theory question

[icystorm]

For those who have more experience (and/or a background in music theory), I have a question about chord structure for a song I am working on...

Is anything here technically incorrect below? It sounds fine to me, when played, but is it correct in music theory and could it be better with a slight refinement?

Key of G, Tempo 100, 4 beats per measure

Intro
Em D C D
Em D C D
C D

Verse
G G G D
G G G D

Bridge
Am Bm Em D
C D Em D

Chorus
Em D C D
Em D C D
C D

Middle (leading back to verse)
G Bm Em C
G Em C D

Any recommendations for structural changes? If significant, I will credit you if I use it.

I am somewhat unhappy with the chords in the verse, but the melody fits nicely over it.

Comments welcomed.

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[Chili]

I don't see anything technically wrong, in fact, I have used the same elements in my songs. no funny weird chords or jumping out of key... pretty straightforward stuff.

Having said that, you don't need to know music theory to make a song sound good or flow with a melody. Just write what works... If it doesn't sound good, change it. If it doesn't support the story line, change it.

Have fun,

 

[icystorm]

I don't see anything technically wrong, in fact, I have used the same elements in my songs. no funny weird chords or jumping out of key... pretty straightforward stuff.

Having said that, you don't need to know music theory to make a song sound good or flow with a melody. Just write what works... If it doesn't sound good, change it. If it doesn't support the story line, change it.

Have fun,

Thanks for commenting, Chili. I agree with you regarding "writing what works", but I have occasionally (not very often) been told (about another song), "that part doesn't resolve back to anything..." LOL. I guess that it "didn't work" for the listener. Heh.

BTW, I was never told that in this group, but I wouldn't mind if someone did tell me that. I always prefer honesty rather than a soft-pedaling of the truth.

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[didgijimmy]

if you don't resolve back to the root it will drive many people who do know theory crazy, having said that however, this is often used as a tool to grab someones attention or make the listener uneasy. The Beatles did stuff like this all the time. Ultimately, it is up to what you want to get across in your song.

 

[TBeats]

write music that satisfies you, afterall..you're the one who's gotta feel it to play it

 

[gecko zzed]

Key of G, Tempo 100, 4 beats per measure

Intro
Em D C D
Em D C D
C D

Verse
G G G D
G G G D

Bridge
Am Bm Em D
C D Em D

Chorus
Em D C D
Em D C D
C D

Middle (leading back to verse)
G Bm Em C
G Em C D

The chords look fine.

This 'unresolving' thing that you mention could be because everything ends on a D, and most songs would finish up somehow on the G (or Em).

However, if you fading with repeats, then this makes absolutely no difference.

But even if you have a definite finish on a D, this is fine.

You were asking about refinements . . .

Here are some things worth trying.

1. The intro is Em D C D, so there is an E note in Em and C, so why not try one in the D as well, making it a D9. If you wanted to go a bit further, you could keep the B and E of Em going all the way through. The chords then become something like Em D6+9, Cmaj7 D6+9. However, my instinctive reaction when I just picked up my guitar now was to play a D and an E all the way through progression, i.e. Em7, D9, C9, D9.

2 For the verse, there are some interesting things you can do with the root notes. For example G/G G/A G/B D/F# (where the note after the slash is the bass note). I'd also be inclined to keep a high G going through this, which means the D becomes Dsus4.

3 For the bridge, after the AM and Bm, I'd experiment with again keeping D and E notes through the remaining chords. Am Bm Em7 D9 C9 D9 Em7 D9. If you wanted to try something a little different, you could make the final D chord in the bridge a B7, which leads neatly back to the following Em of the chorus.

4 For the middle, what happens if you play the Bm before the G? That might make an interesting twist.

Bear in mind, though, that I have no idea of the melody, and these ideas may not fit.

 

[Whatmysay]

Also take everything Gecko has said then also play with various inversions of the chords on the keyboards.

 

[LorenzoG]

Icy -- You've gotten some very good advice on this.

Good luck!

 

[Frankie Rage]

Also I would say ...with a ;-) ...so don't crucify me, please!

Don't get too 'boffin' about it. Songs are for singing and listening to, it's the peoples music. It's not about theory, it's about what ears hear and the emotions you can reach through your music and words.

So that chord doesn't normally fit there? So what?

I've had a few theory types look at my stuff over the years and tell me to make changes but usually they have given me something that led me back to the obvious and the bland. Sorry!

So welcome the boffin in by all means, but be just as 'open to' and simultaneously 'wary of', his views as you would any others.

Try everything, but use what works for your ears.

 

[didgijimmy]

frankie is right, but...

whenever you do get the chance I would highly recommend reading up on theory. You don't have to change everything you have written to match that of the baroque period, however theory does help tremendously when you want to write something a certain way but don't know how. It gives you the tools to know how to write what you want. In other words, you have to know the rules before you can break them but don't just learn the literature, learn how to apply theory. I took about a year of AP theory in school, and learned a ton but never knew how to apply to anything but piano. Since then I've recently taken up advanced guitar lessons again, with someone who KNOWS how to apply theory, and it has made a huge difference. Scales are important, but if you really want to upgrade your playing applied theory is the way to go.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Having said that, you don't need to know music theory to make a song sound good or flow with a melody. Just write what works... If it doesn't sound good, change it. If it doesn't support the story line, change it.

Isn't that basically what music theory is? A codified explanation of what most people think sounds good. If you've got something that sounds good already, you don't need theory.

That being said, studying theory can be good. It can give you new ideas and show you new ways of thinking about music that you hadn't seen before.

 

[icystorm]

Thanks kindly to everyone who has commented in the thread. You've give me many things to ponder.

Much of what was written leads back to what Gecko and Dave have often maintained here, which is, acquire as many tools as you can to support your hobby.

Great comments, all, and thanks!

Joseph

 

[SEDstar]

...

oh good christ, LMAO, after that ONE thread, I can see we're going to have an ongoing friendly back and forth spill over into all reviews now, hee hee

(said tongue in cheek, tho...)

there's nothing "heavy theory" about slash chords, as i want to say most guitar players/modern piano players call them I think, though "chord inversions" does have that "theory ring" to it, LMAO

If your going to be playing a G a LOT in a few spots, whats "theory" about changing up the "G" your going to hear a lot by switching the bass root chord of it to salt and pepper it up? Worked into your rhythm strumming, it would likely make for some nice variation in the resultant piece.

this theory/feel-it debate is actually good... reminds me of the little kids poem, one would eat no fat, the other would eat no lean, BUT betwixt the both of them, they licked the platter clean?

which is enough theory to break up the repetitive parts (here, slash-chording, or the occasional unexpected chord movement), YET being spontaneous and pleasing to the ear at the same time...

...which of course results in perfection, or close to it.

I cant comment personally on "guitar chords" laid out on paper like this, I'm not a guitar player, nor am I used to reading music that way, I cant "hear it" in my head. My thingy is geared to trying to "hear" note melodies, not rhythm guitar melodies laid out...

I am starting to think that me and icy storm might be able to collab on something one day... I always insist on trying to compose complex melodes and woven harmonic lines, but in "ho-hum" 145 chord prog setups... he makes nicely woven rhythm guitar melodies...

mayb if i knew how many measures were of each guitar chord where, I could move my note melodies along in (for once...) NON-linear fashion, that would accompany the rhythm guitar lines he lays out? I just dont know how in the heck the two of us could "time the thing" together over the internet like that... *shrugs*

NOW I am wondering what it would sound like if instead of doing say 12 bars in C minor, and weaving harmony lines thru it... what it would sound like if i were to "jump around" each iteration of his chord changes before I "wove" my harmony lines thru it? (dont mind me, that doesnt make sense in words I dont think, but the way I make my music, its got me wondering... I might try it tonight...)

good god, I wish I didnt have to look for work within the next couple months... I was really getting to love "composing" for a "living" the last couple months on unemployment, LMAO.

doesnt cost me anything to do it now I got the music computer all set up, I cant get into trouble staying home all the time, and I actually am starting to feel very "fulfilled" doing it now that I am getting ovr "the hump" after a couple years now...

 

[famous beagle]

there's nothing "heavy theory" about slash chords, as i want to say most guitar players/modern piano players call them I think, though "chord inversions" does have that "theory ring" to it, LMAO

Slash chords aren't necessarily the same thing as chord inversions.

A slash chord is just a chord with a note other than the root in the bass. Sure, this could be a first inversion C chord, like C/E, or a second-inversion like C/G.

But it could also be something like C/F, which is just an alternate way of writing Fmaj9(no 3rd).

Or Gm/C, which is another way to say C9(no 3rd).

However, my instinctive reaction when I just picked up my guitar now was to play a D and an E all the way through progression, i.e. Em7, D9, C9, D9.

I think maybe you mean Dadd9 and Cadd9. D9 and C9 are dominant chords, which means they'll have a b7th---i.e., D9 = D - F# - A - C - E, and C9 = C - E - G - Bb - D.

Add9 chords are just the triad with the added 9th tone (no 7th).

 

[icystorm]

Thanks for posting and the comments, SED. I have already backed away from the "GGGD" verse structure. As I mentioned, I didn't like that to begin with. Sometimes I find it easier to insert "toss-aways" and revamp later when I give it more thought.

Yes, a collaboration someday would be enjoyable, I'm sure, if I can find the time. Right now, my days are filled with statistics, non-linear diffy-qs, and excel spreadsheets. Oh joy!

I enjoy sitting down to a relaxing hobby like composing songs when time permits. I'm trying to improve my guitar playing. I played when I was a kid. I took lessons and could strum out "Love Me Tender" and "Camptown Races"! LOL. I'm not good enough to play on my own songs -- yet! I use JamStudio for my backing tracks. It has some limitations, as Dave pointed out, but it does make it easy to compose the idea for a basic demo. In my mind, my songs are, um, more complex and interesting than the basic demos I post.

BTW, I hope you are able to find employment soon and doing something you enjoy.

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[SEDstar]

...

I used your chord prog structure for my take on the intro...

the only point of contention is... 100 bpm was too slow, I had to up it to 120 bpm... and, one measure was just too short for one of my melodies... I managed to keep a simple motive (melody idea...) to a mere 2 measures...

here is YOUR chord structure "bare" for intro, used with my short motive...
http://www.mediafire.com/?jj35xdymy3o


Heres the exact same thing, but with my harmonic lines added for "spice"...
http://www.mediafire.com/?tnzkalctmrw


eh? *shrugs*

even if you dont want to "collab"... can I use one of your "finalized" guitar-tab-structures like this?? I tend to "think" in terms of a long complex melody movement, and they are so long, I can only do a couple chord changes...

THIS way, with you laying out the changes?? keeps it a lot more "moving"...

eh?

 

[icystorm]

I used your chord prog structure for my take on the intro...

the only point of contention is... 100 bpm was too slow, I had to up it to 120 bpm... and, one measure was just too short for one of my melodies... I managed to keep a simple motive (melody idea...) to a mere 2 measures...

here is YOUR chord structure "bare" for intro, used with my short motive...
http://www.mediafire.com/?jj35xdymy3o


Heres the exact same thing, but with my harmonic lines added for "spice"...
http://www.mediafire.com/?tnzkalctmrw


eh? *shrugs*

even if you dont want to "collab"... can I use one of your "finalized" guitar-tab-structures like this?? I tend to "think" in terms of a long complex melody movement, and they are so long, I can only do a couple chord changes...

THIS way, with you laying out the changes?? keeps it a lot more "moving"...

eh?

Sounds interesting! And, sure, feel free to play around with the tabs.

I modified my version to 102 bpm (slightly faster than before).

As I mentioned earlier, I backed away from the 'GGGD' verse and went to:

G C G Em
G C G Em

I may change it again, but play around with it as much as you want to.

For the middle, I changed to:

G C D Em
G C D Em

The name of the song, incidentally, is "Emily". (References to Emily are made in the verses, not the chorus).

Here is an early demo of one run through the Intro-Verse-Bridge-Chorus-Middle (no vox)...

http://www.box.net/shared/yhkm36is7x

...and a crude, early demo of the chorus with vox (for the melody)...

http://www.box.net/shared/rg98c8lc7x

The vox are crude and early. I'll be redoing those completely. BTW, ignore the "nah-nah-nahs" on the bridge before the chorus. That's not part of the song. Those were "fillers" before the lyrics were finished. I'm still working on the verses.

Bridge 1
Her hair spills
in the storm's breeze
Where she's alone
thunder will cease
my angel becomes every delight
one with the heart
one with the night

Chorus
Her passion and scent
Play in my mind
Etched in the flesh
Frozen in time
Wrapped in her love
Synced in her eyes
Cut to the bone
In Heaven's design
She's cut to the bone
She's Heaven's design

-------------

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[icystorm]

The chords look fine.

This 'unresolving' thing that you mention could be because everything ends on a D, and most songs would finish up somehow on the G (or Em).

However, if you fading with repeats, then this makes absolutely no difference.

But even if you have a definite finish on a D, this is fine.

You were asking about refinements . . .

Here are some things worth trying.

1. The intro is Em D C D, so there is an E note in Em and C, so why not try one in the D as well, making it a D9. If you wanted to go a bit further, you could keep the B and E of Em going all the way through. The chords then become something like Em D6+9, Cmaj7 D6+9. However, my instinctive reaction when I just picked up my guitar now was to play a D and an E all the way through progression, i.e. Em7, D9, C9, D9.

2 For the verse, there are some interesting things you can do with the root notes. For example G/G G/A G/B D/F# (where the note after the slash is the bass note). I'd also be inclined to keep a high G going through this, which means the D becomes Dsus4.

3 For the bridge, after the AM and Bm, I'd experiment with again keeping D and E notes through the remaining chords. Am Bm Em7 D9 C9 D9 Em7 D9. If you wanted to try something a little different, you could make the final D chord in the bridge a B7, which leads neatly back to the following Em of the chorus.

4 For the middle, what happens if you play the Bm before the G? That might make an interesting twist.

Bear in mind, though, that I have no idea of the melody, and these ideas may not fit.

Gecko, beyond the broad thanks I issued earlier to all respondants in the thread, I wanted to come back to your post and say "double thanks!" for always elaborating so throughly and helping others. It is much appreciated and noticed. You're a great mentor in the group.

BTW, I am experimenting with your suggestions this evening!

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[gecko zzed]

I think maybe you mean Dadd9 and Cadd9. D9 and C9 are dominant chords, which means they'll have a b7th---i.e., D9 = D - F# - A - C - E, and C9 = C - E - G - Bb - D.

Add9 chords are just the triad with the added 9th tone (no 7th).

This is exactly where the advantage of some advanced musical knowledge comes in.

The 'add9' chords is exactly what I mean . . . but I've only ever known them as, say, D9, rather than D add9.

A greater understanding of theory helps reduce ambiguity, and allows musicians to talk to each other musically with greater understanding.

 

[gecko zzed]

Chorus
Em D C D
Em D C D
C D

I just listened to your MP3 of the chorus.

I note that the end note of most lines is an E, which means that the idea of adding an E note to run constantly through the chorus would work (even when you sing a D, but, in my view, it would be cool to stay up there on the E). Whether you actually want to do this is another matter.