What is the connection between Chrods/ Melodies and Vocals

[Mike20]

Hey,

So i have done a bit of theory learning lately, mainly trying to improve my skills in writing Chords/ Melodies, i produce Dance Music,

I haven't released a track with vocals on yet, but I'm planning on very soon (an original song) - so I'm wondering, what is the connection between chords/melodies and vocals?

Do vocals only have specific chords etc. that will fit with them. Say for example if my vocal is in E Minor, can i use any chord in E minor, or does it have to be specific, and melodies.. Does it make a song sound much better if your melody follows the line of the vocal?

I hear some tracks, and i can hear the vocals when i am just listening to a piano cover - is this the holy grail of how our track should be?

Any info would be great on this subject before i dive in when my vocals are ready

Thanks you!

Mike

[ghettosynth]

...

[classic]

Hey,

So i have done a bit of theory learning lately, mainly trying to improve my skills in writing Chords/ Melodies, i produce Dance Music,

I haven't released a track with vocals on yet, but I'm planning on very soon (an original song) - so I'm wondering, what is the connection between chords/melodies and vocals?

Do vocals only have specific chords etc. that will fit with them. Say for example if my vocal is in E Minor, can i use any chord in E minor, or does it have to be specific, and melodies.. Does it make a song sound much better if your melody follows the line of the vocal?

I hear some tracks, and i can hear the vocals when i am just listening to a piano cover - is this the holy grail of how our track should be?

Any info would be great on this subject before i dive in when my vocals are ready

Thanks you!

Mike

It does not matter what you here from other musicians and it does not matter the theory at all.

Only thing that counts is what you thing sounds cool, nothing else.

[Trakstar]

It does not matter what you here from other musicians and it does not matter the theory at all.

Is that "Here" with your ears or we are "Here" with the other musicians.

Aslo I prefer chrods to chords

[ghettosynth]

...

[Trakstar]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5006695

on a serious note there is a lot of forums already on this, ill have a dig around and post them

[Trakstar]

It does not matter what you here from other musicians and it does not matter the theory at all.

Is that "Here" with your ears or we are "Here" with the other musicians.

Aslo I prefer chrods to chords

Well, your in the write place then!

[jawsign]

Hey,

So i have done a bit of theory learning lately, mainly trying to improve my skills in writing Chords/ Melodies, i produce Dance Music,

I haven't released a track with vocals on yet, but I'm planning on very soon (an original song) - so I'm wondering, what is the connection between chords/melodies and vocals?

Do vocals only have specific chords etc. that will fit with them. Say for example if my vocal is in E Minor, can i use any chord in E minor, or does it have to be specific, and melodies.. Does it make a song sound much better if your melody follows the line of the vocal?

I hear some tracks, and i can hear the vocals when i am just listening to a piano cover - is this the holy grail of how our track should be?

Any info would be great on this subject before i dive in when my vocals are ready

Thanks you!

Mike

depends which era your writing the elements in, 1600 baroque has a strict protocol to passing notes, chords, harmonies etc, but in todays age, if it pleases ones ears who cares if the melody is in root of whichever triad or tetra chord used or indeed if 1st 2nd or 3rd inversions are the chord sequence.

[Trakstar]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4976813

another good one on scales

[Arrested Developer]

depends which era your writing the elements in, 1600 baroque has a strict protocol to passing notes, chords, harmonies etc, but in todays age, if it pleases ones ears who cares if the melody is in root of whichever triad or tetra chord used or indeed if 1st 2nd or 3rd inversions are the chord sequence.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but your post needs some "adjustments":

First, what you call a "strict protocol" wasn't that strict at all.
If you read baroque literature, e. g. Mattheson's "Der vollkommene Capellmeister", you will see, that that he offers a broad range of possibilities. He doesn't say: "you are not allowed to do this or that", but rather: "this possibility is like a special spice. Use it with caution!" (One wonders if he sees what "modern" possiblities are already explained then, for example when you use different versions of scales at the same time (and so, for example, c and c# in the same time)).

Second, the rules of counterpoint at that time derived from the renaissance, but lots of freedom is added.
But also the theory of the renaissance wasn't a dogmatic concept. It was meant for the composition of (sacral) vocal music. In the popular music of that time, those rules weren't existent. Many famous renaissance composers also wrote popular music (di Lasso, etc), and in those pieces you will find many constellations that don't fit the theory of the "serious music" (e. g. parallel fifths).

Third, when it comes to harmony, there is a serious misunderstanding. What is now called "harmony" is in fact the concept of Riemann's functional harmony. But this is 19th century...
Mostly, the works of Bach etc. nowadays are analysed according to functional harmony.
And those analyses all miss the essence of that music, which is far more complex.
Bach's modulations e. g. have (among other aspects) very much to do with modality, which very often shows up in so calles "passing notes", which can't be seen in a functional harmonic analysis.
For example, the minor key in Bach's music is per se the Dorian mode. So, in C-major, d-minor isn't the "substitute" of the subdominant, but a very autonomous region. Also, "major" and "minor" aren't so strictly defined at that time.
Major can be ionian ("modern" major), but also mixolydian (with a Bb instead of B in C-major) and Lydian.
Same for minor (allthough the Phrygian mode is rather seldom in Bach's work).


So far the off-topic-on-topic.


To the topic:

In my opinion, there is nothing more devastating, than a "half-knowledge" of theory.
in fact, in music almost everything is possible, as long as it sounds good.
So, basically, you are allowed to do everything what sound good.
A (good) theory can only explain, why certain constellations which you use, will have specific consequences.


If you use a "e-minor" scale, you don't have to use an e-minor based harmony.
You can, of course, but maybe it won't sound satisfying...
Depends on what you have to say in that specific context...

[jancivil]

once again. get some experience with music.


learn_some_songs. some_kind_of_way.

"Say for example if my vocal is in E Minor, can i use any chord in E minor, or does it have to be specific, and melodies.. Does it make a song sound much better if your melody follows the line of the vocal?"

it just depends. you're trying to 'produce dance music' so probably a melody that can be said to be 'from scale of E minor' isn't likely to be found with chords from anywhere else. but there is no simple rule to provide you with complete determinism. Unless things have gotten even worse than I thought.

what songs have you tried to find out about, say 'in E minor'? what did you find.

sing and/or play melody over the chords of a song, figure out melodies BY EAR.

You must find out about things from experiencing the reality of the things, directly. expecting to read [music theory] information out of all context and application is expecting the cart to pull the horse.

[jancivil]

depends which era your writing the elements in, 1600 baroque has a strict protocol to passing notes, chords, harmonies etc, but in todays age, if it pleases ones ears who cares if the melody is in root of whichever triad or tetra chord used or indeed if 1st 2nd or 3rd inversions are the chord sequence.

your post needs some "adjustments":

First, what you call a "strict protocol" wasn't that strict at all.

right, that isn't what was done. theory was not, has never been a recipe or a paint-by-numbers approach. that's not even half-digested or even fully chewed. there were principles derived from practice, that in time informed further practice. if you want them to be rules, the rules were broken all the time. because it pleased somebody's ear, you know.

[Mike20]

Thanks a lot for the replies,

Just come back to this thread going to read over them all now thanks again!

Mike