Is predicting outcome one of music theory's strengths?

[MOK19]

Hello hello,

So I've been learning piano and theory from a teacher for the past 4 months now, and am finally feeling like it's starting to change the way I think about music. I'm only just starting to apply it broadly in my arrangement, in deciding chord progressions and whatnot.

But the thing is that I'm still not clear on whether or not it's going where I thought it would go. Specifically, I started learning in the hopes that if I had a progression's feel in mind, or perhaps a few requirements, I would eventually be able to basically know off-hand what notes and chords to try out, and quickly get the concept structured, imagined, and out of my head and into Cubase. Is this something music theory will excel at, or do I have the wrong idea?

As a convenient example, I currently have a part that I want to use as a refrain/chorus. It plays in key of E(I chord, E maj) for 8 counts, then modulates to key of E minor (III chord, Gmaj) for another 8, and basically repeats that pattern. What I want to do is stick with the key of E maj for the rest of the song, use some of the minor chords to open up some flexibility in comparison to the refrain that sticks mostly with major chords. However, I also want the transition to the chorus/refrain to sound basically smooth.

Unfortunately, I've been doing a lot of trial and error without success yet. All the combos I've tried so far sound like entirely different songs. I'm under the impression that if I just understood my theory a bit more, I'd have a better grasp of what my options were in this situation, and what guidelines will lead me in the right direction. Is this true? Or would I be doing the same ammount of trial/error either way?

Also, does anyone have a suggestion for what chords to try? If so, is there a system behind it? Hows it go?

Thanks for reading, guys and gals...

[Liero]

A always felt that the first years of learning music theory didn't bring me anywhere in terms of songwriting. It was basically just learning what chords, intervals, rhythm are, not how to use them. It's not until you get to functional harmony and musical forms that things start to click, or at least started for me.

Why not try holding the bass E for some counts while the upper chord structure changes to that of Gmaj7? By delaying the bass movement to the new note you get a more flowing feel.

BTW a passing chord like your Gmaj7 in E major is usually called a mixture chord, not modulation, since one still feels very much that the Emaj7 is the tonic.

[kevvvvv]

Mok19

I started learning in the hopes that if I had a progression's feel in mind, or perhaps a few requirements, I would eventually be able to basically know off-hand what notes and chords to try out, and quickly get the concept structured, imagined, and out of my head and into Cubase. Is this something music theory will excel at, or do I have the wrong idea?

I started studying music theory with exactly the same aims.

Did it work?

Yes and No, but I'm really glad I did it.

I can hear music and know what's going on far better, even if I can't spot which chord inversion is being used.

But don't expect fast results.

It requires years of ear training (perfect pitch ring a bell?)

But hey ... what's living for?!

...

Little Story

Handel was in bed at the Duke of Chandos' palace, wearing his long nightgown and nightcap (it was colder then)

His servant came in with his morning cup of hot chocolate (a great luxury) and he saw the maestro weeping as he wrote a script with his quill pen.

It was obvious that Handel was so moved by his musical thoughts and feelings that he wept as he wrote them down.

I found this true story so inspiring, so moving, that I immediately wanted to learn to read and write so that I could experience all the depth and feel of music without needing an instrument. Just the score on the page.

It's what got me to learn music theory and, eventually, go to music college.

Obviously I'm no Handel, but the inspriration was a life-changer and I feel lucky to have had it.

[Caysi]

Music theory is really just being able to read and write "ear language", for me it is anyway.

What I mean is, before I had even the foggiest idea about music theory i could think up tunes in my head, or listen to a tune i'd never heard before and know almost exactly what's coming next. Music theory, for me, just lets me write that down and make sense of it.

Just remember that music theory, while useful, is not going to give somebody the ability to compose a symphony or an amazing heartfelt piece of music. That ability comes from inside.

[jdtrbn]

Also, does anyone have a suggestion for what chords to try? If so, is there a system behind it? Hows it go?

Not really a system, but there are some basic ideas that don't really require creativity.
The first chords to try are usually the ones that have all or most notes inside the scale you're using. For example, Gm7 is more usual than F# when you're in C minor scale. A#m7 has one note outside the scale, that is c#, so it's a bit stranger to our western ears, but it's only one note so it's probably more conventional than E7, which has two (and maybe because the root E is outside the scale).

When you're using basic major and minor chords, you often want to use the ones that share a note with the melody. So if the melody plays the note f in C major scale, you may want to use A#, Fm or G7 (G7 borrows the note b from C harmonic minor scale). If you want to change your scale in the middle of the song (or forget about them), then it's getting more complicated.

I hope this was something you were interested in. You probably understand that harmonization (adding chords to a melody) isn't something you learn without experience, especially if you are going for jazzy stuff.

It depends on the music style what kind of things are expected. For a lot of music you can do with basic major and minor scales and chords (though I think almost any style can benefit from unconventional harmonies).

[nuffink]

First things first, chord progressions are a cultural rather than a physical construct. There is, as far as I know, no good physical reason for our desire to hear a ii7 - V7 chord sequence resolve to I. It is an expectation which has been culturally hammered into us since birth.

Ok now that's out of the way...

Historically chord progressions have been explained using the following...

Root-motion theories, which emphasize the intervallic distance between successive chord-roots.
Scale-degree theories, which assert that the triads on each scale degree tend to move in characteristic ways.
Function theories, which group chords into larger "functional" categories.

You can find a ton of erudite literature on each of these (and more). None is inclusive. They all work in the majority of cases but there are and have always been popular progressions which defy each of them. So what's a composer to do?

You could attempt an all encompassing theory of progression (there is some fascinating work being done in this field) but they all tend to end up looking like counterpoint because to be all encompassing you have to explain the movement of all the voices in the chords.
Or you could do what every working composer does and pick a known working progression or two from the many (here are a couple of hundred to be getting along with) that have already been used.
You could even noodle around for a while and come up with something new. Be aware though that if you do invent a new (and subsequently popular) progression you're likely to become rather well known.

[jdtrbn]

Or you could do what every working composer does and pick a known working progression or two from the many (here are a couple of hundred to be getting along with) that have already been used.

I hope you mean that most composers use progressions that have been already used somewhere (because there are less common chords than there are melodies), unless one is trying to make a composition based on a progression that is particularly difficult to understand, as an exercise. "Picking a progression or two" couldn't sound more boring to me and I could probably harmonize myself better anyway.

[nuffink]

Or you could do what every working composer does and pick a known working progression or two from the many (here are a couple of hundred to be getting along with) that have already been used.

I hope you mean that most composers use progressions that have been already used somewhere (because there are less common chords than there are melodies), unless one is trying to make a composition based on a progression that is particularly difficult to understand, as an exercise. "Picking a progression or two" couldn't sound more boring to me and I could probably harmonize myself better anyway.

You go for it girlfriend! Post us a link when you've finished, I'm a sucker for the new.

[jplanet]

Also, does anyone have a suggestion for what chords to try? If so, is there a system behind it? Hows it go?

Thanks for reading, guys and gals...

When it comes to composition, theory can be useful for predicting what will come next, but unless your knowledge of theory also covers the non-obvious and all possibilities, it's far better to picture the changes in your head - literally just sit back and listen to the song in your head, and hear where it should go next...Once you get that feeling that what you are hearing in your head is exciting, or is just where you need it to go, then use your ear to learn it - it is so important at this point not to settle on something else that just sounds ok - reject it until it matches what was playing in your head! (Unless you stumble across something that is even more inspiring then what you originally set out to do - it's wonderful when that happens).

Once you have the next part figured out, apply your knowledge of theory to explain what is happening harmonically, and file it away in your mind so that when you imagine that kind of change again, you'll have it ready to go!

[k-bird]

I guess the drive of music theory is to have the luxury of pulling music to pieces to see how it works rather than strictly putting it together. While it can show you ground that has been covered before, it's not necessarily a tool to show you how to write music.

Trial and error's a bitch, sure, but music theory can be a massive speedhump for your creativity while you digest it and make it second-nature. The best way, i've found, is to know enough music theory but really get stuck into the ear training - when the composition happens in your head afterwards, the part of your mind that knows sounds will be better able to help you transcribe and reproduce what you're 'hearing'.

With the melody and the harmony supporting one another, the melody can start to suggest harmonic information to you the same way the harmonic progression can suggest melodic information... to wit:

Any single note in a scale is part of three chords in that scale, each of which have their particular relation to the tonic chord and evoke a different mood. So in the key of C:

note C is part of C major, F major, A minor
note D is part of D minor, G major/7 and B diminished
note E is part of C major, E minor and A minor
note F is part of D minor, F major, G7 and B diminished
note G is part of C major, E minor and G major/7
note A is part of D minor, F major and A minor
note B is part of E minor, G major/7 and B diminished

In all of these, you've got a choice between at least one minor and at least one major, and each of those chords carries with it a different sense of tension and release and movement. For instance, the aforementioned ii7 - V7 - I in C major goes from [D F A C] to [G B D F] to [C E G]. To me, that looks like the A and C of the ii7 both lower into the G and B of the V7, then everything bar the G of the V7 steps up a note on the scale into the I chord. A nice clean back and forth movement, by my (admittedly uneducated) analysis.

You can start getting into stuff like secondary dominants, where you use the dominant seventh of the chord you want to introduce...

note F# is part of D7 which leads to G (note F# is G minus 1 semitone)
note C# is part of A7 which leads to D (same note as above)
note G# is part of E7 which leads to A (and again)

Again, it's melodies inherent to the harmony that make it work.

Sorry for length and rambliness. It's late here.

[jdtrbn]

"Picking a progression or two" couldn't sound more boring to me and I could probably harmonize myself better anyway.

You go for it girlfriend! Post us a link when you've finished, I'm a sucker for the new.

What are you talking about? There's nothing new about harmonizing without references.

[martian]

i find music theory is only helpful to me when i get lost and want to resolve a progression, or simply to try and understand the one ive created. but from a core compositional point of view i dont use traditional music theory at all.

with my taste im not really into diatonic harmony, i prefer jazzier and more weird chromatic-like harmony. so to me in composition the voicing of each chord is more important than the name of the chord. i find with a focus on voicing you have freedom to take progressions anywhere you want. i know from experience the kind of harmony changes my brain likes and that forms the basis of my own understanding.

i often also just hit randon note combinations to try and break away from my musical memory and find something new. i like to keep an element of luck/chance in my search for new harmonic ideas, i think its very difficult to think up something new without experimenting first, since my conditioning and musical memory/familiarity will get in the way.

[llatham]

Unfortunately, I've been doing a lot of trial and error without success yet. All the combos I've tried so far sound like entirely different songs. I'm under the impression that if I just understood my theory a bit more, I'd have a better grasp of what my options were in this situation, and what guidelines will lead me in the right direction. Is this true? Or would I be doing the same ammount of trial/error either way?

Learning theory will VASTLY cut down on your Trial and Error time - BUT, that assumes you're going to work in a style that has specific parameters.

For example, if you are in the key of E and you're going to write in the style of a folk song, Theory will tell you that the most likely chords you would use would be:

E
B (or B7)
A
C#m
F#m
D#o (most unlikely)

If you're going to write in a Jazz style, and it's in E minor, you're going to encounter a different ordering, and, all the chords will be 7ths or more:
Em7
B7#9
F#m7b5
etc.

If it's Blues, you'll have:
E7
A7
B7
Maybe C7

If it's a Jazzier blues, you may have E13, A9 and B7#9, etc.

But, if you want a "Spanish Bullfight" feel, you would have

E
F
am
G
C,
etc.

Notice how the first three don't have an F chord - they have some type of F#. Music theory, and a knowledge of how it's applied in various styles will tell you that those "Spanish" type songs have a "Phrygian" feel to them. Something that's important to know.

You should learn as much as you can. It can't hurt you. And you can always (and sometimes should) choose not to use it.

HTH,
Steve

[tapper mike]

I love these long go no where threads.

One does not culturally develop a ii-V-1 by growing up in "Western Civilization.
One either applies ii-V-1 or on does not.

I don't use a lot of ii-V-I or ii-V
I use,,,What ever suits me. That is the point of theory. When you use theory you have a big set of lego's you pull up the lego that most satisfies
what you want to build. If it doesn't work you throw the piece back in the box and pull something out that does. or you form something to connect where you are to where you want to be. Later someone pulls out a music history book and compares your work to something you may not have been familiar with at time of writing.

I developed a "two-finger" major scale technique on guitar and got really good with it. Everyone thought it was way super hip at the time. I was living in a shell. 10 years later I saw a video with Django Rienhart.
Needless to say. I didn't blaze that trail after all.

You can:
Fall into theory by chance
Open a theory cookbook and either learn the reciepe and stick to it.
Or you can improvise with the reciepe.



The choice is yours.

[tee boy]

Hello hello,

So I've been learning piano and theory from a teacher for the past 4 months now, and am finally feeling like it's starting to change the way I think about music. I'm only just starting to apply it broadly in my arrangement, in deciding chord progressions and whatnot.

But the thing is that I'm still not clear on whether or not it's going where I thought it would go. Specifically, I started learning in the hopes that if I had a progression's feel in mind, or perhaps a few requirements, I would eventually be able to basically know off-hand what notes and chords to try out, and quickly get the concept structured, imagined, and out of my head and into Cubase. Is this something music theory will excel at, or do I have the wrong idea?

As a convenient example, I currently have a part that I want to use as a refrain/chorus. It plays in key of E(I chord, E maj) for 8 counts, then modulates to key of E minor (III chord, Gmaj) for another 8, and basically repeats that pattern. What I want to do is stick with the key of E maj for the rest of the song, use some of the minor chords to open up some flexibility in comparison to the refrain that sticks mostly with major chords. However, I also want the transition to the chorus/refrain to sound basically smooth.

Unfortunately, I've been doing a lot of trial and error without success yet. All the combos I've tried so far sound like entirely different songs. I'm under the impression that if I just understood my theory a bit more, I'd have a better grasp of what my options were in this situation, and what guidelines will lead me in the right direction. Is this true? Or would I be doing the same ammount of trial/error either way?

Also, does anyone have a suggestion for what chords to try? If so, is there a system behind it? Hows it go?

Thanks for reading, guys and gals...

A good knowledge of theory should indeed assist one in predicting results. Whether thats a good thing or not is to be debated though. I think most composers would agree that the happy accident is never something to be discounted! Indeed, many of my favorite composers and bands create music through practical improvisation rather the pen and paper. This has always seemed a more intuitive and more importantly, creative, approach.

So for me, theory provides a way of channelling that creativity. Often, composers will divise a set of rules within which they can experiment. For most, I think a knowledge of music from the past and from other cultures is essential as it provides guidence in constructing ones own musical language; be that strictly tonal or otherwise.

My recommendation would be to study the work of those you admire. Try to work out they 'rules' they adhered to in their works (or avoided as the case may be) and attempt to experiment creatively within them. Look into their influences and see where they themselves saught guidence.

With respects to your own composition around E and E minor... and ofcourse, depending on the mood you intend to create... perhaps try modulating the figure? You could go for a more traditional modulation to the dominant or relative major / minor, or even the chromatic mediant? You could go through a series of chromatic third modulations, creating a high degree of ambiguity over the tonality, using the octatonic scale as pitch material.

Maybe you could think about different figurations, melodies, counterpoints, etc, that work with these pivoting major / minor chords? You could make the minor third a melodic dissonance under a stable major chord?

But like i say, for me personally, it is always best to take these ideas to the keyboard or guitar so that I can noodle around and come up with something actually musical. Come up with rules and ideas, then test them out in a real musical setting.

Hope this helps!

TB