Chords and scales - Doubt

[rbarata]

If I have this chord progression: C G Am

and if I play a solo exactly the same as the first octave of the C Ionian scale, why does it sound good to finish it in A or C?
I think in C it's obvious but in A it's not so clear to me. Anyone knows why?

Thanks

[jcrisman]

If I have this chord progression: C G Am

and if I play a solo exactly the same as the first octave of the C Ionian scale, why does it sound good to finish it in A or C?
I think in C it's obvious but in A it's not so clear to me. Anyone knows why?

Thanks

If you are referring to playing the A or C note over the A minor chord, it sounds good because you are playing either the root note (A) or the note that reinforces the tonality of the chord (C being the minor 3rd note in the A minor chord).

C Lydian (G Ionian) notes would also sound nice over that chord progression.

[kbaccki]

Am is the "relative minor" of C major. When you're playing C Ionian, you're also playing the same notes as the Am scale. The only difference is context.

[rbarata]

I've found this in wikipedia:

Finding the relative major or minor

- To find the relative minor of a particular key go down a minor third (three semitones) from the tonic of the major key.

Example: If your major key is C major, going down a minor third from the note C will land you on the note A. So, A minor is the relative minor of C major. Or instead of going down a minor third you can go up a sixth, or say it is the sixth note in the Major scale

- To find the relative major of a particular key go up a minor third from the tonic of the minor key.

Example: If your minor key is E minor, going up a minor third from the note E will land you on the note G. So, G major is the relative major of E minor.


In fact when I go down 3 semitones it lands on A.
Relative minors are always "compatible" with their major, regardeless of the major note?

[wrench45us]

it's pretty simple yopu start in C: C E G
you run up to G: G B D

you go to A: A C E

Am and C are related -- they share a couple of notes; am is the relative minor of C.
my thinking would be when you play C against it you're reinforcing the C6 aspect C6: C E G A; when you play A you're reinforcing the Am aspect A C E

this is why a lot of chord books have the same shape for Am7: A C E G and C6: C E G A

a lot of books express a reasonable substitution of the iii(em) or vi(am) for the I becauee of the shared notes and smooth voice leading

a pretty common device for 'backfilling' a ii V I phrase is starting it off with iii vi and going into ii V I -- sort of sets a tone that you'll be coming around to that tonic sooner or later. I guess more modern thinking takes the vi and makes it a dom7 to emphasize the movement to the ii --ex
em A7 dm7 G7 C

[rbarata]

Many thanks for the replies.

I always wonder, and still do, why is it needed to classify chords and notes in minors, majors, diminished, 3th, 5th, 7th, etc, etc
Is it just a tentative to classify musical items in a way that it can be considered as a science (which in fact, it is, because of its physical background)?
Or is there another reason behind it?

[deleted]

DELETED

[rbarata]

So, it's just a way to organize the knowledge. Just like science.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Many thanks for the replies.

I always wonder, and still do, why is it needed to classify chords and notes in minors, majors, diminished, 3th, 5th, 7th, etc, etc
Is it just a tentative to classify musical items in a way that it can be considered as a science (which in fact, it is, because of its physical background)?
Or is there another reason behind it?

Intervals have "quantity" and "quality" So an E to G is an interval with the quantity of a 3rd.

But there are many types (qualities) of thirds. E to G# is also a 3rd. Eb to G# is also a 3rd. So is Eb to G natural.

Minor is a smaller number of semitones than an major interval. Diminished is further compressed and augmented is an expanded quality. "Augment" means to make greater which is true...an augmented 3rd is indeed expanded.

Diminished means "lessened" like our diminishing supply of tacos at the buffet.

Since there are so many types of intervals, you must qualify them somehow.

Regarding triads. They are major or minor or so forth because of the quality of the intervals contained within.

[rbarata]

I can understand the need to "classify" all these things but, maybe I'm completely mistaken, if you know the rules of how to read and write staff music, you simply don't need to know anything about this.
Or am I wrong?

[generalstargazer]

I can understand the need to "classify" all these things but, maybe I'm completely mistaken, if you know the rules of how to read and write staff music, you simply don't need to know anything about this.
Or am I wrong?

that doesn't make sense

if you know how to read and write staff music you will already know this stuff

[Ogg Vorbis]

I can understand the need to "classify" all these things but, maybe I'm completely mistaken, if you know the rules of how to read and write staff music, you simply don't need to know anything about this.
Or am I wrong?

There are lots of reasons why you'd need to know. Too many to list.

Think of it this way...a writer knows how to read and write in English or Portuguese, etc.

But a writer still needs to be able to know what a subordinate clause is, or a participle or a pronoun or a passive verb structure, etc.

Knowing how to read and write is essential to understand the "WHAT" but knowing the structure and being able to describe and identify structures is essential to understanding the "HOW."

These are the building blocks of language or music. Each has a specific function.

[rbarata]

Thanks for the replies

I can see the point of view in your explanation. I also agree with it.
I'm seeing it this way: if I want to write a book I need to know how the language structures, vocabolary, gramatics, etc. I need to know the rules so that I can write correctly.
If I want to read...well, I don't need to know all the rules, unless I'm a teacher, for example, looking for errors. But I can read it perfectly without the all the rules.

Sorry but I'm just trying to categorize all this and put it in "boxes" so that I can organize my learnings. I'm relatively new to music theory.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Thanks for the replies

I can see the point of view in your explanation. I also agree with it.
I'm seeing it this way: if I want to write a book I need to know how the language structures, vocabolary, gramatics, etc. I need to know the rules so that I can write correctly.
If I want to read...well, I don't need to know all the rules, unless I'm a teacher, for example, looking for errors. But I can read it perfectly without the all the rules.

I agree with this. I assumed since you're posting on KVR that you are a "reader" and a "writer" so I posed my response on that assumption.

But you are right...readers should not have to care about the grammatical content or sentence structure or "tricks of the trade." They should just be into the story and the characters.

[ivory1029]

I can understand the need to "classify" all these things but, maybe I'm completely mistaken, if you know the rules of how to read and write staff music, you simply don't need to know anything about this.
Or am I wrong?

Another point to consider is the ability to communicate your intentions as a composer to other musicians. Everyone has different level of proficiency...some musicians play by ear and can't read a lick, some can read some music (or shorthand, like the Nashville system), and some are studied in the traditional forms.

It's not only a good thing to be as knowledgeable as possible, it makes it easier to tell all these unruly musicians what to do

Hope that is helpful, and good luck!