"Sometimes I like a basic progression until I hate it 30 minutes later."
I don't have any opinion on "a [particular] chord progression" through itself, or I would consider quite a lot of things to be dross and dismissable that maybe just aren't.
It's how well it works in the overall flow or design (the Pachelbel Canon progression really works but I'd prefer to never be subect to it or its like again). In general I do not care for the dominant to tonic, what Zappa called the essence of white people music (don't take that too seriously) but sometimes it's what's left to do that actually works.
I've had to write on the spot and make something work and with the clock ticking (someone else's money) it's 'alright, I know from modulation and subsequently V-I'... and now I have to live with it.
I did it once when I had all the time in the world because it got the problem solved well enough for the stupid thing. Time is never in infinite supply.
Do I need to know any more theory or do I know enough?
-
- KVRist
- 82 posts since 6 Jun, 2012 from USA
Start with the melody. That’s the only real thing that has changed from cpe up until and including the jazz. The melody dictated the harmony. That’s how people used to work when people just had a better grasp of using harmony to support what is supposed to matter.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Good grief.
No, each mode is its own thing with its particular identity and flavor. D Dorian is NOT C Major starting on D. The name for that is C MAJOR. I'm not personally invested in your development but for the group I will correct that which is egregiously wrong. It will only help one to understand a concept before dismissing it out-of-hand.
The mode has its identity based in its center, its central tone, for lack of a better single word its tonic.
and the quality of the intervals of the set to first that 'tonic' and then internally to the other members of the set, or mode.
Given "D Dorian": its B and F [edit: in a harmony] are known to want to resolve to C and E in C major (or in tonal music period, incl. in other keys). If this happens in D Dorian, though, we have shifted to C Major, Dorian has been tossed off the balcony to its demise. The two things are absolutely not interchangeable. One might get away with a Dm to G7 but D has been strongly enough established as 'tonic' first.
An example of a D Dorian chord progression is i to IV; D minor - G major. This is NOT ii and V of C major, or we're in C major. D is central, it is '1'. In C it's '2'. Dm is "i", not "ii". Full stop.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
"That’s how people used to work when people just had a better grasp of using harmony"
Better grasp than whom? When was this 'used to'? Where you there? Which people? And how is it that a person living today must be deficient in their grasp of harmony just by living in present day?
Fairly early in my journey I learned about this concept, music written from a ground bass.
[...]the first written examples of passacaglias are found in an Italian source dated 1606. These pieces, as well as others from Italian sources from the beginning of the century, are simple, brief sequences of chords outlining a cadential formula.
Silbiger, Alexander. 2001. "Passacaglia". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed.
(is that when 'people had a better grasp of...' or before, one wonders)
IE: these are forms which are built from a repeated progression or a bass ostinato.
The mature forms of Passacaglia might involve variation technique. That doesn't tend to be cantabile or singing melody but filigree and elaboration by devices (particularly certain prescribed ornamentations of the baroque period). Eventually, though, it got to be about a repeating melody that never changes.
But as to kind of more street usage, look, a Doo Wop song is going to do [the cadential formula] I-vi-IV-V repeatedly regardless of melody. It's like the 20th century passacaglia. We may like to say 'but the melody is the important thing!' ok, but the style is determined definitely by the chord progression. This happens all over. What are 'Rhythm Changes'? Did the tune "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" begin with the tune or its changes? The melody is intertwined almos intextricably from the changes. 'You're supposed to do the melody first'; feel free to make such a rule for yourself but we don't need follow.
I - or finally all of us should - feel free to write any number of ways, including where the rhythm is the most important, or it's at equal standing with a melody, or it's all rhythm and melody with no chord in sight, or it goes on with no prescribed particular tune because it's a set up to make up melody on the spot. Because one can have a rather more expansive view and experience than that strange and erroneous story about people's grasp of harmony.
Better grasp than whom? When was this 'used to'? Where you there? Which people? And how is it that a person living today must be deficient in their grasp of harmony just by living in present day?
Fairly early in my journey I learned about this concept, music written from a ground bass.
[...]the first written examples of passacaglias are found in an Italian source dated 1606. These pieces, as well as others from Italian sources from the beginning of the century, are simple, brief sequences of chords outlining a cadential formula.
Silbiger, Alexander. 2001. "Passacaglia". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed.
(is that when 'people had a better grasp of...' or before, one wonders)
IE: these are forms which are built from a repeated progression or a bass ostinato.
The mature forms of Passacaglia might involve variation technique. That doesn't tend to be cantabile or singing melody but filigree and elaboration by devices (particularly certain prescribed ornamentations of the baroque period). Eventually, though, it got to be about a repeating melody that never changes.
But as to kind of more street usage, look, a Doo Wop song is going to do [the cadential formula] I-vi-IV-V repeatedly regardless of melody. It's like the 20th century passacaglia. We may like to say 'but the melody is the important thing!' ok, but the style is determined definitely by the chord progression. This happens all over. What are 'Rhythm Changes'? Did the tune "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" begin with the tune or its changes? The melody is intertwined almos intextricably from the changes. 'You're supposed to do the melody first'; feel free to make such a rule for yourself but we don't need follow.
I - or finally all of us should - feel free to write any number of ways, including where the rhythm is the most important, or it's at equal standing with a melody, or it's all rhythm and melody with no chord in sight, or it goes on with no prescribed particular tune because it's a set up to make up melody on the spot. Because one can have a rather more expansive view and experience than that strange and erroneous story about people's grasp of harmony.
-
- KVRist
- 82 posts since 6 Jun, 2012 from USA
It was my suggestion to you, in that you don’t seem to content on your ability to use harmony.
Who? Well, pretty much all classical composers, pretty much all jazz , I mean …. The concept of block chords as harmony is sort of a modern approach. Take a look at composer sketches and you will see melody as the rest is sort of well, the harmony was the result of the melody lines.
Sure, certain styles assume certain shells. Most jazz is pretty much II v I. Even Charlie parker. The ability to use harmony is an exercise in understanding how melodic lines sound together. The term chord is just a short hand way to think of the relationship.
Stevie wonder does a pretty good job of using the basic shell and then using the melody as an anchor for substitutions to get out of sounding blame.
People tend to not be able to approach it both ways. Those people are typically left feeling like their lexicon and command of that lexicon limited.
I think most people never learn voice leading and their command of chords is weak. They view them as blocks. As you said in the other thread, you need to do the work.
Who? Well, pretty much all classical composers, pretty much all jazz , I mean …. The concept of block chords as harmony is sort of a modern approach. Take a look at composer sketches and you will see melody as the rest is sort of well, the harmony was the result of the melody lines.
Sure, certain styles assume certain shells. Most jazz is pretty much II v I. Even Charlie parker. The ability to use harmony is an exercise in understanding how melodic lines sound together. The term chord is just a short hand way to think of the relationship.
Stevie wonder does a pretty good job of using the basic shell and then using the melody as an anchor for substitutions to get out of sounding blame.
People tend to not be able to approach it both ways. Those people are typically left feeling like their lexicon and command of that lexicon limited.
I think most people never learn voice leading and their command of chords is weak. They view them as blocks. As you said in the other thread, you need to do the work.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
let's settle with there are some who don't know what they think they know, whether they can use more or not.
Knock yourself out, I'm not trying to see more of you. Been a lot of learning opportunities for you in here but Dunning-Kruger Rules OK.
Knock yourself out, I'm not trying to see more of you. Been a lot of learning opportunities for you in here but Dunning-Kruger Rules OK.
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 12690 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
My favourite new word I stumbled upon in 2023 was ultracrepidarian
..which is why I seldom pontificate on anything 'theory'..
-
- KVRAF
- 4863 posts since 5 May, 2005 from Stockholm, Sweden
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Good one. I may even be able to remember it.donkey tugger wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:55 pmMy favourite new word I stumbled upon in 2023 was ultracrepidarian
..which is why I seldom pontificate on anything 'theory'..
There is a good chance there's going to be a little piquancy if NK gets up in here with the advice.
Oddly the guy knows basic diatonic theory ok.
My personal animus has a history. too much of one. This time "how people used to work when people just had a better grasp of using harmony". My mood turns sour. Where do you think you are? You're not stupid.
