Chord general? Post chords/progression you like.
how long does it take to learn music theory
>>49450266
However long you want
I go off chords to make melodies, how about you guys
>>49450266
just watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZr5k1_9Dds
C Am Dm G E Am
F G F G G7
>>49450244
Jesus, you plebs can't just figure out what chord sounds appropriate when?
>>49450404
What are you talking about you sperglord
A#m G7 Em Dsusadd9 B7
>>49450404
b8?
u guys are 2jazz4me
>>49450244
Dm
only Dm
>>49450700
also this
Cadd9 is best chord
One of my favorite progressions is Em9 A13 (or that same progression in any key really)
Asus2 best chord
f g Am c
~`~
O
Chord notation is way too broad and can look very awkward (ex. C sus4 b5 maj7 add#9 addb13) Why can't a bunch of music theory nerds on the internet make a better system that's not so shitty?
>>49450304
I like to, because I suck ass at forming chords under a melody, but generally my best melodies are the other way around unless i have a super good chord progression
g em c d
>>49450244
>tfw don't know an instrument that can play chords
>tfw learned theory for nothing
>>49451039
AND ONE DAY WE WILL DIE
>>49451010
>I can't understand the system
>its the systems problem not mine
>somebody change it for me
E-E-E-E
A chord of 3 F# octaves played together with no other notes
>>49451043
Bass? Because knowing theory makes you know what notes you can play over the chord, otherwise you're a root note only pleb
Knowing theory means you can write a melody lie on your instrument, then arrange chords over them. Knowledge is never for nothing.
>>49451043
Monophonic synthesizer?
>>49451010
if there was a better system we'd have it by now
you're not even counting jazz notation (triangle for maj7, - for minor)
>>49450505
why a#? why not Bb? this makes me uncomfortable
>>49450700
F#sus8?
Gimme some maj 7ths
my fav chord progression is G em C D
>>49450505
>a#
why
Bm D G D G D E7 E7
>>49450304
Depends.
If I'm writing towards the pop end of rock, I'll usually let my chords inform my melody, I'll swap things round as I get into the artier side of rock, or into metal (especially as functional harmony starts to break down). If I'm writing jazz pr classical, I usually start with the skeleton of harmony, use that to write the skeleton of a melody, then go back over the harmony and use what little melody I've come up with to inform how I'll colour it and make it more interesting, then in turn, I'll use my richer harmony to inform how I ornament my melody.
I did a reharmonization of 'stand by me' in C which started off normal (||: C | C | Am | Am | F | G7 | C | C :||), then went:
|| E7sus4/C | Bbmaj13 | Am9 | Am7 | Ab7b5 | G7#9 | Cmaj9omit5 | E5/C ||
|| E7sus4/C | E7#9 | Am9 | Am7 | Daug7#9 | Gm7 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 ||
|| E7sus4/C | Bb13omit5 | Am9 | Am7 | Ab7b5 | G7#9 | Cmaj9omit5 | E5/C ||
|| E7sus4/C | Bb13omit5 | Am9 | Am7 | Db5/G# | G7#9 | Cmaj9omit5 | Asus2/C ||
|| E7sus4/C | Bb13omit5 | Ebm11 | Ab13 | Dm9omit5 | G7#9 | C6/9 | C6 ||
I've developed an extremely experimental chord known as the H chord. It's still a work in progress but expect big things that will revolutionize music as we know it soon.
>>49451206
Because there is already a B natural in the scale, you can't have 2 types of B's, that's silly.
>>49451215
wouldn't that be this?
>>49451260
jazz notation beats all
>>49450304
i write a melody and see how many different chord progressions can go under it
>>49451010
They have. It's called Roman numeral analysis, or set-theory.
Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Chord notation. It's perfectly clear and concise.
>>49451043
Even monophonic melodies imply chordal harmony.
>>49451260
>All harmony must be strictly diatonic at all times. There is no such thing as borrowed chords, secondary dominants, tritone substitution, etc.
>>49451261
oh wait i screwed up
>>49451261
I feel like that's wrong, but I also feel like I was wrong and was thinking of C#sus6.
>>49451323
Yeah I was thinking of 8 as 9, I don't even know if that'd be right as nine tho
>>49451339
I also think you forgot the sus. given the placement of your third, but I don't know enough about theory to make that judgement.
maj7 master race reporting in
Em B7 D Gb
>>49451247
Another few that I came up with recently are:
||: C | Em | C7/A | F7 | Ddim | C | D | G :||
||: G | Bb/F | C/E | Eb :||
||: C | A7 | F | Fm :||
||: Bm | Em/B | Bm | F#m/E :||: Bm | C#7 | Em/B | F#7/C# :|| (You can replace the F#m/E with an A5add6/9 resolving to F#m/A if you like the added tension).
||: C - Fm | C - Dbm | Ab - Cm | G - G7 :||
>>49451247
>Bb13omit5
Nigga what kind of chord is this. What does the "omit" mean exactly?
Also guys, concerning pop music; I usually can come up with a melody and chord progression am satisfied with, but turning it into a full song is where it gets really difficult for me. If I keep it chorus-verse-chorus I end up thinking it's too repetitive and hate it, yet if I try to add anything I feel I'm adding just for the sake of mixing it up and hate it anyways. I know you're supposed to just let it "flow" and the song will let you know what it needs, but I can't get out of that over-thinking mindset.
Same thing with adding vocals. I can never add vocals that don't mimic the original piano melody I came up with.
>>49451863
I'm sure he means to 86 the fifth.
>>49451884
I-I'm not sure what that means. I'm pretty new when it comes to knowing my chords.
>>49451863
Omit; verb; leave out or exclude (someone or something), either intentionally or forgetfully.
It's mostly just pedantry, since almost all 13th chords will have their fifths omitted anyway,
>>49451904
He's just trolling. That doesn't mean anything.
>>49451904
don't play the 5
>>49451904
86 means to get rid of. Not a musical term.
>>49451922
>>49451933
Alright, that was my first assumption but I thought if that was the case they just wouldn't notate the 5. Thanks guys.
>>49451863
What I do is I write it up into a program like guitar pro or sibelius and arrange around that. Another good thing to do is to come up with a whole bunch of melodies over the same progression and use a couple of the best ones
>>49451956
The way chords are built you're usually supposed to assume the 5th is there.
>not exclusively writing microtonal chord progressions
>>49451961
I usually just make a melody on my keyboard and add chords to it, and then just try to let the song flow from there. But I always feel awkward trying to make sections go together. Feels contrived. I think I just have too little self-esteem.
Here's one I've been working on: http://clyp.it/lzbs5kox
Mind letting me know if it's decent?
>>49451215
Please be joking.
>>49451310
>>All harmony must be strictly diatonic at all times. There is no such thing as borrowed chords, secondary dominants, tritone substitution, etc.
Irrelevant here, it's just a 5 chord progression.
i think the best one i've used is as follows: Gm7 - C7sus4 - F6 - Gm - Dadd11 - Gmaj7sus4/D - Cmadd#11/D - Gmaj7sus4/D - Dadd11
>>49452042
Sadly I wasn't. I wasn't really thinking when I put that.
>>49452044
>Irrelevant here, it's just a 5 chord progression.
What?
>>49451261
thats an F#madd9
recent modified blues, relies heavily on vi-7 | VII7 | I maj 7 (based on the 4-5-6 of a harmonic minor scale):
G | E-7 F#7 | G | A-7 B7 |
Cmaj7 | C#dim | G A-7 | B-7 C#7|
D | E-7 F#7 | G | E-7 F#7|
eventually i might get around to a rhythm changes variant based on the 6-7-1 pattern
>>49452098
>>49450505
You do know what we're talking about, right?
>>49452105
i mean, F#add9. I played the notes wrong
>>49451316
>>49451323
>>49451339
F#add9
>>49451784
And one more for y'all. this is a neat way to modulate between semi-distant keys - it's not strictly 15th century harmony (so it's not like you couldn't just truckdriver those modulation if you wanted), but it's pretty smooth.
>From Amaj -> Cmaj:
|| A - Ab | C/E - Ebmaj7 | Db/F - Fm | Bdim7 - Fdim/B || C
Then you can take it onwards to the middle key (in this case, Gmaj):
||: C5 - Eb5 | B - D | Bb - D | B - Ab7 || G
>>49451956
How would you not notate the fifth?
>>49452044
How is that irrelevant? You've said that it's silly to have 2 types of Bs in the same chord progression, and that's just plain wrong. Regardless of the length of the chord progression, it's perfectly normal to include non-diatonic notes from borrowed chords, secondary dominants, tritone subs, etc. The length of the progression is irrelevant - Plenty of 4-chord pop songs do this all the time.
>>49452105
Is the m to indicate the 9th is flattened? add because no 7th?
>>49452012
I write prog so I generally have to have everything meticulously planned, but if you're going for poppy then generally verse/chorus is the way to go, even though I personally think it sucks.
I personally try and make each piece a journey from start to finish, and depending on what mood the next section will change. I find I have a problem of having a few too many enormous explosions but I like those so hey who cares.
But obviously if you're writing pop music that's irrelevant, I just think that writing pop music is dumb personally
>>49452167
>>49452131
Oh, alright. Still, add because of no 7th? Also, C#sus6 is talking about the chord here.
>>49450700
>>49452167
m means minor... but the "m" is incorrect, i corrected myself here: >>49452131
and there is no 7th, its literally just an F# major with an added 9th (9 scale steps from the tonic, F#, which is G#)
F# add 9
>>49452129
In any kind of diatonic harmony, the minor third sound of the A# would be prevalent, making calling it A# instead of Bb and using an accidental for the natural redundant. If we were analysis it in a post-tonal sense then the A# would make more sense, but in diatonic harmony a sharp 2 with just sound like a minor third.
Help me understand guys. Could you theoretically use >>49450244 and put your own melody over it and make it your own song? Wouldn't the fact that these progressions have been used before make it plagiarism to use them?
>>49452164
>You've said that it's silly to have 2 types of Bs in the same chord progression, and that's just plain wrong
I was only referring to this >>49450505 specific chord progression, there is no reason to call it a Bb
>>49452214
Alright. Thanks for breaking that down for me.
>>49452204
That's not a C#sus6, it's a F# in second inversion.
>>49452233
Nope. There are plenty of progressions that have been recycled through pop music countless times. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. It's just about what you do with it.
>>49452233
Harmony has specific function which makes things work - everyone has been using the same chord progressions for the last 400 years. Literally every composer of the common practice period used I - IV - V - I at some point in some way.
>>49452254
Wow. I feel dumb. Now that you point that out it's super obvious. I need to spend more time with theory.
>>49452185
Well my favorite band is a Japanese noise pop band, so I'd enjoy making music like them. I just like how if done well, pop music with great lyrics can be very potent.
Not pop as in the generic stuff you find on the radio, but lighthearted, melody-centric stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs74nK2c4gw
>>49452233
There have been songs with identical progressions since the beginning of time. It's what you do with them that counts.
>>49452233
There are so many elements of a song that you can use a chord progression so many times before running out of ideas. It's when you use more than a few elements of a song (including melody, tempo, structure, genre, timbres) you've got a problem. And that rarely happens by coincidence
>>49452233
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ
>>49452238
Oh, my mistake, I didn't read through the previous comments. Ignore me :)
>>49452295
When a chord is giving you trouble, just try writing out all the notes you see and play with the accidentals until they start making a bit more sense.
>>49452326
I've seen the Axis twice and they change the songs in the 4 chord song every time. There were maybe only 3 or 4 from the original when I last saw them
Once they ran through half of Adele's 21 album and then shouted SHE WON FIVE GRAMMYS FOR THAT
>>49452244
no problem!
does anybody else need a harmony theory concept explained? or perhaps a chord progression crafted for them? this is what i'm best at
>tfw I have a degree in music composition and helping people on /mu/ is literally the most I have/can do with it
>>49452347
Also, it helps to break it down into steps. Start with the triad, build up the extensions, raise/lower accidentals, shift suspensions, put it in the correct inversion. I find that makes it much easier.
>>49452371
I'd love you to help me spice up/reharmonise a chord prog I was working on, if you're offering.
Currently it goes pic related, but it feels very flat.
It needs to maintain tension on the first and third, and release on the second, last, and (less so) on the fourth, but feel free to tweak the melody I've written over the top if you need to, but. I just need help giving it more 'pull', and making it jazzy and filled with all those juicy extensions and alterations.
Feel free to ignore the bass-line if it confuses you.
Cheers in advance
>>49452530
Give yourself some deadlines and do some composing. /mu/ will kill you.
>>49452562
Fuck. I just noticed that I forgot a barline.
>>49452530
Then could you listen to the sample I posted anon and tell me how it is http://clyp.it/lzbs5kox
>>49452582
...and fucked up some of the beaming.
I am aan embarrassment, and deserve to suffer.
>>49452562
>>49452582
>>49452623
some of the accidentals too. its ok im on it i'll see what i can do
>>49452530
Ok, is there like a basic set of guidelines for coming up for chords under a melody?
I normally know the key from the rest of the song, but regularly I have no clue what to put under it. I can't just make chords of the melody because then the vocals are just root notes and that sounds gay. Do I just fuck around until it sounds good?
>>49452530
Actually, I've got a question for a theory-savvy person:
Say you've got a major-key chord progression in which the tonic is played twice each repeat, once at the start, and one mid-phrase on a weak beat, right...?
Say the chord after the second tonic is either a subdominant, or a supertonic chord...
Could you theoretically call that second tonic a V/IV or a VII/ii, or is that just silly?
What if you have lots of flattened 7th scale-degrees in your chord prog (thus, more strongly implying a temporary tonicization of the IV or ii)?
>>49452799
No the guy you asked, but as long as the chords relate to the notes in the melody, and follow a Tonic->Predominant->Dominant structure, it should work fine. Look at this wiki, or this image for guidance. Keep in mind, both resources are simplistic, and you can go a lot more complicated with extensions and whatnot after you've gotten that down.
>>49452788
Much appreciated!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function#Functional_behaviours
I'm partial to sus2sus4.
>>49452947
Surely that's not a thing? If you suspend two notes, don't you change the function of the chord?
For example, isn't a Csus2sus4 really just a G7sus4 with a C in the bass?
>>49453019
Yeah but remember that sus2 and sus4 are interchangeable too, I think G7sus4 is more elegant but if the C is more dominant I'd call it a C
>>49453058
I just don't see it functioning as a tonic in the key of C (for example) so much as a dominant.
>>49453019
Technically yes. 7sus4 certainly makes more logical sense as far as note position goes, I'm just used to the bass note being the root. I've seen sus2sus4 is some chordbooks, so I guess it has some validity to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcQeTCsQ5w4
;^)
>>49452939
i've got something for you, im having trouble exporting an image of the score from my scoring software... bare with me
>>49451297
>jazz notation beats all
>this is what dance music fans actually believe
>>49453081
But surely first-inversions are less unusual than double-suspensions?
Like, I'm sure it's a valid way to name the chord, but it feels like jumping through unnecessary loops to try and force the chord to function as though it were built of of C, when it really doesn't feel like it is.
>>49453109
Thanks a bunch! A screenshot is fine, as is a Sibelius file if that's what you're using. Hell, I can even make do with a .midi file if that's easier.
>>49453146
Of course, a pdf works too. While 4chan doesn't like pdfs, imgur uploads them fine (it even automatically stitches together multiple pages for you).
>>49453146
good call with the screenshot
yes, i use guitar pro 6 to score everything
i changed the melody slightly in the 2nd and 3rd bar, but the significant changes came in the harmony.
i'm a mostly classical composer, so i apologize if this isnt what you had in mind, but as far as building tension, releasing tension, and flowing through the chromaticism of the final bar i believe this is a pretty 'juicy' and abstractly 'jazzy' chord progression. i've labled the chords and added the extra bar to show that the progression does indeed resolve into itself (although you can easily modulate from there too)
>>49453253
oops, forgot the screenshot
>>49453271
Cheers. Gimmi a sec to plug it into Sibelius and see how it sounds :)
>>49453331
just gonna comment and make sure the thread doesnt die
this was a pretty good thread, shame nobody's commenting anymore
>>49453480
Isn't that third chord a Bbaug/Ab?
>>49450774
Em C#maj Cmaj Cmaj? (I'm new to theory)
>>49453567
maybe, i just used the automatic chord labeling
>>49453612
It sounds very dissonant to my ears. You've got a B in the melody clashing with the Bb in both the second, third, and fourth chords, a G in the melody clashing with the chordal G# in the third bar, an F# clashing with the G in the fourth chord, and an A# in the melody clashing with the chordal A in the fifth chord. Are you sure you haven't git it set to a transposed instrument or something?
>>49453763
no its just the music im used to composing. you can change it a bit and make it less dissonant to suit
>>49453853
Sorry, I'm used to dissonance, (see my reharmonization of 'Stand By Me' here (>>49451247), but frankly I don't consider any of your take on my chord prog usable. Sorry, but there's just nothing to tie the melody to the harmony at all, and the Phrygian Dominant feel is completely lost.
>>49453950
oh well. im probably gonna use the progression for something else anyway
>>49453610
C#m*
someone confirm if I've got this, I've just started learning more about chords
>>49451233
For a minute there, I lost myself. I lost myself.
>>49454034
Well yeah, feel free. It's a fine progression on it's own (though, I personally would tweak it to ||: Dm - C7 | G#7 - Ebmaj7 | C6 - A7 :||, it just sat very awkwardly against the melody you tweaked.
>>49450362
>first let's look at the white keys cause they're obviously superior
my sides
>>49453950
Could you explain what a phrygian dominant is?
>>49455113
the fifth mode of the harmonic minor scale
root-m2-M3-P4-P5-m6-m7
>>49455136
So you mean the whole prog is written with chords from this scale?
My biggest problem with this is english naming, thats what im trying to get down
>>49455167
Nah, it's what the melody was written in, and I wanted the chords not to detract from that. The chords are welcome to have notes that aren't diatonic to that mode, but it shouldn't endanger the cohesion of the melody.
>>49455167
You don't need to memorise those sorts of things. Just google them if you're confused. Just so long as you know how they're constructed, so you'd know what to play if someone said "the fifth mode of the harmonic minor scale".
>>49455201
>>49455206
Thank you, I'm starting to get a hang of it
>>49455293
S'all good. If it's any comfort, that kind of thing is not really something you have to think about outside of jazz or music that's trying to sound foreign. For the most part, major, the various minors, and the modern Western modes are all you need.
>>49455361
But jazz is the thing i'm trying to get.
I play the trumpet, and I wanted to be able to write tunes as well as solos
>>49455361
Can you recommend me places to learn?
>>49455415
>>49455501
Jazz harmony is unfortunately a whole different beast. Even I don't fully get it. the skeleton of it is a lot of 2-5-1 and stacked secondary dominants, then you colour it with extensions, tritone subs, standard reharm, etc.
I'm afraid I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head that has a good ground-up tutorial. You might try http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/107-Jazz-Arranging-Online-by-Prof-Chuck-Israels
just going to throw this in here
are there any general rules to writing piano parts? i'm writing a tune and i feel like theres some ok ideas there but anyone who actually played the piano would laugh at my poor playing/compositional ability, it sounds like it needs to be more developed in some way. i'm going for a minimalist feel but it's getting the balance between minimalism and blandness.
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0QqYihfwM65
Fmin: i v6 VI N6 V7 iii06 V+ i
>>49455737
I've always found that when trying to keep things simple and minimalist, EVERYTHING comes from how you voice your chords.
>>49455814
accept when using dim or aug chords, where voicing means virtually nothing
>>49455780
I dig N6 -> V7, and using a minor v6 as a tonic prolongation, but why would you use iii as a Dominant prolongation, and why augment the cadential V when you can diminish it?
>>49455835
That's not strictly true. While obviously inversions aren't going to make a difference with diminished chords (though, I'd argue that they do with augmented chords), how you space out your various voices still plays an important role texturally.
>>49455814
>>49455835
did you listen to the vocaroo? it'd be cool to get some feedback on whats there so far.
>>49455873
No I didn't. Gimmi a sec. Internet's being a bitch.
>>49450244
>chords general
>chords general
>chords general
>chords general
>ignorance general
>>49455844
because I like the way it sounds :)
>>49455867
True, voice leading and what you put in each voice does make a huge success. Makes me kind of whick I actually played the piano. What kind of modulation to you like the most? Especially getting to not vlosely related keys.
>>49455885
Did you even read the thread? There's been some interesting, informed discussion amongst the ignorance.
>>49455873
I don't know... I don't think it's too bad. I mean, clearly, it's not meant to be playing too convoluted a role, I think it's pretty fine how it is at least for that short segment - it's how you develop from the ideas that you've come up with there and make a whole piece from it that's the tricky part.
I can see it becoming a really cool piece if you let it grow organically, and build up the texture, adding more and more chromaticism as you go.
>>49455913
Fair enough. I just figured that it would have more 'pull' and tension/release if you didn't dilute the dominant function so much, but maybe that's not what you were going for.
>>49455933
What do you think of.
E: I I= ii6 V& V65 vi V V+ I
G A Bm
might be a bit of a /mu/ favourite
>>49455954
I= not I= sorry, also V7 not V&. my bad
>>49455966
I+, you mean?
>>49455954
sorry, I+ not = and V7 not &.
>>49455974
Gimmi a sec, this one's harder to imagine. I'll have to plug it into Sibelius before I can tell.
>>49455933
what kind of modulation to you like? Preferably going to a not closely related key.
>>49455987
can you post your 4 part please. Want to look at your voice leading.
>>49455933
thats what i was aiming towards i guess. it's more of a "mood" piece than something that's meant to grab attention, i was just going to play around with that motif throughout the whole track. the piano part coming in would be the "peak" it just still sounds a bit too weak for me. at least it's not wrong ~~
the pads not done at all, going to slowly add more layers too it throughout the track, some granular synthesis, play around with some binaural processing and have that as a slowly developing "bed" to the track, the sound design and structure is going to be more the "meat" of the track than anything traditionally musical.
>>49455994
I posted a neat little modulation from Amaj to Cmaj here: >>49452164
But in general I'm not too big on common-chord modulations unless they're done through secondary dominants (I find it hard to fit phrases across them neatly). One thing that's quite cool is when you throw a bunch of simultaneous chromatic mediants into your progression. You start with the ones that make the most sense in your original key in a pattern, and then once the ear gets used to the chromatic mediant pattern, you can continue it as far out of the original key as you like. I'll show you an example once I'm finished working out >>49455954
>>49456006
Alright. 8vbtreble tenor is fine with you?
>>49456028
avoid the tonic like the plague, introduce some borrowed chords and secondary chords to give the sense that you are reaching the tonic, then at the peak pitch that tonic sob and voila.
>>49456028
>the piano part coming in would be the "peak" it just still sounds a bit too weak for me
I agree. It sounds more like an intro to me. You're using very tight chords (and demichords). I think you should build it up from there, keeping it just as sparse as it is, but working the full spectrum of the keyboard. Filling out your chords with extension and working in some more chromaticism as it progresses. Don't make it 'busy', just make it 'full'.
>>49456030
that would be perfect. I enjoy using a bunch of secondary dominants and then modulating by sequence as well as a little chromatic modualtion, Mostly because that is the most advanced types of modualtion I have been taught hahaha.
bt in F cleff and as in G cleff would be great. Standard four part is easiest fpor me to punch with my lack of piano skill.
>>49456093
>bt in F cleff and as in G cleff.
Oh God, okay, I'll try.
I'm used to Sop in treble, Bass in bass, and Tenor either in 8vb treble or tenor, and Alto in either treble or alto. Alternatively, Sop Alt in treble, Ten Bass in Bass. Funny how conventions are still taught differently all over.
>>49456050
>>49456061
cheers for the help boys
>>49456131
hahaha I guess, Even in deepest darkest Africa where I live.
>>49456142
Pleasure, better than fucking kpop general. Actually got me to post.
>>49456006
I like it. My only two criticisms are that the tension kind of drops on the ii6, and the last two chords feel sort of tacked-on. It would work perfectly well just as: ||: I - I+ | ii6 - V7 | V65 - vi :|| and since the bass notes are free to jump around, and it's still got that leap of a fourth despite the inverted 2 chord (E - E - A - B - D#), I figure why not make a show of the leap, and keep the ii in root position so that the D# looks like a recovery from the big F# -> B leap.
Since I felt like your ii chord needed a little tension (and I was already taking liberties by removing it's inversion, I figured why not try to play it as an actual 6 chord.
Here's the result.
Again, personally, I'd use those last two chords to modulate, since they don't seem to be doing much for the arch of the progression - but it's up to you.
Also, consider a key where you don't need a double sharp on your V+.
>>49450244
They're pretty cliched, but I like em
The I - vi - III6/4 Progression:
http://vocaroo.com/i/s113P3nfi5Eq
Rising semitones in the bass:
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0gDrKEpOlHV
>>49456271
thanks man, going to punch have a jab at your arrangement now.
>>49456338
No probs.
>>49456030
>>49455994
See, if you jump around chromatic mediants like this, you can even make a C# sound like it belongs right next to (my original tonic of ) C.
You've just got to make sure there's some symmetry to your voice-leading.
>>49456430
That's ||: C - Ab | B - G | Bb - Gb | E7 - C# :||
The trick is establishing a patter n (in this case, it's 'down a major third -> up a minor third', repeating it, then breaking it for a Dominant 7th which you could have reached from your tonic by chromatic mediant (in this case C -> up a major third to E), then you can either resolve how you normally would if the dominant 7 was a V7 (in this case it would be E7 -> A for a medium-sized C -> A modulation) or by chromatic mediant as though you never broke the pattern (in this case E7 -> down a minor third to C# for a massive C->C# modulation).
>>49456517
You could even continue the pattern through your modulation to get the best of both worlds:
Home Key [Cmaj]:
|| C - Ab | B - G | Bb - Gb | E7 - C# ||
|| C - Ab | B - G | Bb - Gb | E7 - E7 ||
New Key [Amaj]:
|| A - F | Ab - E | G - Eb | Db7 - Bb ||
|| A - F | Ab - E | G - Eb | Db7 - Db7 ||
Endlessly
|| Gb...
>>49456641
why did you use # on the C but bemol on the rest
i think more songs should use a I>iii or a I>vi chord progression. they can sound really cool if they're done right.
>>49450304
i try to do that to help since i suck at melodies, but most of the time i still suck at melodies regardless. i wish i could just make beats without synths, but that isn't cool enough.
>>49456867
No reason. It's so non-functional that you can kind of do what you like, but you're right, it probably would have been easier to read as Db.
>>49456943
I-vi is not so rare.
>>49456959
>I-vi is not so rare.
true, but I>iii really needs more attention.
>>49456959
oh ok, thought there was a technical reason to it.
>>49456989
There could have been. If it was functioning particularly as a C# rather than a Db, it might have made more sense, but this sort of chromatic-mediant movement is pretty far out from typical functional harmony, so there's not much point trying to pin each chord's function down (except for the cadential V7 - I's between each key).
>>49455415
>>49455501
Oh, I lie!
I've heard that Mark Levine's book 'Jazz Theory is very good, and available on either rutracker or TPB.
>>49457163
Great, will definetly check it out!
Em-Esus2b5-D-Bm7-Cmaj7-Bbmaj7-B7
>>49450700
That's just an F# major 1st inversion (where the bass note is the 5th), the 3rd as the bass note would be 2nd inversion
>>49450774
E Major
C# minor
C Major (Which is weird but ok)
C Major
>>49452894
You only need to call something V/x whenever it isn't diatonic. ie. C F G C Dm - That's just I - IV - V - I - ii
However if the chords were C F G C D7 then you would write I - IV - V - I - V7/V
>>49457771
Other way round bro.
