KVR Audio

crazyfiltertweaker · Post by **crazyfiltertweaker** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:17 pm

yes I know nothing forbitten but is this in music theory correct? which theoretic background?

itneveris · Post by **itneveris** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:54 pm

Not true in any way, shape or form.

Theory is merely descriptive, it doesn't have rules

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:23 pm

There is no such thing as 'correct in theory' per se. There is really no such thing as "in theory". The 'theory' part of the term 'music theory' is a misnomer, really. 'Music theory' exists to convey and articulate practices that are known to work by a consistent framework. Where there are 'rules', these are really *principles* towards getting a result, and that result is desirable through an adherence to a style, a common practice.

There has to be a musical idea to talk about, a context. We'd be forced to wear shoes that are too tight to even begin to walk in if 'VI to I' was 'incorrect' in itself.

cryophonik · Post by **cryophonik** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:31 pm

crazyfiltertweaker wrote:yes I know nothing forbitten but is this in music theory correct? which theoretic background?

Ask yourself what the penalty would be if there was such a thing as incorrect chord progressions. That's where you'll find the answer.

crazyfiltertweaker · Post by **crazyfiltertweaker** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:25 pm

cryophonik wrote:
crazyfiltertweaker wrote:yes I know nothing forbitten but is this in music theory correct? which theoretic background?
Ask yourself what the penalty would be if there was such a thing as incorrect chord progressions. That's where you'll find the answer.

nobody likes it, except of me?

Deep Purple · Post by **Deep Purple** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:43 pm

You're going to find that every combination of chords has probably been used before in popular music. Just because some arbitrary guidelines suggest you shouldn't, it doesn't mean that a chord sequence will sound bad.

There are numerous instances of excellent popular songwriting using chord sequences that purists would frown upon.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:14 pm

crazyfiltertweaker wrote:
cryophonik wrote:
crazyfiltertweaker wrote:is this in music theory correct? which theoretic background?
Ask yourself what the penalty would be
nobody likes it

VI to I?

You need to get involved with music on the for-real side. Looks like you're hoping reading about stuff is going to amount to a recipe. It doesn't work like that at all.

MadBrain · Post by **MadBrain** » Sat May 02, 2015 2:13 am

Smells Like Teen Spirit (F minor)
Im IVm III VI (repeat)
http://tinyurl.com/adqr86y (youtube link)

VI in minor (or bVI in major) is a predominant, and you can make "plagal" cadences using predominants - cadences like IVm Im or IIm7b5 Im or VI Im work, even though they don't resolve as strongly as cadences like V7 Im, Vm Im or VII Im.

Best I could come up for VI I in major has VIm V/VII I
(so it has one extra chord in-between)
Buddy Holly (Ab major)
VIm V/VII I
VIm V/VII I
IV IIIm VIm
IV IIIm VIm
IV IVm
I IV V
I IV V
VIm IV V I
I IV V I
http://tinyurl.com/pb6vpa2 (youtube link)

VIm in major is kinda different, it tends to act more like a tonic in the parallel minor key to my ears... for instance, Am in C major tends to sorta turn the key into A minor for a few chords, so that Am C sounds a bit like a modulation.

FF7 Ost - Anxious Heart (F minor)
Im #VIm7b5
Im #VIm7b5
III V
III Vsus4 V
Im #VIm7b5 (4x)
III V
III Vsus4 V
I VII (2x)
Im7 (2x)
http://tinyurl.com/nyre2lm (youtube link)

In minor, #VI or #VIm7b5 seem to very rarely lead into Im, but it can happen, especially if you're going back to the tonic without going through the rest of the chord progression that normally falls out of #VI or #VIm7b5 (something like #VIm7b5 VI V7 Im or #VIm7b5 II7 V7 Im).

padillac · Post by **padillac** » Sat May 02, 2015 5:12 am

Does it sound good to you?

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Tue May 05, 2015 3:45 am

I absolutely need more than the mere appearance of 'vi' for that to become the new key for me. There could be situations owing to things like the energy of the bass note if in root position, I don't know. But that's special more than typical. vi and I share two notes in common, so our common practice period considers such a change as weak, ie., a string of this kind of thing in progression is called a weak progression. Not pejoratively but in terms of movement; a chord a third away is as little as can happen and be a change of harmony.

Zeus117 · Post by **Zeus117** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:20 am

crazyfiltertweaker wrote:yes I know nothing forbitten but is this in music theory correct? which theoretic background?

It may be better to look at this as I-III. based on the frame of reference.

here are some simple possibilities If u would continue this chord progression.

I-III-I
I-III(V/vi)-vi- the world is your oyster.

I-III7-i-V-I this shiz is ambiguis
tonic- Ger+6- mode mix minor i (put eb in bass)-V-I

ispot · Post by **ispot** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:53 am

They are both tonic chords form major point of view, both stable so you could use some instable glue to make it more interesting. like V7, bVII, IV... but as previously said there are no rules. i had some good teachers who could play a major 3th against a minor chord as long as you embellish/use it sensible. but i wouldn't use that in a trance tune

elnn · Post by **elnn** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:51 am

ispot wrote:They are both tonic chords form major point of view

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:58 am

elnn wrote:
ispot wrote:They are both tonic chords form major point of view

I still think people are obsessed with chords. The point is: Where do you come from? Where do you want to go? How?
Transferring this to literature, it would be like someone asking if one could use a verb followed by another verb, or an adjective followed by another adjective.

elnn · Post by **elnn** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:27 am

fmr wrote:
elnn wrote:
ispot wrote:They are both tonic chords form major point of view

I still think people are obsessed with chords. The point is: Where do you come from? Where do you want to go? How?
Transferring this to literature, it would be like someone asking if one could use a verb followed by another verb, or an adjective followed by another adjective.

No, it wouldn't at all be like that, not a good analogy. A better one would be whether one should use a magenta, purple or a red. Or maybe a green would be unexpectedly pleasant. In relationship with this shape right here. And the lighting of the scene, as well.

Or do you want to say obsessed with functional harmony? That's not the same as chords, but with this I'd have to agree. Not for the same reasons though. And not with functional harmony per se, but the obsession with the presumed algorithmicity of it. Goes both ways - trying to learn to use it as such or bashing it for making music formulaic and slowly closing the student $inside the box$. Both rest on the same faulty presumption and don't get past the pleasures of ass-whooping or the questions such as those op has bugging him here.

VI to I correct in theory?