Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just posted this in another thread, but since you're talking about music theory... check out this FREE site on it.

http://www.musictheory.net

I wish I knew about it earlier. I knew the VERY basics from middle/high school classics, but this appears to go pretty far into advanced.

Let's all please remember that theory, of any kind, is a reductive process which means it's only a tool to help explain what already exists or what might exist should we apply new ideas.

Expression in a recognizable genre and idiom is going to use tools that have already been documented as music theory, bottom line. It's not so much a case of "using" or "not using" it, as it is about recognizing how much of your musical expression comes from existing systems and musical language... and showing the process some respect by not blowing off theory as if it's all inapplicable, constricting rules written by lofty intellectuals in a dusty library!

All that said I do believe it is still possible to be original even given such a widely shared use of the same musical language among composers & musicians. There are plenty of artists who I would not hesitate to call original, because they create something of substance that employs musical techniques in new and interesting or emotionally compelling ways. The combination of audio technology with music is an intersection that creates a huge amount of potential for ongoing growth as well.

At 8/31/12 01:25 PM, Ectohelix wrote: http://www.musictheory.net

I wish I knew about it earlier. I knew the VERY basics from middle/high school classics, but this appears to go pretty far into advanced.

Musictheory.net is great, their exercises for music reading and listening are probably the most useful thing there. I will say though that their lessons on theory do NOT go far into advanced material, from what I can see.

At 8/31/12 01:54 PM, sorohanro wrote: This is one of the most useless argument.
For the respect of your language, you learn proper grammar. Same goes to music.
Of coarse yuo can write a smart ideia wift wroang grammer, and peepol understand it, beacose it's smart, and of course you can write a stupid idea in the most proper grammar, but wouldn't make sense to write a smart idea in a proper grammar?

Say the one who misspelled 7 words. Bravo!

Irrelevance, irony & ignorance at best.

Go learn proper grammar, blockhead.

At 8/31/12 10:20 PM, m0lecule wrote: Say the one who misspelled 7 words. Bravo!

Irrelevance, irony & ignorance at best.

Go learn proper grammar, blockhead.

I think he did pretty good for someone from Norway. His point stands regardless of grammatical errors.

At 8/31/12 10:20 PM, m0lecule wrote: Say the one who misspelled 7 words. Bravo!

Irrelevance, irony & ignorance at best.

Go learn proper grammar, blockhead.

Ironically, you have grammatical errors in your post as well. I believe you meant, "Says the one." Darn those pesky rules regarding plurality and subject/verb agreement. :/

At 8/31/12 10:20 PM, m0lecule wrote:

At 8/31/12 01:54 PM, sorohanro wrote: This is one of the most useless argument.
For the respect of your language, you learn proper grammar. Same goes to music.
Of coarse yuo can write a smart ideia wift wroang grammer, and peepol understand it, beacose it's smart, and of course you can write a stupid idea in the most proper grammar, but wouldn't make sense to write a smart idea in a proper grammar?

Say the one who misspelled 7 words. Bravo!

Irrelevance, irony & ignorance at best.

Go learn proper grammar, blockhead.

For fucks sake. He was trying to get the message across: you don't need to write perfectly for people to understand you. He is using that analogy to explain his views on music theory.

Was it really that difficult to understand?

At 9/1/12 12:11 AM, Braiton wrote: For fucks sake. He was trying to get the message across: you don't need to write perfectly for people to understand you. He is using that analogy to explain his views on music theory.

Was it really that difficult to understand?

Needs more cock

<img>http://blogs.merikan.com/hannah/files/2009/12/GiantBlac kCock1.jpg</img>

If that didn't work I will squeal!!!

At 9/1/12 05:51 AM, HyperTrough wrote: If that didn't work I will squeal!!!

Well fuck me sideways!

lmao, this thread derailed from theory fistfight to grammar nazis' kick-cage. Er, fine everyone tries to get their point across. But apparently ALMOST everyone is an elitist. Even the decent ones decide to flame. As for the dude from Finn, well he's a bad troll, get back to General.

I had seen worse and know where this goes... Successful troll is successful...

At 9/1/12 11:00 AM, TroisNyxEtienne wrote:

At 9/1/12 10:21 AM, Computer112 wrote: lmao, this thread derailed from theory fistfight to grammar nazis' kick-cage. Er, fine everyone tries to get their point across. But apparently ALMOST everyone is an elitist. Even the decent ones decide to flame. As for the dude from Finn, well he's a bad troll, get back to General.

I had seen worse and know where this goes... Successful troll is successful...

I beg your pardon? I had literally brought the thread back to its subject.

To be fair, the original subject of this thread was not the usefulness of music theory. It was one person recommending a helpful website.

The vast majority of posts in this thread are off-topic including many of my own. The subject evolved into a debate, but that was not the original purpose.

At 9/1/12 11:48 AM, sorohanro wrote: Ok then, back to theory.
Meeting 1. Interactions between Harmony and Melody
Here the author says:
"This is a model of syntax for harmonic progressions in tonal, common-practice music: T-Pd-D-T. There are basic harmonic functions, basic roles that chords can play: tonic (T), dominant (D), and pre-dominant (Pd)."
Which is quite common basic theory. Then here goes:
"Each one is associated with particular scale degrees: tonic with 1 and 3, dominant with 7 and also with 2, and pre-dominant with 6, and also with 4."

Well, here I have a problem.
As I always known, the basic functions are: T=I, Pd(or SD, as sub-dominant)= IV and D=V or V7
The rest of chords stands as substitutions, as in sharing some common sounds, so they "fool your ear".
To my knowledge, VI is a substitution for tonic (not for pre-dominant), II is a substitution for pre-dominant (not for dominant) and VII is a substitution for dominant.
The basic functions are I-IV-V, not I-VI... and also IV... IV is the pre-dominant by definition.

to me, this sounds like you would say "American cities are: Maza, North Dakota, and also Washington, D.C."

Yeah i don't know who told this guy that the 3 chord is at all a tonic chord cuz it ain't. Just one little addition though to your correction soro. The 2 chord is pretty standard as a PD chord these days rather then being called a substitute. You can probably thank a hundred years of jazz for that =)

De gustibus non est disputandum

ii/iio stands for the supertonic, which is a predominant chord in both major and minor scales (often used in place of a IV/iv chord). In order to hear it most effectively, set it in it's first inversion - it's nearly identical to the subdominant, save for a single note. It is not a dominant chord functionally unless one raises the appropriate notes in the triad to make it so (raise the third in major, raise the third and fifth in minor), and even in that case one could argue that it's a predominant because it leads to the dominant (much like every other predominant), not the tonic.

When it comes to substitutions for predominants and dominants it's better to look at where something goes rather than something that's on it's own. Generally, the vi/VI, IV/iv, iii/III, ii/iio/bII and VII are considered predominant chords. V/V# and viio are considered dominant chords. I/i is the tonic. I can see someone arguing that III could be a substitute tonic if a song tonicized it, and vi/VI could be as well if it was used as a deceptive cadence (though I think both arguments are a little weak, imo). I would consider VII and v to be a substitute of the dominant if they resolved to the tonic (even if strictly speaking I'd be wrong, since there is no leading tone), and if used in a very particular way the bII could be a substitute for the dominant, as well (though it'd make the song sound pretty modal, then). For the most part, though, it really is just I-(EVERYTHINGELSE)-V-I.

People mentioned Jazz in here (for which I'm clueless on the theory for), so if things work differently for that theory then so be it.

Also, I doubt people care about any of this theory talk, but I like joining in because I rarely have the opportunity to talk about music theory. Most people who like theory talk about it whenever the topic comes up because they really don't have very many outlets to do so, normally, so when someone opens up a discussion on it the theorists take full advantage of the opportunity.

At 9/3/12 08:26 PM, Gario wrote: [stuff...]
Also, I doubt people care about any of this theory talk, but I like joining in because I rarely have the opportunity to talk about music theory.

I know exactly how you feel. I LOVE talking about it but rarely get to. So here are some thoughts related to what you said.

Someone told me (perhaps wrongly) that chords are thought of like this in Germany:

Tonic function chords: I, vi
Predominant function chords: ii, IV,
Dominant function chords: V, viio
(iii is kind of an outlier I suppose)

vi can make sense as a tonic function, as it is wonderfully easy to slip between major and its relative minor in a chord progression. Even going from I to vi, the latter chord doesn't necessarily have to pull in any direction. ii of course makes sense as a predominant because it is a fifth up from the five chord (and would be a secondary dominant to it if it were II). I think viio makes more sense as a dominant than predominant. If used right before the V chord, it sounds like it was part of a V7 that was temporarily without the root and loses its independence. However, classical composers have long used it for a dominant function. Going from viio to I is considered an imperfect authentic cadence, which is a dominant to tonic cadence. I'm hesitant to consider iii a predominant, as I hardly ever hear it progress to the V chord. Doing so is very weak harmonically. I'm not sure how I'd classify it though.

Personally, I really like substituting ii for IV when doing a plague cadence. Especially in first inversion, the ii chord almost sounds like a IVadd6 (which is really common in pop, jazz, etc). What I like even more is going from a iihalfdim7 to I. That is oh so satisfying to my ears. :)

bII typically works as a predominant, especially when in first inversion (think N6 chord). When it becomes a bII7, I think it works much better as a dominant function. That's because the addition of the seventh means you have a tritone between the third and seventh of the chords. The same tritone that gives the V7 its strong pull to I. In jazz, this is called a tritone substitution. You can substitute any dominant seventh chord for the one a tritone away (like G7 and Db7), as they share the same tritone and can resolve similarly. I see this in classical sometimes as well.

At 9/3/12 08:59 PM, BlazingDragon wrote: a plague cadence.

Silly me. I meant "plagal." Oops...

It's all dependent on what comes before and after, really. From what I hear, Jazz theory is more focused on harmonic moments than traditional theory, but from the Renaissance through the Romantic era music was more focused on horizontal motion. It really doesn't make sense to say and roman numeral is ALWAYS tonic, dominant or predominant, because in every case I can promise that there is a way to make the chord function as something against it's type. If you tonicize or modulate to another key, any chord can act as the 'new tonic' (and in turn, the chords leading into it could now be considered predominant and dominant, regardless of what they were before), or if you move from a bII to a I chord it could be dominant in function (it's not common at all, but possible). Context determines what function a chord performs at any given time, that's pretty much how I feel on it. I can't really elaborate too much on it without getting into Schenkerian theory, so in a nutshell that's how I think of chords.