Most music theory sounds horrible

[Poparad]

Did you even read my posts? You're completely ignoring all the points I brought up about implied harmony. What I said in those posts explains everything that you are questioning here.

[black cobra]

Yes, I read your posts, poparoid. You said you implied dominant 7th chords while omitting the b7th note. I said this could not be done.

In the same way, Auggie is saying that the Bbm implies an A dominant chord, without the third. However, he then quotes Schoenberg who says that a dominant chord is always a major triad, contradicting himself.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by black cobra Yes, I read your posts, poparoid. You said you implied dominant 7th chords while omitting the b7th note. I said this could not be done. In the same way, Auggie is saying that the Bbm implies an A dominant chord, without the third. However, he then quotes Schoenberg who says that a dominant chord is always a major triad, contradicting himself.

 

 

Bbm = Bb Db F

A = A C# E

 

Db = C#

 

Ergo, there is a third.

 

 

 

As far as dominants go, music doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you look directly at the notes "F" and "B", what would you call them? What kind of harmony would exist? There are a lot of possiblities. However, once you place some notes before those two, and after, you can tell because of what is implied by the harmonic situation.

 

Say I had this situation:

 

F - F - E

D - B - C

 

This strongly implies a Dm7 - G7 - Cmaj7 progression. Not all the notes are present, but because of the harmonic context, that is the case.

 

How about this:

 

C - B - B

F - G - G

D - D - E

A - Ab - C

 

 

There isn't a 7th in the middle chord, but the context again is quite obviously Dm7, G7b9, Cmaj7.

 

 

Implied harmony is an essential musical tool that can be used when composing, comping in a jazz group, improvising, and any other situation where you would find yourself playing chords.

 

To ignore this is to limit yourself to playing textbook definition chords, which is exactly what you were detesting in the very first post of this thread. There are more possibilities out there if you just open up your mind a little.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by black cobra Usually, almost always, the term "altered dominant" refers to a 7th chord. So, forgive my confusion. However, the Bbm does not function as an A major triad dominant chord. I didn't say it was an A major triad, nor did I say it was a dominant. Why? it lacks the major third. Lacks a major third? The "Db" from your "Bbm" is really a C# (not only is it in key, it is the leading tone of the following chord), which is the MAJOR THIRD of A. What it lacks is the perfect 5th; in its place is an augmented fifth. Hence, it is not a 'dominant' chord...it is an altered chord. It does not function as an altered A dominant 7th chord. Why? It has no dominant 7th. It's not a dominant chord. It couldn't be a dominant chord because of its fifth (E#), which is augmented. The presence (or lack thereof) of the 7 does not change that. It does not function as any A chord. It is a Bbm.

 

 

 

Yes, it's an A+. That is the core of the harmony. Context and the hierarchy of tones dictates that. The ear sorts out the pitches based on how they relate to the ones surrounding them...this is one of the main aspects of tonal music and functional harmony that gets overlooked. The ear can't register a Class V region without it being prepared (or 'justified'); it's so remote as to be harmonically unrelated.

 

The major third of the first chord (C#) is sustained into the next chord (called a 'common tone'), and it's still a third...to call the chord "Bbm" is to change that note's name to "Db", but the ear does not hear it that way due to context. Enharmonic respelling goes further than just a simple name on paper; it indicates the relation to the tonality. {if you were to replace the D chord in your progression with, say, Gbm, your "Bbm" name would make sense, and you'd find yourself in a whole new tonality, even if only temporary}. *EDIT* This is one example of using the common tone principle as the stepping stone to modulation. *END EDIT*

 

If you wish to explore ANOTHER perspective of the 'Bbm' chord, then change its name to "A#m', aka 'mediant major's submediant minor' or also 'submediant major's mediant minor', which is a Class IV region. This is ALMOST as remote as "Bbm", but it resides on the OPPOSITE side of the 'charts'. That means that, if you want the ear to register that chord as actually being 'A#m', you'd have to modulate (at the very least; there are other options) through the keys of F#m and F# major and back again. Without doing so, the ear is NOT going to hear 'A#m'...it will hear it as something much more familiar and closer to 'home' (which depends, of course, on context). Liszt excelled in this area, and his work in this regard merits much examination and study.

 

The nomenclature depends upon the context, especially so when dealing with enharmonic respellings. While they *seem* unnecessary and confusing to many, those respellings are very important when it comes to understanding harmony. "Harmony" and "chords" are not always synonymous...especially when it comes to guitar chords. A harmony's relation to the tonic (or its functional identity) and the 'chord fingering' you apply to the instrument are sometimes two very different things, no matter how 'simple' what you're visually/physically playing may seem to be.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by black cobra Remember, the Schoenberg you quoted defined a dominant chord as a "major triad." In the case of Bbm, you do not have an A major triad, so it does not function as an "altered dominant chord."

 

 

An altered dominant chord occurs when you take a dominant chord and alter its 5th and/or 9th degrees. Once that happens, it is no longer a 'dominant', hence its name (which indicates exactly what happened: you started with a dominant, and changed some aspect(s) of it).

[black cobra]

Poparod and Auggie, you are both stating that the Bbm does contain the major third of the A. You are correct, I made a mistake denying that.

However, you are saying the Bbm implies an A chord. I feel that's an awkward analysis because it lacks the b7 of a dominant, and contains too many altered tones to be defined as a simple major.

It is much like saying a G chord implies an F# chord: I guess it can, but it is much simpler to see it a G chord.

If I asked both of you, out of the context of this thread, if a bVIm chord, the Bbm, could sub for an altered V, you would both tell me no for the reasons I have stated.

Is it too hard to confess a new cadence? The bVIm to its I.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by black cobra However, you are saying the Bbm implies an A chord. I feel that's an awkward analysis because it lacks the b7 of a dominant, and contains too many altered tones to be defined as a simple major.

It's all about context. That is why implied harmony can be both frustrating to understand and use, or liberating. Context means everything.

It is much like saying a G chord implies an F# chord: I guess it can, but it is much simpler to see it a G chord.

Obviously it's easier to think of the chord as the main chord it can be (G = G), but it's just good to know that there are many others that, given the right situation and voicing, it can be a sub for.

If I asked both of you, out of the context of this thread, if a bVIm chord, the Bbm, could sub for an altered V, you would both tell me no for the reasons I have stated.

Well, honestly I would say that it's one of my favorite dominant subs. Though I would say it would depend where you use it. Just playing a Bbm chord does not make it a sub for A7, but where in a progression you use it and how you use it does make a difference.

[black cobra]

"Well, honestly I would say that it's one of my favorite dominant subs."


Okay, I concede this thread to you. Mostly because the bVIm can sub for the tritone, a common sub for the V7.

[padtrek]

OH MY FN' GOD!!!! I READ THIS WHOLE DAMN POST. he just doesn't listen. What do you mean theory sound horrible, this has been a stupid topic from the get go.. How this for horrible sounding theory

E C G D A E

This guy is a tool

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by black cobra Poparod and Auggie, you are both stating that the Bbm does contain the major third of the A. You are correct, I made a mistake denying that. However, you are saying the Bbm implies an A chord. I feel that's an awkward analysis because it lacks the b7 of a dominant, and contains too many altered tones to be defined as a simple major. Again, a dominant chord only needs to be a major triad; the 7th does not make it any more or less 'dominant' (it just adds one more level of resolution as that tone is the 4th of the tonic and falls nicely to the third). V dominates I....I dominates IV...the fifth scale degree is called the dominant for that reason, and the subdominant (which should PROBABLY be called the 'dominated' or 'dominee') has the I as its dominant. Also, consider your context: A--->D makes A the V and D the I (at least temporarily). As soon as you put something between the V and I, you've interrupted (and weakened) the cadence. There is no stronger resolution than V--->I, and that dictates what we hear in your progression; its root movement alone (a leap of a 4th) can't be 'conquered' (or overridden). So, the A from the previous chord is 'sustained' into the next on its way to leaping to the D. The A is the strongest tone (it's the tonal center!), and it provides the foundation (root) of the next harmony. The influence of context can't be overlooked, which is why you so often find drastically differing names for what appears to be the same chord. It is much like saying a G chord implies an F# chord: I guess it can, but it is much simpler to see it a G chord. It all depends upon the context. One thing that REALLY opened my eyes (and ears) to the bigger picture of harmony was writing music for ensembles with NO guitar and NO piano. In doing so, it wasn't possible for ANY instrument to play a 'chord'...and I had to start thinking in terms of harmonic and structural function, especially in terms of how they served the whole. The last piece I finished was written in three voices...at one point, on a strong downbeat, the voices were sounding (bottom to top) F# E A. By itself, it looks like an F#m7 with the 5th omitted. In context, the F# ends up being the 3rd of a D major harmony, the A being the 5th, the root not immediately sounded, and the E occuring as part of an A MAJOR arpeggio that would certainly seem out of place, right? It was not a case of superimposing an A and a D chord as a big polychord; the A major arpeggio was there because it served as a 'tonal answer' to something that was sounded the measure before. Out of context, the harmony would be F#m7. In context: D major, even though no 'D' was sounded and the 'E' was part of an A major arpeggio. Complicating matters is that it occurred where I was transforming harmonies that were initially in B minor into those of D major, but that's a whole other story. If I asked both of you, out of the context of this thread, if a bVIm chord, the Bbm, could sub for an altered V, you would both tell me no for the reasons I have stated. Is it too hard to confess a new cadence? The bVIm to its I.

The purpose of a cadence is to bring forth all the tones of the key in order to fully resolve to the tonic (I or i) leaving no doubt what that tonic is. In situations where not all the tones can possibly be used, the ones that could be doubtful must still be there (ie in the key of C, you must establish that you're not in a closely related key, like F, G, or Am....so F must be there to show it's not F# from the key of G...B is there to show it's not Bb from the key of F...and G must be there to show that it's not G# from the key of A minor).

Because of what a cadence is, your progression wouldn't fit that description. You're using non-harmonic tones which could go to a LOT of places...and D is certainly not the most likely suspect.

Using nonfunctional chromatic harmonies (and even calling it A+ would render it 'functionless') as compound passing tones to enrich voiceleading is not the same thing as a cadence...and when you start getting into substitutes, they get more ambiguous as you go along. A cadence is designed to leave no doubt...no ambiguity. Not every 'resolution' is a 'cadence'.

Taken out of the context of this thread, and again I go back to nomenclature, 'bVIm' (or simply bvi) is rather illogical...#Vm (I would write it as #v) makes more sense, as it retains the note C# (as opposed to Db), which is important because it's the leading tone of D....and the A# is the leading tone of the relative minor. So, it makes more sense to call it a #v-I progression.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie

 

 

 

Neither of those chord progressions contain ANYTHING that would tonicize Am....its dominant and leading tone are both missing.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally posted by Black Cobra

 

 

Except, the ear remembers and wants to return to the starting point.

 

Poor Auggie, you need to be deprogrammed from your music theory classes

 

I can't really wholeheartedly agree with that statement - many musics, while having a tonal center, don't have diatonic constructions...shakuhachi music, for example, relies heavily on distance from tonal center, but doesn't really use discrete pitch classes!

Even in Western musics, we may have tonal centers without being diatonic (exension of cadence is an example)

neurologicall, we tend to have culturally defined tonal centers (they affect things such as perception of Shepard functions, etc that certainly are not diatonic.

 

I think it's very important not to confuse a strongcenter with diatonic structure, I would like to assert that the ASSUMPTION that a strong tonal center comes from wesern diatonic construction would require deprogramming

[Janglin_Jack]

Originally posted by black cobra The jazz circle of fifths does not a good song make, jazz or otherwise.

 

 

"Hey Joe" changes are the circle of fifths. I happen to like that song, especially the Hendrix version.

 

Jack

[Janglin_Jack]

Originally posted by black cobra The jazz circle of fifths does not a good song make, jazz or otherwise.

 

 

"Hey Joe" changes are the circle of fifths. I happen to like that song, especially the Hendrix version.

 

Jack

[January_Embers]

I have read this entire thread and there are just a few things I'd like to say. I have not studied music theory anywhere near as much as most of you, but don't disregard what I say just because of that.

There seems to be the thought that if you know music theory that you can't write good music or that in order to write good music, you need to know nothing. I just want to say that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You wouldn't try to write a novel without knowing how to structure a sentance or how to speak English (or whatever language you're writing in), would you? As has been pointed out, in order for theory to be helpful, it needs to integrated into the creative process.

And another thing . . . it'd be nearly impossible to write any music without at least a certain degree of knowledge about music theory. Without theory, there would be no chords, no scales of any kind, just a bunch of unrelated notes that no one would know what to do with.

Perhaps the best thing about music theory though is that not only does it let you understand whats going on, but it allows you to communicate with other musicians.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to dedicate their lives to learning everything that theory has to offer, but, it does have a very real value to musicians and songwriters that people don't seem to appreciate sometimes.

[black cobra]

I very much agree and thank you for your post, January Embers. I love music theory because once you know the rules, it makes it much easier to break them.

[bobthemerciful]

Originally posted by Little Dreamer Theory is just a bunch of stuff that musicians have come up with over the centuries that they thought was pleasing to the ear. Learning it tends to be very helpful to people who want to play music. It's not like there's a ruling body issuing declarations as far as what can and cannot be played. It's not like they are running for re-election and asking for your vote, and therefore need to convince you that anything sounds good or doesn't sound good. Obviously, since musicians came up with this stuff, you may like or dislike various parts of it. And equally as obviously, not everything that sounds good has been written down in a book somewhere.

 

+1,000

[Singingax]

 

Originally posted by Poparad Using your ears with no idea what you're doing will not make good music.

 

 

That's just plain horse{censored}!

 

Some of the best music ever written was done by letting the ears determine what sounds good.

 

You obviously don't have a clue about what the unconscious mind is capable of. When you let the "ears" decide what sounds good, (and works) you're tapping one of the most powerful tools in the universe.

 

The conscious (and ego driven) mind may think it's doing the work, (in any mental task) but most of it is being done on a subconscious level.

 

Only those with large egos and/or lack an understanding of how the mind really works think otherwise. (like Poparad)

[MorePaul]

I think it's important not to confuse "ego" in the Freudian sense with "ego" in the negative 'self-absorbed' sense (sort of a misuse of the ego's roll in mediating Id-Superego conflict.)

I believe the rules-based approach would really lie more in the subconsious :
in the super-ego in a Freudian model and as learned bias in a neurophysch model ( as evidences by phenomena : such as tonal language influence "perfect pitch", cultural biases for rhythm/meter or number of tones in a musical system, cultrual diffferences in tonal center and perceived direction of Shepard functions, etc)

I agree that one doesn't need formalized training to make good music
...that's different than "knowing what your doing"
through experience, a musician develops a theory of "what sounds good"..the choices become non-arbitrary as we apply internalized, personalized "theory"

I'm sure we've all heard people with absolutely no musical experience (often on a clavier or other instrument that doesn't require specialized dexterity to produce the intended sound) and their noodlings tend to be just plain arbitrary...soon you see the development of pattern ("ooh, these 3 keys sound OK in sequence") and often the pattern building is aided by picking out familiar sounds/melodies...an attempt to bridge the internalized musical sensibilities with the newly available environment (the instrument)


A big part of our training is growing up in a culture and being subjected to the structure (including musical) of that culture. So, in a sense, we do get "trained" in a (culturally) defined system (often >1 systems in the modern world) simply by experience

So, in closing, I think that "playing intuitively" (by ear, etc) and "not knowing what you are doing" aren't really the same thing

[cryptozoon]

Most English grammar and syntax sounds boring. Has anyone ever thought about this? Lists of conjugated verbs sound awful. Spelling out words is retarded. Do you really need to know how to spell in order to speak? I think not. The only thing that has proved useful is comic books. And everything Stan Lee ever developed he discovered on his own. You can not find Spider Man in a theory book. I highly doubt any writer worth his pen and ink ever took an English class.

I rest my case.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by cryptozoon Most English grammar and syntax sounds boring. Has anyone ever thought about this? Lists of conjugated verbs sound awful. Spelling out words is retarded. Do you really need to know how to spell in order to speak? I think not. The only thing that has proved useful is comic books. And everything Stan Lee ever developed he discovered on his own. You can not find Spider Man in a theory book. I highly doubt any writer worth his pen and ink ever took an English class. I rest my case.

[jason]

theory is a TOOL, not the music itself.

it depends what you do w/it.

eg-secondary dominants were best used by the classical composers,not some dumb-ass rock band who uses the ideas in theory in a musically {censored}ty sounding way.


theory is like a bunch of doorways to potential-learn theory,then trust your ear-if it sounds good,it's good.

quite simple really.

[ToyStein]

All of you have driven me insane!!!!

*drool*





Personally, I'd like to learn more about theory, I don't see how it can hurt. I enjoyed the drama of the thread even if I didn't understand a f-ing word! You people are amazing!

[turtletheyertle]

you still gotta inject balls into your playing, playing the right notes is only half of it.

[Bernie Franks]

I like music.

[Singingax]

 

Originally posted by cryptozoon Most English grammar and syntax sounds boring. Has anyone ever thought about this? Lists of conjugated verbs sound awful. Spelling out words is retarded. Do you really need to know how to spell in order to speak? I think not. The only thing that has proved useful is comic books. And everything Stan Lee ever developed he discovered on his own. You can not find Spider Man in a theory book. I highly doubt any writer worth his pen and ink ever took an English class. I rest my case.

 

 

Sorry, your ipso facto does not a case make.

 

In fact you defenders of the staus quo tend to protest too much (probably out of fear that someone will do it an easier and better way) and end up making specious arguments. (like the one above)

 

Music is a language made up of sounds not letters, and can vary greatly depending on what's being said. There are no set rules except to those that are indoctrinated into one way of looking at it.

 

I don't mind music theory per se but the classically trained crowd remind me of the English only people here in the U.S.

 

A rose by any other name (or no name at all) would still smell as sweet. And the same sentiment applies to the sounds within music.

 

I'll take the generic Nashville Number system

over the 7 letter tone naming scheme ANY day of the week. (for understanding music theory that involves the 12 pitch classes that the guitar uses)