I can see that this thread is going to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and (one more time) on...........................

I wasn't trying to;  that's where my ear went - I have no control over that. Just like if you heard something of mine, your ear would gravitate towards certain sounds. If we end up with the same progressions or not on paper.
What this comes down to is: thinking you can get away from the guidelines - for tonal music, you can't (at least tonal music as it applies to the Western World).

Western Music is circular - nothing will change that regardless of how many distant chords you use within a progression

I'm not saying to stick with this - 2-5-1-4-b7-3-6. I can mentally do those exercises going from 12am-12pm or vice-versa; however, my ear leads me to turnaround after I reach 6am/pm. If I go past six, I have to make adjustments because that's what my ear tells me (forget my noggin telling me, too)

I agree with it being a "trap," but you make it sound like a bad thing, when it's not. That's just how it works! Jazz is totally different from Classical, but you definitely hear the classical roots - regarding the progression - whether it's yours or mine albeit not written in a jazzier fashion

Again. I can't help what my ear hears, even if it is wrong. Until it's seen (sheet music/chord sheet), the ear is right until this happens.

I totally get what you mean, but what was learned in yesterday's time could be useful in today's time. If anything, you don't wanna be nostalgic. Live in the present, live for the future. Don't forget your past as it shapes the present and the present shapes the future.

To totally escape the trap, one must use atonality. Atonality doesn't bound one to a key or scale. Of course, you could just throw random chords around, but be mindful of both your physical and mental ear because in reality it's the true composer and they are just as "trapped." Even with atonality, one's ear is expecting tonality (unless it's heard atonality first, then the situation's reversed when tonality is heard).

I do get it as I analyze in two ways: By key (as a whole) and in isolation (many keys). Is the isolation part what you're referring to? I isolated the last four chords, but I could have easily done it to the entire suggested progression. Is this not what tonicization is? It is too uniformed to a key, but you do hear the individual key centers when it's evoked due ti the isolation when it's heard, seen or both.

I-iv-ii-V-I - as a whole this progression left alone while in isolation: from the vi onwards is nothing but fourths: A-D, D-G, G-C. I can play anything in between instead of directly moving a fourth, but due to the "need" to resolve (as my ear - first and foremost - then logic tell me), that's where I end up.

And yeah, voice-leading makes those "odd" chords okay, but I'm saying that the ear makes it logical regardless of how "illogical" it may be. (I'm not saying what you did was illogical).

Context is king, but from a visual perspective. The ear is king from the aural perspective; it knows nothing about context until you tell it. This is one of the biggest disadvantages when just listening (for someone other than the composer). Even s/he has to figure out the sound's name - when more than likely s/he has two options. It's only until it's written, it's certain because it's very easy to "fool the ear" even the composer's.

Again, it wasn't my intention to trap you, but you know why I did and it had nothing to do with being "difficult."

With the way it is now in general, tonality does have a very tight grip on Western Music. You can throw all the off-color notes at it and it'll shrug 'em off. I don't think it's something we can deconstruct. We're still going to have that I-vi-ii-V, I-V-vi-IV, etc. We've had them since forever and I don't see this changing. You write, arrange, reharmonize till pigs fly. Unless you quit music altogether, they'll always be sand in the sandbox and as long as your have access to ears, you follow their lead.

I think what happened between us is, my thought made you think which made you react like you did. We agree on logic coming after the fact and how that can hinder creativity, but some thought must go into it. As I said, my suggestion could be meaningless; however, if you're thinking too hard to be different, you may as well stick with what works for you - and by I mean, what you already know.

Yeah, the circular journey may not work, but I won't take the rectangular journey just for the sake of it because I'm certain with the former: either it'll work or it won't, but I'm not so sure about the latter. I'll try the latter, but even years into it, I'll eventually come back to the former.

I do commend what you've accomplished and will accomplish!


If anything, don't force it. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar - per the adage.

Apologies for rambling

hey Janet, nothing much wrong with your chord use judging by the stuff you post on the songs forum! i'm sure this has been covered in the previous 6 pages but couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing. so, my main tricks are inversions (same chord, different root note); playing different chords over the same root note (so, say your bass pedal is A, what chords have A in them...of course, A, Am, but also, D, Dm, F, F#m, C6, B7,Gsus2 etc); substituting a minor chord for major (typically the 4th); and then getting a melody and adding in random chords based on the note rather than the key as a whole.

I personally know enough to be dangerous, the rest, I stab in the dark. Never had any real formal musical training of any worth, mere weeks on small theory bits, I can read a stave, SLOWLLLLLY.... Anyway, because I favour the piano these days for composing mostly, I sit, I twiddle, if it sounds good, it works :). When all those who know far more than me start with their, diminished this and that etc, I go blank LOL.

Tony

jsaras


Rus, you're trying to put me back in that iii-vi-ii-v-I jail again! :-D. At its core, in my way of thinking each root is its own tonal center. The root movements can be made to conform to a scale, or not, and the scale choices and vertical intervals can be arranged to conform to a key center, or not. The one thing that unifies key-centered thinking and harmonic organization that has no key center is the linear/melodic aspect i.e., the voiceleading conforms to the mathematical organization inherent within the overtone series.

The chord symbols for the introduction are Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 (and Eb maj13). The triads in the treble happen to be simple voice-lead triads in the key of Bb, but the chord progression in no way implies any key center.  Yesterday's rules don't work with today's music.

While this is interestingly esoteric, that's a bold statement to make. "Yesterday's Rules"? This is jazz! No rules! Never was. However, according to "tradition" it's usually possible to explain why something functions on a harmonic level. So though your intent may be to discover "new" ways to escape tradition, on the other hand tradition can find new ways to adapt to you.
 
Congratulations, you have succesfully re-invented a D7(b5), G13(b9), C11(b9#5), F13(b9) , or, III-VI-II-V cycle of fourths progression. There's a reason it doesn't sound very "abstract" or "dissonant" as far as jazz goes...it isn't.
 
You can only bend twelve notes so far. Gravity, gravity, is working against me...
 

Janet


SToons...yes, that tension and release idea makes a lot of sense.  I do that without really having thought thru exactly which chords do what...I just know it works.  You've added some helpful ideas.  Thank you.  Bring on Lesson #2. :) 

Absolutely. I took a little time to listen to your songs and also have a few "specific" notes for you :-)
 
I take it you`re a piano player, not a guitar player.
 
Till i have time to write things up, what are the pieces at soundclick that you have personally composed that you feel represent you best? And how would you like to see your playing expand?

MakeShift


Scott, you had a way of explaining Lesson 1 that really came through for me.  I have never really thought of chord progessions as tension and release, I guess I just kind of did that naturally, as Janet has said.  This gives me a new way of looking at progressions as I write....thank you.

Bring on Lesson 2.

Thanks for the comments. What's your main instrument? It makes it easier for me to get an idea how to tailor things.
 
Cheers/

Guitar and bass.

@SToons: Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 is a iii-vi-ii-V?    Explain. 


I would also like to see a traditional analysis done on my ballad, measures  3-10 and measures 15-22.  There are two symmetrical cycles at work there that have nothing to do with traditional key centers (just look at the treble; Bach would approve of the voice leading).  


The fifth is the first interval (after the octave) that appears within the overtone series and tonal harmony is basically constructed around that root cycle.  However, there are six intervals that appear within the overtone series and all are equally valid foundations upon which root movements can be organized around.  


If one chooses to use the symmetry of the overtone series as the foundation of what constitutes tonality, instead of the 7-note asymmetrical scales that form the basis of the vertical structures within tonal harmony, it is possible to write 12 real parts (without doubling) without any dissonant intervals. 


Allow me to stretch your ears a little with some new sounds.  MP3 audio: http://tinyurl.com/9faas7m


If you want to analyze these structures I suggest that you look for the repeating vertical interval sets.  These structures conform to the overtone series (no b9 intervals to be found) and they all ring clearly.    


Score:





Three cheers for new chord progressions!

Regards,
J

jsaras


@SToons: Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 is a iii-vi-ii-V?    Explain. 

I did :-)
 

Congratulations, you have succesfully re-invented a D7(b5), G13(b9), C11(b9#5), F13(b9)

 
Ab7+4 = D7(b5)
E7b9-5 = G13(b9)
Db maj7+4 =  C11(b9#5)
D7#9 = F13(b9)
 
III-VI-II-V in the key of B flat
 
"Pluralities" as Joe Diorio would suggest - they serve the same harmonic function, inversions if you like. My ear heard it right away.

I would also like to see a traditional analysis done on my ballad, measures  3-10 and measures 15-22.  There are two symmetrical cycles at work there that have nothing to do with traditional key centers (just look at the treble; Bach would approve of the voice leading).  

I'll look when I can. I would suggest that for many structures there are multiple potential for analysis. And it depends on how you define "traditional" when it comes to jazz.
 
I was curiously waiting to see if anyone would answer your puzzle. For now let me suggest that, until I have time to take a better look, the harmony of the Intro can be seen as triads built off of a half-whole diminished scale that ascend by a semi-tone every two beats such that beats three and four of the second measure are derived from the same diminished as the first two beats of measure 1. As such, each two beats of the intro can be seen as functioning as any of four altered dominants.

The fifth is the first interval (after the octave) that appears within the overtone series and tonal harmony is basically constructed around that root cycle.  However, there are six intervals that appear within the overtone series and all are equally valid foundations upon which root movements can be organized around.  


If one chooses to use the symmetry of the overtone series as the foundation of what constitutes tonality, instead of the 7-note asymmetrical scales that form the basis of the vertical structures within tonal harmony, it is possible to write 12 real parts (without doubling) without any dissonant intervals. 


Allow me to stretch your ears a little with some new sounds.  MP3 audio: http://tinyurl.com/9faas7m


If you want to analyze these structures I suggest that you look for the repeating vertical interval sets.  These structures conform to the overtone series (no b9 intervals to be found) and they all ring clearly.    

The trick here is that, as I said before, one may -derive- a "new" chord progression using any of an unlimited number of methods but that doesn't mean it cannot be broken down and be perceived in a much simpler form. Just as a lake may feed many winding rivers, one only has to backtrack to find the lake.

 
Three cheers for new chord progressions!

I'll let you know when I hear some :-)
 
Just kidding. Of course I'll listen to this later. A few things though. For one I'm a guitarist so piano charts take slightly longer for me to "see". Also, I have to be honest and say I'm quite happy to analyze structures that actually "function" (in my world) but have less interest in structures that live "hyypothetically" and do little to serve the needs of tension and release - if I feel like pure tension I'll go downhill skiing. I tend to perceive chord structures as an "improvisor" not a composer, so I have been trained to find viable (and hopefully melodically interesting) paths thru the harmony. For what that's worth.

Regards,
J

To you as well.