Which scales? (funky house basslines)

[Amblin]

Alright, these two samples with different progressions are screwing my head up. I haven't composed these so I won't take any credit, I just forgot what the original tracks are called. I made a short demo of both so you can hear that they do work together.

1st
http://www.maxfrank.se/dump/kvr-sample1.mp3
It goes C# --> B --> A# --> A
(I just don't get which scale that's got three notes just a semitone from eachother)

2nd
http://www.maxfrank.se/dump/kvr-sample2.mp3
It goes A --> G# --> G --> F#
(This one is even weirder, I mean, four notes just beside eachother. But it still works! Why?)




Now, is this some magic funky scales I've never heard about? Or is it something else? Any help would be much appreciated.

[Amblin]

Noone dares to give it a shot?

[phreaque]

Amblin,

Actually there's no rule for melody scale in electro/house/dance/trance styles..
But, try not to make complex chord progressions & variations.. Always make it simple and clean, weirdish build-ups is no matter at all, in fact it is the signature of such genres of music...

Sincerely,

[JamesAnderson]

The first one looks like it could be this progression in the key it may be in:

V iv iii iii

The first iii is augmented.

A similar variation exists if the V (dominant) is replaced by the I and it goes

I vii vii vi

Similar augmentations exist depending on if the progression is in major or minor.

One of the notes sounds like it could be an accidental and therefore is an augmentation of the scale note.

The second one is more straightforward.

I vii vii vi. The first vii and the vi are both augmented in the scale this is in again being accidentals.

Neither appears to be a straight rendering of the scale they are in. They even sound like they could be in minor keys. Minor is common in house as well as pop/rock, and some very interesting progressions are possible in house using semitone progressions by using accidentals in the melodic contour of the line. Both of these progressions are very common in funky and soulful house and are found in any key used by the writer for that matter.

[Amblin]

Thanks for that answer. I'll have to read through and analyze your post a bit since I didn't understand that much.

[Amblin]

I had a real comfort in musictheory before this. Working with major or minor scales, thinking: Here you have seven different notes, do whatever you want with them, but if you step out of these notes, the composition will sound flat.

It's the concept of augmentation that totally annihilates everything I know about this subject. Throwing in a pair of augmented chords here and there and you will have a weird looking scale.

It sure widens the "freedom" when it comes to composing, but it changes the rules that I thought was set.
Are there any rules that augmentations must follow?

I know I talk alot about rules here, but I am so sick and tired of the brute-force-composing technique that I started out with when I knew absolutely nothing when I was composing a melody: (ouch, that's not the one! ouch, that's not in tune either!).

[Sami]

What I've noticed in modern club music, the craziest stuff is generally the most effective on dancefloor. People will go nuts on that sort of stuff, young people today...

[Amblin]

What I've noticed in modern club music, the craziest stuff is generally the most effective on dancefloor. People will go nuts on that sort of stuff, young people today...

I've studied popular dancetracks a bit (checking midifiles and what not). Usually it follows traditional major/minor scales, and sometimes they got inverted chords and that sort of stuff. It's catchy, which makes it popular. It's usually more about the sound itself that plays the catchy melodies (Benassi comes straight to mind here).

I'm more into house (specifically french house with daft punk and what not), and it's in this genre where I found these two progressions I posted.

[LXNDR1]

i ain't no music theory expert or anythang like it, in fact i'm ignorant in music theory, but listening to the posted samples, i found them sounding like slightly out of tune, though interesting

i don't know if it's just in the posted pieces bass goes solo (there're actually 2 basses which as far as i could hear play the same notes) with no accompaniment, and further along the track the same riff is played in some richer musical context, but if it's really being played solo all along, my feeling is that you hardly can surround it with additional melody lines without making the whole tune sound off key, so it's only dope when it's by itself

plus, i dunno if it's me personally or the nature of low frequences, but i've noticed that "flatness" in deep bass melodies isn't percieved as acutely as in the melodies of high frequences instruments, i even high-pitch my bass parts to check them against the main tune, only this way i can hear any oddities which could of "creep" into them, not without my assistance of course

[nuffink]

Chromatically descending basslines are often a sign of substitute dominants.
In which case:-
The root progression C# --> B --> A# --> A, could best be harmonised as C#min --> Bmin --> A#7 (the substitute dominant) --> Amaj

And for the second (which would contain 2 substitute dominants):-
A --> G# --> G --> F#, could be harmonised by A7 (sub dom) --> G#min --> G7 (sub dom) --> F#maj.

One way of looking at it.

[LXNDR1]

the best way to check if they r really out of tune is to high-pitch them

or maybe i'm missing the subject of the discussion and it's agreed that there's nothing wrong with those riffs

[bjarnenorheim]

sounds like edbanger stuff.
Is it not just ordinary phrygian scale? (the one that starts with a halftone - used in psy trance)
The last one just chromatic

[z15]

I had a real comfort in musictheory before this. Working with major or minor scales, thinking: Here you have seven different notes, do whatever you want with them, but if you step out of these notes, the composition will sound flat.
...
I know I talk alot about rules here, but I am so sick and tired of the brute-force-composing technique that I started out with when I knew absolutely nothing when I was composing a melody: (ouch, that's not the one! ouch, that's not in tune either!).

It's kind of odd that _musicians_ are like "I must follow rules or otherwise I'm f**ked". Because basically the "music theory" is pretty much about analyzing pieces from certain period of time, whether it be baroque basso continuo or '60s modal jazz. The analysis method and the "allowed" tricks are given by the analysis methods and rules that are formulated AFTER the music was made. This is especially obvious in genres that have been based more on playing or sequencing something more than "composing" as in writing things down.

So while it never hurts to be able to analyze songs of certain style and you can learn a lot about them, it's not a substitute for unbounded creativity. And even with analysis, it's equally pointless to use set theory to analyze music by a romantic era composer, or to try to fit some aleatoric / modernist composer into the western tonal framework. Ditto with dance music, where the basic premise is to make something that gets people in the groove, not something that follows counterpoint harmony & melody rules.

Here's two basic rules formulated by me a second or two ago:
1) If you're making music, make some music that sounds good to you and never mind any particular rule set. Knowing what kinds of chord or melody sequences might fit to what you're making is helpful. In the end it's very much a matter of "brute force" though - playing or sequencing a lot so you'll develop an "instinct" to improvise something and revise it as needed. Sort of learning to pick the good ideas and develop them further. If you have to actively think about any rules (or "I must not follow these rules"), then you're going wrong already, IMHO.
2) If you're analyzing, make sure you're doing the analysis with the right rule set / tools for the particular style of music

I mean, if analyzing is what you want to do, don't mistake it to music making. If you want to make some banging dancefloor tracks, then you'll just have to play and sequence what sounds good to you at a given moment and never mind about the rules. I know it sounds kind of stupid, and I'm not saying you should be ignorant when it comes to music theory or actively try to break rules... just try to remember that whatever different schools of (western) music theory give you aren't "rules to make music with" but "basic rules to use in analyzing compositions made in certain style / era" and even inside that era there will be composers or songs that won't fit to them.

Of course if you want to make a pastiche of a classic blues tune, it helps to know what 12 bar blues is, or if you want to do a tune in style of great baroque composers, you have to learn basso continuo and the forms of music that were popular then. But when you're making something original and want it to be a living and breathing piece of what's currently going on, you should just try and try until you find your own style and vibe.

[nuffink]

Ah, the "just do it" argument hits the thread on page 1.

[z15]

Ah, the "just do it" argument hits the thread on page 1.

Since I haven't been part of these arguments before and you seemed to ignore most of what my post was about, could you explain to me what is wrong about that?

FWIW, I've studied both classical and pop/jazz theory for a few years and I can't say I'm one of the people who are like "f**k the rules, f**k that melodic shit, man it has to come straight from your heart knahmsayin". I'm just wondering if comments like this are understanding the function of music theory a bit wrong:

(This one is even weirder, I mean, four notes just beside eachother. But it still works! Why?)

... when as an answer people are trying to pick it apart using tonal theory. It's a bit like asking "why do I love my girlfriend?" and trying to find an answer like "because she is healthy and has green eyes and her voice is very sensual".