You just can’t trust online information

HomespunEffects said:
Doesn't matter. The chords come out the same.
Click to expand...

That’s your problem right there. The notes and chords are the same on paper just like the 1 beat and the 2 beat look the same on paper, but we don’t play them the same and whether it is consciously or not, listeners don’t hear them the same.

The tonal center is pretty important information and calling the root the 5 not only doesn’t convey the right information, it conveys wrong information.
 
Chocol8 said:
A Posse of invisible Insane Clowns either pushes or pulls them.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Chocol8 said:
The tonal center is pretty important information and calling the root the 5 not only doesn’t convey the right information, it conveys wrong information.
Click to expand...

While I basically pretty much agree, I wouldn't necessarily call it "wrong" information in a generalizing way.
IMO we just need to distinguish between "technical" and "musical" value.

Knowing that an X7 chord could be treated (in terms of notes contained, scalar patterns you may use, etc) as if it was the V chord of a parent key, is a valuable technical information as it allows you to re-use some things you've learned already.

But knowing its function as, say, a I chord is immensely useful (I'd even say a requirement) from a musical POV.

Yes, this is completely over-simplified, but to kinda illustrate: When I think of some X7 as a V chord (or rather "feel" it, so to say...), I have a strong connection to the I chord in mind, regardless of whether the I chord will actually appear or whether the V chord will stay "un-resolved".
When I however think of it as a I chord, my playing will usually not relate to the I chord of the parent major scale.

"Oye Como Va" (Santana) goes Am7, D7 all throughout. The scale-chord-theory will tell me that these are a II-V progression in G major. But once I'm playing over it, I will not even once have G(maj7) as a possible target in mind (ok, to add some interesting colors, I may actually do so - but that's beyond the point of this discussion), the entire thing just screams "Hey, I'm in A minor (dorian of course)!"
What I can now take away from the technical aspect of knowing that these are using the same material as the G major scale, would be that I didn't completely waste my time learning a friggin major scale as I can use all notes, patterns and what not for Am7, D7 as well.
And the information I could get from the "A has been established as our new tonal center" musical interpretation, would be that anything I play would now have to be adjusted to suit a new target.
 
Chocol8 said:
That’s your problem right there. The notes and chords are the same on paper just like the 1 beat and the 2 beat look the same on paper,
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m saying.
Chocol8 said:
but we don’t play them the same and whether it is consciously or not, listeners don’t hear them the same.

The tonal center is pretty important information and calling the root the 5 not only doesn’t convey the right information, it conveys wrong information.
Click to expand...
I’m not expressing the concept of a tonal center.
 
HomespunEffects said:
No, that’s a scale.
Click to expand...

No. When you say "this tune is in D", you are not refering to a scale but a key.

HomespunEffects said:
With no ambiguity:
A minor is A B C D E F G
A dorian is A B C D E F# G
Click to expand...

So, what is that going to prove?

---

Anyway, I think I'm outta here pretty soon. You, my friend, are absolutely stubborn in ignoring a lot of things that are very (!) established musical lingo and analysis.

Sure, you may not like it, fine. And even I agreed that notating, say, modal keys that became a new tonal center of their own, is quite a chore.
But that's got nothing to do with harmonic analysis. Which is a pretty damn well established thing in all kinds of music. And absolutely noone would ever analyse "We Are Family" as being in D. Because it isn't. Or "Oye Como Va" as being in G. Because it isn't. The tonal center in each case is A - sure, you could as well argue about that, but I doubt it'll work, because there's pretty easy ways to prove that.

Now, you may come up with an alternate approach towards things. Come up with a thesis, publish it and see what people think of it. But it'd better be well thought out, because the somewhat "traditional" things presented to you in this thread, all shortcomings notwithstanding, are actually pretty well thought out (or rather: they have been evolutionized over several generations), so that's what you'll have to compete with.
 
Sascha Franck said:
No. When you say "this tune is in D", you are not refering to a scale but a key.



So, what is that going to prove?

---

Anyway, I think I'm outta here pretty soon. You, my friend, are absolutely stubborn in ignoring a lot of things that are very (!) established musical lingo and analysis.

Sure, you may not like it, fine. And even I agreed that notating, say, modal keys that became a new tonal center of their own, is quite a chore.
But that's got nothing to do with harmonic analysis. Which is a pretty damn well established thing in all kinds of music. And absolutely noone would ever analyse "We Are Family" as being in D. Because it isn't. Or "Oye Como Va" as being in G. Because it isn't. The tonal center in each case is A - sure, you could as well argue about that, but I doubt it'll work, because there's pretty easy ways to prove that.

Now, you may come up with an alternate approach towards things. Come up with a thesis, publish it and see what people think of it. But it'd better be well thought out, because the somewhat "traditional" things presented to you in this thread, all shortcomings notwithstanding, are actually pretty well thought out (or rather: they have been evolutionized over several generations), so that's what you'll have to compete with.
Click to expand...
that’s fine and I understand where you’re coming from but I’m not traditional. I’ve never had the luxury. I’ve actually developed this system over this past year and I’ve made larger strides than in all the years past.
 
HomespunEffects said:
that’s fine and I understand where you’re coming from but I’m not traditional. I’ve never had the luxury. I’ve actually developed this system over this past year and I’ve made larger strides than in all the years past.
Click to expand...
Before I give up as well if you have something like the Beatles Michelle intro which is a minor key all day long what you call it?
And what's the scale?

A- A-△7 A-7 A-6 F△7 E etc

Or you could even analyze it as
A- E+/G♯ C/G D7/F♯ F△7 E etc

And btw I'm not having an issue with your system.
But that you were starting this whole the dude on the internet is wrong when youre just not aware how and/or why its done that way, that's what started this whole thing.
 
HomespunEffects said:
that’s fine and I understand where you’re coming from but I’m not traditional.
Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant. I mean, you seem to understand everything what I'm saying (or Ed, or Chocol8 or whomever for that matter). And I promise, it's not that we're posting these things because we are oh-so-clever (well, I actually am, hrrrhrrr...) or because we came up with something on our own, but simply because they're common practice. And while some of that is quite questionable, it's still "grown historically" and a fundamental part of the big musical catalog.
Just as, say, typical magnetic pickups are an integral, incredibly well established part of electric guitars. Even with all their shortcomings, they're basically all the same and pretty much noone would have the idea to replace them with piezos. Sure, not exactly comparable, but you may catch my drift.

Add to this that your "system" could easily fit into the rather traditional "official" way of dealing with analysis and what not.
I mean, let's stick with your "We Are Family is in D" statement. It's not even completely wrong (at least for the verse part). The only "offensive" thing being the POV. The "calibration", if you will. Once you accept that tonal centers are a very important thing in any musical analysis (at least as long as we're not heading towards some more extreme, experimental things), it'd only take a tiny bit of "recalibration" to make the things you've obviously thought about fit.
You can of course still choose to ignore all of that, but as said before, as soon as you try to communicate with some other musicians, it's possibly a decent idea to use one common language - including the conventions of that language.
 
Thanks. I do get the traditional way (at least tangentially) but I’ve just always hated the capital and lowercase Roman numerals. I’ve found this to be expedient, convenient and less ambiguous.

I did not and still do not understand identifying a key when it differs from a scale. I know borrowed cords breaks the scale but I’m not sure I get why that matters when it’s all conveyed in a practical way. It all feels like a difference in philosophy more than someone is wrong or right.
 
HomespunEffects said:
I did not and still do not understand identifying a key when it differs from a scale.
Click to expand...

As it's late and I need to get some sleep, in short and laymen-style:

A scale defines a group of notes used. That's basically all there is to it.

A key however defines (or rather follows - kinda like an egg/hen thing) a tonal center. The note/chord that makes you feel "home". The note that you can hum along and it'd just sound "inside".

Fwiw, a key doesn't even necessarily have to be major or minor. A tune in G might end on a Gmin chord at one time and on a Gmaj7 another time. In fact, that's not even an uncommon thing to create some "oh!" effect.

---

Another thing to possibly illustrate the difference between key and scale:

Let's say we're in the key of C major and the context is somewhat jazzy. We may play a typical II-V-I progression. Dm7, G7, Cmaj7.
Now, in that context, one *extremely* common practice would be to replace the V chord (I'll happily explain the whys and hows another time, for now you unfortunately just have to take my word for it) with a socalled tritone substitute, namely a Db7.
Now, that very chord is missing some very fundamental tones of the C major scale, namely the C and the E (root and major third of the tonic chord). And yet, we're not all of a sudden out of our C major key. In fact, due to its resolving nature, it actually *helps* to establish C as a tonal center.

Now, let's get to the scale aspect: If you were to improvise over that chord progression, the C major scale would not fit very well over that Db7 chord. So you'd have to use another combination of notes (likely "mixo #11", but we really do not need to get into that here). So, that's a completely different scale. And yet, instead of taking us away from C, it'll actually establish the key - all it'll do is to create a whole lot of tension which would then be nicely resolved into our C tonic chord, causing a pretty satisfying "yes, now we're home!" effect.
In a nutshell: While we're leaving the scale, we still stay within the key.

If you want, I could record that very progression and some hopefully plausible melodic lines on top to demonstrate the "we're sorta far away but still inside the key" effect. Not today anymore, though. Time for some sleep.
 
Thanks. I’ll have to digest that over coffee tomorrow morning.

Oh. I understand tritone substitutions, no need to explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TSJMajesty
"Musicality" & What Makes a Great Chord Progression?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
5K
Sascha Franck
Sascha Franck
Back
Top