Some Chord Progression Stuff

[Sascha Franck]

Cool! But what's a "IVj7/II"?

Ah well - different conventions, again.
In the system I'm familiar with, it's a chord over another bassnote. Such as F/G. Or, as in my example, Fj7/D.

[Toxikator]

Oh, I get the slash thing (I didn't figure you meant it as a secondary subdominant, though it could have been), I've seen inversions written that way quite often; my real confusion is the "j". What on earth is that? I've never seen that letter in a theory analysis ever.

[Sascha Franck]

I understand that E is the 7th of the tonic (F,A,C,E), but for C (C,E,G,B), the 7th lands on B, doesn't it? I'm probably taking it the wrong way, but I've looked it over almost a dozen times and it's not quite clear to me. Not tryna annoy anyone here! :Lol: Perhaps I need to get the basics down solidly before I try to move onto any concepts like this.

Ok, I forgot to mention that the second example was still in the key of F.
But, as you're already saying yourself: F is the tonic! So, in that case, we're in the key of F more or less automatically. And in that case, the 7th of C is a Bb.

[Sascha Franck]

And btw, it's intentional that I'm doing examples in different keys but C. If you stick too much to whatever "easy" keys, you will never be exactly familiar with others.

[Toxikator]

I think he brought it up because you spelled C7 as CEGF...?

[Sascha Franck]

my real confusion is the "j". What on earth is that? I've never seen that letter in a theory analysis ever.

Major 7. A really common thing in a lot of lead sheets.
Usually it's either maj7 or j7.
Admittedly, I prefer maj7, too, especially when reading sheets under less than ideal lightning conditions, but sometimes I just forget about it and simply write "j".
I'll try to remember from now on

[Sascha Franck]

I think he brought it up because you spelled C7 as CEGF...?

Oops - but where? Can't find it.

[Toxikator]

np, now that I know I know.

I did a search for it on google but got nothing but what looked to be German, which I couldn't read so it didn't help

I think he brought it up because you spelled C7 as CEGF...?

Oops - but where? Can't find it.

Alright, here's another one.

After some thoughts about "what's next?" I decided to stick with the simple I-V chord movement but sort of "enhance" it.

IMO the example of the previous post is sounding sort of "obvious" - and most likely almost everything just containing those very two chords will sound obvious as well.
This can be a welcomed thing in some cases (especially in case it's part of larger progressions), in other cases it might not.

What we can do to "mask" the obvious character is to establish further chord notes.
As you may remember from my first post (or from whatever theory lessons), we can for example add a 7th to our chords.
For the F, being the tonic (I) chord, that'd be an E, the major 7th.
For the C, being the dominant (V) chord, that'd be an F, the 7th.

[Sascha Franck]

Oh shit! I'll correct that instantly!
Seems I'm stuck to the "explain everything in C" paradigm too much as well.

[No name]

It really is quite kind of you to give us all so information...and being so patient with folks like me.

You see, I can make wonderful sounds on the piano, but sometimes I have no idea why it sounds so good, what are the relationships between the keys. I wanna get to a point to where I can hear things in my head and know EXACTLY what the keys are and what they're relationship to each other are. I want to be a seasoned musician. I want to get to a point to where I can start/join a band, and know precisely what needs to be added on my part (the keys) to a song. I do need to practice more though, I admit that I hardly practiced at all for the past decade up until a few months ago, and even then I didn't practice as hardly as much as I have these past few weeks.

So if I practiced anything, you would agree that practicing chords and their inversions in different keys would be of a great help, no?

I think that all these years of having absolutely no idea of theory (this even includes no idea of scales or keys or anyyything) that I looked at the keyboard and created my own idea of how music really works. I thought, while playing white keys, black keys are not to be touched because they are too tricky and it can easily come out sounding bad, and vice versa with the black keys. I got an idea in my head that the two are almost possible to work together with, and the keys I see in front of me are what I think of when I try to think of music, and I think it has a lot to do with my mind's stubbornness in taking all of this in, because my mind has a way of looking at music, while theory is dependant on both black and white keys just the same really.

[Sascha Franck]

So if I practiced anything, you would agree that practicing chords and their inversions in different keys would be of a great help, no?

Defenitely.

But then, there's more to it, I think.
Personally, I found what I'd call "self analysis" to be a big deal. This includes both the negative and positive sides. So, you should always ask yourself "why does it sound bad?" - but, you should as well ask yourself "why did that sound great all of a sudden?".
Believe me, there's a lot to find out by just doing so.
After that, you should ask yourself what you'd like to improve. Would you rather improve the things you do well or would you prefer to work on your weak spots? Both methods are making sense.
As an example from my personal history: I have always been fond of my guitar "tone" (the one coming out of your fingers, not the technical term) and apparently quite some people liked it as well. So, I took that as my strong point and tried to improve, to make it even better.
On the opposite site, I had some really horrible problems with certain timing-related things. After a bit of tinkering, I decided that I *needed* to improve in that area as well, even massively, because if there's one important thing in music (besides melody and harmony) it's gotta be rhythm and time feel.
On another opposite site, I have never been a "technical" player - in fact, I'm not good at it at all, compared to all the guitar shredders you may now find on Youtube and wherever. But, in this case, I simply decided to sort of ignore it. Sure, I do some technical excercises every now and then, but I really don't concentrate on that issue. I simply don't think it's worth enough.

In addition, especially when it comes to chord playing, I think there's one important thing that can't be stressed enough: Rhythm! Rhythm! Rhythm!
Even the simplest block chord progressions live up to quite something else if you know how to present them in a proper rhythmical way. The same goes for melodies. People often are capable to come up with a nice combination of notes, but as often they just don't seem to realize how important rhythms are for melodic stuff.
I own an instructional video of (great guitar player) Scott Henderson. He's putting a great effort to melodic rhythms. There's one particular scene in that video when he just plays some really weird sounding note sequences, asking "what tune is that?" - and, as weird as the notes are, EVERYBODY would instantly recognize it as "Jingle Bells", simply because the rhythm (plus a very rough melodic shape) is there. You should really try that for yourself and be completely stunned! In case of "Jingle Bells" things seem to even work when the melodic shape is f**ked up.
This has been an absolute eye-opener to me.

The really bad thing being that a lot of people don't seem to be aware of the various possibilities rhythms are offering.
I tried to teach some rhythmically based concepts to my guitar students, but there's been like 1 out of 10 actually agreeing on the importance of it. The absurd thing being that I could actually sort of "prove" it (see the "Jingle Bells" example) - yet, when I tried to get them into different melodic phrasings or into developing rhythm guitar variations, they would usually just go into "f**k that" mode.

In short: Playing a chord (even a simple block chord) on beat one or on the 16th note before it can make or break an accompanying part. There's a f**king *world* of a difference.
To me, it's really amazing that just really few people seem to be concerned regarding rhythms, especially as it applies to all musical styles.
Do yourself a favour and listen to whatever might be your famous records. What's happening rhythmically? Do you really understand it? Did you explore it by yourself and did you incorporate it into your own playing?

Of course, there's a shitload more, but to me, rhythms are the single most important thing in music. A melody with some "plausible" rhytmic pattern will make it. A rhythmic accompanying pattern that doesn't interfere with other patterns will probably make it. It'll even help you to clean up your mixes if there's not too much overlapping rhythms. On the contrary, it might pump up your tunes in case the kick drum and bass share the important accents.

Sorry for drifting away that much from the original topic, but really, to me this is the single most important thing in music ever.

Another thing I found to be truly important is good listening skills. As an example: If you play, say, an A on whatever instrument, will you instantly (and I really mean instantly, without any thoughts or calculations) know what a C# will sound like? Will you be able to sing it for yourself? What about a 9th? Do you *know* how it sounds, regardless of the key you're in, so you can play whatever random root note and sing a 9th?
Personally, I *always* know what the next note I'm gonna be playing will sound like. I can sing along with even the most sophisticated solo lines I'm able to put out (well, they may not be that sophisticated...).
This is the second important thing I always had an eye on. I just wanted to be "aware" of what I was playing.
Admittedly, I am gifted with rather good listening skills by nature (no idea why, my family isn't exactly a music family), but even if you're not, there's some (partially easy) ways to improve on it. The bottomline being that you should simply be able to tell about which notes are the good ones to use. Wihout any rules. Just because you feel they're right.

Ah well, this is drifting away more and more. Plus, I already had a couple of beers.
I better stop for today.

[Toxikator]

All good points. Interestingly enough, my theory teacher was explaining the importance of rhythm (it's the most important aspect of music); he clapped out a bunch of simple rhythms and everyone caught them, like Jingle bells. No contour, just the beat.

Also, you mentioned audiation, it's interesting; you never audiate certain things quite right. It goes back to pythagorean tuning, if you try to audiate a C# while listening to A, you'll almost always come out sharp.

[Sascha Franck]

All good points. Interestingly enough, my theory teacher was explaining the importance of rhythm (it's the most important aspect of music); he clapped out a bunch of simple rhythms and everyone caught them, like Jingle bells. No contour, just the beat.

Amazing, isn't it? Should make you rethink some things, I'd say...

Also, you mentioned audiation, it's interesting; you never audiate certain things quite right. It goes back to pythagorean tuning, if you try to audiate a C# while listening to A, you'll almost always come out sharp.

Yeah ok - having worked with gospel choirs and string quartets already, I know how things that are supposed to be following "tempered intonation" can just be f**ked up as soon as there's no tempered instrument playing along anymore. Takes a single modulation and even the original tonic chord isn't tempered anymore.
But then, as long as you can more or less adjust to tempered tuning (as long as there's some backing stuff going on at least), things are all fine. I would never expect myself to compete with some strobe tuner, but as long as I can more or less easily sing along with the melodic lines I'm playing (or intend to play), I'm all set.

Interesting things nonetheless. Yet, I'm gonna have some sleep.

Cheers
Sascha

[Toxikator]

Mhm. It's actually important (for those not sleeping) in instrumentation, though likely not so much in the world of digital sequencing. If you ever listen to the opening song from 2001: A Space Odyssey (What's it called? "And thus spoke Zarathustra" or something?) you can hear the strings (which are nontempered) playing a big open C chord alongside an organ; the strings drop out and the organ stays, and you can hear the organ sounding "out of tune" since it has equally tempered 3rds.

[No name]

What precisely does it mean for a chord to be open? I'm going to assume it means (and I hope i'm not looking like a fool here) that it is more than octave? Like you would play an open C chord such as :C,E, and then another C an octave above, and maybe a G above that as well, to where it is sort of spread out or "open"? Also, i've been interested in something, but really haven't got a concise answer on it. In, let's say, a choir or orchestra, is it common for more than one instrument to play a different interval of a chord at the same time? Such as the maybe the bass playing a C, while maybe the tenor sings E or G? Or maybe strings playing C, while brass section plays E? Something to that effect. I'm not tryna jump ahead here, but i'm just curious as I do hope to get into a little film scoring eventually. I think I could actually do it now, but my problem is thatI do need the theory to keep track of everything thats going on, and mainly to keep it all organized and harmonious.