Musician's Thread

Correction: I hear it in G, not C.

 

Oh hey, looky that, more proof of "this is after the fact analysis":

What I can also see it as, a transition to C, but see the VII-7 as a substitution for a G7b9, which fits nicely as a V7 here.

This is what's pissing me off, because I know I should and do understand this (I get the first inversion part fine), but at the same time I don't exactly, so let me clarify for my brains:

Do you mean hitting single notes or chords (augmented sixths?) or both or ?

I think it's just the phrasing here, do you mean Dorian starting on the second degree, or the IV (A dorian vs C dorian in the key of G)?

I think I got this, just hitting for instance the A in the key of Gm a bunch, right?

No idea.

And I hope I'm not giving off the impression of this being like, music math or whatever and not actually listening, because it's not strictly that, I think both are important. I tend to think more about theory when I get into a rut in a song, I'll write sweet verse and then not be sure where to take the chorus, so I'll just be like "well here here and here are good places to start" based on all this rubbish. Plus I really do like the sort of sounds that we've recently been discussing and have always wondered where they came from (I like Bowie progressions a lot as well when they get interesting), so hopefully I can sort of ingrain that in my musical memory.

I was in SO CONFUSED mode until I read that. I thought you were off your rocker haha.

 

I think by "3 against 2" patterns, he means the mighty HEMIOLA!!!

Or, as I call them to explain it to students - long triplets.

Read up here.

The way I explain it is to have students clap it out on their thighs. The left hand does three, the right hand does two.

If you think of singing triplets as "one-and-uh two-and-uh," then a hemiola in that meter would sound, rhythmically, like "one - uh two-and - "

So that beats "one, uh, and" are on the right hand, while "one, two" are on the left.

 

Indubitably. I mean, a lot of guys do this, and it's by no means the only rhythmic trick he'll tend to bust out, but many of the cool rhythmic things *a lot* of players do in the pop/blues genre don't stray too far from being based in some sort of 3 against 2 idea.

Right. I'm not sure what the VII-7 you're referring to here is (which is probably my own fault for shitty notation/analysis), but grabbing the b9 might be a little odd in going to a major key. Which isn't to say it's not a way to see it, just probably not the way you actually hear it. *However* I know a lot of guys (jazzers, mostly, because most other genres have stricter norms about what colour tones get chosen over particular tensions) who will specifically work on playing over "out there" substitutions, so that they grow to just hear them naturally. So yeah, you could see it like that. If you want everyone to say "I dunno, your playing sounded really jazzy" in a real mildly condescending way (and the jazzers, of course, will wonder why you're playing such an "in the box" substitution... No pleasing some people.) (I kid.)

So, honestly, with Mayer (and I'm using him as an example because I know his playing decently well, obviously this doesn't hold true of all players. Durr.), you're fine interpreting it either way. I suspect he just really loves the sound of 6ths, in general (and what's not to love? They're delightful. The only consonant, in fact, that can resolve to a perfect tension, which is why, incidentally, the 6-5 melodic gesture (in terms of scale degrees) became so popular; it was an easy melodic gesture to fit into the rigid dissonance-avoiding structure of baroque counterpoint).

So, he actually does two things quite a bit that revolve around 6ths; first, a lot of his licks contain leaps of sixths (that's generally what I mean when I say "he plays in 6ths a lot"). but he also does the second, more literal interpretation of the phrase, which is that he harmonizes in 6ths a lot too. So, for instance, a lot of his chord voicings contain 6ths, and if he's playing a line in intervals it's often in 6ths (or 3rds, but I mean, everyone does that, so it probably doesn't bear mentioning).

So if you're in a G bluesy feel, over the C or C-(7) or C7, you'd go C dorian, and target the hell out of the A note melodically.

Yep, although I've noticed that he tends to bend up the minor 3rd or slide down to the root pretty quickly, so it's probably inaccurate to say "target". I mostly just wanted to enumerate some good things to look for, and got a little over-zealous.

Absolutely not, I think you're going about this the right way. You're just treating is as another tool to help you understand what's going on in the music, and a way to narrow down the search space for sounds that work together. That's exactly what music theory is good for.

 

I'd say the best example of Hemiola I can think of is in "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen.

Right after the choral middle section "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for meee, for meeee, for MMEEEEEEEEEE!"

Right when you start banging your head all Wayne Campbell style, Roger Taylor starts playing the drums in the two pattern, while Brain May's solo is in three.

 

Yeah, that's exactly it, I was shown that by my old jazz theory teacher. I actually wrote it wrong, I think because I was trying to figure out how to write it in the notation you guys were going for (it's really hard for me to "see" chords when not using lowercase for minor, for some reason), but it's just a B diminished 7th (in C). I dunno how to make the little circle, and aren't sure how it fits in with the "all uppercase" notation style.

I hope so, but right now I'm in a huge rut creatively, I haven't done much on the guitar other than noodle around with what I already know in the past... very long time, and haven't really played with anybody consistently enough to get inspired by weird sounds being made in the moment. Which equals no new songs written. I know all it takes for me is to play more around/with others, but it's been difficult finding people to play with, and by that I haven't done much more than hope I stumble into somebody. Craigslist here I come? Hahah, I live in goddamn New York City and this is my issue, I am such a putz sometimes.

Oooh got it. I just didn't know that had a formal name.

 

Normally, you'd notate a diminished or (fully) diminished 7th chords as VIIdim or VIIdim7, and half diminished gets notated as VII-7(b5), in this style of analysis.

The way it's constructed is essentially as follows:
-The Roman numeral gives you the scale degree the chord is based on, relative the key you're analysing it in.
-The quality refers to the structure of the triad based on that scale degree. If it's major, you put nothing.
-The 7th tells you that, well, there's a 7th. It's assumed to be a minor 7th unless you say otherwise. (6ths are also included here, and they're assumed to be major)
-Any extensions get added in parentheses after the 7th(or 6th).

So, while this system is nice cause it's systematic, there are a few little weird things that take some people a little getting used to.
Note, for instance that VI-7 is a "six minor 7 chord" and that Imaj7 is a "one major 7 chord", but in the first case, the "-" refers to the triad, and in the second, the "maj" refers to the 7th.

Now, if you've been playing along at home, you probably noticed that there's a little peccadillo in what I first wrote, that is that "VIIdim7" would indicate a fully diminished chord, since under the above analysis, it would read "Diminished triad built on the VIIth scale degree, with a minor 7th above it", which is a half diminished chord. That's why the circle was invented, but since I have no idea how to do that on a keyboard. Fuck it. We all get it (I suppose you could write it as VIIdim6, but that kind of misses the point that the diminished 7th is acting as a 7th, so again, fuck it.)

Have you treid messing around with Band-in-a-Box? It's not nearly as good as live jamming, but I find it can help me get creative. Particularly because, when jamming with actual musicians, I tend to stay inside my comfort zone, so as not to embarrass myself, whereas the computer has no ears, and is therefore incapable of judging me.

And not to advocate drugs or anything, but I totally advocate drugs for this.

 

The -7(b5) is one of the most awesome chords in the world.

You can hear it in the theme to Cheers; the line "Wouldn't you like to get away" starts on a -7(b5). Actually, if you consider that line into the chorus, it's really a II-7(b5) to V OF II-, which then goes to the V, and resolves to the I at the beginning of the chorus! IT ALL FITS TOGETHER, FOLKS!
That is also based on the Circle of Fifths, which if you don't know about, start knowing about it.

A while back, cinlef mention the bII scale degree, and its use in the Romantic period, or other classical music times. That is also called the Neopolitan chord, which is used in Mozart's "Lacrymosa" (the cartoon video I posted a page or so back). It was a way to create tension usually after the song had resolved to the I chord. It's analyzed with an N instead of a bII sign.

And a cool way to use it was the way Mozart did - if you use the first inversion of N, then the third inversion of the V7 of N (the V of N with the 7th in the root), then that resolves back to the second inversion of the I chord (the fifth in the root). Go back and watch the video, the root motion is awesome. Actually, Mozart's root motion through the whole thing is fucking awesome.

 

I guess I'm the opposite, I get way more into the zone when actual people are around me, and I like trading solos because the "well, I gotta top that now" thing happens. Is there anything better than just dumb craigslist for this stuff? I feel like just waiting for somebody to pop into my life ain't gon happen (derr).

 

Well, I know a lot of bars in Montreal have jam nights that can be worth going to. I'd imagine the same must be true of New York. Granted, if you don't know the scene, it can take a while to figure out which ones are worth going to, and which aren't. But I'm sure if you ask around (I hear live music is more than abundant in New York. Check out some local acts that you like and ask the musicians where the good jams are; they know) you'll be able to figure it out pretty quickly.

Of course, some places also post about their jam sessions on Craigslist. So there's also that.

Oh, and on the subject of locating good jam sessions. IME, music students are pretty in touch with the local scene, more so than the more established performers. If there's a university near you, you could always just ask some of the students around there what's going on, since they probably have a pretty decent sense of it.

 

For music theory, I recommend this site:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.musictheory.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.musictheory.net/</a>

The "Lessons" section is great. It starts from the very beginning and teaches how to read music. And it's in a kind of powerpoint form so you can scroll back and forth.

 

Hi folks, pretty basic question:

Trying to analyze a song with the following chord progression, F#m / A / D / Bm / A / F#m / D / E / Fm

What gives? Is he transposing out of A major/F# minor to resolve this or is he playing in a different key and I'm just not getting it? Also, if I'm right, what do you guys think of such an arrangement?

The song, in case you're interested:

 

Here's what I'm hearing in that song:

F#m / A / F#m / A /

D Bm / A F#m / D / E F /

Not an Fm but an F major. He's not really modulating at all, in my opinion, just throwing in a VII chord. Non-classical music allows for a lot more free reign as far as chord motion, and I think cinlef mentioned back a few pages that you can move from major chord to major chord in linear motion (or something like that, he'll have to explain it).

Think of it this way - right now you're probably seeing it more in the key of F#m. Instead, turn it around to the relative key and think of it more in A major. Here's the analysis:

VI- / I / VI- / I /

IV II- / I VI- / IV / V bVI /

If you think of it this way, the bVI chord (the F major) acts as kind of a spanish/flamenco flavor thrown into the mix.

 

Natty is right both in his analysis, and his explanation. Just listen to him about everything.

On a first listen, it's tempting to hear it in the minor key, but the fact that you don't hear/see any V chord is generally a warning sign (although, admittedly, not always, but it's a decent rule of thumb).

As for the parallel motion thingy. I think I was talking about the bVI->bVII->I motion in a major key, which is just a picardy third thing. That's not quite what's going on here, though (although, parallel chord motion *is* a thing, and is awesome, it's just a lot more "avant garde"/jazzy). The Cliff's notes version is this: Chromatic motion of a chord is a-ok in just about any situation. Here, it's just a passing chord; it's used on the weaker of the two beats, and he doesn't even sing over it, so the melody is never really forced to 'justify' the chord.

Personally, I hear it as being in the minor key up to the II- (In Natty's analysis), then pivoting to the major (stepwise diatonic motion is, IMO, one of the classiest ways to pivot), and I hear the V->bVI->VI as a modulation back to the minor key. I think that's pretty justified, since:
a) The opening riff is clearly minor, and sets up the F#m-A motion to be heard in a minor key.
b) It minimizes "funny" chord progressions. II minor->I is a little funny, since the II chord is really strongly subdominant, and IV->III is even weirder, so it makes sense that that's where the pivot occurs, since my ear hears it being more naturally as a modulation, than a strictly diatonic progression in either key.

Of course, either one is justified, provided you know how *you*are hearing it. A good trick is to stop the song just before the II->I motion (On the B min chord), and then sing what you think the root is. If you're singing an F#, you're hearing the song in the minor key up until there (there's no way, to my mind you'd hear it in minor beyond that point, but hey, maybe you're different). If you sing an A, then you've probably heard it as being in the major key the whole time.

Try it out!

 

Let me just say that the two of you are awesome. Sooo much musical knowledge between the both of you.

Has anyone heard of the book "How Music Really Works" by Wayne Chase? I'm reading it now and learning a lot.

 

These two posts are perfect examples of what intrigues me and at the same time puts me off musical theory. My initial reaction is always "who cares if you can't explain why it works". As in, the whole idea that music should work theoretically is for me a turn-off. If it works, it works, so to speak. Yet, the second post is what intrigues me so much - there was an explanation all along, you just had to look at it in a different way.


I produce fair amount of music (on a amateur / hobby level), guitar based mostly, but I have veered off into classical/romantic as a bit of an experiment, and for the past 4 months exclusively electronic music (purely because I find it so exciting that I can twist and alter any sound however I want). I have never studied musical theory though, yet the way I have learned is to analyse songs I like in order to progress - which amounts to the same thing in a sense. My fear is that if I start basing my music on the theory, I will lose my "creativity" or my own style, so to speak. Which is as silly as it sounds, I know, but the fear is still there. Is there anything to lose by learning musical theory?
Having said that, as I mentioned, I learn by listening to existing music and reproducing styles I like, and then taking it in a direction I want. So I guess I answered my own question there.

Opinions? Am I full of shit? Should I get off my ass and start learning the proper theory?

 

I definitely don't think it would hurt, or affect your creativity or anything like that, but it's not necessary. The thing with theory is, it takes a while to internalize. You can learn the concepts relatively quickly, but it takes time to internalize them and have them come out in your playing. I would say don't bother unless you really have a desire to learn it and are willing to work at it.

My teacher (I'm in music school right now) calls theory "food for creativity." It can give you concrete ideas on how to make the sounds you're looking for, rather than just "oh that sounds good, I'll go with that."

That's interesting, I find that to be one of the most fascinating things about music. The fact that a great song, that speaks to me on almost a spiritual level, evoking all kinds of powerful emotions, can be expressed with mathematical precision on paper is somehow beautiful to me.

 

When you make music that sounds good to your brain, be it a symphony, a guitar riff, or an electronica track, you are obeying the "rules" of music theory whether you are conscious of them or not.

Look at it like this, you wake up with an idea for a track in your head. You find the right beats, samples, whatever (I know nothing about making electrionic music), and you get it down on ableton or whatever you use. On repeated listenings, shit just doesn't sound as good as you invisioned it in your head that morning you woke up. Theory is a tool that can allow you to systematically examine your track and insert, say, an interval that builds tension before the track resolves. You may have been able to do this anyway, but if not, you're just stabbing around in the dark hoping to hit the right sound.

Theory can't replace inspiration, but it can help turn an good idea into a solid track that is emotionally compelling.

 

How far does this stretch though - is the world of musical theory "finished" or is it a work in progress? Just out of curiosity.

That's an interesting way of putting it, and is quite close to how I do produce music at times. Though when I'm in the zone, it just flows, I know exactly which note or whatever I want next, even if I had no idea before I got there. The idea that theory can take what may be a vague idea and make it into something concrete is a compelling argument for theory.

Another good argument - expanding your "tool kit". I find I get that from listening to a variety of different music, but going straight to the theory would give me the understanding of what is actually happening, rather than "it sounds good".

Maybe I should specify- I do find that fascinating, yet it's the commonly held elitism that puts me off. And it's also got to do with my own prejudice. I do not enjoy guitarists such as Malmsteen - a player that have a great theoretical and technical skill, while I will enjoy a player like Hendrix or Slash. Sure they have great technical skill and will doubtlessly know music theory, but do you see what I'm getting at? The former seems to me to be playing "cleaner", more by the book, so to speak.