famous beagle
Well-known member
No you're not, because that's not the way the Great GoodFriend sees composition! We're just all not enlightened.
how do you write a bridge? Song structure in general?
- Thread starter Bradley Tanogna
- Start date
No you're not, because that's not the way the Great GoodFriend sees composition! We're just all not enlightened.
Let's riot!
Thanks for the comparison. Any piece of music that can start a riot and stir controversy like "Rite of Spring" is the kind of art I wish I could create. I fear I am much more mundane.
Thanks for the comparison. Any piece of music that can start a riot and stir controversy like "Rite of Spring" is the kind of art I wish I could create. I fear I am much more mundane.
The Black Circl
New member
Your over complicating it.
I would like to know what music you are listening to and this is why.
The V chord has so much tension that a bridge usually woulld not start on this chord, definately not in rock music.
A bridge would not start on VII - its so unstable that It would sound like shit.
The only except to the above statements would be if the entire songs tonal center were based on that chord.
A song based on the V mod, or mixolydian is gonna sound either blues or old school rock n roll I BELIVE (as long as my memory is serving me right)
A song based on the VII should sound cool as HELL if you do it right.
You wont be changing keys in your popular rock songs - a key change makes people think, and that not somthing that they like to do when they are getting fucked up and listening to rock music.
If the song is in a major it is also in a minor key - to put it more correctly a diatonic scale contains 3 major scales and 4 minor scales. A key contains billions of scales, variating between major and minor.
Most rock songs would be in a "Minor" key. This is because they are using either the III mode (a lot of metal or spanish sounding stuff,) or more commonly the VI mode (a rock sound,) You can get it darker by using VII (Gothic sounding) as the tonal center.
Now, all this blah blah blah about tonal center and I and IV and blah...
Basically you can hear the tonal center, also the mode, in the bass. A good example of it is the CHuG CHUG CHUG sound in metal. Those chugs are the mode.
And all this harmonic theory will do beyond this is expand your playing skills
As far as getting the bridge good...
It anit a matter of harmonic manipulation. You can play the same 7 notes on the bridge as the verse and get it to sound completely different
The writing is in the timing. Theres 12 notes. You can only arrange that so many times. Time is infinate and has an infinate amounr of arrangements
Try manipulating the placement of the bridge, over lap it with the other parts, change up rhythms. You just got to get creative with where it goes how it goes where the beginning goes and where the notes go after that.
The Black Circl
New member
The way the lennon reference is pitch sounds misleading. While I'm sure what your saying is true...
,,, for the record lennon play a style called something like "skettle" before rock n roll (I cant remeber exactly what the style was called but it was popular in liver pool and they used a box board bass, but it wasn't the blues.)
The Black Circl
New member
Question:
1)Shift modulation = How do you choose a different chord but use the same chords - cuase you say its defined by playing a different chord, but it only works by using the same chords
2)sequential modulation= UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh......
Meldoic theory doesn;t use the harmonic circle of fifths modular theory when side steping the meloding or playing a third up diatonically or chromotically.
what ever your talking about, its called something else
3) what is the secondary dominant? is this like using the E7 chord 2x instead of one? Is this another name for sub dominant of the key? Is this a specific interval, or a somehow harmonically related chord? Are you talking about jazz theory and the turn around like a 5 2?
4) ok I hear that
5) I dont think the pivot chord works in rock - I tried it (but I didnt know what I was doin at the time) it sounded messed up when I went back into the normal parts and the arrangement beconed for the change to be played there.
Aside from that:
A bridge can not be defined in the terms in which you've defined it.
You can establishe tonality with any chord from another key. The melody will establish the tonality. The intervals of the meldoy will define it, not the chord structure, unless you are talking about jaz.
Using Iv in the scale will not define the mode or key. The most defining notes are 1 3 5 7. And calling it simply IV will confuse people, watch: am I modualting to the key of G? Then is IV related to G?? I dont know because Im playing an Em and 4 related to G is C but 4 related to Em is Am and the Minor only apllies if im playing the full traid - shit im lost!
Modualtion sounds gay in rock music
Augmentation and Diminuation could mean that since the english language allows it. However, in reference to thery that termonlogy is incorrect. Saying An augmented melody would lead the listener to belive that you meant a melody which occurs at a perfect interval such as the dominant or sub dominant where the root of that mode has been augmented or like wise diminished. The terms are a trunicated melody and....
...I forgot
Last edited:
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
sorry man i didn't even read that asses posts... the comment was to dogon...
The Black Circl
New member
How is diatonic a melodic term? Dia tonic menaing two tonics refers to 1 the tonic and 2 the dominant < sounds pretty damn harmonic to me, since a dominant chord is defined as the the only 7th chord type that has a major third and minor 7th.
Not quite sure why you rearranged the Harmonic Minor Scale that way to define it, but what ever...
The Black Circl
New member
Ok, but how can you clarify this when by these terms and expansion of modal theory, you will come to find that a diatonic scale has 7 pairs of relative scales
The Black Circl
New member
Fuck it, all I got from this postings was skip that bridge - its not worth it, apparently its to damn much tension to deal with...
Fuck it,
Fuck it,
rayc
retroreprobate
Mr The Black Circl,
Who are you really? Some trojan or similar? Reading the plethora of posts you've made in a tiny temporal space suggests you need to rein yourself in a little. Is it possible for you to read and relax? Your stance is too combative - win friends and influence people by chilling a little, reading a lot and replying/posting from a suggestion, commentary or collegial perspective.
You seem to have a lot to offer but are doing so in a ruddy blush & with a minimum of tact.
I look forward to reading more from you without feeling tension or the need for a tonic.
Who are you really? Some trojan or similar? Reading the plethora of posts you've made in a tiny temporal space suggests you need to rein yourself in a little. Is it possible for you to read and relax? Your stance is too combative - win friends and influence people by chilling a little, reading a lot and replying/posting from a suggestion, commentary or collegial perspective.
You seem to have a lot to offer but are doing so in a ruddy blush & with a minimum of tact.
I look forward to reading more from you without feeling tension or the need for a tonic.
famous beagle
Well-known member
FYI Black Circl, you were asking what a secondary dominant is.
It's when you make a chord major that's normally minor in the key. For example, in the key of G, the diatonic chords are:
G Am Bm C D Em F#º
If you're in the key of G, and you see an A major chord or an A7, then that chord is functioning as a secondary dominant. At that point, you'd expect it to be followed with a D chord, which is movement up a 4th (or down a 5th, same thing).
A7 is the dominant of D. But since we're in the key of G here, this is called a secondary dominant --- kind of like a dominant relationship on a temporary micro level as opposed to the overall key.
Here's an example of a progression in G that uses this device:
| G | Em | A7 | D |
I vi II (V of V) V
It's common to refer to secondary dominants as "V of xxx", where xxx is the chord resolved to.
Here's another example, this time using a different secondary dominant:
| G | B7 | Em | C |
I III (V of vi) vi IV
These are all examples of secondary dominants that act as they should (resolve up a 4th or down a 5th). But, especially in rock music, it's almost just as common to see non-resolving secondary dominants. This just means that they don't resolve down a 4th.
One of the most common in rock music from the mid-60s or so and on is the major II chord, which was the first example above. But instead of resolving down a 4th, it will move to the IV chord, like this:
| Em | A7 | C | G |
vi II (V of V) IV I
This progression is basically like the one in the Beatles' "Yesterday" and demonstrates the very common II to IV move.
Note: All of this is in accordance with the music world's universally accepted term of "secondary dominant." Good Friend uses his own terminology, so he may or may not mean this when he says that.
It's when you make a chord major that's normally minor in the key. For example, in the key of G, the diatonic chords are:
G Am Bm C D Em F#º
If you're in the key of G, and you see an A major chord or an A7, then that chord is functioning as a secondary dominant. At that point, you'd expect it to be followed with a D chord, which is movement up a 4th (or down a 5th, same thing).
A7 is the dominant of D. But since we're in the key of G here, this is called a secondary dominant --- kind of like a dominant relationship on a temporary micro level as opposed to the overall key.
Here's an example of a progression in G that uses this device:
| G | Em | A7 | D |
I vi II (V of V) V
It's common to refer to secondary dominants as "V of xxx", where xxx is the chord resolved to.
Here's another example, this time using a different secondary dominant:
| G | B7 | Em | C |
I III (V of vi) vi IV
These are all examples of secondary dominants that act as they should (resolve up a 4th or down a 5th). But, especially in rock music, it's almost just as common to see non-resolving secondary dominants. This just means that they don't resolve down a 4th.
One of the most common in rock music from the mid-60s or so and on is the major II chord, which was the first example above. But instead of resolving down a 4th, it will move to the IV chord, like this:
| Em | A7 | C | G |
vi II (V of V) IV I
This progression is basically like the one in the Beatles' "Yesterday" and demonstrates the very common II to IV move.
Note: All of this is in accordance with the music world's universally accepted term of "secondary dominant." Good Friend uses his own terminology, so he may or may not mean this when he says that.
The devil
Tension and release follows the tritone. A V chord may allude to the tension by default but it's the dominant 7 that creates the tension. The V7- I creates the Ta-da and the feeling of resolution that makes a passage sound completed. Play around blues with I7, IV7, V7 and trace the motion of the tritones and you will see the common thread. Invert them and you will find that's all there is. I love Fripp, he's a scamp.
Tension and release follows the tritone. A V chord may allude to the tension by default but it's the dominant 7 that creates the tension. The V7- I creates the Ta-da and the feeling of resolution that makes a passage sound completed. Play around blues with I7, IV7, V7 and trace the motion of the tritones and you will see the common thread. Invert them and you will find that's all there is. I love Fripp, he's a scamp.
The Black Circl
New member
I'm not quite sure what your talking about specifically - while your right that the V and V7 are the most tension filled chords there are other methods to introduce tension.
I would like to note that V is equivalant to V7 diatonically speaking - even it the 7th is not played.
I don't think the dominant seventh rules apply entirely to the blues progession where they are all dominant sevenths
I haven't had time to study it for this particular style but please allow me to explain why I am thinking that the rules may be slightly different:
Diatonically speaking:
1) in a V7 chord the 3rd of V is also the 7th of the scale - so when a V7 to I change occurs the 7th of the scale is resolved.
2) in a V7 chord the 7th of V is also the 4th of the scale - so when a V7 to I change occurs a sus4 is resolved
3) and of course the 5th of the V7 is the 2nd of the scale resolving down to the tonic on a V7 to I Change
Alot of resolution going on right?
So anyway, the IV7 in a 12 bar doesn't got the same harmonic resolution taking place (i think, this is the part I would need to study)
Its got the dominant seven sound with out the sus4, major 2nd to 1st, and the 7th to 1st resolutions taking place.
I would like to know if you could explain the tritone and tension relationship - other methods of introducing tension include speed, pitch, and volume
famous beagle
Well-known member
You're right that the IV7 chord in a blues doesn't resolve in its "proper" way. In a blues, it moves back to the I chord, so the b7th of the IV chord is not resolved down a step the way the b7th in the V chord is.
So the blues "breaks the rules" in this sense, but it's become so common that it doesn't sound wrong to our ears.
Noodeling
It took a lot of screwing around and jamming for me to realize the connection between tritones, dominant7 chords and blues progressions. There's a limit to inversions that limits the number of tritone variations. Once this epiphany came to me the complexity of the fundamentals of music became simplicity and my perception of atonal music became tonal. It's an experiment. The tritone is symmetrical and a perfect vibration, contrary to the perfect intervals IV,V+VIII.
It took a lot of screwing around and jamming for me to realize the connection between tritones, dominant7 chords and blues progressions. There's a limit to inversions that limits the number of tritone variations. Once this epiphany came to me the complexity of the fundamentals of music became simplicity and my perception of atonal music became tonal. It's an experiment. The tritone is symmetrical and a perfect vibration, contrary to the perfect intervals IV,V+VIII.
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
well i've got another for you to play with... consider for a moment the b9 added to a dom7... it only happens (semi) naturaly in the harmonic min scale ... the upper 4 pitches are a dim7 chord... and there are only 4 of them... it's comprised of 2 different tri tones... so the pitch 1/2 step down from any of the chord tone can be the root... the implications for modulation and substitution are staggering... make sense???
famous beagle
Well-known member
This is actually only true if you're replacing the root of a dominant 7 chord with the b9 --- not adding to it.
In other words, if you have a G7 chord: G B D F, and you voice it as a rootless 7b9 chord, with the notes F B D Ab, then what you said is true. Any four of those notes could be lowered by half step to form a normal 7th chord.
But if you had a full G7b9 chord, with G B D F Ab, the G note wouldn't fit the "lower by half-step to form another dominant 7th chord" rule.
Otherwise, like you said, it's a great vehicle for modulations.
_brian_
Member
just mho
how do i do this, how do you do that? ... hmm
It sounds a bit like, how can i reduce all of these wonderful infinite colours into formulae that makes songwriting easier to understand and do. Convert everything into primary colours for me please!!
I know nothing of musical theory - well not now, what I hear in my head I try and play. It's simple & I think it's the only true way of writing music. The stuff I write is me. Theory is like a middle man, it can (if in the wrong hands) destroy the most innovitive work. Go straight from your head to your instruments, not from your head to your theory to your instruments or straight from theory to your instruments. And certainly dont go from other people's heads to theory to your instrument - that's just nuts
If you're asking how to write a bridge then perhaps you shouldn't be writing seriousley. It may be more productive writing just for a laugh or hobbie and learn that way until you understand what I'm getting at. You wont get anywhere interesting by asking how to do this and that using a tired methodology.
how do i do this, how do you do that? ... hmm
It sounds a bit like, how can i reduce all of these wonderful infinite colours into formulae that makes songwriting easier to understand and do. Convert everything into primary colours for me please!!
I know nothing of musical theory - well not now, what I hear in my head I try and play. It's simple & I think it's the only true way of writing music. The stuff I write is me. Theory is like a middle man, it can (if in the wrong hands) destroy the most innovitive work. Go straight from your head to your instruments, not from your head to your theory to your instruments or straight from theory to your instruments. And certainly dont go from other people's heads to theory to your instrument - that's just nuts
If you're asking how to write a bridge then perhaps you shouldn't be writing seriousley. It may be more productive writing just for a laugh or hobbie and learn that way until you understand what I'm getting at. You wont get anywhere interesting by asking how to do this and that using a tired methodology.
_brian_
Member
with regards to tension
If I'm talking about the same thing you were then i totally disagree. I love unresolved tension, a song I would throw onto that pile would be "air on a g string" by bach. It's unresolved tension energises me & fills me full of unresolved feelings - so much so I feel like I'm going to burst with happyness, sadness everything all at the same time.
Theorists limit theirselves by what they don't know, natural writers are only limited by their own imagination and ability to produce that in what ever form they want to use to communicate their ideas. IMHO
If I'm talking about the same thing you were then i totally disagree. I love unresolved tension, a song I would throw onto that pile would be "air on a g string" by bach. It's unresolved tension energises me & fills me full of unresolved feelings - so much so I feel like I'm going to burst with happyness, sadness everything all at the same time.
Theorists limit theirselves by what they don't know, natural writers are only limited by their own imagination and ability to produce that in what ever form they want to use to communicate their ideas. IMHO