|
Chord Progression in Epic/Anthem/Progressive Trance (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
LOL, what the HELL are you talking about?
The names of the chords are exactly the SAME as the names of the scale degrees. The only difference is that they're more often referred to by numeric value as opposed to name (i.e. a "I" chord may be called a "one" chord as opposed to the "tonic" chord).
If you're going to use the names, then they are exactly the same as the names of the notes.
To a certain extent, you are correct - the VI chord may sometimes be used in place of the I chord, but I've never in my life heard it referred to as "fulfilling a tonic role" or being part of the "tonic group". Chords might be referred to as having a tonic, predominant, and dominant function, but they are never, EVER referred to as tonic, predominant, or dominant chords, because that would be utterly confusing and nonsensical.
Going back to your original post and knowing what you actually meant to say (which took 3 long-winded posts from you to figure out), it makes sense if it's interpreted a certain way, but it's also practically meaningless when interpreted that way and completely untrue for jazz and many other types of improvisational music. It's pretty clear that you picked this information up from a website or a handful of websites and didn't really absorb it or understand it. |
|
|
| RichieV |
i'm not even going to bother with you
i'm working on a masters of music composition at mcgill university. So i guess you should cram what ever elementary theory you know up your ass and just shut the up.
ok bitch ? |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
i'm not even going to bother with you
i'm working on a masters of music composition at mcgill university. What the have you done ?Completed grade 8 piano theory. Please. i completed that when i was 15. So i guess you should cram what ever elementary theory you know up your ass and just shut the up.
ok bitch ? |
well i was a little drunk when i wrote that .
The individual that started this thread was asking for a formula. There is a formula. This formula is in every harmony textbook used in university level theory. It involves a tonic function chord , which can be I VI and sometimes III going to a predominant function chord. A predominant chord is II and IV. Then going to a dominant function chord which can be V or VII. THis is a general framework that about 95% western music follows for the last 400 years. Jazz follows this framework as well; altho it is a little loser. But the concept is the same.
What diginut is refering to is elementary theory that is not even concerned with the harmonization of more than one note. I really wish he would stop pegging off the he learned in his grade 3 theory class as anything remotely relevant for more advanced theory. |
|
|
| wayfinder |
:crazy: :haha:  |
|
|
| Tech0rz |
Only a 'tranceaddict in training'?
How can we take anything you say for a fact! :whip::whip::whip:
|
|
|
| jremking |
Thanks to however posted that chart thing. I am just now getting more into theory based crap and it is nice to have chords at least shown and some basic scales stuff as I never learned any classical music or theory before screwing around with reason and the such.
Why not in depth, I am not a music major or even making music for profit, so it is extrememly helpful to start playing with and not having my stuff sound like I am playing on a toy piano and I am five. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by MadThijs
First a book abut jazz theory, which runs through every chord in a major, minor, minor/major and octotonic scale.
Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book"
I agree with Diginut on this topic. Tonic can only be the I of every chord in both jazz and classical theory. The same for the others. |
when i use the word tonic , i am talking in a macro sense. i am refering to the function of the chord. Any chord that fullfills a tonic function is a tonic chord. VI going to V makes VI have a tonic function. This lack of understanding surprises me the most considering about 50% of trance songs use this progression. If VI doesn't fill a tonic role , then what does it do ?
| quote: |
The first chords that pass by in classical theory are I IV V,in major and minor, and you learn how to connect them.
The first chords that pass by in jazz theory are II-V-I and you learn that II is always minor, V is a 7 chord(Why? Let's take C major and build a chord with a 7 and use only the notes of c major. You get G-B-D-F=G7).
|
II in a minor key is actually a diminished chord , not a minor chord.
| quote: |
So in classical theory you start with only major/minor chords. That's where most trance stays one scale and it's chords.
Jazz theory uses more notes of a scale, even 7 chords (Minor 7 Major 7 and dominant 7) and doesn't stay in one key from the first thing you learn off. |
I am not sure what you mean by this. Classical music modulates keys just as much as jazz does. Classical music uses all those chords as well. And 9ths , and 13ths ....
JAzz was an extension of classical music. THeory wise anyways. But they all rely on the same frame work. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MadThijs
First a book abut jazz theory, which runs through every chord in a major, minor, minor/major and octotonic scale.
Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book"
|
Thanks! It looks long enough to contain some actual information and seems to have gotten very good reviews... definitely worth checking out.
Looks like a lot of decent books linked to in the reviews as well. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by MadThijs
Tonic is not a funtion in my opinion.
|
again you are confusing the names given to specif scale degrees and the group theorist give to chords that fullfill a release of tension.
if these chords do not fullfill a function , why does every bit of music where V doesn't resolve to either I or VI sound empty. The resolution to tonic group chords is perhaps the most important function in music.
| quote: |
You're right, I forgot
But only the last, I don't know how many, years and not to keys they use in jazz.
I agree, I should have written you start with..... |
Bach was doing similar types of modulation that you seein jazz. And that was a couple hundred years ago. jazz and classical use the exact same method of modulation. The circle of fifths. It is all the same;
The framework that is. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Ugh. I've got better things to do than argue on this forum - this is the last thing I'm going to say with respect to the n00b discussion.
The idea of a tonic, predominant, dominant function is misleading to people who don't already have a very solid grasp of the fundamentals. Chords in each group are not simply interchangeable; they are only given these "functions" as a reflection of where in a progression they're most often (but not always) used.
The "formula" that's used in pop and classical music is specifically I-IV-V-I as well as VI-V-IV-V. It's not simply "tonic function-predominant function-dominant function-tonic function" or "tonic function-dominant function-predominant function-dominant function". You can't just pick any chord from those families and expect it to sound good - a I-II-VII-VI progression repeated over and over again is going to sound ridiculous.
This is the difference between people who just "know" the theory from reading a few sentences and people who actually understand how the theory is applied. To say that jazz is built on the same framework as classical music... if you extrapolate far enough, you could say that jazz is based on the same framework as auto mechanics because they both use the numbers 1-7. :rolleyes: They may have certain things in common but the progressions used in classical and pop music simply don't apply to jazz, and it's obvious to anyone with any musical experience that they don't apply because of all the constant key changes in jazz.
I'm trying to provide information that might actually be of practical use to people with little to no musical background. It's hard enough to do that without blowhards jumping in and obfuscating the topic by oversimplifying everything and using wording that's ambiguous, confusing, or downright misleading. This isn't about how best to interpret the musical theory in order to suit our own arguments - it's about clarifying the theory for people who aren't really up to speed on it.
If anyone on this forum wants to take this dude's advice or go to him for help, then by all means, it's no skin off my neck. Just keep in mind that this forum already has lots of good information on this topic - for example in the tutorials thread, or the great thread on theory and harmony that Derivative posted a while back. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The "formula" that's used in pop and classical music is specifically I-IV-V-I as well as VI-V-IV-V. It's not simply "tonic function-predominant function-dominant function-tonic function" or "tonic function-dominant function-predominant function-dominant function". You can't just pick any chord from those families and expect it to sound good - a I-II-VII-VI progression repeated over and over again is going to sound ridiculous.
T. |
like i've said before
almost every single song in the western repertoire for the last 400 years follows the model i gave.
| quote: | The "formula" that's used in pop and classical music is specifically I-IV-V-I as well as VI-V-IV-V. It's not simply "tonic function-predominant function-dominant function-tonic function" or "tonic function-dominant function-predominant function-dominant function". You can't just pick any chord from those families and expect it to sound good - a I-II-VII-VI progression repeated over and over again is going to sound ridiculous.
|
wrong again. Bach's first prelude from his well tempered claver has that progression. And yes if you repeat anything long enough it will sound boring. And what do you think I IV V I is ? IT follows the model i outlined.
And I IV V I is not really that common in classical music to be considered the formula. COmposers more often use II as the predominant before V because it is more intense than IV.
I honestly think you have no idea what you ar talking about. You've gathered a few tidbits and are stringing together " opiniated theories " that just seem silly to someone like me that is actually studying theory. |
|
|
| superddman |
at the end of the day isn't it better to just use a single finger (at most two hehe) and come up with some interesting pattern by trial and error. Then, layer that with supporting pattern that has variations, and so on. Soon you will have beautifully sounding chords hehe
I mean, i have tried to put theories in practice but it just slowed me down.
My advice, start with the most basic pattern and build on that.
What do you guys think? Is this complete BS? |
|
|
|
|
