Music theory questions

[Kriminal]

Chords...hmmm, is that when you use more than one finger?

[jens]

Chords...hmmm, is that when you use more than one finger?

nope - it's when you use more than one track...

[Kriminal]

Chords...hmmm, is that when you use more than one finger?

nope - it's when you use more than one track...

Ah, you mean Reason

[advaya]

OK....

Start by knowing that most Theory Books have nothing to do with Real World application.

You do need to know what the rules are;

- to break them
- to understand the structure of music

Chords/Scales are just the alphabet and words of music

The same 12 major scales are used in all Western music.

The same basic chords are used in all types of music. Basic Chords are;

- Major and Minor Triads
- Major, Dominant, Minor 7ths

Any other chords used are just alterations or additions to these basic chords. Don't worry about these to get started.

All music is comprised of 3 basic elements;

- rhythm
- harmony (chords)
- melody (scales)

Get an understanding of major scales. Get an understanding of the 60 basic chords (12 notes x 5 chord types). Just this bit of Theory can build a vast majority of music.

THEN, you can look at the 7 chords built on major scales. It's the same pattern for all scales. Learn it once and plug it in to all.

Knowledge work should always be done away from your instrument. Learn it, then apply it.

Chords move in:

- 5ths
- 3rds
- 2nds

That's it! Anything else (4ths, 6ths, 7ths) are just an inversion of one of these.

Forget modes! They confuse people, they were cool in the 1400's but no more. All a mode does is get on and off of a scale at different places. It's like a toll road, you can get on and off at different exits but you're always on the same road.

Build progressions in different keys until you get bored or hit a wrong chord. Then, experiment with taking your progressions and changing the chord quality of one chord.

Take Dmi7 G7 Cmaj
and make it D7 G7 Cmaj
or Dmi7 Gmi7 Cmi7

Changing the chord quality is the simplest form of substitution.

Find a circle of 5ths.

Moving to keys close to your original key on the Circle will be a smooth transition. Moving to keys on the other side of the circle will be a stronger change in color.

Experiment!

Take chords from songs you like and build new melodies

Take melodies you like and build new chords

Put a bunch of chord name on pieces of paper. Put them in a bag, hat anything.

Pull out 4-8 chords and build a song from those. Then, re-arrange them in a different order.

Look at chord structures in music you like. Analyze how it was built. Take chords from types of music you aren't familiar with (Bossa, Jazz, Classical, Country, whatever) and see how that is built.

Music is a language, but the rules are more open to alteration and change than most spoken language.

Have fun!

Great post!

I very much enjoyed reading your take on the whole theory thing...

Seems like threads such as this always spiral into "I know more than you do" arguments...

(I'm not saying that's what has happened in this thread (yet), so no flames!)

[TechNoiZ]

On the contrary .... I think my contribution was very useful .....

I don't. You contributed fcuk all apart from a bit of cheerleading for Paul.

I just assumed you were pissed.

Do you know any theory at all?

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know matey

[advaya]

On the contrary .... I think my contribution was very useful .....

I don't. You contributed fcuk all apart from a bit of cheerleading for Paul.

I just assumed you were pissed.

Do you know any theory at all?

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know matey

Weeeeeee!

[TristezaOrange]

And no, Bohemian Rhapsody does not employ parallel third harmonizing. It uses good old fashioned, laboriously hand written voice leading. Just like a Bach chorale.

Shame it still sounds like a shit 10cc rip-off.

[nuffink]

On the contrary .... I think my contribution was very useful .....

I don't. You contributed fcuk all apart from a bit of cheerleading for Paul.

I just assumed you were pissed.

Do you know any theory at all?

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know matey

That may be the case matey. But you've contributed nothing at all to this thread apart from a bit of arse kissing.

[TechNoiZ]

But my first post pointing out the fact that a successful answer would need to stick to one point of reference - that of tonaility or that of modes predates the answer given that has been seen as most clear - and which does indeed stick to one vocabulary - in this case that of tonality.

Grow up and admit your initial comment to me about confusion was indeed wrong.

[nuffink]

It seems to me there is a lot of confused talk about the nature of 'modes' in relation to 'key'

Modal writing - has little to do with 'key'.

Key is a term applied exclusively to the major/minor system of musical theory: tonality.
The theory of tonality is the one you're referring to when you talk about chord systems such as I, ii, iii, IV .... etc. They are diatonic chords which DEFINE a key. When you use notes outside of the tonality - non diatonic notes - you are NOT changing key, nor are you using a mode - the fact that some scales and deviations can be seen as modes is not within the remit of the system of tonality, or its vocabulary, to explain. You are using what are termed 'accidentals' - notes OUTSIDE of the key. These can be used to make a melody more interesting - or they can be used to 'temporarily change key': NOTE - temporarily - this is not deemed a change of key within the system of tonality - it is termed a modulation - a temporary movement to another keynote or scale.

Either talk about modes or talk about the system which superceded their common ussage some 400 - 500 years ago - tonality or the (major/minor) key-system:

You will find it enormously difficult to explain one using vocabulary from the other unless you have an almost unshakeable grasp of the explanation of either.

Believe me, it took many brilliant men 2 or 3 hundred years to codify the major/minor key system - and it is still not done ....

f**k all theory there.

It seems to me there is a lot of confused talk about the nature of 'modes' in relation to 'key'

Modal writing - has little to do with 'key'.

Key is a term applied exclusively to the major/minor system of musical theory: tonality.
The theory of tonality is the one you're referring to when you talk about chord systems such as I, ii, iii, IV .... etc. They are diatonic chords which DEFINE a key. When you use notes outside of the tonality - non diatonic notes - you are NOT changing key, nor are you using a mode - the fact that some scales and deviations can be seen as modes is not within the remit of the system of tonality, or its vocabulary, to explain. You are using what are termed 'accidentals' - notes OUTSIDE of the key. These can be used to make a melody more interesting - or they can be used to 'temporarily change key': NOTE - temporarily - this is not deemed a change of key within the system of tonality - it is termed a modulation - a temporary movement to another keynote or scale.

Either talk about modes or talk about the system which superceded their common ussage some 400 - 500 years ago - tonality or the (major/minor) key-system:

You will find it enormously difficult to explain one using vocabulary from the other unless you have an almost unshakeable grasp of the explanation of either.

Believe me, it took many brilliant men 2 or 3 hundred years to codify the major/minor key system - and it is still not done ....

Or there

FUKING HELL - FINALLY :

well done Paul - no mixed message there ....... MAKE THIS A STICKY

BUT how long until someone comes along and says .......

Nice bit of arse kissing, still no sign of theory.

Hey ... why stop at seven; why not go the whole hog. Go read Allen Forte's book on Set Theoretical Analysis and come back and explain the dodecaphonic compositions of the early 20th Century ...

Nope, none there either.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but when you go into a different mode like say... phrygian, do you use the root note of the mode the same way for chords? For example, in phrygian again, does the III chord of dorian become the I chord of phrygian?

Here we go. A chance to strut your stuff…

Hahahahahahahaha .......

Oh dear.


And the rest is just babble like this...

On the contrary .... I think my contribution was very useful .....

[TristezaOrange]

Woo-hoo. Flaming match in a theory thread. So last year...

[TechNoiZ]

But my statements relate to the explanation of theory ..... I was making no attempt to join the confusion - just pointing out where it lay.

[PaulG]

Look - whatever.

This'll be my last post. Period.

The title of my whole explanations should be "Music Theory for Broadcast Radio Hits".

That's it. Not anything outside that scope.

Use what I said or don't. F'ing arguing with it where I never said it was the standard is just fear. The example is like I'm saying "water WILL quench your thirst" and the responsed of "but Pepsi does too" doesn't friggin negate what I said or it's value to the original question.

I was going to put up a website teaching some of this stufff, but I'm kind of glad at the responses now that I can see how some people would rather argue than use things to move forward in their life/situation/whatever.

To those who can use it, take it - please do. Take thewater, it's free.

To those who want the Pepsi, it'll cost you.

Talk to you later I won't be.

[nuffink]

Look - whatever.

This'll be my last post. Period.

The title of my whole explanations should be "Music Theory for Broadcast Radio Hits".

That's it. Not anything outside that scope.

Use what I said or don't. F'ing arguing with it where I never said it was the standard is just fear. The example is like I'm saying "water WILL quench your thirst" and the responsed of "but Pepsi does too" doesn't friggin negate what I said or it's value to the original question.

I was going to put up a website teaching some of this stufff, but I'm kind of glad at the responses now that I can see how some people would rather argue than use things to move forward in their life/situation/whatever.

To those who can use it, take it - please do. Take thewater, it's free.

To those who want the Pepsi, it'll cost you.

Talk to you later I won't be.

That's a strange attitude Paul. Don't you think you're being a bit thin skinned. I thought your original post was class, as did just about everyone else.

Where do you think you've been unfairly attacked?

[herodotus]

Actually, nuffink, this:

The theory of tonality is the one you're referring to when you talk about chord systems such as I, ii, iii, IV .... etc. They are diatonic chords which DEFINE a key. When you use notes outside of the tonality - non diatonic notes - you are NOT changing key, nor are you using a mode - the fact that some scales and deviations can be seen as modes is not within the remit of the system of tonality, or its vocabulary, to explain. You are using what are termed 'accidentals' - notes OUTSIDE of the key. These can be used to make a melody more interesting - or they can be used to 'temporarily change key': NOTE - temporarily - this is not deemed a change of key within the system of tonality - it is termed a modulation - a temporary movement to another keynote or scale.

Is as much theory as anything else in this thread.

Ramaeu was quite firm in his assertions that the church modes were quite distinct from the major/minor system of tonality that he helped codify. The basic reason for rejecting them was that they all either lacked the 'leading tone' or had an augmented fourth.

But enough of this. People are always talking as if the 'theory' of music were like a scientific theory. It is not. It is a centuries old argument that has at its core some rather fundamental confusions. The biggest of these confusions can be seen when one considers that the 'perfect' and 'major' consonances at the core of it haven't been 'perfect' or truly 'major' for over 200 years. (More on these matters here).