Why is this "wrong" chord progression working so nice???

[crazyfiltertweaker]

The following chord progression is working better than the "right" chord progression, but why???

Eb Bb Cm Gm D E B Gm

There are many "wrong" steps like B to Gm or Gm to D, which does not exists in music theory, but why is it working so nice??

I tried every scenario, there is no explaination with modulation, no explaination with parallel scales, a.s.o. I dont understand why this chord progression is working so fine and why the right chord progression with G to D and B to Gb is not working in this context...

Some pro knows some answer please?

[Sendy]

Functional harmony has been dead* since the Beatles. A lot of chord sequences work because they're breaking the rules - mixing up major and minor, hidden tritones, tonal ambiguity.

* Well maybe not dead, but more, it can be considered a "path" which is useful to us but that we can stray off of. And in some cases knowing the path is there is the key to leaving and returning to it in a meaningful way.

If you can't tell, I tend to wing it when it comes to this kinda thing.

TLDR: There is no "wrong".

[DSmolken]

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in practice, there is. I think Yogi Berra said that.

I also really like what Schoenberg said several times in his harmony textbook: that every rule will be broken in a later chapter when the student is more advanced.

It's hard to really say much not knowing the context (especially the melody this is harmonizing), but really B to Gm is not some huge shift. Each note in the B chord is only a half-step away from a note in the Gm. Also, the only note in a B chord that's not in a G minor scale is the B itself. The D# is enharmonically the same as Eb, and the F# is the leading tone in G harmonic or melodic minor. So, really, you only have one note that's chromatic, and every note in the chord can move very easily and smoothly to a note in the next. It's not going to have a very strong sense of tension and resolution like D7 to Gm would, but it's not really anything wild.

[J.F.K.]

It could be seen as this:



But how Sendy has already said: The functional harmony theory should not be overestimated. It is called "theory" because it is something different than practice.

[HaganeSteel]

The following chord progression is working better than the "right" chord progression, but why???

Eb Bb Cm Gm D E B Gm

There are many "wrong" steps like B to Gm or Gm to D, which does not exists in music theory, but why is it working so nice??

I tried every scenario, there is no explaination with modulation, no explaination with parallel scales, a.s.o. I dont understand why this chord progression is working so fine and why the right chord progression with G to D and B to Gb is not working in this context...

Some pro knows some answer please?

This chord progression isn't wrong. That's why it works.

It's a very standard chord progression. You're just probably using key changes.

Eb and Bb are separated by a perfect fifth or fourth depending on which way you go.

So are Cm and Gm.

As is G to D.

As is E to B.

G is a perfect fourth above E.

The reason it works is because of the intervals. By moving in fourths/fifths, the chords feel natural.

The Eb Major chord is Cm7 minus the root note, so Cm actually fits very well in that progression, and that gives you room to both key change and move down a perfect fourth to Gm, whose notes are also in the C minor scale.

The chord progression you're using is @#$%ing brilliant, but it's not wrong, and is in fact using pretty standard techniques, just in advanced ways.

Good on you for using that.

Edit: Just want to jump in here and explain further: B to Gm is probably not wrong because of context. You might also be using inversions or anything that may make it sound better.

For example, moving from B to Gm in such a way that all the notes move only half-steps, this can be heard and interpreted as a passing chord depending on the context. I've heard a lot of these types of chords used.

It's not a bad sound at all provided it's used well and buried in the song. "Used well" is the operative term here, and context is what determines that - on a case-by-case basis.

Edit #2: Just want to jump in here again and say that to summarize my post:

The key ingredient to forming a good chord progression is interval, and you're using all the proper intervals from what I can tell.

The beautiful thing about interval is how context sensitive it is. Even going from C to F# has its place.

Sorry if I got anything wrong - that's really what I was getting at. I'm very hypoglycemic and it is currently affecting my level of consciousness right now.

[jancivil]

'music theory' is a misnomer anyway. It has to do with observations and described procedures of a given practice. 'it breaks the rules' has meaning only in context. If you're trying to limit yourself to what was known to have been done in 1830 or somewhere, you could be said to be breaking rules but if people then did not do new things, music would be stuck, and it was never stuck like that.
There are a couple of things where Carlo Gesualdo leaped ahead in terms of 'music theory' several centuries, actually.



"which does not exists in music theory" isn't too meaningful. Every move in this can be described in terms of something in some 'music theory', there isn't anything really radical here. Perhaps the one seemingly daring move 'B to Gm' could be found I'm sure well over a hundred years ago [if not in Gesualdo in the 16th c.] and was described well above.

[fluffy_little_something]

I also have the problem that sometimes I don't know if a note is a wrong or a blue note, i.e. if it sounds outright wrong or just spooky The more often one hears such a note or chord, the less wrong it sounds...

[robogone]

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in practice, there is. I think Yogi Berra said that.

Because he's smarter than the average bear!

[BachRules]

does not exists in music theory....

Some pro knows some answer please?[/color]

"Music theory" is a lot of different people trying to sell a lot of different books which contradict one another. Whether it exists in "music theory" depends on which book you read.

[MadBrain]

does not exists in music theory....

Some pro knows some answer please?[/color]

"Music theory" is a lot of different people trying to sell a lot of different books which contradict one another. Whether it exists in "music theory" depends on which book you read.

That's because music theory is more like "technique for making nice sounding music". It doesn't have to be consistent. Though to be fair, most of it is saying essentially the same stuff, but in different ways and stressing different angles.