VI to I correct in theory?

[Doug1978]

VI to I correct in theory?
Nah, just invent your own Roman numerals and go wild :p

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

technically, you'd want to have: VI i or vi I

VI i: F to a in 'a minor'

vi I: a to C in 'C Major'

having VI I indicates major chords, and these - VI I - don't fit together in your standard, major/natural-minor scales.

but i'm sure something like F major to A major has been used, especially in rock where it might be F5 A5 (no thirds)

[zethus909]

VI to I (assuming its a resolution) would usually be a dominant chord to the root.....so (in Cmajor key) it would be A7 to C........but if you play that it sounds immediately redundant because both the notes E and G co-occur...so its incorrect...in my opinion....errrr..not incorrect but not very effective at all in a musical sense

in a different context it could be useful....such as modulating out the key of Dmajor into Cmajor....so having a song that was in the key of Dmajor and then maybe having the chorus or bridge in Cmajor...that would effective because those two keys are only 2 sharps apart...kniow what i mean......prlly not....anyway lol

if you had say...a verse of D Bm A (in Dmajor key), so play that....a couple times through

then you modulated to the Cmajor key off of the Achord......and maybe made your chorus C G F then there you go, just wrote a song for you

then your working with a VI to I in the "right" (more musicaly effective) context...but in reality it's actually a I to new I movement.....errr your switching from one tonic chord to another tonic chord....but it could be thought of as a VI to I because Aminor is related to A major closely....

hope that helps

[nineofkings]

but i'm sure something like F major to A major has been used, especially in rock where it might be F5 A5 (no thirds)

Or even if there are thirds. Mixed tonality is absolutely a thing.
https://soundcloud.com/the-rare-occasions/04-getaway

[jancivil]

VI to I (assuming its a resolution) would usually be a dominant chord to the root.....so (in Cmajor key) it would be A7 to C........but if you play that it sounds immediately redundant because both the notes E and G co-occur...so its incorrect...in my opinion....errrr..not incorrect but not very effective at all in a musical sense

This is a mess. There is nothing in two common tones that amounts to a problem in itself. In fact, it may be the most desirable voice-leading owing to the fact of less movement, = smoothness. 'it sounds immediately redundant' has no musical meaning at all. It's word salad. We cannot reasonably talk about 'correctness' lacking all context in the first place. Besides, VI is not usually a dominant to I. In fact it never is.

in a different context it could be useful....such as modulating out the key of Dmajor into Cmajor....so having a song that was in the key of Dmajor and then maybe having the chorus or bridge in Cmajor...that would effective because those two keys are only 2 sharps apart...kniow what i mean......prlly not....anyway lol
... then you modulated to the Cmajor key off of the Achord...

An A, major quality or dominant type as a modulation INTO C MAJOR from D is exactly backwards, though. FYI A7 is the dominant to the key of D. We don't know why A, major quality, is supposed to "modulate" to key of C from key of D. Typically V7 of ii is our path to ii or II, modulation wise. IE: the path to D from C. But I don't think we're ready to talk of modulation meaningfully.

then your working with a VI to I in the "right" (more musicaly effective) context...but in reality it's actually a I to new I movement.....errr your switching from one tonic chord to another tonic chord....but it could be thought of as a VI to I because Aminor is related to A major closely....

hope that helps

There is no "right" context. We have no context at all. There's nothing demonstrating "more musically effective". If there were some modulation to D via the secondary dominant V7 of ii, key of C, that's a new I; we could have an abrupt change to the new I, why not. But we do not have any such thing in these statements. We have you asserting weird shit. There is no music to talk about.

Back on track: we have a question which looks like <does a major quality VI to the major quality I present something illegal, hence wrong?>. It cannot reasonably be said to be a problem in itself outside of all musical context. It's not so unusual. There is no law per se.

[fmr]

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?

As asked, the question doesn't have a proper answer, since we don't know the context, nor what he/she wants to do. I don't even know if the melody (assuming there is one) is compatible with vi - I (or VI - i).

Speaking blindly, and conscious I don't have even a minimum of relevant information, I would say that a progression like that is tonally ambiguous, and is not really a "progression" - it's walking without moving.

[jancivil]

All this business about A to C reminds of As Tears Go By, Rolling Stones. As a supposed problem this VI to I is not very different than that II to IV. G, A, C, D7. A to C, this minor 3rd rising, has a kind of strength there. You will not see it in Common Practice Period in all probability, so in "music theory" based in that there will be no particular 'theory' to draw from. But in terms of pop/rock, that kind of move is not so unusual. If a "theory" is needed, make one up.

[fmr]

All this business about A to C reminds of As Tears Go By, Rolling Stones. As a supposed problem this VI to I is not very different than that II to IV. G, A, C, D7. A to C, this minor 3rd rising, has a kind of strength there. You will not see it in Common Practice Period in all probability, so in "music theory" based in that there will be no particular 'theory' to draw from. But in terms of pop/rock, that kind of move is not so unusual. If a "theory" is needed, make one up.

I disagree in what concerns the parallel established between II to IV and VI to I.

First, nobody really cares about what "chords" were used in As Tears Go By. The song, if it's going to be remembered (IMO it's so basic that it won't), it's because of the melody, since it has little more to offer than that. As I said repeatedly, chords are overrated. I bet I could re-harmonize it maintaining the arrangement, and 99% of people would not notice that it was harmonized differently.

Second, a progression from ii to IV (or II to iv) is not quite the same thing as vi to I. Sure, when purely in terms of chords it's a minor followed by a major where two of the notes are the same, but functional harmony is not just about chords, it's also about their relative weight (importance) in a certain context (the tonality). Otherwise, it would be indifferent to harmonize a melody in C major with the chords of G Major (after all, most of them are common... except that they are usually used in different places).

Anyway, I agree with you regarding theory. Theory is what practice teaches us... If something feels right, then, it has to be right. But knowledge never hurts

[jancivil]

All this business about A to C reminds of As Tears Go By, Rolling Stones. As a supposed problem this VI to I is not very different than that II to IV. G, A, C, D7. A to C, this minor 3rd rising, has a kind of strength there. You will not see it in Common Practice Period in all probability, so in "music theory" based in that there will be no particular 'theory' to draw from. But in terms of pop/rock, that kind of move is not so unusual. If a "theory" is needed, make one up.

I disagree in what concerns the parallel established between II to IV and VI to I.

In itself it's a perhaps unexpected chord due to not actually belonging to key; which happened, I guess because the guy liked that <up a minor third> movement. There most probably is something where it really is not like this, and weight and function enters into it. I chose that as a good example of why CPP theory is not relevant to pop/rock or really anything that doesn't need that practice. I don't want to 'establish a parallel', I said it isn't very different as I'm looking at it for our purposes here. It's A to C where A is not in key.

[jancivil]

First, nobody really cares about what "chords" were used in As Tears Go By. The song, if it's going to be remembered (IMO it's so basic that it won't), it's because of the melody, since it has little more to offer than that.

As an earwig, what sticks for me the most is the tune at the end of the line, which has everything to do with C to D, IV to V. I don't think something else is going to convey that particular feeling. I think A to C rather than for instance Am to C has a peculiar drama to it and people probably responded to that. (FTR, I don't really go for this music, so I don't care a lot.) I don't think you can extract the tune out of these chords and get the same thing across. I think people would find it off or weird if you strayed much.

[zethus909]

There's nothing demonstrating "more musically effective".

well, actually yes there is.....thats' why some people like some songs and dont like others....whether a progression is effective or not is a measurable thing....its measurable by howmany people like the song...and the progtession....and certain progressions are just more effective. its just ..the undeniable truth......

saying VI to I really means nothing....without the context which is why i created some....you wouldnt have anything to fuss over on a saturday night...if i didnt create some..so you should thank me.

[jancivil]

Where is this demonstrated? You created some context by typing some words, while getting the direction of the key change you wanted to assert assbackwards? After "VI to I (assuming its a resolution) would usually be a dominant chord to the root"?? Keys do not have roots FFS. Chords have roots. 'resolve to the root' is incompetent at the most_basic_level.
"then you modulated to the Cmajor key off of the Achord......and maybe made your chorus C G F then there you go, just wrote a song for you" Ah no, you did some typing
that only makes sense to you.

Show me the modulation from D to C off the A chord. That's not usual; typically if you want to get to D from C you prepare the dominant of D, which is A. You're confused, you have a basic concept backwards. You may think this makes sense, but there is no music, and your notions reveal you as incompetent. You have an apparently abrupt change (you have described no modulation, you're only tossing words around) to C from D purely through the A chord. As the "right", "more musically effective" "context". the undeniable truth, some progressions are more effective than others. No, there is no context, there is only confused typing. There can be no truth or particular value in a mere chord change, your song could absolutely be rubbish; and you have the modus operandi for the key change backwards. Change up your meds or do less drugs in general, you have no idea what you're doing.

[jancivil]

you wouldnt have anything to fuss over on a saturday night...if i didnt create some..so you should thank me.

[zethus909]

After "VI to I (assuming its a resolution) would usually be a dominant chord to the root"??

tonic

Show me the modulation from D to C off the A chord.you have a basic concept backwards

yes youre right....i was thinking of it backwards....the right way of doing it is modulating out of C into D. using the A...........and then thats where you would get the switch from the A (VI) back to C (I) when you go back to the verse (abrupt as it would be) which is why i couldnt think of a good use for it at the time....maybe i could think of something better now...that my theory is a little better...... ....thanks for making the correction...i owe you a great deal of gratitude...the chorus would be the part in Dmajor and the verse or home key would be Cmajor....

now do you like my little song?

[zethus909]

https://soundcloud.com/inversound/c-to-d-mod/s-Zh75l

there i jammed out a song with that modulation....theres still llike little point to it that i see....except for an abrupt change from one key to another...proveme wrong though im waiting