Music Theory
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
A thread for musicians to brainstorm music theory and to learn about new ideas would be cool. I play guitar but the guitar thread has always been exclusively a guitar "gear" thread.
I'm working on all the possible ways to voice a 2-5-1. Each of those 3 notes, let's use the key of C, so D G C, have 4 different 7th chords you can voice with. By that, I mean the D can by the 1, 3, 5 or 7 of the chord, and so on for each of the other 2. That makes for a lot of different possibilities.
Not only that, any chord with a tritone, m7b5's and 7's, can be substituted for the tritone of the whole chord. You can also use that approach (substituting a chord for another with 2/4 of the same notes) and do it with any chord that fits. Not only that, you can add extensions. Substitute the 3 for a 2 or the 5 for a 4 or the 7 for a 6, and that makes EVEN MORE possibilities. Thus why the 2-5-1 is the ultimate chord progression and we should all study it.
>>61370799
This is pretty interesting, I can definitely see playing around a lot with just these 3 chords. I think the 3rd chord works well with them too, just because you can use the 7th and 3rd to make it stand out more (with this case you can make Em, Em7, Emaj, Emaj7, sus4 etc.)
I tend to experiment with adding some notes in that don't necessarily belong in that key. So for example take this chord progression in the key of A: Bm7, D, A-A7. When you're playing the Bm7 and D, you can add in some G notes, and then once you're at the A, G# notes fit in well. So even though the song is in the key of A, you can use F#, G, G# and A while making all sound like the same key.
This is an interesting and underated thread
So
Bumpity bump bump bump
Bump for science
Lately I've been working with what I just learned is called the augmented scale. C Eb E G Ab B C.
I've managed to come up with interesting material with it. One interesting thing I noticed about the augmented scale is that tritones are entirely impossible.
fucking bump
>>61373497
just once more
is there a good source for me to learn about stuff like this? (other than internet google obviously) Trying to teach myself guitar. I have the fingering and picking down pretty well and my next step is to actually learn what the fuck i'm playing and know where i'm going next and why i'm going there. get me? something that might help me practice?
>>61370799
nice
I feel weird writing songs using theory t b h. It makes me feel like I'm just filling out a formula and not really making anything of my own, or rather like a child building something out of legos.
It could be my song but I just used other people pieces
What keys/chords (that aren't too happy/sad/story tell-y) makes you guys want to dance? What's some good tricks for making a rhythm that makes you want to dance?
>>61374708
Well, putting it in 3 is always a plus. If you're looking for keys (well, modes, really) that make you want to dance, look into how, for example,.Russian folk dances do it, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qao_rjvAAis
Note, though, that that's in 2, not 3.
>>61374463
Theory isn't something that belongs to anyone, it's all in how you apply it. Ever listen to a Mars Volta record? Almost every riff is some variation of the blues scale but it almost never sounds like someone trying to play blues rock. That's an example of taking a very basic theoretical concept and making it one's own. Using the blues lick example again, take a listen to Hendrix's playing: again, almost entirely pentatonic and blues scales but through Hendrix's distinct performance sensibilities and use of effects/distortion/feedback.
I actually don't really care how much appreciation for theory anyone claims to have, since a lot of great musicians have written incredible music while stating to have little to no background in theory. I just hate when people dismiss its value entirely or argue that it detracts from creativity. I generally find those sorts of musicians to be rather lazy and difficult to work with because some level of theory knowledge makes communicating with other musicians 10000x easier. If I have to explain to you how to play a Bm7b5 by walking across the room to position each of your individual fingers in the appropriate spot on the fretboard and THEN repeat the process for the next four chords that aren't just "Note5" chords we're both going to be here a long time that we could be spending making actual music.
>>61374463
Music theory is essentially learning how people have done it before. Like learning art by imitating the great masters of the past. It's derivative at first, definitely, but learning the logic behind how things work paves the way for you to develop your own preferences for how you want such and such to work.
One way to see unique styles within the same framework is to look at Mozart's and Beethoven's music. Mozart's music was for the most part light and delicate and overall nice. His development sections were unusually short, and he enjoyed resolved, stable harmonies, which went through the tonic-predominant-dominant-tonic path in a nice and succinct manner. Meanwhile, Beethoven's music was more passionate and heavy. His harmonies are more unstable, and in contrast to Mozart, his music dwells on the dominant quite a bit. The tonic resolution is delayed as much as possible, and is emphasized heavily when it does finally occur - often at the very end of a movement of music by Beethoven you find just the tonic chord repeated and drawn out for maximum effect. Like here, at 1:05:17: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8Jppl
>>61375254
whoops, that's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI
>>61374455
musictheory.net
>>61370799
I just learnt all my modes down the neck. Not really sure what to do now.
>>61370799
Anyone know a good music theory tutorial YouTube channel?
>>61374708
I personally think a lot of songs sound dancey when their 7th is played in the chord (Em7 is E,G,B,D for example). Touch by Daft Punk is a good example, where the big buildup at around 3:20 is mostly 7th chords.
As for rhythm, I think it honestly has a lot to do with the BPM. Most pop songs that are dancey are around 120 BPM or so. But obviously anyone can make a simple kick-snare-kick-snare beat so I think what the actual beat is is pretty subjective. I personally like more hypnotic beats
>>61374455
guitar grimoire
also dubdubs checked
>>61375229
>>61375254
You guys make good points, but I'm just talking about how it feels to me.
I come up with a riff or melody I like then look at why it works from a theory perspective.
After I have dissected it just feels like there is nothing special and anyone could have written it even if it sounds somewhat original.
I have been playing guitar too long to not look at the theory behind it, by playing it more than once I'm already thinking about how it works.
I guess it feels like the magic and mystery has been taken away.
Even if I purposely play outside notes it still is being dictated by my knowledge of theory.
>>61375330
https://youtu.be/Y8HzMEwobvM
>>61374869
I've always thought it'd be a good idea to study folk songs!!! I went to listen to some German folk songs (dunno why German) on YouTube a while back and wasn't really feeling it. I'll give this a listen. Thank you!
>>61375464
Specifically what do you consider hypnotic beats? Also do you think, here and there, making a snare or hat off beat is something that helps make people wanna dance/bump around/move their legs? I know it's something people recommend but I'm wondering if its notably helpful for making people wanna move.
>>61370799
I try to pick voicings by creating a melody, and trying to keep everything else moving as little as possible. Of course, it doesn't always work on guitar, but when writing for piano or for two guitars and a bass it becomes much easier to beat 7ths into shape.
Basically it's all context and constraints - here is the overarching melody or mood I want to convey; here are the physical limitations of the instrument(s) and player(s); here are the possibilities.
Right now most of what I do is come up with weird melody modulations, figure out why they work and what works with them... A whole lot of "blue" note tonics happening.
>>61375516
I understand what you mean, definitely. Like how dissecting a joke kills the joke. I felt this a lot when I started learning theory.
>After I have dissected it just feels like there is nothing special and anyone could have written it even if it sounds somewhat original.
It's often said that the first mistake a beginner chef makes is to want to make their dish unique and special.
The way I guess I 'solved' this was, I began dissecting the melodies of composers I really liked. When you remove all context from them, there's really not much that's all that special about them either. There is a certain art to writing melodies, it's not like just anybody could have come up with them, and there's a lot you can learn from analyzing them as well, but of much more importance is how they're used to structure the music.
>>61376805
>When you remove all context from them, there's really not much that's all that special about them either.
This is what ruins things for me. It's depressing to me. Yet I can't help but to gravitate towards wanting to make music. I don't know why! I hate it.
>>61376176
I think it just needs to be simple yet unique. One of my favorites is I Might Be Wrong by Radiohead. Off beat stuff like Burial definitely catches me of guard but I don't know if that is what necessarily makes the song, it's kinda hard to say because it's so subjective
bumping a good thread
