I am turning into a theory slut

[Wopelka]

“Master your instrument, Master the music, and then forget all that shit and just play.” - Charlie Parker

Sound advice from a true genius.
Its a shame so many muso's only hear “Forget all that shit and just play.”

so right!

...and by the way. Theory isn't rules. It's more like a map of possibilities. Without it you're unlikely ever to get out of a very small cul-de-sac.

again, so right.

[flippya2000]

It's actually really simple. All you have to do is match the appropriate mode to the chord that the progression resolves to.

For example, a I-IV-V-I progression in C would resolve into the C major chord. Since this chords root note is C, it would be in ionian.

Where alot of people get confused is that as you move down the white keys switching "modes", you're also switching the key you're playing in. So while you ARE playing in say... phrygian when you play all the white keys starting from E on your keyboard, you're playing E phrygian.

To play in C phrygian, you'd have to use C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab and Bb. The good thing is that this is also the Ab major scale(!), so you can just make a chord progression that resolves on the iii of that scale and treat it as C phrygian.

As for books and notes, I've gone through a couple of textbooks for basic theory:

Music: Language and Fundamentals by Ronald J. Gretz
Elementary Rudiments of Music by Barbara Wharram

Both have been pretty good, and I find that actually having excercises to do really improved my knowledge of how things were supposed to work. Textbooks might not be to glamourous, but if you work through them, they are rewarding.

For what I'm learning now, I'm reading a book called Intermediate Harmony by Grace Vandendool. I skipped the first book (it covered mostly stuff I learned through discussion with other musicians, online, etc...), so I have a little gap in my knowledge, but I'm finding this a really damn fun book to work through.

Anyways, good luck.

Thanks for your reply From what I understand, when someone talks about modes, they have to use a harmonic/polyphonic line at the same time, otherwise there is no mode?

Eg, say I just play the single notes C-F-G-C as one phrase, then I play the notes E-A-G-E as the following phrase, does this mean I've just changed modes - even tho both sets of notes are part of the C-Major/Ionian scale? (The reason I ask this, is digital music uses thick sounds, not suitable for 3 note polyphonic chord progressions, thus alot of my music focuses on melody, not harmony - altho I am fascinated at the infinite chord progressions offered by inversions, etc that harmony allows)

Thanks for the info on the books, will definately check them out and try the exersizes - the best way to learn is by 'doing' rather than just reading

PS: Please PM me if you'd like to share any .txt/.doc files you made on music theory & I'll give you my email address. Also thanks again for your post!

[respirator]

Wopelka said it. The Bird-qoute says it all.

To the original poster: Theory is great, but I think you need to internalise the theory by playing an instrument (even if the "instrument" is a sequencer). Then you know by instinct what to do in a certain situation (or in my case what rules to break to make something sound strange ).

Happy theorizing!

[the_nihilist]

You only have to listen to most prog rock to realise that knowledge of theory sounds like a recipe for boring music.

That is the real problem, isn't it? How many of those bands are making theory-heavy music for theory's sake? Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if they didn't know theory, they'd still be making boring music...

Look at something like the KARMA system used by Korg. While I'm certain that for some musicians it's an immense breakthrough, I haven't heard a single thing out of it that didn't instantly trigger my vomit button. Every single thing that comes out of it is jazz fusion. Every single goddamn thing! How?!

Perhaps the coolest thing is putting theory where you least expect it. Some of my favorite bands have been able to make complicated things sound simple and blend perfectly with the rest of the song. Classical music like Debussy and Bach defines music theory, yet it sounds natural and beautiful.

Referencing my original chord progression in my first post, I was worried whether it would sound interesting enough... I really like the kind of feel you can get by using atypical chords; all sorts of interesting harmonies can be used that aren't normally heard in simpler music.

Wopelka said it. The Bird-qoute says it all.

To the original poster: Theory is great, but I think you need to internalise the theory by playing an instrument (even if the "instrument" is a sequencer). Then you know by instinct what to do in a certain situation (or in my case what rules to break to make something sound strange ).

Happy theorizing!

I play keyboard, but currently suck at it. However, all this learning theory has inspired me to get my ass in gear and focus on developing the ability to actually play my instrument.

[Sascha Franck]

Where alot of people get confused is that as you move down the white keys switching "modes", you're also switching the key you're playing in. So while you ARE playing in say... phrygian when you play all the white keys starting from E on your keyboard, you're playing E phrygian.

This actually is one of the most common misunderstandings (or misconceptions) ever. And very few theory books take care of it.
"Play C major from E to E and your in E phrygian". Nonsense! It's still C major.
It will only sound like a phrygian scale when used in a phrygian harmonic context. The easiest way to play E phrygian would be to have a deep E drone and play notes out of C major over it - without any particular progression of the notes. You could still play C major from C to C - over an E bassnote (or an Emin chord, for the matter), it'd sound phrygian.

"Scale XYZ from tone * to tone *" really doesn't mean ANYTHING. If it did, each tune in C major only had to use melodies from C to C, in seconds. We all know that this isn't the case.

Modes are ALLWAYS defined by certain notes played over certain harmonies (or roots).
As said, unfortunately most books make a great deal out of dividing melodic and harmonic material. For me, a Dmin chord is just as dorian as a C major scale played against a D root. And, if you think about it, there's no difference at all. Chords are scales played in thirds (or whatever structure) and scales are chords played in close voicings. The fact that you usually play more notes at once in a chord and single notes in a scale doesn't mean anything, because you can as well play a chord arpeggiated or play a scale so rapidly that it almost sounds like a chord.
Really, there's no difference between the two.


Anyways, regarding the blessings and disadvantages of theory knowledge, Parker was sort of spot on.
From my personal experience, theory has helped me a LOT to get some (paid) jobs done, but on the other hand it also seems to destroy certain areas of "artistic freedom". Just as a simplified example: When I need to go back to some, say, Gmaj tonic chord, I may check out all sorts of D7s. I may check out the substitutes, such as F#dim7 (which actually is a D7/b9 without root), Ab7 (which actually is a D7alt without root in another inversion) or even Amin7 (which could work as a D7sus4) and the likes.
Most likely one of those will fit, so I'll be using it.
That way, I can get quick and "correct" sounding results. But that's about it. Nothing else.
It defenitely wouldn't sound new, fresh or anything else, let alone revolutionary.
Now, folks without that knowledge might just use an Fmin7 to approach the Gmaj. To explain such a movement theoretically would require quite some far stretches (most likely involving something such as "ah well, F is at least some sort of mediant for D" etc bla bla), probably not even making much sense (in a theoretical way).
But, assuming the right context (voice leading, musical style), such a progression could sound really nice. Just that quite a few theoretically trained musicians would probably miss out on it, whereas the "let me just finger a few chords I know" folks may even come up with some even weirder things.

Bottomline: IMO musical knowledge is a blessing if you are doing "hired gun" jobs (at least for me it is), but it can get into the way of creativity (at least for me it is, sometimes...).

[Amberience]

Thankyou very much for that post Sascha!!

[the_nihilist]

This actually is one of the most common misunderstandings (or misconceptions) ever. And very few theory books take care of it.
"Play C major from E to E and your in E phrygian". Nonsense! It's still C major.
It will only sound like a phrygian scale when used in a phrygian harmonic context. The easiest way to play E phrygian would be to have a deep E drone and play notes out of C major over it - without any particular progression of the notes. You could still play C major from C to C - over an E bassnote (or an Emin chord, for the matter), it'd sound phrygian.

Ahh, I did kinda miss that important bit.

"Scale XYZ from tone * to tone *" really doesn't mean ANYTHING. If it did, each tune in C major only had to use melodies from C to C, in seconds. We all know that this isn't the case.

Modes are ALLWAYS defined by certain notes played over certain harmonies (or roots).
As said, unfortunately most books make a great deal out of dividing melodic and harmonic material. For me, a Dmin chord is just as dorian as a C major scale played against a D root. And, if you think about it, there's no difference at all. Chords are scales played in thirds (or whatever structure) and scales are chords played in close voicings. The fact that you usually play more notes at once in a chord and single notes in a scale doesn't mean anything, because you can as well play a chord arpeggiated or play a scale so rapidly that it almost sounds like a chord.
Really, there's no difference between the two.

Really, the only difference between modes is the layout of the intervals from the root key... and it's the exact same thing as using an exotic scale like the spanish gypsy or whatever. The whole point is to just be using slightly different interval relationships.

Anyways, regarding the blessings and disadvantages of theory knowledge, Parker was sort of spot on.
From my personal experience, theory has helped me a LOT to get some (paid) jobs done, but on the other hand it also seems to destroy certain areas of "artistic freedom". Just as a simplified example: When I need to go back to some, say, Gmaj tonic chord, I may check out all sorts of D7s. I may check out the substitutes, such as F#dim7 (which actually is a D7/b9 without root), Ab7 (which actually is a D7alt without root in another inversion) or even Amin7 (which could work as a D7sus4) and the likes.
Most likely one of those will fit, so I'll be using it.
That way, I can get quick and "correct" sounding results. But that's about it. Nothing else.
It defenitely wouldn't sound new, fresh or anything else, let alone revolutionary.
Now, folks without that knowledge might just use an Fmin7 to approach the Gmaj. To explain such a movement theoretically would require quite some far stretches (most likely involving something such as "ah well, F is at least some sort of mediant for D" etc bla bla), probably not even making much sense (in a theoretical way).
But, assuming the right context (voice leading, musical style), such a progression could sound really nice. Just that quite a few theoretically trained musicians would probably miss out on it, whereas the "let me just finger a few chords I know" folks may even come up with some even weirder things.

Bottomline: IMO musical knowledge is a blessing if you are doing "hired gun" jobs (at least for me it is), but it can get into the way of creativity (at least for me it is, sometimes...).

Or you could just go... "hey, I want a really unusual sounding progression" and look for one just like that.

[flippya2000]

Modes are ALLWAYS defined by certain notes played over certain harmonies (or roots).

Thanks - thatz what I was wondering & confused about
I'm definately coying & pasting this thread!

[Amberience]

I've always found classical music to bore the living pants off me - no feeling, no imagery, nothing, nada. Static boring music.

In this way, even perceptions on what theory does is subjective. I happen to adore most prog-rock, even if they do stick to theory like glue as you imply.

[DWb]

Referencing my original chord progression in my first post, I was worried whether it would sound interesting enough... I really like the kind of feel you can get by using atypical chords; all sorts of interesting harmonies can be used that aren't normally heard in simpler music.

Yes! The single most important thing to remember about music theory is that it's more like tips of the day than cast iron laws - 'if you want effect X, you could try doing Y.'

This is why 'I don't learn music theory because I don't want to be restricted by rules' is a stupid argument, whereas '...because I don't want to achieve any of the effects that theory helps me to achieve' is reasonable.

[DWb]

I've always found classical music to bore the living pants off me - no feeling, no imagery, nothing, nada.

[flippya2000]

I've always found classical music to bore the living pants off me - no feeling, no imagery, nothing, nada. Static boring music.

Alot of classical music is based on repetition, which altho present in todays music, isn't adhered to as much as some classical peices. Hwr, not all classical music is like this..

btw, I find it quite strange that alot of people are saying theory is rubbish/words to that affect, when a)they have no/limited idea of what theory is + b)Most of their favourite songs/tracks use music theory, eg when talking about song form ALOT of popular music uses a rigid ABAB structure, or verse-chorus structure. Anyways, just my opinions, I could be wrong.

[phankiejankie]

Well more like symphonic music you mean... anyway there are composers like Stravinsky or Xenakis that took the art of detuning and mathematical thinking to depths that few people can understand. This to be done needs an extensive knowledge of music theory. Much of the wannabes in KvR -which seems to be so full of lately (like the know all Reverse Engineer)- believe that they have seen all and that experimentalism was born with the birth of synthesizes or electronic music which is a terrible lie. Most people think that Autechre for instance are the shit and are at the cutting edge of experimentalism.

Unfortunately in the 21st century the ease of technology makes people arrogant with some flirting with plain stupidity very closely. Most of the regular music (rock, pop, techno, house etc.) is nothing more than simplified symphonic music to my ears. Most of the electronic music weirder time signatures have been explored by even folk music composers way back. I wouldn’t like to start about the Indian scales because that would take a day… I do not pretend to be “the know all type” and certainly I am not but things I have little knowledge of, I tend to just not comment. So if people do not know much about the classic (I hate the term) composers and music theory then its better to go back to their sequencers and to their try n’ error music making, its their choice and fortunately there is no music police to force them to stop making music but they should show greater respect to the ones that progressed the music a great deal forwards. Beethoven was making music in his mind because he was deaf for gods shake, does anybody know how f**king difficult that is…

[Amberience]

I know enough to know that Autechre aren't the pinnacle of experimentalism. I also know enough about theory to know its useful.

I'm not big on classical music, it doesn't do anything but bore me. But hey, Prog bored me too when I was 11, I was only interested in Mr. Blobby

Who knows, I might take a fancy to classical when I'm older.

[Ildon]

Theory can be wonderful or it can be evil, depending on how you learn and your personality. Someone said "learn to unlearn." Learning to disregard certain guidelines at a few select moments will be just as valuable as learning it all in the first place.