Notes that want to go to other notes? What is this called?

[cj31387]

I've noticed in music when you do a couple notes the next note seems to want to go to a certain note. Or the last note of your melody wants to go back to the tonic. Is there a field of theory on this or info on this? I'd really like to study this in depth. Are there also more degrees to it. For instance maybe when you have a melody that has a few notes already the next one kind of wants to be a specific note. Finally is there also any info on scale degrees like if your using a few notes from a scale is there theory on what the next note sounds like it wants to go to a certain scale degree? Well I know there is some theory on this somewhere because I've seen software that randomly (well not randomly that's the point) generates good sounding music.

Thanks in advance any info would be appreciated.

[cryophonik]

Read up on dissonance, consonance, tension, and resolution.

[cj31387]

Thanks.

[codec_spurt]

Also it may not be what you are talking about, but if you look up those other things, then look up 'blue notes' or 'ghost notes' - technically they are dissonant according to the scales they are played in, and certainly they provide massive tension, which makes their resolution back to the tonic even more profound.

See B.B.King.

Dey don't call it da blues fur nuthin'! But jazz and many other forms of popular music play about with this construct.

Technically I suppose you are playing a quarter note in the scale as opposed to the smallest increment which would be a half-tone or semi-tone. So that would be half of that, but I think you will find it is still not quite that clear cut.

Ask your local Sitar player, he will laugh, charge you 30 rupees and smack you on the side of your head when you are not looking - all good stuff for enlightenment!

Then again you could do a Ritchie Blackmore or Yngwie J. Malmsteen and scallop your fretboard. I prefer mine with chips. And it's certainly cheaper... Though maybe not so tasty...


Then there are the notes between the blue notes - purple notes I think they are called.

But I probably just misunderstood your question so ignore me.


cheers.

[codec_spurt]

Or perhaps this is what you meant:
http://jguitar.com/chord?root=A&chord=7 ... &fingers=4

This provides massive tension through dissonance but happily playing a
http://jguitar.com/chord?root=D&chord=M ... &fingers=4

resolves this into heavenly consonance

It's the reason 7th chords were invented - they're f*** all use for anything else.

Been writing over 20 years and used my first one the other day - oh the joy.


Yep, dissonance provides the tension and consonance provides the resolution.

It's why some chords are called 'Dominant', or 'Sub-Dominant', or 'Root'.
Those three chords are your classic three chord trick. Just don't end up playing bloody Status Quo, or you'll be in trouble. Actually they weren't a bad band. What am I talking about. But they knew every version and inversion in that rule book and when to break it. Take it down a tone and a half for variation sometimes. Resolves lovely when you get back to the root. Anyway, learn everything they wrote and you won't go far wrong. Chas 'n' Dave too...




Check out the cello section if you want a master class in resolution/dissolution/tension/thanking fu** the song is over .


all the best.

[Jafo]

They're also commonly called "leading tones," especially if chromatically altered, because they lead the listener's ear to the next tone. It's all about tension and resolution, as others have said above.

[tapper mike]

There aren't any notes that "need" to go to other notes. There are however special attention notes in classical music known as "leading tones" These are generally the major 7th note which "wants" to resolve to the root. It is this type of framework which is why the leading tone is often omitted from counterpoint.

There are of course "neighboring" and "passing tones" A passing tone is a tone between two scale tones. In the blues the flatted 5th is often treated in this manner. A passing tone between the 4th and the 5th. The "Blues Scale" is no more then the minor pentatonic with the added flat five and many blues rock and other popular forms of music gravitate around the use of the blues scale. Blues as well as other popular forms utilize the flatten third in conjunction with the major third. this is a neighboring tone. Rarely one finds all those notes in the same constructed form. Blues and rock players often mix and match the Mixolydian scale with the blues scale. Taking a phrase from one then possibly adding a "color" tone then following with the other scale.

A neighboring tone is a tone that is near (a half tone) above or below the chord tone. Blues and Rock often mix and match the minor third and the major third. And jazz especially the likes of Duke Ellington like to move int a chord ton from a non chord tone above of below it. This is commonly referred to as "Bumping"

[jancivil]

actually, in harmony class or part-writing/voice leading type of terms, 'passing tone' refers to a tone occurring stepwise between 'chord tones', a type of 'non-harmonic' tone; similiarly 'neighboring tone' refers to a tone next to a chord tone by step that returns to the chord tone. It might be a 'complete' neighbor in that it neighbors a chord tone either way, or an 'incomplete' neighbor neighboring only one note residing in the given harmony.
this is its meaning, in the context of harmony.

EG: 'escape' or eschapee is a type of unaccented incomplete neighbor tone which is approached stepwise from a chord tone and resolved by a skip in the opposite direction back to the harmony.

Cf., appogiatura is a type of accented incomplete neighbor tone approached skip-wise from one chord tone and resolved stepwise to another chord tone.

Now this is a bunch of lingo unless one has encountered these moves in some actual music.

here, one finds that in context, certain notes have a tendency, or even a drive to other notes out of expectation and convention, per the harmony if nothing else.

[jancivil]

...resolves this into heavenly consonance

It's the reason 7th chords were invented - they're f*** all use for anything else.

Been writing over 20 years and used my first one the other day - oh the joy.

- yet you appear to be writing authoritatively on what they are for. Out of what experience?

In jazz or funk, or rock music, all kinds of applications, people actually use 'seventh chords' (which there are a variety of types of) that do not resolve. EG: James Brown, Hendrix, the "I" chord can perfectly well be a major third/minor seventh type; which has acquired the nominative 'Dominant seventh' out of a particular context. It's conventional. The technical term for that is major/minor seventh.

The need to resolve such an object belongs to context, belongs to convention. Outside of the context or convention it may be something else, and has been found useful as such.

[JumpingJackFlash]

It's why some chords are called 'Dominant', or 'Sub-Dominant', or 'Root'.

Don't confuse Root with Tonic.


Also, as non-harmonic notes have been mentioned, my introduction to ornamental, unessential, and non-harmony notes might be useful.

[codec_spurt]

...resolves this into heavenly consonance

It's the reason 7th chords were invented - they're f*** all use for anything else.

Been writing over 20 years and used my first one the other day - oh the joy.

- yet you appear to be writing authoritatively on what they are for. Out of what experience?

In jazz or funk, or rock music, all kinds of applications, people actually use 'seventh chords' (which there are a variety of types of) that do not resolve. EG: James Brown, Hendrix, the "I" chord can perfectly well be a major third/minor seventh type; which has acquired the nominative 'Dominant seventh' out of a particular context. It's conventional. The technical term for that is major/minor seventh.

The need to resolve such an object belongs to context, belongs to convention. Outside of the context or convention it may be something else, and has been found useful as such.

You are quite right. I am a bluffer. And a found out bluffer which is worse.
The horror, the shame. So I " appear to be writing authoritatively on what they are for. Out of what experience? ". Got me there good sir. Let's just say you caught out a bullshitter. I admit it, I tried to get one over, it didn't work, I got caught out. I must now suffer the shame. Discourse shall be between friends. Now please use the reverse:"Oh you are playing the victim", to which I will say: "Please sir, do not beat me any more, harder"

It was a nice conversation while it lasted. I did not try to best you. I asked civil questions which you did not answer. Carry on. I'm a fuckwit. Well done.


But if you can tell me what a 7th chord is used for, I will send you and your beloved a box of Belgian chocolates.


I still think you got a lot to learn about music my boy!



And next time, try to be a bit more civil when talking to a gentleman.

[codec_spurt]

It's why some chords are called 'Dominant', or 'Sub-Dominant', or 'Root'.

Don't confuse Root with Tonic.


Also, as non-harmonic notes have been mentioned, my introduction to ornamental, unessential, and non-harmony notes might be useful.

Oh thank you for educating me. I didn't think there was a difference.

I shall now learn the difference between the Root and the Tonic, and when I do I won't talk out of turn again.


cheers.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I shall now learn the difference between the Root and the Tonic

Basically, a Root is the lowest note of a chord when the notes are arranged so there is a third between each one (it is the note that the chord is named after). Whereas the Tonic is the first note that a scale starts on, or a chord built using that note as the root (it is the note that the scale and key is named after).

For example, if you're in C major, the tonic will always be C (or C major). The root however changes when you change chord. If you have a G chord, the root is G. If you have a Dm chord, the root is D, and so on.

[seacouch]

And next time, try to be a bit more civil when talking to a gentleman.

Wow, someone complaining about Civil's behavior in the theory forum. That's a new one, huh?

[jancivil]

...resolves this into heavenly consonance

It's the reason 7th chords were invented - they're f*** all use for anything else.

Been writing over 20 years and used my first one the other day - oh the joy.

- yet you appear to be writing authoritatively on what they are for. Out of what experience?

In jazz or funk, or rock music, all kinds of applications, people actually use 'seventh chords' (which there are a variety of types of) that do not resolve. EG: James Brown, Hendrix, the "I" chord can perfectly well be a major third/minor seventh type; which has acquired the nominative 'Dominant seventh' out of a particular context. It's conventional. The technical term for that is major/minor seventh.

The need to resolve such an object belongs to context, belongs to convention. Outside of the context or convention it may be something else, and has been found useful as such.

You are quite right. I am a bluffer. And a found out bluffer which is worse.
The horror, the shame. So I " appear to be writing authoritatively on what they are for. Out of what experience? ". Got me there good sir. Let's just say you caught out a bullshitter. I admit it, I tried to get one over, it didn't work, I got caught out. I must now suffer the shame. Discourse shall be between friends. Now please use the reverse:"Oh you are playing the victim", to which I will say: "Please sir, do not beat me any more, harder"

It was a nice conversation while it lasted. I did not try to best you. I asked civil questions which you did not answer. Carry on. I'm a fuckwit. Well done.


But if you can tell me what a 7th chord is used for, I will send you and your beloved a box of Belgian chocolates.


I still think you got a lot to learn about music my boy!



And next time, try to be a bit more civil when talking to a gentleman.

Everyone has a lot to learn about music. You seem interested in your own confidence here, rather.

What question did you ask again?

NB: the use of any concepts or materials in music depends on context, which should be quite clear in what I wrote. I am not interpreting your statement, it is evident that you sought to make an authoritative statement about 'seventh chords' following your imperious disdain of them, having only recently stooped to such usage. I have only your words to work with and they aren't helping anyone understand the thing, I assure you.

You are bluffing. Now, it isn't so interesting to me why you need to present like this here. As to your discourse, you have imagined a quality of conversation that I wouldn't have, and it would be treading with some peril here to offer further counsel on this.