Just realised I know nothing. What's going on in my track?

[cron]

I know nothing about theory. I thought that I did for many years, but I realised the other night that I barely have a single clue.

When I was younger, about 15 years ago when all I did was sit and play, I used to be able to feel out your average pop/rock track fairly quickly on my guitar/keyboard, but I can't even do that anymore. I was trying to play along with an old music hall tune last night and it was like banging my head against a brick wall.

I mean, I can derive your basic major and minor scales for any key (not without having a little think first, mind) and pick out a load of chords based on the notes within that scale, but that's about as far as I go. It's seriously limiting and most importantly there's very little understanding of what's actually going on there.

Which brings me to the track below. I really like the chord progression, but it's shocking how little I understand it and that's stopped me taking it forward. What is it? What am I doing? The snippet below was uploaded to Soundcloud a year ago - haven't touched it since. It's probably the track I feel the saddest about abandonding, because something there really works for me. Please try to ignore the dire mix; the headphones times were bad times.

Here's the track:

http://soundcloud.com/charityqueen/char ... switchbank

Here's what I sorta kinda maybe think is going on. Apologies for the ludicrous notation but this really is pretty much the limit of my understanding, which I'm sure reveals a lot. Knowing the chord names of course means nothing when my understanding of how they relate to each other comes from little more than skewed intuition. I appreciate this will likely be difficult to read, but not as difficult as writing it out twice has been. I yanked the power cable just as I was about to post the first time

There's no rhythm in the first 32 bars, but the track is running at 140bpm (I think) for reference...

Bars 1-8: I form a D minor triad over the course of the first 6 bars. Start with the D, add the third, then the fifth. At bar 7 I shift the D down to a C so we've got an inverted F major triad.
Bars 9-16: I start with the D minor sans the fifth, add the fifth completing the triad, raise it to the 6th so we've an inverted Bb minor triad, then up to the C... I don't really know what that C is doing in terms of harmony, but it leads up to the D minor beginning bar 17 quite nicely.
Bars 17-32: D minor, inverted F Major, inverted Bb minor, then the bit I find hardest to understand. At bar 23 I hold what I think is a Edim chord, or an E minor with a flattened fifth or something(E-G-Bb), but while playing around on my childhood Casio since recording this I've found that this E-G-Bb chord really wants to have a C# bass dropped under it (unfortunately you can't hear this C# discovery in the snippet below - my main computer is in a friend's loft in London, but I have the FLAC so maybe I'll mock something up tomorrow when it isn't 2 in the morning). It sounds great if you play a D bass note on Bar 25 then drop to a C# bass on bar 26 (all over this E-G-Bb chord), then drop to the C on bar 27 which is the bottom note of the inverted F minor triad. I really like that, but yeah, why I like it I don't know. I don't quite understand how I can get away with playing both the C# and the C one after the other. I know that you can raise the 7th a semitone in minor scales, but I'm playing both the sharpened 7th and the 'natural' 7th one after the other here. Anyway, then the resolution to the D minor. Then, err, comedy arrythmic sidechain dance party whoop-whoop!

I appreciate this is essentially a big ramble from somebody who doesn't have a bloody clue. My intention is to take music theory lessons from a real flesh and blood teacher as soon as I'm employed in a decently paying job and can afford it again (I was laid off a year back - it's been hell) but I thought laying myself bare in here might be a good way to get over the initial hurdle of acknowledging that I need to learn this stuff properly and stop fumbling by!

Any words regarding what I'm doing, why certain things work or don't, or interesting musical directions in which this could be taken would be hugely appreciated.

As an aside to where this sudden musical theory hurt has come from... On the day I went to enrol at my further education college aged 16, I was told that the music theory A-level I had applied for had been cancelled due to lack of interest. I was told I should apply to the practical music course. Didn't fancy my chances of getting to grade 8 in one instrument and grade 6 in another within 2 years (my guitar and keyboard skills were average at best) and it was the theory aspect I was most interested in anyway due to my burgeoning electronic music hobby. As such, I changed my subjects, under pressure and on the spot, from music/maths/physics (which the university course I had my eye on demanded) to psychology/law/physics. Here I am one month away from turning 30 having been laid off and all I want to do is learn music theory, go back to school to study maths and brush up on my physics while I'm at it. Office and project management be damned!

[Nystul]

Well let's talk a little bit about diminished chords. In the major when you "pick out a load of chords based on the notes within that scale", we end up with a diminished chord based on the seventh scale degree. For example, EGBb in the key of F major. In the minor we also have the one on the second scale degree (EGBb in D minor). I assume that is how you ended up with this chord E diminished. There is kind of a classical idea here: Edim likes to resolve to F, just like C7 (CEGBb) does.

From a voice leading standpoint, the Edim is missing that C, and now we get to your discovery of the C#. Well, if we are going to stick with the idea of this being Edim which likes to resolve to F, then we can add a seventh to it. EGBbD is the half-diminished, or in jazz charts maybe you'd see it like E7b5. EGBbDb is the diminished seventh chord. Notice that this is enharmonic to C#EGBb, which is the C# diminished seventh.

This is an interesting thing about a diminished seventh chord, because it could function as either E or C# (or others) you could have chosen to resolve it in the other direction as well, and it would work the same way.

C#dim7 -> Dm (C#->D)
Edim7 -> F (Db->C)

I'm not really trying to be pendantic about the spelling, but the point is that the diminished seventh chord has this flexibility. It could act like any of it's four notes are the root, because they are all 3 semitones apart. It can pull towards F just like C7 does. It can pull towards D just like A7 (AC#EG) does. Etc.

But as far as why that Db might sound like it needs to be there to your ear, it's simply because it leads to the C.

[jancivil]

My intention is to take music theory lessons from a real flesh and blood teacher

that, or a course with one, is your best course of action IME. A half-digested 'music theory' is not all that helpful sometimes, is it.

I had a fantastically good course at community college.

[cron]

My intention is to take music theory lessons from a real flesh and blood teacher

that, or a course with one, is your best course of action IME. A half-digested 'music theory' is not all that helpful sometimes, is it.

I had a fantastically good course at community college.

Abolsutely. I'm finding making music more frustating than I used to (perhaps one's tolerance for frustration drops as you get older) and I don't want to spend ages trying to transcribe whatever harmonisation or counterpoint I have running in my head any more. There are further education colleges a hour's bus ride away from me so I'll check out if/what they offer in terms of night classes while I'm skint.

Nystul: Thanks very much for that little analysis of what's going on with the diminished chord in there. I was struggling with the enharmonicity of the E and C# dim7 chords (it doesn't seem to work if I play the C# at the top end of the chord) and wondering if my Edim chord suddenly became the C#dim7 chord merely by my adding that bass note. Being enharmonic, I couldn't really understand why one should sound different or have a different use to the other, so your points about flexibility and context are very useful. I'll be playing around with your suggestions forthwith!

[HordePrime]

I know nothing about theory.

Then why care about it?

What does it matter how some people (read "classical musicians") might analyse your music? - If you're happy doing what you do, then why worry about conforming to someone else's standards?

A theoretical analysis might be absolutely meaningless. Like trying to be a better driver by reading the technical manual of how the car works.

If it's not written in a certain way, then why shoehorn it into that way just so something technical can be written about it?

[tenshin111]

I know nothing about theory.

Then why care about it?

What does it matter how some people (read "classical musicians") might analyse your music? - If you're happy doing what you do, then why worry about conforming to someone else's standards?

+1000

I stopped worrying about "theoretical" foundations of my music long time ago and it only improved the creative process

[cron]

It's not about value judgement. It's just about being able to get from idea to track as quickly and efficiently as possible. Frustration is setting in a little too easily for me these days I guess.

[jancivil]

that's pretty empty of meaning as relates to the OP.

A theoretical analysis might be absolutely meaningless. Like trying to be a better driver by reading the technical manual of how the car works.

might be? why? when? do you really believe that is an apt analogy?
music is not a car! music is at one level a language. Will knowing how to manage syntax and grammar be 'perhaps' absolutely meaningless?

it's a very daft attempt at an analogy.

there is a desire here to gain more technique in handling of his ideas. I don't know that that has anything to do with measuring up to other's ideas per se; if it does, I wouldn't know why this is per se a bad thing. people that are more comfortable with this diminished seventh chord have obtained an understanding the OP is after.

you're just projecting yourself onto someone else's process, & very glibly.

[jancivil]

It's just about being able to get from idea to track as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Yes, it's about getting better chops, and good on you.

[HordePrime]

people that are more comfortable with this diminished seventh chord have obtained an understanding the OP is after.

I could easily explain how to use a diminished seventh chord. - That is, I could explain how classical musicians used them. But will this really help the OP write better music? Or will it just act as a straightjacket for them?

The OP can be taught how to make his music more consistent with what has come before, but why is that a good thing? Is it not better to be original?

[zerocrossing]

I know nothing about theory.

Then why care about it?

What does it matter how some people (read "classical musicians") might analyse your music? - If you're happy doing what you do, then why worry about conforming to someone else's standards?

A theoretical analysis might be absolutely meaningless. Like trying to be a better driver by reading the technical manual of how the car works.

If it's not written in a certain way, then why shoehorn it into that way just so something technical can be written about it?

I'm in total agreement here. Music theory is a way to talk about music, but has nothing to do with it's enjoyment. Make it sound like you want it and don't worry about describing it. The good thing about music is it is it's own description.

[Aroused by JarJar]

WTF??

I'm reading these threads debating the value of "learning theory" and wondering what planet I'm on. On Earth, "learning theory" consists first and most importantly of ear training.

Any clod can learn and memorize that C-E-G is a major chord and G-B-D-F is the dominant chord of C major and all that stuff. In music theory you have to recognize these things by ear, sing them accurately, transcribe rhythms by ear and tap them out, and so on.

Theoretic stuff like atonal serial music and all that comes later, and might not even be required. Passing grades in ear training however are required whether you go on to classical, modern, jazz, "ethnomusicology", whatever.

"Should I put myself in a position where I'll be helped to learn then graded on whether I can recognize intervals and chord progressions, tap out rhythms, sight sing from notes and so on?"

That's what "should I study music theory" means in real life. That's what happens when you take music theory in a school. Ear training is the foundation of music theory.

[jancivil]

It is amazing, isn't it.

Before I had a real study of theory, I had learned a lot of songs off of lead sheets, as I read music as a child, & I had picked a number of things off purely by ear, directly training my ear. after a year, about, of stabbing at 'Great Songs of the 60's' which my mother bought me for xmas one year, and stabs in the dark at picking some things off records [out of which I found the fundament was just getting intervals to stick in my head], I was writing respectable solid songs at 14.

now here's the reality of this: everytime I got something sussed, solid in my head, I had some 'music theory' to draw on for the next time. [eg., learned the guitar solo in Something, Beatles. It became evident exactly how the line decorated the chord changes] This is what music theory really is. It is not in fact "theory", it is an observation of something that one believes works - it doesn't have to be something every person that's ever been involved with music agrees is absolutely best practice for all of music - and so is going to work the next time. so you make note of it by some kind of principle. It is somewhat like a grammar.

So. When I did get a music theory course, the principles out of that course - which fundamentally came out of a practice period in history, with an historical consensus, unlike the things I had managed - came to me readily, I had great facility. this practice offered me a discipline, clarity of technique and eventually vocabulary I wanted/that were to my estimation valuable things in terms of my potential for growth.

people that do not get this are not above it. this kind of dismissive disdainful bit is really out of ignorance. whether or not it 'enhances enjoyment' is completely besides the point of what it is useful towards.

not everybody needs it. people develop an ear out of experience with music directly and do great things in music and aren't arsed by the mechanics of it.
but even McCartney ran into his ceiling, as brilliant a natural writer as he became.

[jancivil]

I know nothing about theory.

...If you're happy doing what you do...

read the original post. there is somewhere he knows he would like to get to with a moment and wants better tools to facilitate it. where is the problem for you?

[HordePrime]

"learning theory" consists first and most importantly of ear training.

That's not theory, that's aural, a different category, and I agree probably more relevant.
Someone can easily become a master of music theory and be completely deaf.