am

[headquest]

But often it is chained to the same progression in other keys, so for example, take II-V-I in C major. Then you might move to
F major, where that V in C becomes II in F, and that I in C becomes V in F, and then you finish with I in F.

Right here is the misconception that lies behind your other points. So let's go through it in steps:

take II-V-I in C major.

II = Dm
V = G
I = C

Then you might move to F major, where that V in C becomes II in F

NO - II in F = Gm

and that I in C becomes V in F, and then you finish with I in F, so a modification of my original diagram:

Code: Select all

C : II - V - I
F :     II - V - I
Bb:         II - V - I
Eb:             II - V - I
Ab:                 II - V - I
etc.

So to look at that chart: if you substitute the actual chords for the keys it would read:

C : Dm - G - C
F : Gm - C - F
Bb : Cm - F - Bb
Eb : Fm - Bb - Eb
Ab : Bbm - Eb - Ab

So you will see from this that one chord changes each time due to the fact that the new key comes complete with a new scale and key signature, which have an impact on the harmony. The only instrument that - in your illustration - is cycling through the fifths is the bass instrument. The rest of the harmony is getting affected by the change in key signature, and chords that were previously major are becoming minor. If you cycle in the opposite direction of course, sharps will be added to the key signatures, which will mean that the minor chords in the table will become major chords.

To have a bass part cycle through fifths is, as you say, a major element in jazz. BUT - and this is highly significant - the other instruments will not necessarily be cycling through key changes; they will typically stay within or close to the original key, switching between major and minor chords WITHIN that key rather than modulating to an alternate key.

In songwriting - to return to the question posed in the OP - key changes through the cycle of fifths are highly unusual for the reason that I have illustrated. Even more importantly, a key change through a fifth will have dire consequences for the vocalist, because it causes a massive shift in the range of the song! For this important reason, the only key changes that are common in songs are modulations up a tone or semitone, for which the use of a dominant 7th chord in the new key is an easy device for the modulation.

This is obviously an area of theory that he wants to learn about, and I believe that he has now done so. No need to complicate matters any further.

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think he has, judging by his comment about songs going through several keys very quickly (generally they don't). If he applies what he has *learnt* in this thread he will anger a lot of vocalists!! Also the issue of major vs. minor keys and chords has been spotted and commented on by others in the thread. So I'm really not trying to complicate matters but just clear up a misunderstanding that will lead some people to be more confused if left unchecked.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I'm too tired to say much more now, just that:

I was talking about II as opposed to ii, in other words the major chord not the minor. - Obviously, as you pointed out, this major chord is needed for the cycle to work. The chord then functions as a secondary dominant, which is quite common.

Also, by nature, the cycle of fifths does pass through several keys quickly, - that's the whole point. Yes it is perhaps not used as much in popular songs as it is in other genres, but it's still the same thing.

[Sascha Franck]

As funny as it might sound, I always found the circle of 5ths to be completely useless.
What I *don't* find useless is knowing about dominant resolutions - and so far each and every pattern presented here could as well be described as that.
So, C - B - Em (orE) - Am - Dm (or D) - G ?
Yeah, just a bunch of secondary dominants,
Ok, things become different if we are indeed modulating (using secondary dominants or "inbetween II-Vs" and what not to me doesn't make up for a true modulation), but I still wouldn't need to know about the cycle of 5ths.

Well, it's a nice looking circle. And it helps to teach beginners accidentals. No idea about any other purposes it might suit. And everything that's been said in this thread so far doesn't make me think any different. A composition tool - huh? In what way? Yeah, you gotta learn about the "plausibility" of upward movements in 5ths, but doing a whole circle and/or making whatever myth out of it?
And yes, I'm serious, I don't get it.

[VicDiesel]

As funny as it might sound, I always found the circle of 5ths to be completely useless.
What I *don't* find useless is knowing about dominant resolutions

Yes, well.... The circle of fifths as such is just that: a circle with a bunch of fifths. It has no function of itself. I mean, why not make a circle of minor thirds?

Ok, that wouldn't hit every chromatic note. 12 has the irritating property that almost everyting divides into it, so only a circle with steps of 5 or 7 (fourhs and fifths) hit every note/key. Oh, not true: 1 and 11 also do it. Cool. A "circle of major sevenths".

See? A circle is just a circle. It has no function intrinsically.

You're right, dominant resolutions are very useful, and they happen to stride along the circle of fifths. So you tell people "look, the circle of fifths. It describes dominant resolutions, and it also describes how every next key has one more sharp / one less flat."

I'm not sure that there is more to it than that.

Victor.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm not sure that there is more to it than that.

That's just what I wanted to say.

The circle of 5ths is a nice way to explain the amount of accidentals in a key for beginners. Fine.
But to me, as soon as compositional things are coming in, you will have to know about subdominant-dominant-tonic relationships anyways, so the circle per se isn't of all that much help anymore.

And yes, I'd love a circle of major sevenths concept

[headquest]

Vic and Sascha - you both hit the nail on the head
Yes - the circle is extreemly useful for teaching the classical theory about key signatures and major/minor scales. But the OP should not look for it to be more than that, because then we get into *over-analysis" (as I wrote above, a widespread problem).

[poonna]

I think the circle might also be useful as a practice aid to master something in all 12 keys, no?