What theory do I need?

[SweHockey]

I'm pretty new to this, and I thought I'd learn some basic music theory which is useful for making electronic musik (house etc.).


I think the most important questions I need to be able to answer is:
What chords fit together?
Which notes can I use to make a melody when I have a chord progression?
Which chords can I put over a melody?

So I guess I'm looking for a pretty basic guide or something. I don't want to be overwhelmed with theory that I get no use of.

 

[UnkNowNGenius]

Same here, I'd like to add RnB,pop,hip hop instead of just house.

 

[Sequence2]

All i'm going to say is that you should read a theory manual to figure these things out.
A lot of this comes with knowledge & Trial/ Error.
If someone wants to sit here for an hour and tell you what chords to put over a melody, what chords fit together etc etc then thats there business. From my expeirence the best way to learn these things is too do it yourself as no one is going to hold your hand through the process (unless you purchase piano lessons)

Piano For Dummies & The complete idiots guide to music theory should help you out in both of these areas.

 

[dichotomos]

Bandcoach is a experienced member here. He has some really useful tutorials for learning music theory.

Band Coach - Philosophies in teaching, composition and life in general

^^^ CHECK IT OUT ^^^^

As far as what to learn in terms of music theory, the answer is simple just keep asking yourself the right questions and you will eventually learn what you wanted to know. Theory can be quite overbearing if you let it be, it can also open your music too new vistas and plateaus. The real trick is always listening to music you want to know more about, meaning, what makes these drums sound so good? why does this bassline work over these chords? How come these chords work so well together? Keep asking questions and you will find what you are looking for.

 

[bandcoach]

Thanks for the love dichotomous .... plateuas are good becuase they are point where we can practice what we know and what have learnt aotherwise if we just keep climbing then nothing ever becomes second nature.

Now as to what and what sequence (if any),

check out this post https://www.futureproducers.com/for...tarted/music-theory-help-418070/#post49477318

 

[DonnieAlan]

My suggestion is to learn as much theory as possible regardless of what style of music you want compose in. The more theory you know, the more tools you have in your kit bag to pull out when you need it. And the better you know and understand the "rules", the easier it is to creatively break the rules when creating your own style. My experience is, you can never know enough music theory. The more, the better!

 

[bandcoach]

No need to smoke anything or take anything to improve your work product - just practice, practice, practice - about 10 000 hours should get you on the road to success.....

 

[tempestmichael]

it's easier to answer what you don't need than what you do need.

First of all,
the standard septonic scale (7 note scale) can be seen quite easily by looking at the white keys on a piano.

In all of the standard keys the steps between the notes go (starting from your major root): whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half
meaning there's one note between a whole step and a half step is the next note up.

so that's a simple way to figure out your key
ex: C major would be C,D,E,F,G,A,B
G major would be G,A,B,C,D,E,F#

modes are what note you start the scale from in whatever key you're using
ex: 5th mode in C major starts from G

Minor keys are just the 6th mode of any key
ex: Aminor is the 6th mode of Cmajor
Eminor is the 6th mode of Gmajor

On to chords:

the standard triad chord progression is: major, minor, minor, major, major, minor, and diminishedstarting from the major root in any key.
triads are formed on a piano in C major for example by playing 3 white keys with 1 white key in between each of them.

So like this |x| |x| |x|
all of the triads are played this way.

If it's in a key with black keys
you just have to have one note in your scale in between each note your playing.

In C major the intervals are C=I D=II E=III F=IV G=V A=VI B=VII

a Cmajor chord would be I, III, and V

a Dminor would II, IV, and VI

etc

7th chords:

7th chords are simpler then they sound.

just add another note in the same pattern as a triad

|x| |x| |x| |x|

A C major 7th chord would be I, III, V, and VII (hence the name 7th chord)

Now I could get into 9th, 11th, and 13th chords, but I'll let you discover those if you're really interested.

After all, that level of understanding was not requested.


In conclusion,
you can never learn to much music theory
but you'll probably never need half of the advanced stuff I've learned in jazz like
subdominant minor modal interchange

this is the most basic music theory, but it should be enough to get you started at least

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

I forgot to list a few basic things so I'll go over each one of them separately below.

They are:

.suspended chords

.inversions

&
.voice leading

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------

suspended chords

there are two types of suspended chords or sus chords
the sus2 and sus4

a sus2 is made up of the I, II, and V instead of I, III, and V like a standard triad for C major for example

a sus4 is made up of the I, IV, and V

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

inversions

inversions are the same chord as the chord you're inverting but the notes are in a different order

a 1st inversion is made up of the III, the V, and then the I for a standard triad
a 2nd inversion is made up of the V, the I, and then the III

there would be no 3rd inversion for a triad because it only has 3 notes, but for the sake of an example
a 3rd inversion for a 7th chord would be the VII, the I, the III, and then the V

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------

voice leading

voice leading is very simple

it's just when you keep some of the notes the same between chord changes

---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

so there you have it.

simple music theory

enough to get you by at least

 

[bandcoach]

it's easier to answer what you don't need than what you do need.

First of all,
the standard septonic scale (7 note scale) can be seen quite easily by looking at the white keys on a piano.

that's hepta-tonic (we name scales using Greek numerical prefixes, not Latin, i.e. penta (5), hexa (6), hepta (7), octa (8),)

In C major the intervals are C=I D=II E=III F=IV G=V A=VI B=VII

a Cmajor chord would be I, III, and V

a Dminor would II, IV, and VI

You have misused the term interval here, as an interval is the distance between any two notes. You actually mean In C major the scale tones are numbered........

Roman numerals are only used to describe chords and the usage is both upper case, for chords that contain a major 3rd and a 5th of any type; and lower case for chords that contain a minor 3rd and a 5th of any type

So your examples should be

In C major the scale tones are numbered: C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7

a C major chord would be 1-3-5

a D minor would 2-4-6

etc

7th chords:

7th chords are simpler then they sound.

just add another note in the same pattern as a triad

A C major 7th chord would be I, III, V, and VII (hence the name 7th chord)

A C major 7th chord would be 1-3-5-7 (hence the name 7th chord)

suspended chords

there are two types of suspended chords or sus chords
the sus2 and sus4

You are misapplying the terminology of suspended chords, based entirely on your understanding of them in guitar terms - your sus2 is actually an add9 no 3rd....

There is also the sus6 wherein the 5th is omitted (1-3-6) and resolved to in a subsequent chord (though most people think of this as a chord in 1st inversion) 1-3-5

a sus2 is made up of the I, II, and V instead of I, III, and V like a standard triad for C major for example

a sus4 is made up of the I, IV, and V

All suspended chords are by definition a passing chord waiting to resolve to the unaltered form of the chord.

The note introduced is resolved downwards to the omitted chord tone

a sus2 is made up of the 1-2-3-5 instead of 1-3-5, i.e. the root note is tone 1 and the sus2 is 2-3-5 with the 2 resolving downwards to the 1 at the next opportunity

a sus4 is made up of the 1-4-5 instead of 1-3-5 the 4 resolves to the 3 at the next opportunity unless you are using the sus4 as a prelude to chordal movement upwards or downwards by step.... in which case it is sustained in the next chord.

inversions
inversions are the same chord as the chord you're inverting but the notes are in a different order

a 1st inversion is made up of the III, the V, and then the I for a standard triad
a 2nd inversion is made up of the V, the I, and then the III

Inversions are different ways of voicing the same chord

Root position: 1-3-5
1st inversion: 3-5-1
2nd inversion: 5-1-3

However, you miss the fact that it is only the note that is considered to be the bass note that must be on the bottom; all other notes in a triad can be displaced at whim; i.e.

Root: 1-5-3
1st inv: 3-5-1
2nd inv: 5-3-1

are equally valid as the first example when it comes to voicing a triad: placing the notes of the chord in the required register.....

there would be no 3rd inversion for a triad because it only has 3 notes, but for the sake of an example
a 3rd inversion for a 7th chord would be the VII, the I, the III, and then the V

3rd inversion: 7-1-3-5 or 7-1-5-3 or 7-3-1-5 or 7-3-5-1 or 7-5-1-3 or 7-5-3-1

voice leading

voice leading is very simple

it's just when you keep some of the notes the same between chord changes

Voice leading is a sub-branch of chord voicing (see above in the part on inversions).

The simplest approach to voice leading is to ensure smooth, minimal movement between each note in successive chords, keeping notes the same where possible or moving by semi-tone or tone where you must change notes. i.e. it not just about keeping some notes the same but about movement as well.....

 

[tempestmichael]

that's hepta-tonic (we name scales using Greek numerical prefixes, not Latin, i.e. penta (5), hexa (6), hepta (7), octa (8),)

*Sorry, I'm not great with greek terms but the principles are still the same*


You have misused the term interval here, as an interval is the distance between any two notes. You actually mean In C major the scale tones are numbered........

*actually this is how I was taught to do it in music school,
so I'm pretty sure both roman numerals and regular numbers are accepted*
*either my instructors taught this wrong or they are both accepted*

Roman numerals are only used to describe chords and the usage is both upper case, for chords that contain a major 3rd and a 5th of any type; and lower case for chords that contain a minor 3rd and a 5th of any type

So your examples should be

In C major the scale tones are numbered: C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7

a C major chord would be 1-3-5

a D minor would 2-4-6



A C major 7th chord would be 1-3-5-7 (hence the name 7th chord)


You are misapplying the terminology of suspended chords, based entirely on your understanding of them in guitar terms - your sus2 is actually an add9 no 3rd....

*actually, I was also taught to forget this part of the theory and only use the 3rd to resolve the 2nd or 4th to not to use it in the chord itself because of the conflict between those notes so I figured it would be best to teach it this way* although you are right that it is technically an add9*
play both and tell me which one sounds better though before you criticize the methodology

There is also the sus6 wherein the 5th is omitted (1-3-6) and resolved to in a subsequent chord (though most people think of this as a chord in 1st inversion) 1-3-5

*the question was about basic music theory I wasn't going to get into the sus6

All suspended chords are by definition a passing chord waiting to resolve to the unaltered form of the chord.

The note introduced is resolved downwards to the omitted chord tone

a sus2 is made up of the 1-2-3-5 instead of 1-3-5, i.e. the root note is tone 1 and the sus2 is 2-3-5 with the 2 resolving downwards to the 1 at the next opportunity

*again, play both and resolve to the 3rd while omitting it from the original chord and tell me which one sounds better*
*there are a few notes that are better off omitted from an add9 to an add13th as well*

a sus4 is made up of the 1-4-5 instead of 1-3-5 the 4 resolves to the 3 at the next opportunity unless you are using the sus4 as a prelude to chordal movement upwards or downwards by step.... in which case it is sustained in the next chord.



Inversions are different ways of voicing the same chord

Root position: 1-3-5
1st inversion: 3-5-1
2nd inversion: 5-1-3

However, you miss the fact that it is only the note that is considered to be the bass note that must be on the bottom; all other notes in a triad can be displaced at whim; i.e.

*that's exactly what I meant*

Root: 1-5-3
1st inv: 3-5-1
2nd inv: 5-3-1

are equally valid as the first example when it comes to voicing a triad: placing the notes of the chord in the required register.....


3rd inversion: 7-1-3-5 or 7-1-5-3 or 7-3-1-5 or 7-3-5-1 or 7-5-1-3 or 7-5-3-1

*it's not a triad if it has a 7th*
read what I said more carefully

Voice leading is a sub-branch of chord voicing (see above in the part on inversions).

The simplest approach to voice leading is to ensure smooth, minimal movement between each note in successive chords, keeping notes the same where possible or moving by semi-tone or tone where you must change notes. i.e. it not just about keeping some notes the same but about movement as well.....

*yes, but I was trying to explain it in simple terms for those who don't understand this easily

Well,
I'm not helping anyone out anymore after this

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

I mean how is anyone supposed to explain these things in the simplest way possible if everybody else is just going to attack you on the terminology.

I made it simple and omitted jargin on purpose

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------


A suspended chord (sus chord) is a chord in which the (major or minor) third is omitted, replaced usually with either a perfect fourth ( play (help·info)) or a major second ( play (help·info)),[SUP][2][/SUP] although the fourth is far more common. The lack of a minor or a major third in the chord creates an open sound, while the tension between the fourth and fifth or second and root creates dissonance.

The term is borrowed from the contrapuntal technique of suspension, where a note from a previous chord is carried over to the next chord, and then resolved down to the third or tonic,

Suspended chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it looks like I was right about suspended chords right down to the detail about resolving it to the third bud
I knew I remembered that correctly.

Don't take this in mean spirit
but in a whimsical sort of way...
checkmate

 

[mwandishi]

^^^Oh my. I don't think BC meant anything negative toward u. He's a teacher and teachers have a tendency to be sticklers for proper grammar (in this case musical grammar). Not sure u checkmated the coach with wiki, as he makes a mistake like all humans, but 9 out 10 times he's right.

 

[tempestmichael]

that was the point

9 times out of 10 I'm right to
accept with mundane terminology which was dumbed down on purpose for the sake of simplicity.

I mean,
I have a degree in music as well
so if someone's going to attack me on terminology..
naturally I'm going to point out their mistakes as well.

It was just annoying because I know that your supposed to say the 1st 3rd and the 5th when explaining each individual chord in the progression
but that would have confused the readers and they were obviously asking for a simple explanation that they could understand.
showing the 2nd chord as the 2nd, the 4th, and the 6th for example
won't confuse them

I definitely won't let that kind of stuff go undefended and I'm sure he wouldn't either.

my response wasn't meant to be as negative as it came off either.

I'm whimsically getting into a war of musical pretentiousness

no offense intended at all

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

it's all in good fun to me

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Maybe it was just a check and not a checkmate

I'm actually looking forward to being checkmated back

@bandcoach

can you explain subdominant minor modal interchange
because it's beyond by linguistic abilities to explain
and I would admit defeat if you could explain that.

that would be a superb checkmate

 

[bandcoach]

that's hepta-tonic (we name scales using Greek numerical prefixes, not Latin, i.e. penta (5), hexa (6), hepta (7), octa (8),)

*Sorry, I'm not great with greek terms but the principles are still the same*

whilst the principles are, the usage is not.....

You have misused the term interval here, as an interval is the distance between any two notes. You actually mean In C major the scale tones are numbered........

*actually this is how I was taught to do it in music school, so I'm pretty sure both roman numerals and regular numbers are accepted*
*either my instructors taught this wrong or they are both accepted*

Your instructors were lazy - you use roman numerals to describe chord and Hinud-Arabic Numerals to identify scale tones.

The only author of note to use upper-case roman numerals when describing chords is Walter Piston (and Mark DeVoto who is continuing to edit the text for republication every few years) and he is very careful to warn the reader that they need to always be thinking about what the current scale/mode type is and what impact that has on the tonality of the indicated chords

The only place where Hindu-Arabic numerals are used to describe chords is in the Nashville Numbering system and then only to outline the chart - most players will rewrite the chart to show of the actual chords in use....

Roman numerals are only used to describe chords and the usage is both upper case, for chords that contain a major 3rd and a 5th of any type; and lower case for chords that contain a minor 3rd and a 5th of any type

So your examples should be

In C major the scale tones are numbered: C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7

a C major chord would be 1-3-5

a D minor would 2-4-6

A C major 7th chord would be 1-3-5-7 (hence the name 7th chord)

You are misapplying the terminology of suspended chords, based entirely on your understanding of them in guitar terms - your sus2 is actually an add9 no 3rd....

*actually, I was also taught to forget this part of the theory and only use the 3rd to resolve the 2nd or 4th to not to use it in the chord itself because of the conflict between those notes so I figured it would be best to teach it this way* although you are right that it is technically an add9*
play both and tell me which one sounds better though before you criticize the methodology

I criticise the method because it is imperfect and compromised - I have been studying this for more than 35 years and teaching it almost as long; choose your opponents carefully as you may end up going down in flames simply because you do not know what they do...
I do not need to play both as I can perfectly auralise the two clearly in my mind- both as a guitar approach and as a piano - the usage you refer to is based in guitar teaching not music theory.....

There is also the sus6 wherein the 5th is omitted (1-3-6) and resolved to in a subsequent chord (though most people think of this as a chord in 1st inversion) 1-3-5

*the question was about basic music theory I wasn't going to get into the sus6

No; the question was what music theory do I need to know, they then qualified it with the word basic in the text. However, you attempted to reduce it to a set of incomplete and inconsistent word bites without examples, all I did was to correct your errors...

All suspended chords are by definition a passing chord waiting to resolve to the unaltered form of the chord.

The note introduced is resolved downwards to the omitted chord tone

a sus2 is made up of the 1-2-3-5 instead of 1-3-5, i.e. the root note is tone 1 and the sus2 is 2-3-5 with the 2 resolving downwards to the 1 at the next opportunity

*again, play both and resolve to the 3rd while omitting it from the original chord and tell me which one sounds better*
*there are a few notes that are better off omitted from an add9 to an add13th as well*

1) enlighten us
2) I do not need to make the aural comparison as I can perfectly hear the issue and still assert that it is a guitar based approach rather than a music theory approach..... typically the example used to support this claim is the Dadd9 fingered

xx0230 and then resolved to xx0232

- it is devoid of the third because most guitarists do not think of the alternative voicings

xx4230 and resolved xx4232

a sus4 is made up of the 1-4-5 instead of 1-3-5 the 4 resolves to the 3 at the next opportunity unless you are using the sus4 as a prelude to chordal movement upwards or downwards by step.... in which case it is sustained in the next chord.

Inversions are different ways of voicing the same chord

Root position: 1-3-5
1st inversion: 3-5-1
2nd inversion: 5-1-3

However, you miss the fact that it is only the note that is considered to be the bass note that must be on the bottom; all other notes in a triad can be displaced at whim; i.e.

*that's exactly what I meant*

It is not what you said - claiming it is what you meant when challenged is the first step in admitting that you do not know how to teach what you know......

Root: 1-5-3
1st inv: 3-5-1
2nd inv: 5-3-1

are equally valid as the first example when it comes to voicing a triad: placing the notes of the chord in the required register.....


3rd inversion: 7-1-3-5 or 7-1-5-3 or 7-3-1-5 or 7-3-5-1 or 7-5-1-3 or 7-5-3-1

*it's not a triad if it has a 7th* read what I said more carefully

You have misquoted the section on the 7th - I do know the difference between a triad and a 7th as do most who have bothered to read your rant.

Voice leading is a sub-branch of chord voicing (see above in the part on inversions).

The simplest approach to voice leading is to ensure smooth, minimal movement between each note in successive chords, keeping notes the same where possible or moving by semi-tone or tone where you must change notes. i.e. it not just about keeping some notes the same but about movement as well.....

*yes, but I was trying to explain it in simple terms for those who don't understand this easily

Leaving out the part about smooth movement between dissimilar notes (notes that are not the same in each new chord) is as good as not telling them anything useful at all

Well,
I'm not helping anyone out anymore after this

I mean how is anyone supposed to explain these things in the simplest way possible if everybody else is just going to attack you on the terminology.

I made it simple and omitted jargin on purpose

that's jargon.

Part of the problem of teaching is knowing what to leave out and why - when you set out to tell someone about something you know a lot about but have never taught, you will make mistakes such as those that I have pointed out.

wholesale cut and paste from wikiepedia with links not included as it only serves to confuse, not enlighten

it looks like I was right about suspended chords right down to the detail about resolving it to the third bud
I knew I remembered that correctly.

1) wikipedia is not a reliable source in spite of the efforts of the editors and others with an interest in making it so.
2) suspension (as mentioned elliptically in your cut and paste) comes from the art of counterpoint as described by Fux and others and is not limited to the denial of the 3rd of the chord in the succeeding chord, but to any chord tone (1-3-5) of that chord

Don't take this in mean spirit
but in a whimsical sort of way...
checkmate

It was mean-spirited because you were butt-hurt at being corrected in a public forum.

Chess is not really a game for engaging in on-line (it is too easy to explore past games to come up with the best defense/offense).

9 times out of 10 I'm right to accept with mundane terminology which was dumbed down on purpose for the sake of simplicity.

I mean, I have a degree in music as well so if someone's going to attack me on terminology.. naturally I'm going to point out their mistakes as well.

Naturally is not a term that follows from your predicate....

How long have you held your degree in music for? I've had mine for 25 years, but I have been teaching music for 35 years

It was just annoying because I know that your supposed to say the 1st 3rd and the 5th when explaining each individual chord in the progression but that would have confused the readers and they were obviously asking for a simple explanation that they could understand.
showing the 2nd chord as the 2nd, the 4th, and the 6th for example won't confuse them

But I did not challenge that, in fact all I did was to replace your uppercase Roman numerals with Hindu-Arabic numerals

What I did challenge was you unfailing and blind acceptance of what you had been taught. BTW, if wikipedia was your textbook, I pity you....

I definitely won't let that kind of stuff go undefended and I'm sure he wouldn't either.

my response wasn't meant to be as negative as it came off either.

I'm whimsically getting into a war of musical pretentiousness

When engaging in a battle of knowledge it is always prudent to wait and check and recheck your words before firing off the next salvo; lest it explode in your own face....

Be careful of what you wish for....

no offense intended at all

it's all in good fun to me

Maybe it was just a check and not a checkmate

not even an en-garde

 

[tempestmichael]

woh bandcoach

take it down a notch

let's not get nasty now


Okay,

I accept the fact that I was taught wrong about the roman numerals part and that I could have explained other parts better
(after all expressing myself isn't exactly my strong suit)

but you are dead wrong about suspended chords
hands down

I only used the wiki entry to show you that using the 3rd is no longer the standard
I already learned this and I never used wiki to learn it to begin with,
but how else was I supposed to back up what I said?

You can also do a lot of harm teaching people when you're unable to accept when you're wrong about anything.

I believe that using the 3rd was the standard at one time in history,
but they are not teaching it that way anymore.

by resolving the 3rd
I mean that you use the 3rd in the next chord in the harmony or in the next note of the melody instead of leaving it together in the chord itself.

This is standard practice now.

Not to be insulting though,
because you were right about more of the details than me.

---------- Post added at 06:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

after all,

I've never been a stickler for perfect terminology
and you've got me beat on that

---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------

oh,
and en-garde!

---------- Post added at 07:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------

Just a quick note on the actual question:

He asked what music theory he needs for electronic music
and no matter which one of us is right about the suspended chord...

you should almost always omit the 3rd when you're synthing unless you put the third on another track other than the one that contains the rest of the sus chord.

It's sounds incredibly messy otherwise.

I do the same thing with 13th chords to
if you don't omit certain notes in synth
they will sound like garbage

There's lots of stuff that you have to do a certain way with electronic.

Like with certain patches
you really have to stay away from putting a note an octave up in a chord,
because again it can create a mess
(especially if you're using an arpigiator)
you are better off not using one if you can help it
but if you do.. don't leave octaves in your chords.

---------- Post added at 07:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 AM ----------

this very much depends on the samples you're using though

you could get away with it with some

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 AM ----------

just to explain why you should omit certain notes in electronic music:

it's sort of like the same phenomenon as phase amplification

not exactly the same, but I can explain it this way.

you see, samples often are the same recorded audio, but pitched for each note
so the peaks in the waveform often line up

with phase amplification
if you put 2 exactly the same waveforms on top of each other
the phase amplification will be much worse than if you played 2 of the same notes of 2 different pianos seeing as the waveform's peaks would not be the same that way.

when you have 2 notes with the same waveform (only pitched differently) when they are close together like the 3rd would be to the 2nd or 4th right on top of each other
there's going to be more conflict that if you did this on a real instrument.

This is especially bad when the notes are only a half step away from each other.
it's not so bad when there is a half step difference between the 1 and 2 for example because those notes are supposed to have conflict, but there are even times when you have to do a work around to get a suspended chord to not sound messy at all.

This is at least why I predict that this happens with some samples and not with others
seeing as some samples are the same block of audio pitched differently and some have each individual note recorded separately.

---------- Post added at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

I'm also mainly talking about samples in your workstation
not on a keyboard
although some keyboards might have the same problem

---------- Post added at 08:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 AM ----------

no animosity towards you by the way

this debate is all in good fun to me

 

[bandcoach]

woh bandcoach

take it down a notch

let's not get nasty now

you went there - I didn't even follow, just dealt with imperfection with fact and truth

Okay,

I accept the fact that I was taught wrong about the roman numerals part and that I could have explained other parts better
(after all expressing myself isn't exactly my strong suit)

but you are dead wrong about suspended chords
hands down

Please show me how this statement is in fact true - you offer no proof instead resorting to an unsubstantiated personal statement and even less reliable quote of wikipedia - wikipedia is not a reputable authority for anything except where you are reading autobiographical material (the sharing of which is, to some extent, discouraged anyway)

I only used the wiki entry to show you that using the 3rd is no longer the standard
I already learned this and I never used wiki to learn it to begin with,
but how else was I supposed to back up what I said?

You can also do a lot of harm teaching people when you're unable to accept when you're wrong about anything.

I am glad that you understand that - I have understood it for many years - your claim that I am indisputably wrong does not bear examination, as it can be demonstrated by going to several different sources (mostly texts, but also some more reputable on-line sources) that your interpretation of what a suspended chord is, is at best only partially understood and at worst downright incorrect...

I believe that using the 3rd was the standard at one time in history,
but they are not teaching it that way anymore.

Where exactly did you study??? because I can guarantee you that it is still being taught "that" way

by resolving the 3rd
I mean that you use the 3rd in the next chord in the harmony or in the next note of the melody instead of leaving it together in the chord itself.

This is standard practice now.

I am very good at following disjoint statements and I am having trouble following the logic (if any) in your argument here: are you talking about the usage of sus2 resolving to the 3rd tone of the chord or all suspensions? If the latter then you need to go back and re-read your harmony texts, if the former, you are blindly accepting what has been taught to you without accepting and exploring the possibility of other ways of doing it.

Here are some examples showing sus2 resolving to 1, sus4 resolving to 3 and sus6 resolving to 5

[mp3]http://www.bandcoach.org/fp/audio/susEx-1.mp3[/mp3]

[mp3]http://www.bandcoach.org/fp/audio/susEx-2.mp3[/mp3]

I have used a string quartet simply for clarity, but these lines work equally well with a pad in Reasons Thor

[mp3]http://www.bandcoach.org/fp/audio/susEx-1t.mp3[/mp3]

[mp3]http://www.bandcoach.org/fp/audio/susEx-2t.mp3[/mp3]

"Standard' is such a loaded term, particularly when you are talking about music: the standard practice has gone through 5 phases that I am aware of, but at the end of the day, things that were first identified to work by Fux still are deemed to work today, not just in terms of pop music practice, but in all facets of musical practice.

So here

Not to be insulting though,
because you were right about more of the details than me.

after all,

I've never been a stickler for perfect terminology
and you've got me beat on that

oh,
and en-garde!

You have been offensive and incredibly petty. However, you were wrong and still are wrong about suspended chords - they derive from contrapuntal practice as described by Fux and reiterated by every other Composer who decides to write about counterpoint - a suspension is the delaying of the arrival of any chord tone by the lengthening of the tone above it found in the previous chord

The use of the term sus in describing chords come guitar practice first and foremost and then jazz practice - the resolution of such chords is left indeterminate in some styles of writing and playing (that is they do not resolve), which is why in some cases the greater extensions are preferred to the lower suspended equivalents

As for sticking to using terms and language correctly, if you intend to teach, use the language of the discipline,or you will ultimately fail to communicate your ideas effectively. Use analogy to make concepts clearer, use audio and notational examples to make concepts concrete.

Just a quick note on the actual question:

He asked what music theory he needs for electronic music


you should almost always omit the 3rd when you're synthing unless you put the third on another track other than the one that contains the rest of the sus chord.

It's sounds incredibly messy otherwise.

Utter bollocks

I do the same thing with 13th chords to
if you don't omit certain notes in synth
they will sound like garbage

to your ears perhaps,

Although the more I read what you write, the more certain I am that you are more caught up in how things do or don't work with distorted, overdriven or fuzzed guitar than with audio in general - there is no such thing as a sound that prohibits using certain note combinations, only personal foibles and the need to voice your chordal ides to avoid the low frequency clashes that might ensue

There's lots of stuff that you have to do a certain way with electronic.

Like with certain patches
you really have to stay away from putting a note an octave up in a chord,
because again it can create a mess
(especially if you're using an arpigiator)
you are better off not using one if you can help it
but if you do.. don't leave octaves in your chords.


this very much depends on the samples you're using though

you could get away with it with some

synth patches, samples which is it? they are not the same thing and the rules for using one do not apply to the use of others.

I know that you posted more after I started writing this response, but it is more running off at the mouth type stuff than considered, well structured writing, so I will ignore it for now......

Um, I've been working with synths since 1978 and studying their uses for that length of time also.

I rarely say this here or elsewhere - I have probably forgotten more about the practice, science, art and craft of audio engineering, synths and sound design and musical theory and its application (composition) than most others here have learnt, probably to the point of it being 10% remembered and 90% forgotten( not really, but into long-term storage, rather than short-term recall), and yet my 10% is still more like 100x (10000%) more than what others actively know...

So please, go back, re-read your texts and identify where you need to refresh your knowledge on these subjects. I do every single day, as that is part and parcel of being a teacher - review, revise, relearn and restate what you have learnt in the past

 

[tempestmichael]

well man,

I think what's happening here is that there are multiple methodologies about suspended chords
and I'm just trying to give the best advice I can give for electronic music specifically.

When I was taught suspended chords and other subjects that are contentious,
they warned us about how some people are dead set in their ways about doing it the traditional method and that I would encounter this kind of thing.

let's leave it to the people reading this to decide which methodology is better for the sort of electronic music the person asking the question was referring to.

I'm getting really tired of the animosity on this thread
you don't have to agree with my different methods from yours
but you can at least be civil

before I was just joking around about the checkmate stuff in a whimsical sort of way.

I wish we could have had a debate without the attacks,
but it looks like that's not happening.

I think you forget about how much the methodologies differ from teacher to teacher.
If the whole internet is saying that suspended chords are done by omitting the 3rd
then perhaps it's time you accepted the fact that there is a growing community that has dropped the traditional method for this one instead.
after all, if you've follow people like Phillip Glass, you should know that part of music theory is challenging these traditions.

and if you don't understand what I said about phase amplification then I have nothing more to say about that
because it's pretty strait forward and I don't get how you don't understand that with your background.

with two exactly the same waveforms pitched differently right together.. the frequency bands are going to cross over and those peaks are going to double.
it's that simple.

I already said that this doesn't apply to all samples,
but it does apply to the vast majority of workstation samples and I also pointed out the work around so I didn't say you can never include the 3rd.

anyways,
hopefully next time we have a discussion we can do so without attacking each other.

I apologize for my side of it.

 

[bandcoach]

well man,

I think what's happening here is that there are multiple methodologies about suspended chords
and I'm just trying to give the best advice I can give for electronic music specifically.

There are really only two approaches to describing the function of suspended: guitar based and vocal based. Guitar based approaches fudge the theory in places because it is simply too difficult to play voicings that follow the older practice unless you revert to the tuning in use at the time of Dowland

When I was taught suspended chords and other subjects that are contentious,
they warned us about how some people are dead set in their ways about doing it the traditional method and that I would encounter this kind of thing.

They were only half-right - they forgot to remind you not to become stuck in your ways as well -the need to keep an open mind is part and parcel of being professional - you have failed to do that, all I have done is to counter your unsupported claims (with cries to authorities that cannot be accepted as being reliable) with examples and explanations that you have failed to acknowledge.

I'm getting really tired of the animosity on this thread
you don't have to agree with my different methods from yours
but you can at least be civil

Show me where I have not been civil, sir....

before I was just joking around about the checkmate stuff in a whimsical sort of way.

I wish we could have had a debate without the attacks,
but it looks like that's not happening.

I think you forget about how much the methodologies differ from teacher to teacher.

Methodologies may vary but the underlying facts and application of those facts do not.....

If the whole internet is saying that suspended chords are done by omitting the 3rd
then perhaps it's time you accepted the fact that there is a growing community that has dropped the traditional method for this one instead.
after all, if you've follow people like Phillip Glass, you should know that part of music theory is challenging these traditions.

Show me where the whole internet says that suspended chords are the way you describe - wikipedia is not the whole internet

and if you don't understand what I said about phase amplification then I have nothing more to say about that
because it's pretty strait forward and I don't get how you don't understand that with your background.

with two exactly the same waveforms pitched differently right together.. the frequency bands are going to cross over and those peaks are going to double.
it's that simple.

I already said that this doesn't apply to all samples,
but it does apply to the vast majority of workstation samples and I also pointed out the work around so I didn't say you can never include the 3rd.

I did not say that I did not understand it, just that it appeared that you were ranting because I would not take you seriously.

The concept of waveform super-positioning and the consequent issues with harmonic interference is a well understood concept in and out of electronic music.

However, it does not support your claims that using certain notes against each other should be avoided, on the contrary if you are looking for grit and grime in your sound it is exactly what you should be doing.

Your term phase amplification is a relatively new one, and is more about the internal issues with a particular sample played against itself rather than the clashing of notes a semitone or tone apart - we expect frequency beating when we play notes that are are semitone or tone apart.

You should be familiar with the use of beating to tune your guitar, unless you prefer to use a tuner for all such things....

anyways,
hopefully next time we have a discussion we can do so without attacking each other.

I apologize for my side of it.

The attacks are about your loose use of "facts" and language to support unsupportable claims, not about you, these attacks are on your words and thoughts behind them rather than on you: if you cannot defend your thoughts without resorting to "but the internet says it true", then expect that many more will give you similar treatment in the future; the internet has never been about truth but about gossip and personal opinion; this was true in the early 1970's and throughout the 1980's and only became more obvious once we began using http, www and html a the capsules for disseminating ideas. I could go on and give you an internet history lesson based on personal participation and academic observation, but now is not the time......

If you tie your self worth to what you say, rather than who you are, then you need to seek guidance

As for sub-dominant minor modal interchange
Fancy words for chord substitution for chord iv by any chord containing [sup]b[/sup]6 (the minor 3rd in chord iv: by extension, this can also be read as [sup]#[/sup]5); the identity chord and it's immediate 7ths:

Chord	scale tones	spoken as
iv	4-b6-7	chord iv minor
iv[sup](#7)[/sup]	4-[sup]b[/sup]6-1-3	chord iv minor with a maj 7
iv7	4-[sup]b[/sup]6-1-[sup]b[/sup]3	chord iv minor 7

So the list of possible substitutes can be somewhat endless: I came up with 49 examples of just 7th chords, some nonsensical, but still valid interpretations of chord construction, others duplicates with different naming notes (the [sup]o7[/sup] based on 7 - 7-2-4-[sup]b[/sup]6).

Of these, only two are strong substitutions: containing as they do the three tones of the minor sub-dom chord: 4-[sup]b[/sup]6-1

Chord	scale tones	spoken as
[sup]b[/sup]II[sup](#7)[/sup]	[sup]b[/sup]2-4-[sup]b[/sup]6-1	chord flat II maj 7
ii[sup]7b5[/sup]	2-4-[sup]b[/sup]6-1	chord ii minor 7 flat 5 or chord ii half-diminished 7th

the other 47 chords contain only two of the three notes (either 4-[sup]b[/sup]6 or [sup]b[/sup]6-1): there are 28 of these; or even only the [sup]b[/sup]6: there are a further 19 of these.

I am happy to write up a more in depth consideration of the candidate substitute chords and how they might be applied in a typical progression calling for such substitution, at a later date (I have a ll the amterial ready to proceed, just not fussed to do anything with it right now)

 

[tempestmichael]

I'm already done with this conversation man

I get enough animosity in politics and I'm not going to debate with you if you can't be civil

I maintain that my methodology is perfectly fine
although different from yours

I can tell you're more experienced with other genres
not sub-genres of electronic like house which was the topic of this conversation to begin with

try putting more than 4 notes on a chord with certain samples before you criticize
there's a reason why I suggested a certain method

electronic music is finicky and the only way to get certain things like you're suggesting to work is to do work-arounds

I'm done with this conversation though.

It's getting to ugly
You refuse to respect our differences in methodology even though there is quite a logical reason why the methodology differs for electronic to begin with and not to mention the fact that more than half the internet and my instructors agree that my method is actually today's standard.

I'm not responding again.

This is a fruitless debate at this point
and it's not worth the animosity

---------- Post added at 06:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 AM ----------

I leave this with some words I live by that apply in this context:

"to each their own"

 

[dichotomos]

 

[bandcoach]

I'm already done with this conversation man

I get enough animosity in politics and I'm not going to debate with you if you can't be civil

I maintain that my methodology is perfectly fine
although different from yours

I can tell you're more experienced with other genres
not sub-genres of electronic like house which was the topic of this conversation to begin with

How so, you do not know what my experience is and my soundcloud does not include all of my work either on my own in collaboration with others....

try putting more than 4 notes on a chord with certain samples before you criticize
there's a reason why I suggested a certain method

electronic music is finicky and the only way to get certain things like you're suggesting to work is to do work-arounds

workarounds are for those who do not know how to work through a problem, you will learn this with time...

I'm done with this conversation though.

It's getting to ugly
You refuse to respect our differences in methodology even though there is quite a logical reason why the methodology differs for electronic to begin with and not to mention the fact that more than half the internet and my instructors agree that my method is actually today's standard.

Now it's half-of the internet... next we will get to "would believe I read on the back of some magazine?????"

I don't disagree with your methodology, I simply point out it's inherent flaws and you go ballistic because I won't believe you..... i also have significantly more experience in producing electronic music from a physical standpoint - i.e. working real-time and cutting up tape and other such activities, so please peddle your flawed interpretations elsewhere......

As for your instructors, name them, if they have decent reputations they won't mind and would probably welcome the opportunity for some meaningful discourse without resorting to barbs and half-truths

I'm not responding again.

This is a fruitless debate at this point
and it's not worth the animosity

I leave this with some words I live by that apply in this context:

"to each their own"

I hope that works out for you, because at the moment that and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee........