i'm currently know the all the major and minor chords but the main thing i want to know is how all the chords blend in together,like is there specific rules when u want to mix major and minor chords or other chords like the diminshed ones or augumented ones...secondly also is what chords to use when i'm making a song,like what are the rules to adhere by when including them. thx alot to those who can advise
actually my fren...if ur saying ur making a song then i can tell u seriously there r really no rules or whatsoever to follow as long as it sounds nice but of course that is ur chord doesnt clash with the note...yes usually we were taught that in writing a song there are rules or wadever we have to follow, but i remember at the end of the day my teacher tells me, "i've taught u many shit n rules but ultimately the best thing abt music is there r no rulez as long as it sounds nice" so what basically im trying to say is don't limit urself to rules n stuff cuz that will only stop u from being creativeok as for rules or wadever i hope others can hlp u cuz realli i've forgotten most of the rulez my teacher taught me
Oops... controversial topic again! There are certain rules to follow. Otherwise, you piece will not sound good because of harmony. It may sound as if it's good, but when applied certain harmony rules, you'll find it will sound 10x better!
To threatstarter, my suggestion is NOT to start with chords. If possible, start with melody. Then apply the chords the the melody line. The key is this - a good piece of music that gives lasting impression lies on the melody. Because sings (or hums) the melody. A good melody line will leave a deep impression. The chords and chord progressions function to BRING OUT the melody line and giving it more life. Then you'll end up with a piece that will not be easily forgotten by people. You know some of these songs. It's those that stick in your head forever!
In what way does theory limit your creativity? The way i see it, you can't break the rules without first knowing what they were in the first place. But true, in the end all that matters is how the piece sounds.
I would also suggest starting with chords first, as hearing a melody can be difficult at first. That's why a chord progression will provide a foundation, and hearing a melody over a chord progression is much easier as compared to composing a melody and then trying to harmonise it. Both ways work ! But don't limit yourself to just one.
As for the rules of diatonic harmony, each key can essentially be harmonised using this 'formula'.
For major: Major, Minor, Minor, Major, Major, Minor, Diminished
For minor: Minor, Diminished, Major, Minor, Minor, Major, Major
So if you're in the key of C major. The chords you would get after harmonising the C major scale in triads would be Cmaj, Dmin, Emin, Fmaj, Gmaj, Amin, and Bdim. Same for other major keys and relative minor keys.
As for basic chord progressions, the I-IV-V is a good place to start.
Use this as a guide, there is no need to 'adhere' to them. Hope this helps!
ahh haha i think u misunderstood wad im trying to say...i did not say theory limit creativity, im simply saying dun let ur creativity get tied down by all the rulez...theory itself of course is very impt but if a piece is juz made out of theory i feel in a way its gonna sound rigid and no surprise. haha juz my 2 cents worth opinion.Originally Posted by futures
BTW i'm not saying I agree with what i'm about to write here, but you seem like you haven't thought through some of the things you are saying..
Or you could say that the person who doesn't know any theory may, by 'happy accident', stumble across something that works one time out of 100, whereas the person who knows theory will be able to produce something that works most of the time. Does this mean the person who stumbled across a good chord progression is more 'creative' than the person who in part used their theoretical knowledge to help create a chord progression?
I don't understand the attitude that learning the 'rules' of something inhibits creativity. The only way you can express your intentions on this forum is by using the medium of language. Did learning English limit the creativity in what you wanted to say, or make you in any way 'predictable' in the content of what you write? Or did it simply act to enable you to express exactly what you mean when you mean to say what you wish to say? Couldn't it be said that the greater the grasp of language you have, the clearer you will be able to express exactly what you mean?
What makes you think music is any different?
Is the artist who learns the rules of perspective more rigid in what he creates than the artist who isn't aware of these rules, or do the rules he knows allow him to create a more accurate vision of what he wishes to create in the first place?
What makes you think that a piece sounding surprising is indicative of 'not using theory'??
The most unpredictable/fresh sounding musical pieces are usually created by composers who have a great knowledge of theory/harmony/instrumentation etc. One of the ways to make something sound unpredictable is to know the rules/common patterns, and then intentionally write something that doesn't follow the rules.
Theory is just a way of looking at something, so to say 'a piece is just made out of theory' is a misnomer.
Do you have any examples of, as you say, pieces that sound 'rigid'?
Are minimalist composers 'rigid' (composers such as Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and, more recently, John Adams)? What do you mean 'rigid'? Do you mean 'predictable? And what makes you think it isn't a composers' intention to make something sound 'predictable'? And what's wrong with something being predictable (if this is what you mean)? And isn't what, in your mind sounds 'rigid', not subjective anyway, as to someone else, the piece may sound completely fresh?
Last edited by pianomankris; 17-06-09 at 05:07 AM.
One final thing; you wrote:
Why does music have to sound 'nice' to be valid? Does this mean pretty much everything by composers such as Penderecki, Xenakis etc isn't 'music'? What about death metal? Does death metal sound 'nice'?
Is music only valid when it is soporific?
What sounds 'nice' changes with time also. Some people considered Mozart in Mozart's time 'too dissonant'.
You are using subjective terms (i.e. 'nice') to define things, which isn't really a valid way of justifying something.
Once again, why? What is wrong with dissonance? If the composer's intention is to create dissonance, then what is wrong with that? You are dismissing the use of rules throughout this thread, then making up your own rules here in the things you are saying (you are pretty much saying 'don't use rules'. Oh, but use this one:' then writing down a rule of your own), when they have no basis in the actual reality of the rules of musical composition.
Last edited by pianomankris; 17-06-09 at 05:24 AM.
Hello
Song-writers like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson & Michael Learns to Rock usually use rather intricate chord progressions (especially chords used in "Bridges" of songs) that's far from the usual C Am F G.
It's really up to you! You're spoilt for choice, really!
Last edited by Lovehurts; 17-06-09 at 01:20 PM.
yoruka19 has a point though.
Someone not encumbered with a musical education and encyclopedic knowledge of music theory and
history does have an advantage when listening to a piece of music. They can listen without the "baggage" so to speak. Since they don't have tools of harmonic analysis, or the ability to compare and contrast with in a framework of previous works they must rely purely on their ears.
For example, a learned musician upon hearing a loud trombone glissando in a new orchestral piece would be able to place that phrase with in a historical framework, perhaps noting the simularity with Stravinsky and Varese's work and the controversy they originally generated.
The uneducated listener would probably think it was a rude and funny sound.
Naive artists exist in all artistic fields and provide a nesecary counterpoint to acedemic elitism.
Let's put it this way.
I compose a piece and record it myself in my home studio. I end up with a "raw" recording. There are 2 things I can do. Try to master the end-product myself or send it to a pro engineer who actually KNOWS how to master. The pro engineer hears things I don't hear in the recording sense (not the musical sense). He picks up every small detail, do his magic, and made the tweaks to come up with the final product.
Would I be able to tell the difference? Probably. Would most people be able to tell the difference? Maybe a little, but not to the extent the engineer hears it. So why would I want to send it for mastering by a pro? Because that slight difference, that extra "sweet spot" created in the recording, makes just that difference that makes it worth while.
Back to theory. Without the background, we can compose pieces. Most people will hear it as OK. The trained ear will pick up the unfortunate problems. But with proper arrangements and harmony, it makes just that difference. Will most people be able to pick it up? Probably a little, but not as much as the trained musician. So is it worth it? Absolutely! Because it makes just that difference that separate the excellent music from the good music.
As I'm using a lot of sampling technology in my orchestral compositions, this is becoming more and more important. We strive to create the ultra-realistic sound - such that few can tell the difference whether it is done by my PC or by a real orchestra. However, no matter how great your sample library is (even if you have th $5000USD VSL), a bad arrangement will always sound bad. However, I've heard people who use sub-standard sample sets, but because of the arrangement skills, he made it music sound 10x more realistic than the expensive samples.
We focus a lot on playing and technical skills. We spend time practicing and hone our fingers. Why is it when it comes to composition and writing, we often settle for the second best solution?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
