# Matching chords with the respective scale, and flat chords



## giacecco (Jul 2, 2021)

Hi All, I am a newbie and self-learner, who started recently using Friedemann Findeisen's "Songwriting Deck" to force myself into unexplored territory. Clearly, my level of theory is not sufficient to detect the information Friedemann leaves out of the cards, and this morning I was left with a puzzle.

The card asks me to work with these chords: C Db Em F G Am Bb , marked respectively as I bII iii IV V vi bVII

With the help of Scaler2, I see that this looks like a C myxolidian b2... but then V should be a v ! Same problem if this was a D dorian b2... what am I getting wrong?

Also, how do I interpret the bII? Is it the II of the myxolidian, or I should flat that?

Even worse, what's bVII? In both my guesses, there's a vii, not a VII... and what's a bVII then? 

I clearly don't understand enough, and the fluidity of the conventions in referring to the chords is not helping me. Have you got advice for me?

G.


----------



## sinkd (Jul 2, 2021)

No need to try to conform all of the chords to a single scale as you proceed. Songs frequently have chord moments that allude to other scales--for example a lot of songs in C will have a D7 followed by G7.

Improvise playing these chords in short patterns and see where your ear tells you they lead. Try alternating C and another chord, back and forth. See if you can convincingly "land" any where else in the scale. G-C will always feel strong, but what about Bb-G-C? Am-E, Am-G-F-Db C? Mix and match and see what you like!


----------



## SteveC (Jul 2, 2021)

*I would always prefer "functional theorie" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(music)#Functional_harmony). I don't know if there are any books of Hermann Grabner or **Diether de la Motte in english. *


----------



## b_elliott (Jul 2, 2021)

Good on @sinkd's reply. 

Your question got me wondering about my take on those notes. When played on a piano the notes alone form an F major / F harmonic structure (F major with a flat 6):

F G A Bb (major)
C Db E F (harmonic minor)

Interestingly, instead of starting on tonic F, the card example starts on the 5th (C), thus sketching this odd scale. That is one trick I've learned some composers like to use.

The chord progression does not couple with the scale as you pointed out. I think jazzers might describe the major V instead of minor v as a borrowed chord. I am not a theorist, but understand a more fundamental point: one can form any chord (major, minor, diminished, lydian) on any tone regardless of key center.

An amusing and educative demonstration of exactly what you are attempting to wrap your wits around is Rick Beato's latest The Most Complex Pop Song. His statement near the end is enlightening: "it [song's modulations] is nonsensical. There really is nothing to grab onto.... but when you _listen_ to it it's just like 'Yes. OK, yes...." 

So, watch the Beato vid and have a laugh at what the cards are showing you. 

Just my two cents. Cheers, Bill


----------



## rdd27 (Jul 2, 2021)

giacecco said:


> Also, how do I interpret the bII? Is it the II of the myxolidian, or I should flat that?


It's up to you how creative you get with these chords, but my interpretation would be that this is much simpler than it looks. I think interpreting this as the mixolydian scale overcomplicates things. Instead, I'd look at this as being all in C major, with the Bb chord as a flattened 7th that can be used to add "colour" or be used if you wanted to modulate into F major.

I would then regard the bII as a Neapolitan chord, which can be used to great effect on cadences (more common in minor keys but I'm not aware of any reason why it can't be in a major key too - or you could do everything in A minor rather than C major for it to make more sense).


----------



## giacecco (Jul 2, 2021)

Thank you all for your care in getting back to me. A general narrative that I am getting from all of you is that I am being too... difficult 😀, and that flexibility in interpreting a chord progression and notation is not an option, but rather, almost, the rule! 

As an engineer, I struggle to live with unnecessary ambiguity and lack of detail... Like in cooking, when recipes say "salt to taste". What the h*ll does that mean? Just tell me how much salt is _your_ taste, and then I'll decide if I want to change that.

Thank you all!


----------



## youngpokie (Jul 2, 2021)

giacecco said:


> Also, how do I interpret the bII?


Another vote for the good old functional theory. And when it comes to pop songwriting, functional theory is also more logical, easier and faster to use than modes - it's basically a construction kit. For an engineer, I would think functional theory would be instantly intuitive....

According to functional theory:
- _all_ progressions in tonal music are built using some sequence of T, S and D categories of chords, otherwise they are just random unconnected sounds
- all chords of any scale are grouped into one of the categories or functions (except VI and III, which fall into more than one). So each function contains more than one chord available for use.

A chord progression is simply a string, a sequence of functions: for example T-S-D-T; and several "time tested" sequences exist. Then, chords from each function are used to express or represent it in the progression.

For example: the progression S-D-T can be expressed using the chords of IV-V-I or ii-V-vii and so on - simply picking the chord from the relevant function and putting it into the sequence at the appropriate position. It's a very simple and basic concept and 99.9% of all pop music is written just at this level.

However, the beauty of this approach is in how easily it can be expanded to achieve an enormous variety, complexity and color and still retain the basic functional sequence underneath:

- increase the number of chords in each function by borrowing from parallel keys (e.g. in C major, borrow from c minor). This essentially treats C major and c minor as one expanded scale based on C. All of the chords in your example are put together using this approach. That's it - and much easier to grasp than modes.

- alter the chords themselves. For example, raising or lowering the II scale degree in chords within the D functional group; or raising the IV scale degree in chords from the S group, and a few more. Much more sophisticated and subtle change in the sound. There are many famous chords here, some of which were giving misleading or confusing names (Neapolitan, Double Dominant, etc).

There are some additional tools in functional theory but this is the Cliff's Notes version. In my personal opinion, it's the most intuitive and logical way to "see" and create chord combinations.


----------



## b_elliott (Jul 2, 2021)

giacecco said:


> ...
> 
> As an engineer, I struggle to live with unnecessary ambiguity and lack of detail... Like in cooking, when recipes say "salt to taste". What the h*ll does that mean? Just tell me how much salt is _your_ taste, and then I'll decide if I want to change that.


"Salt to taste" therein lies the _music magic_ that supersedes music theory IMHO. 

Having no hit tunes of my own, I could be wrong; however, maybe it helps explain why the Beatles could write hits with odd 7- or 10-bar phrases (or why Zappa mixed whole tone progressions, with 1/2-step modulations, with sounds [a la Varese]) to write the hits. 

I was curious to read up on Findeisen's Song Writing Deck. Its underlying idea is to prep one for writing pop hits. I'd keep the "salt to taste" concept as musically helpful. Cheers, Bill


----------



## SupremeFist (Jul 2, 2021)

Trying to find a single scale that works over any given chord progression is just a thing done by lazy guitarists who don't want to learn to play the changes.


----------

