This is where the whole-tone riff comes in: 0:26-0:53, 1:19-1:46, 4:09-end (though the solo on top goes through minor, Phrygian dominant, and some related collections).
is the problem with the 6-chord the fact that g is in the bass? if i play it with d in the bass and g on top is that chill? I mean i did it anyways but theoretically is it functional, I thought it sounded nice.
The reason I asked how you would do it with I IV V is because you need to establish what the harmonic goals are in the first place. Reharmonization isn't just substituting chords—very often, it's elaborating a harmony that is already in place. You might see there's a V at the end of a phrase, and you already start projecting toward it 4 bars earlier, using all sorts of chords that don't necessarily match the melody notes. Gm might be fine in the version you worked out, but you should look around and ask why it's working. I could, at that same spot, do G7 instead, then walk down chromatically G♭7 F7 E7 to end the phrase, basically basing those two bars on the F7 I decided beforehand, which is one of the chords that would pop up if I just harmonized the thing with I IV and V to begin with.
Maybe it was just the one teacher I had but I remember argumenting with her, where she said kind of like the title, "5/8 is one simple plus one compound beat" and me arguing that it depends and the beats can be divided in many different ways, and her disagreeing.
I suspect that there was a good deal of "for you, right now, this is how it is" in that interaction. But I still don't see where you're getting that this is in any way a "classical" theory of meter.
But that is missing the F note. I think defining it as some type of F# chord over A# with extensions doesn't work since we both have the major 7th and the minor 7th of the F# chord, so it cannot be decided if we should call it F#maj7 or an F# dominant. I think the convention is that a chord has to be either maj 7 or dominant, it cannot be both at the same time.
If you respell B as C♭, you're looking at I and ♭VI in the key of E♭, which suggests E♭ minor, hence your discovery that E♭ minor works. I would basically stick with this. Make whatever changes you need to if the chromatic chords last for a long while. Honestly, E♭ blues would probably do you just fine too.
It's easy to get distracted by shiny things like temperament and scales and modes when you don't have structure. When you start getting a handle on harmony, a lot of these shiny topics are revealed as esoterica rather than the all-encompassing explanations their proponents claim they are.
I will second Cohn's Audacious Euphony. It is Neo-Riemannian and that kinda came from general transformational theory from David Lewin but this book doesn't use the fancy math, it just explains the findings.
My community college paid for chamber groups to come in and read term projects for the harmony classes. So I got to hear a brass quartet play my chorale for Harmony 1, a wind quintet play the rondo I wrote for Harmony 2, and a string quartet play the flaming heap of garbage I wrote for Harmony 3. I didn't even know what to think of for the brass quartet, I was just glad I came in under the deadline after rewriting the entire thing the night before. I put my heart and soul into the wind quintet and they nailed it. It felt awesome. The quartet was overly ambitious and quite shit (the beginning was cool though), and there were a couple tricky parts. The second violin was one bar off by the end. I felt embarrassed. It was awesome that the school organized those readings. By the time I had my first real reading, I had some experience under my belt and could zero in on things to listen for, questions to ask, requests to make. Still, when working for new ensembles and instruments, there's always a period of feeling like you're a deer in the headlights. At least that's my experience. "Rehearsal C is impossible in this octave. Want me to bump it up?" "Uh, I guess so?" That goes away the more familiar you get with the instruments and the medium. You learn how to make fewer stupid mistakes and write more idiomatically.
This is a great point. I have a personal beef with Schoenberg because I think all of the nonsense neoclassical fluff we have now is from his line of thinking. I’ll take a look though.
I wouldn't worry about a bunch of people who still can't "figure out modes" 20 years on even when it's being spoon-fed to them by a minor internet personality. And musicians have historically, by and large, and in spite of their high opinion of themselves, been pretty ignorant. Not engaging with the headier side of their craft is the norm. The expertise required to be a practicing musician remain the same. The role of music supervisors and analogous roles will probably become more pronounced as AI-generated music becomes commonplace, and I suspect that there might be an advantage to being able to think about music in subtle theoretical ways, so who knows, we might see the demand for technical knowledge about music rise.
So wait. just to be clear, the main difference is that plenty of pieces have a simple riff or something similar that gets built on top of when the main melody comes in but this one doesn’t have that? Because that does make sense thinking about it that way.
If what you were going for was a short introduction that exposes the underlying accompaniment to a main melody, you have not achieved this. What you wrote was an A section without an introduction, and a B section without an introduction. To me, this sounds like some ideas you drafted that aren't saying anything yet. I think the gravity of the second idea can carry farther if you spin it out properly.
6 chords are really "add6" chords, meaning you have a triad and you add a sixth to them. 6 always indicates the interval of a major sixth (9 semitones away), ♭6 always indicates the interval of a minor sixth. You should parenthesize ♭6 because it's an alteration, and it will look like the wrong chord if you don't; C♭6 = C♭ add6? = C♭–E♭–G♭–A♭.
The guitar is a chromatic instrument. You can play any key easily. The only reason you would choose a specific key relative to the tuning is something like a pedal point riff, where you need to keep bouncing to an open note.
Is it only going to use the classical rhythm names?
Cannibal Corpse - From Skin to Liquid
Really? I’ve never really listened to them at all so this will actually be a nice change and I get to learn a few things? I appreciate it!
This is where the whole-tone riff comes in: 0:26-0:53, 1:19-1:46, 4:09-end (though the solo on top goes through minor, Phrygian dominant, and some related collections).
is the problem with the 6-chord the fact that g is in the bass? if i play it with d in the bass and g on top is that chill? I mean i did it anyways but theoretically is it functional, I thought it sounded nice.
The reason I asked how you would do it with I IV V is because you need to establish what the harmonic goals are in the first place. Reharmonization isn't just substituting chords—very often, it's elaborating a harmony that is already in place. You might see there's a V at the end of a phrase, and you already start projecting toward it 4 bars earlier, using all sorts of chords that don't necessarily match the melody notes. Gm might be fine in the version you worked out, but you should look around and ask why it's working. I could, at that same spot, do G7 instead, then walk down chromatically G♭7 F7 E7 to end the phrase, basically basing those two bars on the F7 I decided beforehand, which is one of the chords that would pop up if I just harmonized the thing with I IV and V to begin with.
Yeah that's more in my school of thought too. I hated learning about classical theory and how rigid they are about complex time signatures.
Maybe it was just the one teacher I had but I remember argumenting with her, where she said kind of like the title, "5/8 is one simple plus one compound beat" and me arguing that it depends and the beats can be divided in many different ways, and her disagreeing.
I suspect that there was a good deal of "for you, right now, this is how it is" in that interaction. But I still don't see where you're getting that this is in any way a "classical" theory of meter.
www.musictheory.net
Would I be right to think seeing a chord like vº/ii would imply that the ii (G) is actually Phrygian, and not just bog standard minor (Aeolian)?
Yeah, basically.
Very natural feeling. I think you've done it.
F#7(#11,#9)/A#
But that is missing the F note. I think defining it as some type of F# chord over A# with extensions doesn't work since we both have the major 7th and the minor 7th of the F# chord, so it cannot be decided if we should call it F#maj7 or an F# dominant. I think the convention is that a chord has to be either maj 7 or dominant, it cannot be both at the same time.
Just listened to the track.
I make most decisions about form before I write a single note. To me, this gives waypoints to direct the drama of the work.
If you respell B as C♭, you're looking at I and ♭VI in the key of E♭, which suggests E♭ minor, hence your discovery that E♭ minor works. I would basically stick with this. Make whatever changes you need to if the chromatic chords last for a long while. Honestly, E♭ blues would probably do you just fine too.
musictheory.net
It's easy to get distracted by shiny things like temperament and scales and modes when you don't have structure. When you start getting a handle on harmony, a lot of these shiny topics are revealed as esoterica rather than the all-encompassing explanations their proponents claim they are.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by them being "esoterica"?
It's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it?
If you lower any of the tones of a diminished seventh chord, you end up with a dominant seventh chord.
This comes from the prevailing theory of harmonic function in jazz, which is a vulgarized version of Riemannian functional harmony.
I will second Cohn's Audacious Euphony. It is Neo-Riemannian and that kinda came from general transformational theory from David Lewin but this book doesn't use the fancy math, it just explains the findings.
Arnold Schoenberg's
My community college paid for chamber groups to come in and read term projects for the harmony classes. So I got to hear a brass quartet play my chorale for Harmony 1, a wind quintet play the rondo I wrote for Harmony 2, and a string quartet play the flaming heap of garbage I wrote for Harmony 3. I didn't even know what to think of for the brass quartet, I was just glad I came in under the deadline after rewriting the entire thing the night before. I put my heart and soul into the wind quintet and they nailed it. It felt awesome. The quartet was overly ambitious and quite shit (the beginning was cool though), and there were a couple tricky parts. The second violin was one bar off by the end. I felt embarrassed. It was awesome that the school organized those readings. By the time I had my first real reading, I had some experience under my belt and could zero in on things to listen for, questions to ask, requests to make. Still, when working for new ensembles and instruments, there's always a period of feeling like you're a deer in the headlights. At least that's my experience. "Rehearsal C is impossible in this octave. Want me to bump it up?" "Uh, I guess so?" That goes away the more familiar you get with the instruments and the medium. You learn how to make fewer stupid mistakes and write more idiomatically.
This is a great point. I have a personal beef with Schoenberg because I think all of the nonsense neoclassical fluff we have now is from his line of thinking. I’ll take a look though.
Not theory. Take it somewhere else.
That’s many of today’s new musicians. Video only. People later. The future should be interesting.
I wouldn't worry about a bunch of people who still can't "figure out modes" 20 years on even when it's being spoon-fed to them by a minor internet personality. And musicians have historically, by and large, and in spite of their high opinion of themselves, been pretty ignorant. Not engaging with the headier side of their craft is the norm. The expertise required to be a practicing musician remain the same. The role of music supervisors and analogous roles will probably become more pronounced as AI-generated music becomes commonplace, and I suspect that there might be an advantage to being able to think about music in subtle theoretical ways, so who knows, we might see the demand for technical knowledge about music rise.
Maybe, but most of the people who talk like you make tremendously boring and irrelevant music. Go ahead and down vote.
Cope.
It's an AABA song with a second bridge. Intro–AABA–C–AABA–Outro.
Ear training classes did it for me.
I sort of see what you’re saying, but I don’t really agree with the notion that simple and serious are mutually exclusive.
So wait. just to be clear, the main difference is that plenty of pieces have a simple riff or something similar that gets built on top of when the main melody comes in but this one doesn’t have that? Because that does make sense thinking about it that way.
If what you were going for was a short introduction that exposes the underlying accompaniment to a main melody, you have not achieved this. What you wrote was an A section without an introduction, and a B section without an introduction. To me, this sounds like some ideas you drafted that aren't saying anything yet. I think the gravity of the second idea can carry farther if you spin it out properly.
6 chords are really "add6" chords, meaning you have a triad and you add a sixth to them. 6 always indicates the interval of a major sixth (9 semitones away), ♭6 always indicates the interval of a minor sixth. You should parenthesize ♭6 because it's an alteration, and it will look like the wrong chord if you don't; C♭6 = C♭ add6? = C♭–E♭–G♭–A♭.
The guitar is a chromatic instrument. You can play any key easily. The only reason you would choose a specific key relative to the tuning is something like a pedal point riff, where you need to keep bouncing to an open note.
C = C E G