altered scale over dominant chord

[possopo]

hi everyone,

 

I have a problem with how to use the altered scale over a dominant chord.

let's say we have these 2 chord sequences :

Dm7 G7 CM7

Dm7b5 G7 Cm7

 

over the first and third chord, I would play the C major scale (first chord sequence) and the C minor scale (second chord sequence).

 

but I'm interested in the G7.

can I play G altered over it ?

I know the altered scale is based on b5, #5, b9, #9 (they create tension...) but my concern is that if I play these notes over a non-altered G7, they would clash with natural 5 and 9.

 

so could I still play G altered to create tension even if G7 is not altered ?

or is G altered limited to G7 b5b9, G7 b5#9, G7 #5b9, G7#5#9 (where both 5 and 9 are altered) ?

[c+t in b]

the altered scale will clash with the G7 Chord.

 

Make it simple. Take a G7 and superimpose it over C Minor

 

C D Eb F G Ab Bb becomes C D Eb F G Ab B C. Rearrange the notes and you get

 

G Ab B C D Eb F G: Mixolydian b9, b13 or Phrygian Dominant

[FatJeff]

 

Make it simple. Take a G7 and superimpose it over C Minor. C Db Eb F G Ab Bb becomes C D Eb F G Ab B C. Rearrange the notes and you get G Ab B C D Eb F G: Mixolydian b9, b13 or Phrygian Dominant.

 

 

I'm not getting this either. Could you explain in more detail what you mean?

[Sandy Cheeks]

 

the altered scale will clash with the G7 Chord. Make it simple. Take a G7 and superimpose it over C Minor C Db Eb F G Ab Bb becomes C D Eb F G Ab B C. Rearrange the notes and you get G Ab B C D Eb F G: Mixolydian b9, b13 or Phrygian Dominant

 

 

So play it over a Galt chord, or play it over a vanilla G7 chord and enjoy the tension.

 

The difference between G Phrygian Dominant and G altered scales is (C & D) versus (Bb and C#). I think I prefer the latter.

[possopo]

I think I have the answer from all your posts:)

so if you have someone playing chords and someone playing solos, the soloist will be able to play the G altered scale and create tensions even if the rhythm player is playing a plain G7 and is not altering anything at all. right ?

[c+t in b]

 

I'm not getting this either. Could you explain in more detail what you mean?

 

 

All i did was take the home key of the C minor scale and changed anything based on the pitches for g,b,d,f, into the notes from G7(In this case I only had to change Bb to Bnatural) This results in a harmonic minor scale, which is where G7b9 is typically borrowed from

[FatJeff]

 

Explanation for my reasoning: The D note in a G7 will create the interval of a minor 9th tension between the b5 or the b13. Generally b9 tensions are allowed on dominant chords when they are reflected against the home key, or the chord itself. In example provided, neither of those are available for that sound. But a simple test is to hold the D note over the harmony. It's not that pleasant, and it has the same unpleasant aural effect of playing a natural 11th over a major 7th chord

You're making it sound like those altered dominant 7ths are sitting there in static space-time, unmoving forever. In reality, they are liable to exist for at most a measure, or possibly two, so any tension will be resolved quite quickly, much to the listener's pleasure.

 

I've heard the "avoid the min9 interval at all costs" argument made in theory classes (classical theory as well as in jazz arranging classes), but in the real world it's used all the time. Just ask Gil Evans. I personally play drop-2 maj7th chords with the 7th in the bass all time time, and it sounds good to me. And dom7b9 chords are as common as you can get. Of course, everyone has a different ear and a different tolerance for "unpleasant aural effects." :-) I've grown to quite enjoy the m9 interval.

[c+t in b]

 

The altered scale is used any time you want to introduce extra tension over a V7 chord. I personally use it all the time, but then again, I play almost solely jazz, so perhaps one could argue that the underlying V7 chords are likely to be altered as well, even though often times they're not. You're making it sound like those altered dominant 7ths are sitting there in static space-time, unmoving forever. In reality, they are liable to exist for at most a measure, or possibly two, so any tension will be resolved quite quickly, much to the listener's pleasure. I've heard the "avoid the min9 interval at all costs" argument made in theory classes (classical theory as well as in jazz arranging classes), but in the real world it's used all the time. Just ask Gil Evans. I personally play drop-2 maj7th chords with the 7th in the bass all time time, and it sounds good to me. And dom7b9 chords are as common as you can get. Of course, everyone has a different ear and a different tolerance for "unpleasant aural effects." :-) I've grown to quite enjoy the m9 interval.

 

 

I'm just talking in basic notions of theory here man. Do whatever you want if it sounds good to you. I personally love Altered/Super Locrian and use it all the time. I just tend to use it over the implied harmony of the scale...

 

I believe the minor 9th guideline, which you're referring to, concerns the problems encountered when it occurs between an inner voice and an outer voice. So you're example of a root position G7b9 or a 3rd inversion Drop 2 Maj7 wouldn't be affected. G7 with an altered scale over top is guaranteed to have this problem.

 

However, I was actually talking rules concerning available tensions, not the writing guidelines concerning the minor 9th interval

[FatJeff]

I'm not sure why the rule would apply in the one case, and not in the other...both involve a lower and an upper note. Perhaps the human ear tends to place special importance on the bass note? I don't know. But after completing all the required theory courses and actually playing in the real world, I've learned that I let my ear guide me to what sounds right and what sounds wrong. Even Debussy was quoted as saying "There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law." Anyway, not trying to create a big fuss.

 

One thing that it also very important, and something that is often neglected in discussions such as these, is phrasing. Just this morning on the drive into work, I was listening to Miles Davis' Sorcerer album, and over a Phrygian section he employed a descending whole-tone run that hit the major third. The major third...Good God, man! In theory, that would sound like crap, but when Miles played it, it sounded awesome!

[JonR]

 

I think I have the answer from all your posts:) so if you have someone playing chords and someone playing solos, the soloist will be able to play the G altered scale and create tensions even if the rhythm player is playing a plain G7 and is not altering anything at all. right ?

Generally, in jazz, a chord player would only play 3rd and 7th (leaving root to the bass), omitting the 5th, in order to allow a soloist freedom to alter other notes (or not) as he/she wishes.

 

If in doubt, it's in the minor key where one would expect an altered V7 more often.

 

Even if the accompanist does play a full G7, that still leaves the options of b9 and #9. A bassist, too, might play a P5, while a soloist goes for a b5 or #5 - but it will be such a fleeting dissonance it won't be a problem.

 

The main point of the altered scale - in any case - is not (IMO) to enhance the tension on the V7 chord - or at least it doesn't help much to think of it in that way. The point is to provide half-step resolutions - up or down - on to the following (tonic) chord. The so-called "altered scale" is simply an after-the-event rationalization of the chromaticisms that might typically be used. (Just as "7th mode melodic minor" is simply a coincidental resemblance.)

Although the normal use of an altered V7 is in a minor key, you actually get an additional half-step move in major (although it's only the normal 4-3 move, F>E in G7 to C).

 

Here's the half-step moves from an altered G7 to chord tones and consonant extensions on a Cm or C chord.

 

G7alt > Cm or C

 

Ab > G or A (6th)

Bb > A or B (maj7)

B > C

Db > C or D (9th)

D# > D or E (C major only)

F > E (C major only)

 

Personally, I never managed to use the altered scale effectively until I realised this, and made use of those half-step resolutions.

 

It might help to remember that the tritone sub for G7alt (which takes the same scale) is Db7#11; that makes the idea of half-step moves (to C or Cm) clearer.

 

Another trick I sometime use for the altered scale (given that there is rarely any more than 4 beats on it, and often only 2) is to apply a prepared lick - a distinctive phrase using a few good alterations - making sure that the last note of the lick comes out via a half-step on to the tonic chord (tone or extension).

Any arpeggio you can find in the scale (other than a G7 arp?) will also work the same way. (Eg try Db9 arps.)

[polishpaul]

I love the questions, I adore the answers....

 

but....

 

....it should be obvious what one needs to do. One plays, and tries "this"....then tries "that"....listen to it, then try "the other". Find out what you like.

 

How long would it take to try all the possible permutations of half-step resolutions between two chords?

 

A lifetime....

 

....taking into account all the nuances you'd have to experiment with....a little bounce, an aggressive attack on the strings, something more mellow....

 

I'm really getting into all this now, and the best thing to do, I find, is to try out everything and see (hear) what you like.

 

What I've learned so far, for example, is that sliding into a chord in the blues is THE thing to do. If you just hit the chord, it's pretty dull. If you hit on a D7 by first hitting on a C7 and sliding up quickly (or even D#7 and sliding down), it sounds more bluesy. I don't think this kind of thing gets into notation....it's a groove thing....personal interpretation.

 

So if you want to play a note, start by hitting the note one fret below and sliding up quickly to the target note, and vice versa. This half-step thing is potentially very cool, and does require a lot of time in experimentation.

 

like...

 

....if you try something and it sounds a bit "off", try anything you can to make it sound okay - to you. Work on the build up to the "off" part, using all the musical devices at your disposal - rhythm, dynamics, chromaticism.....whatever it takes to make that sound acceptable to your ear. Giving up at the first attempt, thinking "that sounds bad", is not the way to progress musically. Giving up on it after an hour of experimentation has value....you were in there, sussing stuff out.

 

It all adds up.

[possopo]

JonR wrote :

 

If in doubt, it's in the minor key where one would expect an altered V7 more often.

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this sentence at all :/

 

 

Here's the half-step moves from an altered G7 to chord tones and consonant extensions on a Cm or C chord.

 

so would you say the altered scale leads to another chord (in this case C or Cm) when other would stay alterations create tensions ? one might say it's the same since the tensions are asking for resolutions and if you play G altered over a rhythmic section that plays 3rd/7th and root but I still think these two analyses are very different, if not opposed.

on the first, you're paving the way for the song to go to a very natural place (C or Cm). so you're very gentle with the ear all the way from G to C.

on the second, you're trying to unsettle the ear (alterations on G) and then be gentle with it again (C or Cm).

 

 

Even if the accompanist does play a full G7, that still leaves the options of b9 and #9. A bassist, too, might play a P5, while a soloist goes for a b5 or #5 - but it will be such a fleeting dissonance it won't be a problem.

 

so are you saying that if a rhythm guitarist plays G7 (with P5), a soloist will try to avoid altered 5ths because that would clash (and the effect would be a little different with a bass because of the sound texture of the instrument) ? if so, then the altered scale is absolutely not relevant anymore.

[3shiftgtr]

 

The main point of the altered scale - in any case - is not (IMO) to enhance the tension on the V7 chord - or at least it doesn't help much to think of it in that way. The point is to provide half-step resolutions - up or down - on to the following (tonic) chord. The so-called "altered scale" is simply an after-the-event rationalization of the chromaticisms that might typically be used. (Just as "7th mode melodic minor" is simply a coincidental resemblance.)

 

 

Good point...that is the "jazz correct" POV....

 

But scales, when used as a whole have emotional content....when ascended or descended quickly, all scales have a flavor as a whole....it can be about the scale and the flavor it creates as a group of notes rather than using the notes inside the scale to create specific slower melodic motion.

 

The superlocrian against a V7 chord in minor, when zipped thru to a target tone of the next chord, has an 'undulating' or 'in and out' sound to my ear. Even though it is because of the 1/2 step thing you mentioned, approaching it only as afterthought tensions used for release, negates the use of the scale as a whole and the sound you get with the use of it completely.

[JonR]

 

if so, then the altered scale is absolutely not relevant anymore.

Sorry I don't follow that conclusion.

 

The altered scale is relevant in the following situations:

 

1. any time you see the following chord symbols:

7#5#9, 7b5b9, 7#5b9, 7b5#9, 7#9 (used as a V chord), 7b13, 7#11b13, 7alt.

 

2. almost any time you see a plain "7"as V in a minor key. (The exceptions depend on taste and experience, unfortunately.)

Of course, harmonic minor (of the key) and HW dim will also fit. You don't have to use the altered scale, and it may be better not to!

Harmonic minor is the least "jazzy" option - which doesn't make it a bad choice.

 

3. occasionally when you see a plain "7" as V in a major key. It will sound less expected and more surprising in this context - which may or may not be a good thing. It's still up to you: your ear and taste.

 

Where the altered scale is generally NOT appropriate:

 

1. On a 7#11 chord (or 9#11 or 13#11).

 

2. On any dom7-type chord which is not a V chord. (Typically these are 7#11s anyway.)

 

3. If you see a "7b9" chord, the altered scale will probably work, but that symbol is normally understood (in my expereince) to imply the HW dim scale. But harmonic minor would also work.

[JonR]

 

Good point...that is the "jazz correct" POV.... But scales, when used as a whole have emotional content....when ascended or descended quickly, all scales have a flavor as a whole....it can be about the scale and the flavor it creates as a group of notes rather than using the notes inside the scale to create specific slower melodic motion. The superlocrian against a V7 chord in minor, when zipped thru to a target tone of the next chord, has an 'undulating' or 'in and out' sound to my ear. Even though it is because of the 1/2 step thing you mentioned, approaching it only as afterthought tensions used for release, negates the use of the scale as a whole and the sound you get with the use of it completely.

Yes, good point. I think if you play a scale run with the altered scale, the half-step tensions kind of work as a whole. Even if your phrase might come out on a single resolution, you will hear the other resolutions in the accompanying chord tones.

 

It's also not necessary to resolve the half-step immediately (on beat 1) - it can be delayed.

[possopo]

JonR wrote :

In addition - just to confuse things even more! - the other option (giving you b9 and #9 on a full unaltered V7) is the HW dim scale: 1 b2 #2 3 #4 5 6 b7. None of that clashes with a 1-3-5-b7 dom7 chord.

 

so would you say using this one is "safer" (because it can't clash with V7 so chances of an unpleasant note are slimmer) ? hence it could a good first option.

[FatJeff]

I think there's way too much concern here with avoiding "clashing" sounds on a V7. If there is one thing I've learned in the past few years of listening closely to recordings and seeing live pro musicians play, it's that you can pretty much hit any note you want, as long as you resolve your phrase strongly.

 

Listen to Cannonball Adderley's solo on the II7-bII7-I in Green Dolphin Street (this is basically a ii-V7-I with dominant substitution of the ii and tritone substitution of the V7, so I think it's relevant to this discussion). This is about as outside as it gets, and I sincerely doubt he is thinking "ooh I better not clash with Bill Evans' chord here!"

In reality he's probably thinking either side-slipping, or just playing whatever notes he can grab, before he makes sure to resolve strongly.

[JonR]

JonR wrote : so would you say using this one is "safer" (because it can't clash with V7 so chances of an unpleasant note are slimmer) ? hence it could a good first option.

Like FatJeff says, it sounds like you're worrying too much about this. Very few clashes are "unpleasant" - and if you do happen to play one,remember the old jazz saying "for any wrong note, the right one is a half-step away." Or of course Miles's great dictum "Do not fear wrong notes - there are none". (Meaning any "off"-sounding note is an exciting challenge, an inspiration, not to be treated as an embarrasing mistaike.)

 

But I do understand that you want to start from some clear information, to save too much trial and error (esp if you're not too sure about what sounds good or bad anyway ).

 

You should certainly know both the altered scale and the HW dim scale, and the differences between them. (Essentially P5 and M6 in the HW dim, and a #5/b6 in the alt scale.)

But the best advice is to listen to plenty of great jazz soloists, and listen to what they do in various kinds of dom7 chords, in various contexts.

 

Eg, talking of Cannonball Adderly, on Miles's "All Blues", he uses an Fm7 arpeggio on the D7alt chord. And he does it in both choruses of his solo. IOW, he's found a neat strategy that gets him through it. An Fm7 arpeggio, relative to the D7 chord, gives you F (#9), Ab (b5), C (b7) and Eb (b9) - a good set of alterations. But it works because an arpeggio is a strong melodic shape in its own right. (I can't remember how he resolves it, I may have to get back to you on that...).

We have no idea if he was thinking "Eb melodic minor" (which all those notes come from) or "Fm7 arp to give me some good alterations". My guess is the latter.

 

Those notes also occur in the D HW dim scale (so he's avoiding making a distinction between the scales - it doesn't actually matter).

 

So always work from chord tones, and think of any chromatics as embellishments or passing notes, that will lead you on to a chord tone - on either this chord or the next chord. I suggest taking a break from thinking about scales for a while....

[Sandy Cheeks]

I think there's way too much concern here with avoiding "clashing" sounds on a V7. If there is one thing I've learned in the past few years of listening closely to recordings and seeing live pro musicians play, it's that you can pretty much hit any note you want , as long as you resolve your phrase strongly.

 

+1, Although I think that comment applies most strongly to jazz from bebop onward. I don't think you can get away with it so easily in Western Swing!

 

I suggest sitting down at the piano and listening to how things sound. Even better is recording something or using some music software to play some examples, over and over, so that it sinks into your head. I wrote this earlier about the same idea:

 

As a general comment, I think the scale choice matters less that we imagine. As long as you establish the tonality at the beginning (don't go outside too quickly!), resolve at the end, nail some chord tones along the way, then the "in between" notes can be almost anything. Here's an example of what I mean. Over a C7, shall we play C lydian dominant or C altered? One is the other, raised a tritone, so they are opposites, so to speak. Here's a simple lick that uses all the scale tones and no passing tones, done first with C lydian dominant (wish that Gb could have been notated as a F#) and then with C altered (The chords are | C7 | F | C7 | F |). The two takes sound more similar than different to me.

[JonR]

+1, Although I think that comment applies most strongly to jazz from bebop onward. I don't think you can get away with it so easily in Western Swing!

Very true.

Whether notes sound right or wrong depends on several things, and genre is the main one.

There are after all "common practices", stylistic rules, that enable us to tell - say - western swing from bebop jazz. And it's not just the instrumentation (fiddles vs saxes ).

The altered scale, in particular, may well sound fine (even obligatory in some instances) in bebop and post-bop jazz. It's going raise a good few eyebrows in western swing, or other forms of country, or in blues or rock.

 

Jazz, briefly, has distinctive ways of using chromaticism that go beyond the bluesy slurs of western swing. While it's possible to sum these up (crudely) in concepts such as the "altered scale", "diminished scale", or "bebop scales", I don't think those get to the heart of what it's about. As I always say, looking at scales risks not seeing the wood for the trees.

Just because the notes in a few solo phrases happen to add up, when you write them out alphabetically, to an identifiable scale, doesn't mean that that's a revealing piece of information. You may as well look at these words I'm writing and say "ah, he's using the English alphabet ..." Very true, but so what?

To pursue the analogy, you could narrow the analysis and notice that the letters are grouped in certain ways. They form what a theorist might call "words" ... It's still not getting us very far.

The words have particular meanings, they fall into phrases, using various forms of punctuation, sentences, paragraphs, grammar, syntac, etc....

Now we're actually getting somewhere! We're getting close to the purpose of the whole thing.

 

To change the analogy a little: let's say we want to learn a foreign language. We can work from the bottom up: the alphabet they use, the way certain words are spelled, the kinds of endings used, etc. Or we can work from the top down, and go to that country and just listen to people speak, and try and copy them. A certain context might enable us to pick up a simple phrase, and say it properly. Such as "s'il vous plait" in French. We don't need to know how that's spelled (or what it literally means, "if it pleases you"), we only need to know how it sounds ("seevoopleh") what it's for and when we should use it.

You can actually learn a foreign language entirely that way - totally by ear - if you spend long enough in the country, and keep working with trial and error, and hopefully one or two friendly locals. You may not know how anything is spelled (how to read or write it) but you will end up with a very good accent, and be able to make yourself understood perfectly.

If you work the other way - from books where the words are spelled out for you - you may have a good understanding of the grammar, but your accent may be so bad you have trouble communicating; or likewise understanding what is being said to you.

 

Naturally, a mixture of both is the best way! (The books should speed up the aural learning process.) And the same applies to music. But with jazz - and other vernacular (non-academic) musics - in particular, the listening is really the more important half. That's because those musics are more like kinds of jargon or street slang. The musicians tend to take the given language of music -the conventions that all western music shares - and bend it to their purposes, according to fashion, or what kind of personal expression they want to make. A book of slang terms is not going to get you very far in the local 'hood.

(And that's not because slang "breaks rules"; it has its own rules, that are often hard or impossible to write down; if you did manage to write some down, they'd be out of date within a few months, or even weeks.)

[3shiftgtr]

If there is one thing I've learned in the past few years of listening closely to recordings and seeing live pro musicians play, it's that you can pretty much hit any note you want , as long as you resolve your phrase strongly.

 

:lol:

 

I resolve like a mother father and still get looks!!!!

 

Maybe I wait too long to resolve....2 maybe 3 choruses too long?

[possopo]

I very well understand what all of you are saying and advising and I totally agree. I think I'm just trying to extend my knowledge of theory so much because I played music about 10 years with absolutely no knowledge at all. so I was putting too much effort in one side of apprenticeship (practice) and now, I'm putting too much effort in the other side (theory).

but I'm still really trying to keep a good balance between the two and I'm actually spending much more time on my instrument than what you could think based on many of my threads. sometimes yes, I'm splitting hairs but I still have this very well in mind :

theory (especially in popular/rock/jazz... music) is usually only an after the event explanation. and the event is playing, trying new things, bending the rules... and as long as it sound good, it is good no matter what theory says. and I'm only using theory as a means to better memorize ideas, not as a highway with no exits whatsoever. exits and country roads (or no roads at all if you car can take it) are the best.

[JonR]

I very well understand what all of you are saying and advising and I totally agree. I think I'm just trying to extend my knowledge of theory so much because I played music about 10 years with absolutely no knowledge at all. so I was putting too much effort in one side of apprenticeship (practice) and now, I'm putting too much effort in the other side (theory). but I'm still really trying to keep a good balance between the two and I'm actually spending much more time on my instrument than what you could think based on many of my threads. sometimes yes, I'm splitting hairs but I still have this very well in mind : theory (especially in popular/rock/jazz... music) is usually only an after the event explanation. and the event is playing, trying new things, bending the rules... and as long as it sound good, it is good no matter what theory says. and I'm only using theory as a means to better memorize ideas, not as a highway with no exits whatsoever. exits and country roads (or no roads at all if you car can take it) are the best.

You're still only talking about TWO aspects: technique (practising the guitar); and theory.

There is a crucial THIRD, which many people seem to forget: SONGS, or repertoire.

 

If you only read theory and practice your scales and various technical stuff... what's it all for?

 

IMO, songs - or tunes or actual pieces of music, whatever you want to call them - is the most important thing. You could study those alone; and learn just what you need (technically) to play each one; and you would miss out on nothing important, IMO.

Technique and theory are both side issues.

IOW, in order to play a tune well, you need good technique, sure - but only good enough; in order to understand the tune, you need a bit of theory. But only if you want to understand it, in a detached, intellectual kind of way. (Theory doesn't actually help you play any better.)

 

The more songs you learn, the more you will understand everything that matters about theory.

Reading theory can of course speed up the understanding, but without the connection to actual music you risk learning a lot of stuff that doesn't matter: that might never apply to anything you end up wanting to play.

[possopo]

hmm, when was I talking about theory VS practice, I should have said theory and technical practice VS songs, casual playing, whatever you call it.

like on this thread, the one thing I didn't mention was that I got my question from Blue Bossa.

just like the other threads I posted always talk about actual songs.

I'm absolutely not interested in learning theory I would never use. not that I think it's not interesting per se but what I'm really into now is playing better. not in technical terms (I spent so much time shredding on my guitar, I think I'm OK with that now) but playing better as in writing better songs, improvizing with a better understanding of where the song goes and most important : HEARING BETTER (you don't know how much time I spend trying to find chord sequences of so many different songs and god, that's hard and sometimes frustrating).

 

 

in order to understand the tune, you need a bit of theory. But only if you want to understand it, in a detached, intellectual kind of way. (Theory doesn't actually help you play any better.)

 

but it also helps me find chords by ear much much faster because it was a totally random thing before I knew what a scale was or what the relationship between I, IV and V was (or I/vi, IV/ii, V/iii...).

[JonR]

but it also helps me find chords by ear much much faster because it was a totally random thing before I knew what a scale was or what the relationship between I, IV and V was (or I/vi, IV/ii, V/iii...).

Sure. I think my only issue with that is that theoretical knowledge guides you down well-trodden paths. It's essential - or at least extremely useful - if you want to write music convincingly in a conventional style.

 

When I write I try to forget the theory I know, to let my ear lead. Otherwise I find myself coming up with cliches. (Of course, that's just me... )

As for the relationships of chords in a key, I picked all that up from learning and playing songs. That was what I meant by songs teaching you all you really need. It doesn't take long (well, maybe a few years) before you get familiar with all the common sequences and relationships.

Naturally, theory gives us the language we need to talk about it.

But there's also the danger of allowing it to persuade us that actual songs sometimes have "wrong" chords - that music sometimes "breaks the rules". There is never anything wrong with any song that has become successful enough to be issued commercially. A good song breaks no rules; if only because music theory is not about rules that need to be followed or broken anyway.

That's why theory always has to be secondary to the ear. The ear is never wrong. Theory often is (or is often wrongly applied, anyway).

The ear may get confused or lost sometimes (it's only human ). That's why I like to have theory handy, just in case. But it's only ever a sidekick, a second opinion.