Damn. Now who's going to pick up my mistakes.Toxikator wrote:Euh. Mute.
Shows us Theory Newbies how to implement chords.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Anyway, OP, back to your post, whether or not you DO analyze the IV as being from the melodic minor or borrowed from the Dorian depends on what you follow it with; will you be following with a minor v or a Major V? If it's the former, since you won't be employing the #7 (characteristic of the melodic minor) then it's going to be borrowed. If you follow it with a V, then it should be considered part of the melodic minor form (as it has the #7 leading tone). Which form you use would probably reflect how you played the melody over top of it; the melodic minor form would likely (not always) experience some sort of shift back to the natural minor (traditionally, it's melodic ascending and natural descending, but this is of course open to interpretation). If it's borrowed from the dorian (as in it's a temporary switch for the duration of that chord) it's more likely that the melody would simply avoid the n6, though of course the melody (and possibly, the entire piece) could just be in Dorian.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
-
- KVRAF
- 2327 posts since 13 Apr, 2004 from Vancouver, Canada
Jesus mate. WTF??? This pissing match between you two is getting rather trite.nuffink wrote:Damn. Now who's going to pick up my mistakes.Toxikator wrote:Euh. Mute.
As much as you might like to claim superiority in the theory dept, Toxikator's posts are often quite informative (even if a little long-winded most of the time).
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
nuffink wrote:You should be very careful about taking advice from our little problem child. He likes to throw around words like "chromatic subdominant" because it makes it sound like he knows what he's talking about.
nuffink wrote:I'm sure toxi could define them in pure chromatic bullshit given enough time.
Come on nuffink, this is unnecessary. You've already got one topic full of your rants; do not degrade this one to the same level. In this case your comments are completely unfounded. You are not disagreeing with any specific statement, you are just hurling abuse. Although I'm not a moderator, in my book this constitutes a personal attack.nuffink wrote:Is that the same textbook that leads you to make a fool of yourself with every post? I'd get a new one if I were you.
I think an apology is in order.From the rules wrote:Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will result in your post being edited / deleted, and you may be issued with a warning and / or a ban.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
Long before a specific forum existed this place used to have a number of knowlegable folk who often posted on theory matters. Ever wonder what happened to them?advaya wrote:Jesus mate. WTF??? This pissing match between you two is getting rather trite.nuffink wrote:Damn. Now who's going to pick up my mistakes.Toxikator wrote:Euh. Mute.
As much as you might like to claim superiority in the theory dept, Toxikator's posts are often quite informative (even if a little long-winded most of the time).
I don't. I've got a private messagebox loaded with pm's saying the same thing. They won't bother while toxi is shitting all over everything they post.
Toxi wanted a war, he's got it. The place needs fumigating and whether or not you like it, he's going.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
You need to be quiet for a while.JumpingJackFlash wrote:nuffink wrote:You should be very careful about taking advice from our little problem child. He likes to throw around words like "chromatic subdominant" because it makes it sound like he knows what he's talking about.nuffink wrote:I'm sure toxi could define them in pure chromatic bullshit given enough time.Come on nuffink, this is unnecessary. You've already got one topic full of your rants; do not degrade this one to the same level. In this case your comments are completely unfounded. You are not disagreeing with any specific statement, you are just hurling abuse. Although I'm not a moderator, in my book this constitutes a personal attack.nuffink wrote:Is that the same textbook that leads you to make a fool of yourself with every post? I'd get a new one if I were you.
I think an apology is in order.From the rules wrote:Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will result in your post being edited / deleted, and you may be issued with a warning and / or a ban.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
- KVRian
- 649 posts since 18 Dec, 2004
Thanks, Guybrush, that's a good point. Even in guitar based rock and roll, using inversions makes a difference. Try C - G/B - Am - G. Let the bass player pick up the B in the 2nd chord.Guybrush wrote:A little tip from me as a pianoplayer:
Making your chords and progressions sound nice is not only about having the right notes (harmonies, chords) but alot about in what order you play the notes in them. Say you want to write a progressions from C to F, beginners usually lay each chord in it's standard variation; C: c-e-g to F: f-a-c. When writing progressions (maybe mostly using a keyboard, pianoroll or something that works like the keys of a piano) the general rule of thumb is: The less motion the smoother sound. Skipping between different parts of your keyboard for your chords genrerally sounds noobish. With the C to F progression try playing your C chord with the (2nd) voicing e-g-c and so that you just need to move your thumb and middle finger to f and a while you keep your pinky at the c - since that note is in both chords (first the root note then the fifth).
Ever wondered how all those awsome jazzpianists make their progressions sound smooth? Just lay your chords with voicings that stay the closest possible togheter.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
JumpingJackFlash wrote:I think an apology is in order.From the rules wrote:Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will result in your post being edited / deleted, and you may be issued with a warning and / or a ban.
Aw, let him have his fun. It's his very last little stretch as KvR's only resident theorist, don't take that away from him.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1891 posts since 9 Oct, 2004 from Columbus,Ohio
This is a lot to digest, and I admit that i've been all over the place lately with music and theory (trying to polish my playing technique, as well as learning other things) so tonight what I am going to do is brush up on chords (even went out and bought one of those books with every single chord in it, it has pictures of the scale/and pictures of someone's fingering position on the keys and all, pretty nice for 6 dollars!) and re-read this, and try to get it all in.
"You are going to let the fear of poverty govern your life and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live."
-
- KVRian
- 666 posts since 29 Dec, 2006 from Auckland, New Zealand
Whoa, I thought this was Theory Newbie stuff.
Maybe if I stick to monophonic, I will have a valid excuse as to why this means nothing to me.
But I doubt it. I need to brush up on my theory, but this is obviosly not the place to start (especially when you have to filter your way through the space wasting bickering)
Maybe if I stick to monophonic, I will have a valid excuse as to why this means nothing to me.
But I doubt it. I need to brush up on my theory, but this is obviosly not the place to start (especially when you have to filter your way through the space wasting bickering)
- KVRian
- 649 posts since 18 Dec, 2004
@No name and Dayl, I wouldn't let the theory slow you down. Try some of the chord progressions and later dive into the theory. Post some other progressions you like even if you don't know the theory. After all, if it sounds good, it is good.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
-
- KVRAF
- 7879 posts since 16 Apr, 2003 from -on the outside looking in
great tip!chardin wrote:Thanks, Guybrush, that's a good point. Even in guitar based rock and roll, using inversions makes a difference. Try C - G/B - Am - G. Let the bass player pick up the B in the 2nd chord.Guybrush wrote:A little tip from me as a pianoplayer:
Making your chords and progressions sound nice is not only about having the right notes (harmonies, chords) but alot about in what order you play the notes in them. Say you want to write a progressions from C to F, beginners usually lay each chord in it's standard variation; C: c-e-g to F: f-a-c. When writing progressions (maybe mostly using a keyboard, pianoroll or something that works like the keys of a piano) the general rule of thumb is: The less motion the smoother sound. Skipping between different parts of your keyboard for your chords genrerally sounds noobish. With the C to F progression try playing your C chord with the (2nd) voicing e-g-c and so that you just need to move your thumb and middle finger to f and a while you keep your pinky at the c - since that note is in both chords (first the root note then the fifth).
Ever wondered how all those awsome jazzpianists make their progressions sound smooth? Just lay your chords with voicings that stay the closest possible togheter.
my key skills are limited, but that made a big difference in a little practice

