Hi! I'm typically a techno producer and don't get much into chords and music theory as I tend to be more percussive, but I don't think that's any excuse to be ignorant. I have a few general questions that I haven't yet been able to answer through research.
First is it plausible to have a chord with two notes in one octave and one note in another? It sounds good, but I'm not sure if there's some reason why it doesn't really make sense to do, as I haven't heard of anyone doing this (but that isn't saying much as I'm pretty ignorant on this topic). For example, my 'chord' (and I'm using that word lightly, as I'm not sure if what I'm doing can even be classified as a chord) consists of a C from one octave as a root note, an E, and a C from an octave higher. Shortly after I have a D and an A from one octave, and a D from an octave higher.
I guess I only had one question. Anyway, any insight on this would be really appreciated. Playing these chords sounds good to me, but I'm not entirely educated on the matter and I'm not sure if it makes sense to work this way.
Thank you!
I know little about music theory. Some basic questions about chords.
-
- KVRist
- 39 posts since 26 Mar, 2013
-
- KVRAF
- 2210 posts since 20 Sep, 2013 from Poland
Sure, very common, practically standard. Well, theoretically a chord is three or more notes, so there should be a G along the Cs and the E in there somewhere, but that's really just semantics. Two Cs and and E will in practice function as a C major chord whether the G is there or not.
There's nothing wrong with having a chord spread across a few octaves to make it bigger, it's practically standard procedure. C, E, G and C an octave higher would be a very very common pianist voicing. A guitarist will often play a C major chord as C and G in one octave, C, E and G in a higher octave, and finally another C two octaves above the first C. And when you have a chord whose notes are spread across an entire orchestra, band or several tracks of sub-bass, bass and pads, you'll have even more octaves.
With such big chords you do have to make sure you're not taking up too much sonic space which is needed by any other sounds, especially any leads or melodies.
There's nothing wrong with having a chord spread across a few octaves to make it bigger, it's practically standard procedure. C, E, G and C an octave higher would be a very very common pianist voicing. A guitarist will often play a C major chord as C and G in one octave, C, E and G in a higher octave, and finally another C two octaves above the first C. And when you have a chord whose notes are spread across an entire orchestra, band or several tracks of sub-bass, bass and pads, you'll have even more octaves.
With such big chords you do have to make sure you're not taking up too much sonic space which is needed by any other sounds, especially any leads or melodies.
-
- KVRian
- 626 posts since 25 Jun, 2013
Well, simply put, the answer is yes, and you hear it all the time.
D3, A3, D4 is just a powerchord. It's very common.
C and E can just be an implied C chord.
If you're this worried about what you can and can't do, then you gotta study up! Clearly music theory is something that can work well for you.
It's a commitment.
It'll take you half a year to develop an understanding of it, and then you'll be off, with a solid foundation that will make this whole thing a lot more comfortable and a lot more fun.
http://www.musictheory.net/lessons
That's a great place to start. It's where I did.
There are so many free resources available these days too. Wikipedia can be great for reference. It's why I linked it.
In general, Arnie Berle said something very important to all musicians in a book I have. I'll paraphrase: Learn what you feel you need to learn, and brush over the rest.
There are a few things in music theory that are relics from a much older generation. Don't be intimidated and just gloss over what you don't need - or ignore it entirely.
Edit: DSmolken beat me to the punch!
Oh well. 
D3, A3, D4 is just a powerchord. It's very common.
C and E can just be an implied C chord.
If you're this worried about what you can and can't do, then you gotta study up! Clearly music theory is something that can work well for you.
It's a commitment.
It'll take you half a year to develop an understanding of it, and then you'll be off, with a solid foundation that will make this whole thing a lot more comfortable and a lot more fun.
http://www.musictheory.net/lessons
That's a great place to start. It's where I did.
There are so many free resources available these days too. Wikipedia can be great for reference. It's why I linked it.
In general, Arnie Berle said something very important to all musicians in a book I have. I'll paraphrase: Learn what you feel you need to learn, and brush over the rest.
There are a few things in music theory that are relics from a much older generation. Don't be intimidated and just gloss over what you don't need - or ignore it entirely.
Edit: DSmolken beat me to the punch!
Oh well. -
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 39 posts since 26 Mar, 2013
Thank you both, so, so much. That is extremely helpful and enlightening. You both really went above and beyond and I so appreciate it. I'll definitely keep studying up on music theory, and I assume I'll be back here with more questions at some point.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
-
- KVRAF
- 2616 posts since 17 Apr, 2004
Particularly on a guitar you get chords split up over many octaves. This is simply due to the physical properties of a guitar. For example, a standard open E has E B E' as the first three notes of the chord (starting from the lowest string and moving upwards) - the second E is an octave higher than the first one. There's no way to include the G or G# in a minor or major chord on the first three strings unless you play the note on the lowest E string - which means you no longer have the root (the low E) there. Normally you'll find the root note is the most strongly accented note, although it obviously doesn't need to be.
The chords you're using, with the root and the fifth are power chords on a guitar as posted above. These don't have a minor or major flavour, as they simply consist of the root note and the fifth. These two notes make up the vast majority of basic chords (major, minor, suspended 2nd and 4th, 7, 9 etc. etc.) and are particularly strongly related. On a guitar, these are generally played on only the lower three strings - ideally with heavy distortion for that true rock feeling.
Power chords are frequently notated using '5', e.g. D5 is just D and A; E5 is E and B.
Your C E C' chord is essentially a C major without the fifth (G). Try throwing the G in there as well and notice how everything seems to fit nicely.
When starting out, you might find it easiest to stick to one key and just use the safe chords in that key. For example, in C major:
C F G (major chords)
Am Dm Em (minor chords)
Best thing you can do is look up chord progressions for classic hits from the last 50 years or so. You'll notice that most of them only use a few chords and that the same chord progressions crop up time and time again (albeit often in different keys).
The chords you're using, with the root and the fifth are power chords on a guitar as posted above. These don't have a minor or major flavour, as they simply consist of the root note and the fifth. These two notes make up the vast majority of basic chords (major, minor, suspended 2nd and 4th, 7, 9 etc. etc.) and are particularly strongly related. On a guitar, these are generally played on only the lower three strings - ideally with heavy distortion for that true rock feeling.
Power chords are frequently notated using '5', e.g. D5 is just D and A; E5 is E and B.
Your C E C' chord is essentially a C major without the fifth (G). Try throwing the G in there as well and notice how everything seems to fit nicely.
When starting out, you might find it easiest to stick to one key and just use the safe chords in that key. For example, in C major:
C F G (major chords)
Am Dm Em (minor chords)
Best thing you can do is look up chord progressions for classic hits from the last 50 years or so. You'll notice that most of them only use a few chords and that the same chord progressions crop up time and time again (albeit often in different keys).
-
- KVRAF
- 7837 posts since 20 Jan, 2008
The odd thing about power chords. As much as I want to believe they are chords everything I've ever read tells me they aren't. Thst doesn't stop us from treating them as chords. Nor should it stop anyone else. While power chords have been part of the medium of popular music for the last 80 or so years in popular music they are still shunned by those "intro to music theory community college types"
The character of your instruments sound, the register the notes are played in and the processing of the sound can have a direct impact on the usability of a primary chord or power chord. Not to mention the "character" of the piece.
When working with a power chord the third not being overt gives the chord a sense of ambiguity. If you listen to a lot of rock with power chords even though the key of the piece may be major both blues and rock players often use a mixture of minor or major 3rd in the melody.
When working with two notes that form a diad such as the root and third the chord nature can become even more ambiguous. Lets take the previous example of
C-C-E. sure it could be a c-major chord. it could also be an Am chord with a C in the base A-C-E. The tonic of the chord isn't always expressed as the lowest note of the chord. And sometimes it may not be expressed at all. Assuming you've got an F note as part of the melody it could also be percieved as An F Major 7th F-A-C-E
Keyboard players often learn these "rootless" chords and inversions. Sometimes the root is expressed in a different instrument and sometimes it's implied by the melody.
Rootless chords, inversions and less common chord subsitutions are fun so long as you know where the root lays. If you go down this path and perform in a group setting you will have to explain what you are doing to your fellow band mates. It's not uncommon in a rhythm section where one has a guitar and a keyboard both laying down the rhythm that one lays down just the foundationa and the other one picks up the rest both rhytmiclly and harmonically. As well it becomes very very hard for a singer or a lead instrumentalist to follow the harmony if thier is too much ambiguity going on.
There was this great rhythm guitars by the name of Freddie Green. He was "Steady Freddie" band members loved his simplistic "comping" approach for guitar because no matter how crazy the rest of the big band got doing different explorations into harmony and melody Freddie always stayed true. Sometimes it's easy to get lost as you explore the possiblities that playing chords has to offer. If you lay down A simple "Comping" track even if you don't use it in the end it will function as a pathfinder back home. It will also give you a reference between differences in chord character.
The character of your instruments sound, the register the notes are played in and the processing of the sound can have a direct impact on the usability of a primary chord or power chord. Not to mention the "character" of the piece.
When working with a power chord the third not being overt gives the chord a sense of ambiguity. If you listen to a lot of rock with power chords even though the key of the piece may be major both blues and rock players often use a mixture of minor or major 3rd in the melody.
When working with two notes that form a diad such as the root and third the chord nature can become even more ambiguous. Lets take the previous example of
C-C-E. sure it could be a c-major chord. it could also be an Am chord with a C in the base A-C-E. The tonic of the chord isn't always expressed as the lowest note of the chord. And sometimes it may not be expressed at all. Assuming you've got an F note as part of the melody it could also be percieved as An F Major 7th F-A-C-E
Keyboard players often learn these "rootless" chords and inversions. Sometimes the root is expressed in a different instrument and sometimes it's implied by the melody.
Rootless chords, inversions and less common chord subsitutions are fun so long as you know where the root lays. If you go down this path and perform in a group setting you will have to explain what you are doing to your fellow band mates. It's not uncommon in a rhythm section where one has a guitar and a keyboard both laying down the rhythm that one lays down just the foundationa and the other one picks up the rest both rhytmiclly and harmonically. As well it becomes very very hard for a singer or a lead instrumentalist to follow the harmony if thier is too much ambiguity going on.
There was this great rhythm guitars by the name of Freddie Green. He was "Steady Freddie" band members loved his simplistic "comping" approach for guitar because no matter how crazy the rest of the big band got doing different explorations into harmony and melody Freddie always stayed true. Sometimes it's easy to get lost as you explore the possiblities that playing chords has to offer. If you lay down A simple "Comping" track even if you don't use it in the end it will function as a pathfinder back home. It will also give you a reference between differences in chord character.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 39 posts since 26 Mar, 2013
Awesome! Thank you both for the additional information and clarification. The context on this is greatly appreciated. Cheers!
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
If it sounds good to you, you should never let any music theory tell you that it does not make sense IMO. Music theory applies if you want to know what you are doing in musical terms or whether you are innovative or not according to established conventions or if you try to write in a certain conventional style or just for any other reason than letting any "expert" instruct you what to do in your own music. The latter would kill music as a free art form and may even destroy your innovative potentials.civita wrote: Playing these chords sounds good to me, but I'm not entirely educated on the matter and I'm not sure if it makes sense to work this way.
Just my two cents.
Cheers
-
- KVRist
- 64 posts since 11 Apr, 2013
Think about the orchestra. Each string instrument can play a single note (well, there are exceptions, double stops, etc). Lets ignore double stops and divisi for a second and just look at a standard orchestra. If you wish to have a chord of strings, you have first violins, second violins, violas, cellos, and basses. Only 5 possible places to split the notes of your chord. It is going to span octaves frequently.
Check out my latest single Hostile Takeover
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 39 posts since 26 Mar, 2013
Much appreciated. This makes a lot of sense, and I'll certainly apply it to my music. I was just curious if, with my little knowledge, it was pointless (somehow) doing it my way and there was a more effective way to do it. Now I see that that it's fine!IncarnateX wrote:If it sounds good to you, you should never let any music theory tell you that it does not make sense IMO. Music theory applies if you want to know what you are doing in musical terms or whether you are innovative or not according to established conventions or if you try to write in a certain conventional style or just for any other reason than letting any "expert" instruct you what to do in your own music. The latter would kill music as a free art form and may even destroy your innovative potentials.civita wrote: Playing these chords sounds good to me, but I'm not entirely educated on the matter and I'm not sure if it makes sense to work this way.
Just my two cents.
Cheers
This is great. So essentially what I could do then, if I'm thinking of producing in terms of an orchestra, is take my higher octave C and place it with a higher octave instrument, and even take my lower octave C and place it with a bassier instrument. I definitely see myself spreading notes between instruments and octaves in the future. Thank you!Iostream wrote:Think about the orchestra. Each string instrument can play a single note (well, there are exceptions, double stops, etc). Lets ignore double stops and divisi for a second and just look at a standard orchestra. If you wish to have a chord of strings, you have first violins, second violins, violas, cellos, and basses. Only 5 possible places to split the notes of your chord. It is going to span octaves frequently.
-
- KVRAF
- 1800 posts since 10 Feb, 2007
Doubling notes and put the on other octaves is called chord voicing. Take a look at this:
http://www.8notes.com/school/theory/voicing_chords.asp
http://www.8notes.com/school/theory/voicing_chords.asp