off key notes?

[offensive-teenager]

I made a small melody in c major or a natural minor. I inserted one #a there and it sounded good for me but people told me that is sucked because it was out of key?

Are there any basic guidelines how to use off key notes? I tried to search but i don't actually know what to search although this propably have been already discussed... But could someone point me to some direction thanks!

[jcivil]

you gotta tell me the context of that a#; what else happened? does the music carry the expectation of utter white-keyness? did the a# 'resolve' to something more congruent with 'the key'

there are no wrong notes, necessarily, only wrong considerations of notes

[offensive-teenager]

http://minagi.hybridi.net/allah/offensi ... demo_1.mp3

well here is the sound clip, it isnt so great anyway? But are there "official theory" concerning this topic?

[offensive-teenager]

ok. thanks for the encouragement

[jcivil]

but their are 'theoretical' rules to 'non offensive passing notes'

i took no offence to any of the notes in this peice.

anyone whho told you this - wants to get their 'grubby hands into your music' hehehe - but thats cool... listen to them too..... means they like what they are hearing......

Note well: theoretical rules exist ONLY to explain how music got made in the past, by acceptable composers whose stuff managed to hang around a while.

it's music, isn't it? let the ear be the judge of what's right. period.

[mojogigolo]

sounds cool,on some sections i find my ear (untrained) going "is that staying in key?" but a second later, i go, yep, seems to make sense, which is something i like.

[Madrayken]

Um... your A# was the main thing that encouraged me to listen. It kept cliche at bay, which is something I find incredibly difficult! I agree with the other posters - use it. Show it off!

[jcivil]

'being theoretically correct'

...

The only "mistake" that I count in there (as in, thing I'd change) is when you sound that Bb, you sound an A an octave below. This is a m9, known as an "avoid" interval, because it should be avoided.

needs context.

the problem is known as a cross-relation. in the context of this kind of diatonic harmony, which has an expectation, for the ear, of a certain consistency, it's not generally called-for.
if this were the mid-nineteenth century, one might have heard such a rule o thumb as 'avoid interval', but it's a little bizarre to use a term like 'an *avoid* interval' in this century, no offense.

[in a more advanced context (even an ostensibly diatonic one), a thing like a minor 9th might be gradually suggested, hinted at, and then delivered. here it's completely disjunct/jarring (the terms is UNPREPARED), and <mistake> doesn't require scare quotes. it's bad voice-leading, and this kind of thing is where the value of theory, which is no more (and no less) than analysis after-the-fact of that which has been shown to work, is seen.]

(Bb) is probably most likely explained as being a Neapolitan 6th chord, a chord borrowed from the parallel Phrygian.

not exactly. a Neapolitan sixth chord is a substitute for the subdominant, or 'IV', chord derived from its minor mode (d minor) thusly: key, A - your IV chord is spelled D F(#) A. [lower the third, f natch.] *iv*, minor.
raise the fifth to 'A#'; put the third, F, in the bass; (by definition this is a first inversion harmony, and is why it's called a sixth chord (calculate the interval from bass to top voice: f to d is a sixth): F A# D. "A#" likes to resolve like a Bb, down to A. [D can, in decent voice-leading, do a couple things when this goes to the tonic or I chord: resolve to the third of I, C/C# or up to E; stay, as a suspension, and resolve (or no) later, down to C/C#; F tends to go to E.]

while the minor second descent Bb to A is phrygian-like, referring to an ecclesiastical mode in the context of chromatic harmony clouds the context of how it came to be common practice, and so ignores the period of common practice where it is most used.

anyway, this example wasn't a chromatic, but a diatonic harmonic context, and referring to a chromatic usage was a stretch anyway.

jcivil

[Toxikator]

needs context.

the problem is known as a cross-relation. in the context of this kind of diatonic harmony, which has an expectation, for the ear, of a certain consistency, it's not generally called-for.
if this were the mid-nineteenth century, one might have heard such a rule o thumb as 'avoid interval', but it's a little bizarre to use a term like 'an *avoid* interval' in this century, no offense.

The concept of the m9 being an "avoid interval" has been with us through much of modern jazz theory (so that's well into the 20th century), ask Nuffink or Sascha K (our resident Jazz experts) and they'll tell you that for extended chords (9ths, 11ths and such) it's not entirely uncommon to add a pitch outside of the key simply to avoid having a chord form this interval.

not exactly. a Neapolitan sixth chord is a substitute for the subdominant, or 'IV', chord derived from its minor mode (d minor) thusly: key, A - your IV chord is spelled D F(#) A. [lower the third, f natch.] *iv*, minor. raise the fifth to 'A#'; put the third, F, in the bass; (by definition this is a first inversion harmony, and is why it's called a sixth chord (calculate the interval from bass to top voice: f to d is a sixth): F A# D. "A#" likes to resolve like a Bb, down to A. [D can, in decent voice-leading, do a couple things when this goes to the tonic or I chord: resolve to the third of I, C/C# or up to E; stay, as a suspension, and resolve (or no) later, down to C/C#; F tends to go to E.]

First: A Neapolitan does not NEED to appear as a 6th, this is simply a common form due to its similarity to the iv chord (as you said). Second: I notice you start with the major scale, though Neapolitans are most common in minor keys. Third: Voice leading only applies in certain contexts, and a trance-supersaw arp I would say isn't necessarily one of them.

while the minor second descent Bb to A is phrygian-like, referring to an ecclesiastical mode in the context of chromatic harmony clouds the context of how it came to be common practice, and so ignores the period of common practice where it is most used.

If we assume that our OP is a Romantic-era Opera composer, which he isn't. Analyzing the Neapolitan as a substitute for a iv chord doesn't really make sense in the context of this song. Nice use of ecclesiastical, BTW; it's a shame that modality is a key part of modern jazz theory, that in contemporary classical modality has made a comeback, and that the Phrygian is a very common replacement for the minor in several forms of electronic and rock music nowadays... I use it more frequently than the minor (loves me some minor second) .

anyway, this example wasn't a chromatic, but a diatonic harmonic context, and referring to a chromatic usage was a stretch anyway.

But what is a "chromatic harmonic context", then? The song only has two "chords", and not even in the traditional sense; a 'focus' on A minor with a melody, and a 'focus' on G minor with a parallel sequence melody, and both of these melodies feature a bii scale degree as a chromatic passing tone. I'd say that's pretty far from diatonic.

I agree that analyzing it as a N6 IS a stretch because there's not really any harmony to speak of; but replacing the m9 with an +5 IS Neapolitan-esque and works well in context.

[jcivil]

well, since you like to argue semantics, hey I do too:

a minor ninth in a line is a thing to be avoided when it's either out-of-context, or unprepared, in any context (outside of one where that might be de rigeur), which applies to the example in question. I stand by my [linguistic] critique of the phrase "avoid interval" to a beginner.

If you want to argue that a bII chord is per se a 'Neapolitan chord': A Neapolitan chord exists only in certain contexts, which in historical terms is called - it's a convention - chromatic. Borrowing notes from a parallel minor mode - mixing modes is the conventional term - is called chromatic usage. Trust me. (and as it IS a substitute for IV, is authentically a 6 chord.)

I'm not here to bust any chops, I'm teaching theory as it's taught in academy, and clarifying terms. I have no issue with you calling it whatever, but it ignores some facts of how the thing came to be, and as this is widely disseminated information, that people are trying to get some knowledge from, I believe it does require that context, otherwise it's just a fancy word.

the example was none-of-the-above, but has a (pseudo-) classical connotation in general and carries definite expectations of tonal usage, and as it's neither chromatic nor modal usage, I called it diatonic rather than try and coin a term. It's not really diatonic, that's right.

Diatonic, linguistically strongly implies a tone wanting another tone, EG: V-I, just to put that information out there. And the example does carry that expectation, in part.

[Toxikator]

a minor ninth in a line is a thing to be avoided when it's either out-of-context, or unprepared, in any context (outside of one where that might be de rigeur), which applies to the example in question. I stand by my [linguistic] critique of the phrase "avoid interval" to a beginner.

And that's fair enough. I'm simply using the term I've always seen used for it on these forums.

If you want to argue that a bII chord is per se a 'Neapolitan chord': A Neapolitan chord exists only in certain contexts, which in historical terms is called - it's a convention - chromatic. Borrowing notes from a parallel minor mode - mixing modes is the conventional term - is called chromatic usage. Trust me. (and as it IS a substitute for IV, is authentically a 6 chord.)

I'm not sure what "authentically a 6th chord" means but, while the Neapolitan is most frequently found in first inversion (due to its similarity to the ii6 or IV, which it replaces) this is by no means mandatory... if it was, you would also have to say that the IV must always appear in root position, otherwise the inversion rule makes no sense.

I'm not here to bust any chops, I'm teaching theory as it's taught in academy, and clarifying terms. I have no issue with you calling it whatever, but it ignores some facts of how the thing came to be, and as this is widely disseminated information, that people are trying to get some knowledge from, I believe it does require that context, otherwise it's just a fancy word.

Well, theory as it's taught in classical academy, anyway. Regardless, I don't know why you're so hung up on it, I only said that harmonizing a bii scale degree with the iv scale degree is Neapolitan-esque, which it IS. Is it a Neapolitan 6th chord in the traditional sense? No, but if I were to ask you "in the key of A minor, what chord is formed by D, F, and A#?" You would obviously reply "Neapolitan"...? Isn't that close enough to call that harmonization "similar to a Neapolitan"?

the example was none-of-the-above, but has a (pseudo-) classical connotation in general and carries definite expectations of tonal usage, and as it's neither chromatic nor modal usage, I called it diatonic rather than try and coin a term. It's not really diatonic, that's right.

BS, the example was chromatic, and even if it's NOT, it's certainly more appropriately labeled "chromatic" than "diatonic" given the way it's structured, I think. It's not "atonal" but I mean at the very heart of it are two fundamentally chromatic things (a chromatic passing tone and a Direct Modulation)...

Diatonic, linguistically strongly implies a tone wanting another tone, EG: V-I, just to put that information out there. And the example does carry that expectation, in part.

"Diatonic" means "within the key" in all practical senses. I think you may have the distinction between Diatonicism and Chromaticism mixed up with the distinction between Tonality and Atonality.

[jcivil]

If you want to argue that a bII chord is per se a 'Neapolitan chord': A Neapolitan chord exists only in certain contexts, which in historical terms is called - it's a convention - chromatic. Borrowing notes from a parallel minor mode - mixing modes is the conventional term - is called chromatic usage. Trust me. (and as it IS a substitute for IV, is authentically a 6 chord.)

I'm not sure what "authentically a 6th chord" means but, while the Neapolitan is most frequently found in first inversion (due to its similarity to the ii6 or IV, which it replaces) this is by no means mandatory... if it was, you would also have to say that the IV must always appear in root position, otherwise the inversion rule makes no sense.

I didn't cite it as any rule, I pointed out it's more authentic as a '6' chord.; IE: authentically plagal, just as any IV-I move is, as a falling fourth in the bass. Again, the example that has us fighting over a word, did NOT function plagally, period, it isn't what you said it was, and you potentially clouded the waters with bringing that in, it seems gratuitous. Now, you do display some real understanding of the thing, in response to my criticisms...

Then you used another big word, phrygian, which didn't follow either, we're not anywhere near modal usage. The poor student left the room awhile back, I'd imagine.

...I only said that harmonizing a bii scale degree with the iv scale degree is Neapolitan-esque, which it IS. Is it a Neapolitan 6th chord in the traditional sense? No, but if I were to ask you "in the key of A minor, what chord is formed by D, F, and A#?" You would obviously reply "Neapolitan"...?

No, actually I would reply: "a flat ii chord". Calling a spade a spade.

And, actually, you said it is a neapolitan, which in the context of the example, would appear to be a gratuitous use of the term. [My real objection comes from my ear, the thing doesn't sound anything like a Neapolitan usage, and Therefore It Isn't.]

"Diatonic" means "within the key" in all practical senses. I think you may have the distinction between Diatonicism and Chromaticism mixed up with the distinction between Tonality and Atonality.

well, if one reads the whole thread, one sees I had absolutely no argument with YOUR use of the term, but I did take exception of your characterization of mine, especially now that you suggest that I am mixed up:

WIKI ARTICLE - "diatonic"

Modern meanings of "diatonic scale"

...

All writers accept the major scale as diatonic. Most, but not all,[19] accept the natural minor (and the descending melodic minor) as diatonic. As for other forms of the minor:

* "Exclusive" usage: Some writers consistently classify the other variants of the minor scale - the melodic minor (ascending form) and the harmonic minor - as non-diatonic, since they are not transpositions of the white-note pitches of the piano. Among such theorists there is no agreed general term that encompasses the major and all forms of the minor scale.

* "Inclusive" usage: Some writers consistently include the melodic and harmonic minor scales as diatonic also. For this group, every scale standardly used in common practice music and much similar later music is either diatonic (the major, and all forms[20] of the minor) or chromatic.[21]

* "Mixed" usage: Still other writers mix these two meanings of diatonic (and conversely for chromatic), and this may lead to confusions and misconceptions. Sometimes, though not always, the context makes it clear which meaning is intended.

...

There are a few other meanings of the term diatonic scale, some of which take the extension to harmonic and melodic minor even further, to be even more inclusive.[23]

In general, diatonic is most often used inclusively with respect to music that restricts itself to standard uses of traditional major and minor scales. When discussing music that uses a larger variety of scales and modes (including much jazz, rock, and some tonal twentieth-century concert music), writers often adopt the exclusive use to prevent confusion.

...

To clarify muddied waters.

and if tonal music involves, to quote myself: "a tone wanting another tone", then I GUESS we agree; but if it appears more clever to characterize me as mixed up...

[Toxikator]

I'm honestly not trying to make you look like an idiot. I'm just saying that if a piece doesn't stick to one key (barring PERHAPS the occasional chromatic note from a tonicization) then it shouldn't be called "Diatonic".

even your wiki citation agrees with me... there's some debate, according to the article, over whether or not a piece that uses the #7 or #6 in the minor is technically "diatonic", but there doesn't seem to be any debate that if a piece uses a b2 (not present in any major or minor no matter how you cut it) it's chromatic (as opposed to diatonic)...? or did I miss something in there?

As to the initial post re: Neapolitans, please excuse that. That was before I saw the score, I was just counting off potential explanations for a bii scale degree... Neapolitan being one of them (tritone substitution being the other).

[blaster78]

{and who cares anymore, it's a dead practice and has been for a long long time}

eh.... that is one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever seen

[freddemillio]

Sounds OK to me. Don't sweat that A#, it seems to work ok.