Jump to content

Theory for Songwriters


Lee Knight

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND THIS BUT DOESN'T YET, GO RIGHT TO POST #33. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

 

Who needs it?!??! I do... but I totally dig the perspective of any of you that don't need, want or care about theory. There are too many great writers that shun theory for me to believe it's necessary.

 

Shun? Well... maybe not shun as much as don't rate it as crucial as I see it... for me. I'm talking to Stick one day and throw out a couple of V's and ii's and whatnot and he says, "I don't know what that means." And the guy writes the best chord progressions of any writer I know personally. With melodies that make you get all teary and... So, clearly, you can do just fine by that intuitive understanding that guys like Stickboy have. And his output outshines mine and I'm twice his age. So...

 

...don't read this below if you don't want to. I certainly don't know anything you don't. As in, we all have our own ways of getting there.

 

If, on the other hand, you are interested in chord theory and want to see if it might add to your abilities as a songwriter, this post I stumbled over today at the Lesson Loft, here at HC, really, truly encapsulates pop theory. I was very impressed with how he gets the info across here. Functional Harmony. What is a G7 through the eyes of a C? How about an Am? Dm?

 

And while there are unanswered questions below, of course, any question you do have is built from the the info below.

 

 

--------

 

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2751864-Where-to-start-learning-about-quot-Functional-Harmony-quot&p=42373900&viewfull=1#post42373900

 

Well, in Roman Numeric Notation, we can really understand function, in the beginning, through Cadences. Cadences tell us how certain chords move to resolve on the I (Tonic), at its most basic definition.

 

I ii iii IV V vi viio

 

This is the "map" of a Diatonic Major Key.

 

In C this is:

C Dm Em F G Am Bo

I ii iii IV V vi vii0

 

The first Cadence is the move from a V to I. V has the gravity of pulling the song to want to end on the I. In C this is G to C. The function of this chord (V) is, then, to pull it to the I. The V is a Dominant, it wants to RESOLVE the song and take it back to the I. That's function, at the first step.

 

Another is similar and that's the IV V I - It's IV leading to the V which pulls it to I. There is a name for this, but I am primarily concerned with your understanding their function. You can call (V) "Ed" and (I) "Charlie" for all I care in that context, Id just want you to know that Ed pulls the song to Charlie (Of course I'm not advocating that people should not understand and know the true terms like Authentic Cadence, Plagal Cadence etc.) but once you understand what they are and how they move, you can go over the names and not lose their meaning. My primary focus is that you understand function first.

 

The next Cadence is when the IV goes to the I, many people recognize this as the Amen Cadence. Again, is how a chord may resolve to the I. In C this would be F(IV) to C (I).

 

There's another cadence that basically means when you expect the V to resolve to the I but it doesn't. Instead, it chooses any other chord from the key and moves there instead. For example, G might move to Dm (V to ii) which keeps the progression unfolding and not yet resolved.

 

Understanding these basic movements...and there are more, but starting there, we can then use our knowledge of triads, to look at the other chords in C

 

Lets take C - CEG - C Major

Em - This is basically C also...but as one person said..."upper structures" and they are correct.

 

Taking the notes in Em = E G B - If compared to the C, it's changed by 1 note, but that note (B) is basically a rootless C Maj7, C E G B - which because of this, effecively makes it a type or possible sub for the I ©.

 

Even though Em is a ii, we can see it as sort of C-ish, because the C along with the chord EGB, will create a C Major7 chord.

 

Am - Basically a C also, A C E - Take the C triad and add the A= C E G A - is essentially a C6...again a possible I © substitute, even though it is technically our vi chord.

 

B dim B D F - Is basically a rootless G7 - G B D F.

 

What is G? The V...and just like the V pulling to the I, a Bdim definitely wants to pull to the I. So the vii0 has the FUNCTION similar to the V.

 

Look at the IV - F F A C - This can move where ever - its got a lot less tonal gravity, than the V, so you can get creative.. The other chord that's closest to the IV is the ii chord in this case, Dm - D F A - Well F A C D - is essentially an F6.

 

By just messing with the relationships and understanding functions of triads, I being Home base, V being the gravity that pulls the song to the I, and IV moving where it wishes....you can start to create music that moves and resolves when and how you want it to.

 

These 7 chords essentially are all an archetype of I IV V

 

Tonic - I chord © Possible substitutes - the iii Em and the vi Am

 

Dominant - V chord (G) Substitute - the viio, Bdim

 

Subdominant - IV chord (F) - Substitute - the ii, Dm

 

This is far from exhaustive or complete, and doesn't presume to be, but this is a starting point keeping it as linear as possible, to understand these categories and on a basic level how you can get them to function. Understanding these simple cadences for example can be a start, in writing and also highlighting song and chord moves and resolutions.

 

There are other areas such as voice leading, exploration of other chords from outside the Diatonic Key, and chordal tendencies which are beyond the scope of this explanation, by design, but at the very basic level, I hope this helps give you some real concrete ideas to explore. I'd be happy to clarify anything that you don't understand.

 

Best,

 

Sean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

So, let me propose an idea, if you don't understand something above and want to, ask. Let's help each other further our understanding. Together. No worries, no fingers pointed. Just the getting a little closer to understanding. Let's make a place where anybody interested can learn about this stuff. I'm learning too and I know a lot of you can help me.

 

How does the apply to songwriting?

 

What about chords that aren't on the I ii iii etc series?

 

That's C but what about the key of G? What the difference?

 

How can I use this info to transpose capo chords?

 

Bb isn't in that chord series in C but it sounds awesome in C. WTF? Eb too?!??! What's up with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

I'm no theory maven, but learning just a little bit of basic harmonic theory after I'd been playing guitar but learning fitfully for a year and change really helped enormously. Before, I'd struggled through trial and error trying to figure out copacetic chord progressions and, particularly, trying to fill in around various promising starts. A lot of you probably remember what I mean... you get a good couple of changes that could form the basis for a verse or chorus -- but then you can't figure out for the life of you where to go next.

 

Life is already too short and difficult not to take the 'shortcut' of learning a little bit of theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks. Lee. It's very cool that you would offer this. I'm self-taught, and I couldn't tell you the names of many of the chords I play, let alone what "theory" I might be applying without realizing it. But, I think I do alright. Anyway, I have often thought about learning some "basics" of music theory so that I can at least talk coherently on the subject. But, when I try, I end up quickly realizing that what's "basic" for a complete neophyte like me, is apparently too basic even for "the basics." For example, I have no idea what even the first sentence from the repost means regarding "the Roman Numeric Scale," and "resolve on the I (Tonic)," which I assume is different than "resolving chords" while playing drunk on gin 'n tonics? I ain't too proud to learn, but I'm gonna have to crawl before I can walk, and I'm thinking I might just be too damn old to crawl. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm self-taught, and I couldn't tell you the names of many of the chords I play, let alone what "theory" I might be applying without realizing it.

 

Me too.

 

Sometimes I get to wondering what the songs that I'm writing now at sixty years of age would be like if I found a way to pick up some theory when I was the age of most of you who are reading this.

 

I know they would be way different, But.....would they be better? I know that the point is moot, but.....

 

I wonder also if some young songwriters worry more about craft than creativity.:cool::wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

some young songwriters worry more about craft than creativity.
:cool::wave:

 

Aren't they the same thing?

 

No? But at least they're inextricably linked. Or not?

 

I'm thinking of Terry Adams and Joey Spompinato. From what I understand Terry has a lot of music theory under his belt. Joey just plays bass, more or less. But he's written some of NRBQ's best songs.

 

Then again, a guy like Jimmy Webb is both creative and well-grounded in music theory.

 

And when do we get to lyric theory, teach?

 

LCK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The more aware a composer is of the elements that make music the better. Always good to know what one is doing. However, music theory lies deep in the darkness of my brain center. Although I'm sure it influences every note I compose, it's only subconsciously.

 

I like to think I write from the heart. Which I do, but educational forces are attacking me simultaneously.

 

Much of my music conflicts with traditional harmony. Full of dissonance and clashing notes. But I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hear ya, Len. I've always played "by ear" as they say. And, isn't that what we all ultimately do anyway? Even the rules of logic for a syllogism are, ultimately, grounded in intuition. It's because we just know intuitively that a conclusion must follow from the premises that we know it's a deductively valid proposition. Likewise, I suspect that music theories are "valid" music theories because, ultimately, we intuitively know the music expressed by them is music that "sounds right." But, the value I would anticipate knowing and understanding theory could have for me, would be in trying new things because "the math" suggests it will work, when I might not have otherwise considered the possibility. It would be another tool in my arsenal. I just wish it didn't all seem like quantum mechanics to me. Then again, I'm such a dolt I don't even read music. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, let me propose an idea, if you don't understand something above and want to, ask. Let's help each other further our understanding. Together. No worries, no fingers pointed. Just the getting a little closer to understanding. Let's make a place where anybody interested can learn about this stuff. I'm learning too and I know a lot of you can help me.


How does the apply to songwriting?


What about chords that aren't on the I ii iii etc series?


That's C but what about the key of G? What the difference?


How can I use this info to transpose capo chords?


 

I don't think you are being serious or sincere here. :cop:

 

Bb isn't in that chord series in C but it sounds awesome in C. WTF? Eb too?!??! What's up with this?

That's C minor, aka Eb. :poke: Bb is the dominant of Eb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I hear ya, Len. I've always played "by ear" as they say. And, isn't that what we all ultimately do anyway? Even the rules of logic for a syllogism are, ultimately, grounded in intuition. It's because we just know intuitively that a conclusion must follow from the premises that we know it's a deductively valid proposition. Likewise, I suspect that music theories are "valid" music theories because, ultimately, we intuitively know the music expressed by them is music that "sounds right." But, the value I would anticipate knowing and understanding theory could have for me, would be in trying new things because "the math" suggests it will work, when I might not have otherwise considered the possibility. It would be another tool in my arsenal. I just wish it didn't all seem like quantum mechanics to me. Then again, I'm such a dolt I don't even read music. LOL

 

 

I think rather than intuitive, it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I don't think you are being serious or sincere here.
:cop:

That's C minor, aka Eb. :poke: Bb is the dominant of Eb.

 

You don't think I'm sincere? Why?

 

I'm sensing a sort of confrontational vibe here so you must think I'm trying to provoke. I'm not. There are a lot of things we can learn from each and I thought it would be cool to open up a straight ahead discussion about theory.

 

Regrading your Cm Eb Eb points, I was speaking to my confusion of knowing the diatonic chord series I ii iii IV V etc. and wondering why Bb or G# or Eb works in the key of C. Rock tunes. Just throwing that out there a possible topic to look at.

 

So... what? I'm not sincere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You don't think I'm sincere? Why?


I'm sensing a sort of confrontational vibe here so you must think I'm trying to provoke. I'm not. There are a lot of things we can learn from each and I thought it would be cool to open up a straight ahead discussion about theory.


Regrading your Cm Eb Eb points, I was speaking to my confusion of knowing the diatonic chord series I ii iii IV V etc. and wondering why Bb or G# or Eb works in the key of C. Rock tunes. Just throwing that out there a possible topic to look at.


So... what? I'm not sincere?

 

 

I'm all for an open dialog and I believe that there are no stupid questions. But I know you know how to use a capo and I know you know how to transpose. There are people who may be reading this thread who don't, and I'm happy to try and help people who need the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I must have ADD. I couldn't even make it through your post... which is probably why I suck with theory. I can't pay attention long enough to learn it. Also probably why I have trouble contributing lyrical ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Why are they called cadences? Aren't they also called "root motion?" Isn't cadence a rhythmic thing?


LCK

 

 

That's a great question. BTW, I wasn't implying that I'm the guy with the answers here. But I do know this one. The word cadence is always about resolution. So in the case of a rhythmic cadence, even though we think of rhythmic cadence as simple rhythmic flow, it is, more specifically, a flow that implies a resolution. Like the inflection of a voice that telegraphs the end of a sentence. Or a rhythm to ask for a rest to resolve.

 

So in harmonic cadences, all it's really saying is, certain chords in a key, a V, a IV, a iii, have varying amounts of pull back to the tonic, the I. The cadences of resolution are cool to understand in songwriting because sometimes you might want something to really need resolution, your song needs that tension right at that spot... the V chords gonna bring that. Maybe you let it resolve to the I, or maybe you don't, based on the lyric, the required mood, the point you are in your intensity arc.

 

Understanding harmonic cadences is just understanding what "function" a chord degree has (chord degree = I ii iii etc.)

 

So cadence is really tension and release or resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

I'm all for an open dialog and I believe that there are no stupid questions. But I know you know how to use a capo and I know you know how to transpose. There are people who may be reading this thread who don't, and I'm happy to try and help people who need the help.

 

 

Got it. You thought I was saying I didn't know the answers to those questions. No, I was using the questions as samples that might be discussed. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Thanks. Lee. It's very cool that you would offer this. I'm self-taught, and I couldn't tell you the names of many of the chords I play, let alone what "theory" I might be applying without realizing it. But, I think I do alright. Anyway, I have often thought about learning some "basics" of music theory so that I can at least talk coherently on the subject. But, when I try, I end up quickly realizing that what's "basic" for a
complete
neophyte like me, is apparently too basic even for "the basics." For example, I have no idea what even the first sentence from the repost means regarding "the Roman Numeric Scale," and "resolve on the I (Tonic)," which I assume is different than "resolving chords" while playing drunk on gin 'n tonics? I ain't too proud to learn, but I'm gonna have to crawl before I can walk, and I'm thinking I might just be too damn old to crawl.
:)

 

Thank you for that^. I posted the OP because there is a lot of stuff I want to know and don't. I'm hoping to get answers as well as help when I can.

 

Tonic = the key you're in. So you're playing a blues in E. What's your tonic? E. Now play B or a B7....... let it ring....... and ring...... is the song over? Not until you come back to E, or "resolve" back to the tonic. Of course a lot of folk will bristle at that, that you have to return back to E. And of course you're welcome not to, just leave it on B7 and let me know how that tunes goes over. :) So, not rules, but explanations as to why things work and why they don't.

 

So the tonic is the I. Roman numeral 1. Why.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

do re mi fa so la ti do

C D E F G A B C

I II III IV V VII VIII I

 

All the same thing ^. Your basic scale of 8 notes. Ever hear of a 1, 4, 5? Written I, IV, V? Your basic blues jam? Those are just the notes counting up the major scale. So if you count up the C scale...

 

C D E F G

 

Count up above and see where the bolded bits land. 1, 4, 5. I, IV, V. C,F, G. In the key of E? E, A, B. See? And that V needs to resolve to tonic, back to the I. The 1.

 

And yes can do all of this while drinking gin and tonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Regrading your Cm Eb Eb points, I was speaking to my confusion of knowing the diatonic chord series I ii iii IV V etc. and wondering why Bb or G# or Eb works in the key of C. Rock tunes.

 

 

Rock is heavily influenced by Blues. And Blues is based on the pentatonic scale, which uses a flattened (minor) third. And the I in those type of rock songs can usually be voiced as a I-V-VIII (aka power chord), which lets it work better with chords from the minor key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Me too.


Sometimes I get to wondering what the songs that I'm writing now at sixty years of age would be like if I found a way to pick up some theory when I was the age of most of you who are reading this.


I know they would be way different,
But.....would they be better?
I know that the point is moot, but.....


I wonder also if some young songwriters worry more about craft than creativity.
:cool::wave:

 

I think the added "but" after "the point is moot" is way off. But what? It is moot. Either you're interested in picking up some theory or you're not. Either was is cool with everybody concerned. And really, the only person concerned is you. So whatever makes you happy.

 

I honestly don't get the need to mildly justify your choices. You'd never catch Dylan or Marc Bolan or Gordon Lightfoot doing that. Nor should you IMO. It was your choice then and its yours now.

 

Screw anybody that feels different. But no need to add weight to your choices. Adn we're never too old if we do have the mildest hankering. I don't plan on stoping the influx of info at any age. My dad is creeoing up on 90 and he continues to be ravenous for information. Politics, science, woodworking. Anything. Everyday.

 

It's nonstop if you want it. And if you don't, the world goes on. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Rock is heavily influenced by Blues. And Blues is based on the pentatonic scale, which uses a flattened (minor) third. And the I in those type of rock songs can usually be voiced as a I-V-VII (aka power chord), which lets it work better with chords from the minor key.

 

And I've been digging into that stuff recently and find it totally fascinating. Just as we build a chord series on a major or a minor scale, we build a series and any scale. I was getting in deep with the idea of building a series on any given mode. But some of those chords, Eb, it's like changing keys or a passing chord. Or just a case of what sounds good sounds good and damn the theory.

 

There's always that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I almost never think about what number a chord is and I never think about cadences or resolving or any of that what not.

 

When I write a song I am thinking about what notes and chords are in a particular key and mode and what notes and chords are not in that particular key and mode and the relationship between all those notes and chords.

 

I use diatonic theory two ways.

 

I usually think diatonically (but not always) when I first start a song, but turn it off pretty quickly and just use my ear. When I get stuck and can't figure what should come next then I turn it back on. (but not always)

 

I can write a song completely diatonically and have written a lot of songs that way.

But my favorite songs are songs that have "accidentals" in them.

 

To me this is what makes great songs. Songs that have a diatonic foundation but then they are colored outside the lines.

 

Coloring outside the lines but still having a strong tie to the diatonic foundation is what I've been trying to do ever since I started writing songs. Even before I really understood that's what I was doing my ear was doing it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rock is heavily influenced by Blues. And Blues is based on the pentatonic scale, which uses a flattened (minor) third. And the I in those type of rock songs can usually be voiced as a I-V-VIII (aka power chord), which lets it work better with chords from the minor key.

 

I wouldn't say that blues is based on the pentatonic scale. A lot of beginner guitar players are taught and play the minor penatonic scale for rock guitar solos. (there is also a major penatonic scale). Penatonic scales are basically just condensed scales.

The blues scale is probably the scale that is mostly used for blues. It is basically a minor penatonic with a flat fifth thrown in.

 

I think of the blues (or blues rock as oppossed to early jazz blues) as music that has

ambiguous thirds and a lot of flat sevenths.

 

When I was a kid I used to play the blues scale or minor penatonic scale over everything. It was basically the only scale I knew how to use for guitar soloing.

It can work over a lot of rock and blues music. It is the tension between the major third in the tonic chord and the minor third of the blues scale that sounds like rock and roll. Thousands of guitar solos over the last 50 or 60 years have been played this way.

The Jimi Hendrix chord has this tension built in with a major third on the bottom and a minor third on the top.

 

I remember reading something when I was a kid that said the blues was in mixolydian mode. For fifteen years I didn't understand why. One day I was jamming with a blues guy and he kept playing songs with a dominant 7th on the one chord. By this time I had moved way beyond playing blues scales or minor penatonics and I was trying to play major scales over what he was playing. I couldn't figure out why it was not working until it dawned on me that dominant 7th chords have a flat seventh. I started playing my major scales with a flat seventh and everything started working. Then it hit me. The mixolydian mode is the major mode with a flat seven. Ohhh, now I knew why they said the blues was in mixolydian mode. I knew a blues harmonica player who used to play cross harp. He would count up a certain number of notes from the key (I don't remember how many) and choose that harp because he said it sounded more bluesy. It dawned on me that cross harp is mixolydian mode (major scale with a flat seventh). A lot of harmonica players can bend the major third down to a minor third on their harmonicas so with cross harp they've got the ambiguous thirds and flat sevenths covered. Blues guitar players and vocalists also slide from the flat third up to the major third when playing riffs and chords. You can also play the blues scale in a major mode as a relative minor scale. For example if you are in the key of C major then play an A minor blues your flat fifth to major fifth slide is now a flat third to major third slide. (ambigous third slide)

 

One thing to remember is you can't really harmonize a blues scale. It is non-diatonic and you can't really build chords off of all the notes in the scale. It is a scale used to create melodies on top of a diatonic foundation.

 

I'm a really terrible blues guitar player so I'm probably the last guy who should be posting on a forum about the blues. But I've played with so many guitar players over the years that I've been forced to pick up on a lot of what they do in order to be able to play with them. The funny thing is when I try to explain to them what it is they are doing they look at me like I'm crazy.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have only two thing to contribute (if that "contribute" is the right word)

 

1) Every bit of theory I have learned has been an asset to my songwriting. Paradoxically, the more I learn, the more natural the songwriting experience has become

 

2) I think that those writers who supposedly rely too heavily on theory are few and far between. In my experience, people who compose too technically for my taste still use their ears first, heart second and mind last. They just find that style of music more compelling.

 

There is no rule that you must know to do, but it does seem that there is an unstated "if I know more I'll feel less" comment and I don't think it is founded much in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There is no rule that you must know to do, but it does seem that there is an unstated "
if I know more I'll feel less
" comment and I don't think it is founded much in reality.

 

 

I keep thinking of that Stephen Sondheim interview* in which he related a story (told to him by his mentor Oscar Hammerstein II) about how Jerome Kern composed "All the Things You Are," widely considered the most beautiful of all standards, and which (I'm told) uses a circle of 4ths as its foundation.

 

Kern studied music theory, and was very knowledgeable in the field. Yet Hammerstein says that when Kern sat at the piano composing the melody for "All the Things You Are," he kept trying things out to see what "sounded right to his ear." He wasn't thinking about theory at all.

 

Of course it probably helped that he had all that theory under his belt...

 

LCK

 

*Posted by Blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...