Theory for Songwriters

[bee3]

This thread gives me a headache. I'm going to go plug in my Leslie and watch it spin.

[Lee Knight]

But maybe it's time to go to STEP 1 on all this stuff. I know there are a lot of people that just feel they'll never get any of this. Part of the reason is it's so much fun to start going off when you know a little and... the person that doesn't know it yet... thinks, "Well, this isn't for me. I don't get it, they do. And I don't like feeling like a numbskull anymore so screw this." So let's step back. What's up with all this I chord nonsense. Or V chord, or IV. Or sometimes I see ii, or iii. Screw this {censored}. I didn't get into music to relive my HS geometry nightmares. Agreed. Ever play that Bill Withers tune Lean On Me on the piano? You know? All white keys. You find C, you make a chord like the 1st chord below... ...and you just go right up the white keys to F. Same shape right up the keyboard. (C)Some... (C)times (Dm)in (Em)our (F)lives (then back down) to C we all have pain... etc. There's a reason for that. It's why you hear, "learn the piano". Cause all this confusing as hell {censored} is based on the fact that some guy did his best but not good enough. So he made in easy in one key, C, and progressively harder in all the others. And we start getting black keys and #'s and b's. ' Forget all that. Just white keys. In C. OK, so what they did, is they created a scale. Do Re Me Fa Sol La Ti Do. And it brings us back to Do. An octave. God bless Julie Andrews. And on that simple Do Re Mi scale, called the Major scale, they build chords on each note. Some... time in our lives... God bless Bill Withers. And what is known as the Diatonic Chord Series was born. Who cares about names, except they can make you sound smarter than you are. I know it works for me. SO THIS IS WHERE ALL THAT 1 4 5 STUFF COMES FROM. Or as more commonly spelled using roman numerals, the I, IV, V. A 2 (0r II) chord in C? Look at the diagram above. Dm, right? The V chord? G, right? The I? otherwise known as the tonic, the key of the song? C, right?

[Matximus]

Theory is really useful. Getting bogged down in it is a waste of time depending on your ability level and ambitions, but if you want to make interesting songs you should know the basic rules or else your just being willfully ignorant, which is silly.

 

Like, you should know how to change the key of a song by being able to play the same thing on different chords. That's really useful for a variety of reasons - some chords are easier on your hands than others and most people sing better in certain keys than others. This is especially useful for learning cover songs - a lot of oldies are played in, like, Bb, Eb and they're a lot easier to play and sing if you figure out how to play em just on those two frets at the top of the neck there.

 

Also, if you want to play with other people you should know something about scales and whatnot so you can make more interesting sounds together.

[bee3]

 

I wrote the one below for you!!! It didnt' work?

 

Well, I get I IV V and all that, but the minute you start throwing fancy SAT words like tonic and diatonic, I go numb. I can't count to 4 the same way twice either... so I'm basically screwed.

[shortchord]

 

Well, I get I IV V and all that, but the minute you start throwing fancy SAT words like tonic and diatonic, I go numb. I can't count to 4 the same way twice either... so I'm basically screwed.

 

 

Since you already get the I, IV, V, etc., think of the tonic as the I. "Diatonic" in this context just means that the chords contain only the notes that belong to the scale of the tonic. So saying that all of the chords are diatonic to C means that they contain only notes from the C major scale.

[BryanMichael]

 

Oh man... as much as I loved The Smithereens, that video is promo for why someone might want to learn some theory. His "comedy" chord progressions are so far off it makes his smugness all the more impotent. If that video is any indication of what he's been up too lately... no thanks.

 

 

 

I'm kind of surprised by your reaction. I thought he was just fooling about in the moment, showing how you can make a song with a few chords - I didn't take it as a serious attempt at anything. Personally, I loved the Smithereens and have seen them live twice back in the 80's. Great band - and i like Pat's songwriting...but really, he's writing in a specific idiom, and my biggest criticism of the Smithereens and Pat is that their (his) schtick is all a bit predictable...but in the same way that an old pair of jeans is predictable. My point in posting it was also that a good song can be made out of simple things.

 

I think this whole discussion is pretty interesting, in an academic way and I always wished I understood theory more, but I'm kind of an "either-or" left brain/right brain person. I can do one or the other very well, but trying to fuse that knowledge of theory with the intuition to just 'play" has always been a struggle.

[Lee Knight]

I'm kind of surprised by your reaction. I thought he was just fooling about in the moment, showing how you can make a song with a few chords - I didn't take it as a serious attempt at anything. Personally, I loved the Smithereens and have seen them live twice back in the 80's. Great band - and i like Pat's songwriting...but really, he's writing in a specific idiom, and my biggest criticism of the Smithereens and Pat is that their (his) schtick is all a bit predictable...but in the same way that an old pair of jeans is predictable. My point in posting it was also that a good song can be made out of simple things. I think this whole discussion is pretty interesting, in an academic way and I always wished I understood theory more, but I'm kind of an "either-or" left brain/right brain person. I can do one or the other very well, but trying to fuse that knowledge of theory with the intuition to just 'play" has always been a struggle.

 

Sorry. My rub with him came through. He's a bit smug for my taste. I've never much bought into the poking fun at success model. And he seems to reek of smug. I love what he did as a writer and your description above is great. Just not too keen on his supposed hipness. As he makes fun of chord progressions he's getting them wrong.

 

But hey, it's not fair of me to criticize a covert video of him posted most likely without his consent. So my slam has officially been retracted.

[bee3]

Sorry. My rub with him came through. He's a bit smug for my taste. I've never much bought into the poking fun at success model. And he seems to reek of smug. I love what he did as a writer and your description above is great. Just not too keen on his supposed hipness. As he makes fun of chord progressions he's getting them wrong. But hey, it's not fair of me to criticize a covert video of him posted most likely without his consent. So my slam has officially been retracted.

Hey, look what I dug up... I had much more hair back then.

 

[Lee Knight]

Just hangin' with your famous buds.

[rsadasiv]

Long-Long-Short, Long-Long-Long-Short

 

What is it?

 

A diatonic scale in 6/8 time.

[Oswlek]

 

I think this whole discussion is pretty interesting, in an academic way and I always wished I understood theory more, but I'm kind of an "either-or" left brain/right brain person. I can do one or the other very well, but trying to fuse that knowledge of theory with the intuition to just 'play" has always been a struggle.

 

 

I find this fascinating because it is just so foreign to me. Every bit of information I've learned has made it easier to follow threads.

 

Not saying there is anything wrong with you (or me, for that matter) just that it is like someone saying, "I don't like ice in my drinks, it burns my tongue". Just entirely the opposite of the reality I've experienced.

[Lee Knight]

 

Well, I get I IV V and all that, but the minute you start throwing fancy SAT words like tonic and diatonic, I go numb. I can't count to 4 the same way twice either... so I'm basically screwed.

 

 

I understand that. It can get silly sometimes, all the trappings of academia. The only reason I use the terms is because there aren't any other, less stuffy words, and... the idea behind the dominant chord is awesome and so powerful a concept to grasp. The pull back to the I chord from a V. That's pretty obvious. But...

 

...when you start seeing how this magnetic pull works by not always using the V chord, but a V chord in another key!!!!!!! I mean, we hear it everyday, but we don;t really understand it. So...

 

...using the word tonic and dominant sounds put on but they mean something. The thing is, what they mean is really, really simple. As shortchord pointed out, tonic is your I chord. The key you're in. Dominant is the V chord. That V chord always pulls back to the I. G7 to C! That is all dominant and tonic mean. V and I.

 

Diatonic just means the 8 note scale. Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do. That's all diatonic means.

 

If there were less stuffy words to use, I'd be using them. I really think this Greek wording is like lawyer speak intended to exclude people rather than welcome them. But if you can try and get past the aversion to these pompous terms, there are some really fun concepts that can open up for you...

[BryanMichael]

 

I find this fascinating because it is just so foreign to me. Every bit of information I've learned has made it easier to follow threads. Not saying there is anything wrong with you (or me, for that matter) just that it is like someone saying, "I don't like ice in my drinks, it burns my tongue". Just entirely the opposite of the reality I've experienced.

 

 

I think it's one of those things that "happens" as someone remains engaged in any field. Once you truly absorb the knowledge, you aren't really thinking about it any more - I've done that in certain aspects of my life, but music has always been fun and relatively easy to pick up for me, so "academizing" it with a ton of theory turns it into a bunch of hard work - does that make sense? I know the hard work would eventually pay off...but that would mean STUDYING the guitar instead of playing it and enjoying myself. For example, I went to college late in life and graduated at age 35. College RUINED me for reading - I'm 42 and I still can't read a book for pleasure without skimming it and looking for the "important" information in the paragraphs. I find myself flipping through novels after about 80 pages. Left Brain/Right Brain

[Lee Knight]

Please, for you theory guys, please correct me when I go astray. This is really sticking my neck out as a lot of this stuff is new to me.

 

So, for those who have the concept of the dominant firmly established, I want to go back to "Secondary Dominants". Remember that the dominant in C is just the G7. This is what gets me excited. What are the secondary dominants in the key of C? And why do we care?

 

A7 > Dm7

B7 > Em7

C7 > Fmaj7

D7 > G7

E7 > Am7

 

^Look^ at those in bold above. We all play chord progressions that use those chords in C. Or their equivalents in other keys. But A7, and any of the other bolded above, have notes that are not in the scale. A7 has a C# in it. That's not part of the C major scale of C D E F G A B C. C#. But it is a V chord in the key of D!!!!

 

Interesting. So, secondary dominants imply another key. And it's a pretty freaking cool thing. That is analyzed and written like this:

 

V7/II

A7 > Dm7

 

 

V7/II? The "/" means "of". So V7/II only means the V chord of the II chord. The II chord here is Dm7. Right? Stay with me... A7 is the V chord in the key of D! But it's a D minor! True, but with secondary dominants, the "rule" is, the chord it resolves to? It doesn't matter if it's major or minor. Just the letter matters.

 

So what we have is a non-diatonic chord, the A7, resolving to a diatonic chord again. It implies that key of D for a second.

 

V7/III

B7 > Em7

 

V7 of III? Yeah, B7 is the V chord of E, right? So again we have a non-diatonic chord, the B7 with its Eb note and its F#. Once again, not part of the C scale. But it is the V chord for the key of E. And once again it's not an E major but resolves to the diatonic chord in C, of Em7. The rule being the resolving chord can be any form of that letter chord. Major, minor, whatever.

 

V7/IV

C7 > Fmaj7

 

^C7 is the V of the key of F^

 

V7/V

D7 > G7

 

and...

 

V7/VI

E7 > Am7

 

I love it. It explains the pull of those chords. I use them all the time and always wondered how they fit in with this diatonic theory. They are, in fact, V chords of other keys. And the fun that can be had by going to other keys or just resolving diatonicly like we have he done above, brings a lot of teasing power to chords we can choose. We can suggest other keys, we can GO TO OTHER KEYS. Our choice.

 

Too fun.

[LCK]

I used to play this song on the guitar. And when I learned the chords (in C) I found something very interesting. Each chord has an A in it. Each and every one. In the key of C that means there's a 6th note in every chord. What does music theory say about that?

 

..............C6....................Dm.......................G9.......................C6

Well, the shark has pretty teeth dear, and he shows them pearly white

...........Am.........................Dm......................G9.................C6

Just a jackknife has old MacHeath dear, and he keeps it out of sight

 

[video=youtube;tnOWikgTG2Q]

 

LCK

[Lee Knight]

 

LCK

 

 

Nice^

 

Pedal Point. I love a good pedal. The term comes from the way the old pipe organs were played, and subsequently written for. A pedal point is a sustained note through chords. Typically in the bass because of its roots of being played in the organs pedals. Yeah, those bass pedals on an organ.

 

Am - G/A - F#/A - Am (

 

So here ^ we have a cool pedal point. The bass guitar drives home an A note bashing out 8ths and the rockin' acoustic guitarist channels his inner Richie Havens going through the changes. Am - G - F# - Am, while the bassist rides out an A through those changes.

 

So, "pedals" were from the organ. I don't know, but I would imagine a pedal point would be a welcome relief to an organist. Like a power chord for a guitarist. They're easy, they sound cool... and they rock.

 

But pedal points don't have to be in the bass. As your tune above illustrates. And as you point out, Lee, that simple A note changes function as it "pedals" through the chord sequence. From a 6 to a 5 to a 9 back to a 6. Then 1, 5, 9, 6. The pedal has this very cool ability to use the simplest move imaginable, no movement... to create movement by that static tone being defined differently in each chord. The chords change around it. And the thing that makes pedals so interesting is the varying amount of dissonance as that single note changes function.

 

Pedal Point. Or mostly just called, a "pedal".

[LCK]

 

The pedal has this very cool ability to use the simplest move imaginable, no movement... to create movement by that static tone being defined differently in each chord. The chords change around it. And the thing that makes pedals so interesting is the varying amount of dissonance as that single note changes function.

 

 

Great explanation. I must say that I often felt a small tingle of pleasure, playing this song and noticing how the 6th note "traveled" from chord to chord.

 

LCK

[shortchord]

 

I used to play this song on the guitar. And when I learned the chords (in C) I found something very interesting. Each chord has an A in it. Each and every one. In the key of C that means there's a 6th note in every chord. What does music theory say about that? ..............C6....................Dm.......................G9.......................C6 Well, the shark has pretty teeth dear, and he shows them pearly white ...........Am.........................Dm......................G9.................C6 Just a jackknife has old MacHeath dear, and he keeps it out of sight

 

 

I think that the simplest explanation is that the melody for the first four bars is comprised primarily of the note A (the words "shark has," "teeth dear," "shows them" and "white" are all A). The chords merely add that melody note as an upper extension.

 

Delving a little more deeply, the chord progression is comprised of two of the most common progressions in jazz: ii-V-I, and I-vi-ii-V-I.

 

It was very common in Louis Armstrong's day and into the big band era to substitute a I6 chord as the tonic, and I think that is what you are seeing with the C6 chord. In fact, if I remember correctly from when I played a professional production of The Threepenny Opera a couple of years ago, that orchestration used a plain I chord rather than a I6 chord, which tends to reinforce my belief that the I6 chord on the Louis Armstrong arrangement is as much a stylistic device typical of that era as anything else. The fact that the 6th in this case also happens to be the melody note is a pleasant coincidence, but that 6th chord is extremely common in this style in any event.

 

The I chord is followed by a ii7-V7 progression, which is the most common chord progression in all of jazz. In this case, the V7 chord has a 9 added, which is extremely common. In fact, look back to the exercise I laid out in an earlier post in this thread where I built all of the diatonic chords in C major by stacking thirds (i.e., using every other note of the major scale). Since I built 4 note chords, the V7 chord I derived was a G7 chord (G B D F) but if you take that exercise one note further and build a 5-note chord, you get a G9: G B D F A. Much like with the added 6th on the I chord, it is very common to add a 9th on the V7 chord in a ii-V-I progression, and that is particularly true here where the melody centers around an A.

[Lee Knight]

^^^ and that is a truer explanation of the song in its skeletal form. If the I is not a I6, then yeah. And most likely in the writing of it, it wasn't. But, by dismissing the pedal, you lose what it a very characteristic shading of the tune. That is what makes arrangements. As Adam Schlesinger (writer from Fountains of Wayne) points out, paraphrasing, "Sometimes a lyric will mean something else once I put music to it, ballad or rock? How am I going to color this?"

 

So, everything in the song shouts "PEDAL!!!" It's almost innate, and to ignore it is a conscious, stylistic choice.

 

But more specifically, Lee did write out a chord sequence, and I was speaking to that. And that's what he was asking about. I think.

[LCK]

 

I think that the simplest explanation is that the melody for the first four bars is comprised primarily of the note A (the words "shark has," "teeth dear," "shows them" and "white" are all A). The chords merely add that melody note as an upper extension.

 

 

Either way, though, that 6th note travels throughout the song or, perhaps, anchors it in a way.

 

The C6 and the G9 may be implied rather than played by the piano, etc, but whatever chords are played seem to fall on the 6th note anyway.

 

LCK

[kurdy]

I think theory is very useful, but I would say don't be too concerned if you find it confusing at first.

 

I started making up songs when I was young...not to say that they were any good...but before I knew what a "minor third" was, for instance, I was already recognizing relationships between notes and chords, and categorizing them in my mind. I just didn't know the names. I think to some degree, everyone who can hear a song and play it, or make up their own tunes has at least a basic understanding of how music works. Theory to me is just a more efficient way of categorizing what I already know, and maybe makes it easier to communicate with other musicians. I still can't read music. But if I didn't have that basic understanding already, I can imagine how daunting it would be to have to learn this stuff from the ground up.

 

It never hurts to learn this stuff, but I think if you find it intimidating, you might learn better by just listening and playing. Just learn as many songs as you can...you begin to hear a lot of correlations between different pieces of music, and eventually what you pick up by playing seeps into your own stuff almost involuntarily. So by the time you decide to learn the official names for things, it might make greater sense to you.

[Lee Knight]

 

I think theory is very useful, but I would say don't be too concerned if you find it confusing at first. I started making up songs when I was young...not to say that they were any good...but before I knew what a "minor third" was, for instance, I was already recognizing relationships between notes and chords, and categorizing them in my mind. I just didn't know the names. I think to some degree, everyone who can hear a song and play it, or make up their own tunes has at least a basic understanding of how music works. Theory to me is just a more efficient way of categorizing what I already know, and maybe makes it easier to communicate with other musicians. I still can't read music. But if I didn't have that basic understanding already, I can imagine how daunting it would be to have to learn this stuff from the ground up. It never hurts to learn this stuff, but I think if you find it intimidating, you might learn better by just listening and playing. Just learn as many songs as you can...you begin to hear a lot of correlations between different pieces of music, and eventually what you pick up by playing seeps into your own stuff almost involuntarily. So by the time you decide to learn the official names for things, it might make greater sense to you.

 

 

Exactly.

 

I've never looked at theory as the reason music sounds a certain way... it's just the opposite. It's like, a table doesn't stand because of the math, math is an attempt to describe the phenomenon. So, we can all rest assure that music will go on just fine without theory. But given that, theory can be a lot of fun.

 

And while I agree with your statement, "Theory to me is just a more efficient way of categorizing what I already know", it isn't the whole truth. Theory can also shine light on things we don't understand, and through the help of theory, we then hear something and "get it". Secondary dominants for instance, I've always got that an A7 sounds great in a progression is C. But looking at the theory, the V/II, the 5 of the 2nd chord, that opens my mind up to all the ways other keys can come into play in any given key. I don't think I would've gotten that without some theory shining a light on the concept...

[kurdy]

 

Exactly. I've never looked at theory as the reason music sounds a certain way... it's just the opposite. It's like, a table doesn't stand because of the math, math is an attempt to describe the phenomenon. So, we can all rest assure that music will go on just fine without theory. But given that, theory can be a lot of fun. And while I agree with your statement, " Theory to me is just a more efficient way of categorizing what I already know ", it isn't the whole truth. Theory can also shine light on things we don't understand, and through the help of theory, we then hear something and "get it". Secondary dominants for instance, I've always got that an A7 sounds great in a progression is C. But looking at the theory, the V/II, the 5 of the 2nd chord, that opens my mind up to all the ways other keys can come into play in any given key. I don't think I would've gotten that without some theory shining a light on the concept...

 

 

I'm not suggesting that theory can't teach you anything new...but that your understanding of theory stems from what you already know about music.

 

The secondary dominant example...I've always known about that substituting a dominant seventh for the relative minor makes a particular type of sound...I didn't know that's what it was called until recently. But now it makes me think of the second chord to "Yesterday"...until now, wasn't sure why that chord worked so well, but now it makes more sense. But had I not already known the chords to "Yesterday", I probably would never have made that association.

[Lee Knight]

 

I'm not suggesting that theory can't teach you anything new...but that your understanding of theory stems from what you already know about music. The secondary dominant example...I've always known about that substituting a dominant seventh for the relative minor makes a particular type of sound...I didn't know that's what it was called until recently. But now it makes me think of the second chord to "Yesterday"...until now, wasn't sure why that chord worked so well, but now it makes more sense. But had I not already known the chords to "Yesterday", I probably would never have made that association.

 

 

I see, interesting.

[Anderton]

Heavy reading...but a great thread.