# Harmony Tips and Tricks



## billval3

synthetic @ Sun Nov 09 said:


> I've been learning some tricks from a book called "Composing Music" by William Russo. For example, any chord can move to another chord of the same type. Majors to majors, minors to minors, etc. Pretty cool modulation trick.



I have that book and have thoroughly enjoyed it!


----------



## lux

http://www.amazon.com/Twentieth-Century-Harmony-Creative-Aspects-Practice/dp/0393095398/ (http://www.amazon.com/Twentieth-Century ... 393095398/)


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge

+1 for the Persichetti book. It's the book about 20th century harmony.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Nickie Fønshauge @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> +1 for the Persichetti book. It's the book about 20th century harmony.



Yup. You need to be pretty well versed in music theory though. It's not a laymans book. 

Just so you know.


----------



## DeOlivier

I really liked the Persichetti book as well, and I highly recommend it. But what helped me most to improve my harmonic language was starting to study EIS. It made a difference like nothing else did before.


----------



## billval3

DeOlivier @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> I really liked the Persichetti book as well, and I highly recommend it. But what helped me most to improve my harmonic language was starting to study EIS. It made a difference like nothing else did before.



Persichetti is next on my list! I tried to look at it once before, a year or so ago, but I don't think I was ready for it yet.

BTW, here's a helpful hint for thosòù   Šâ¦ù   Šâ§ù   Šâ¨ù   Šâ©ù   Šâªù   Šâ«ù   Šâ¬ù   Šâ­ù   Šâ®ù   Šâ¯ù   Šâ°ú   Šâ±ú   Šâ²ú   Šâ³ú   Šâ´ú   Šâµú   Šâ¶ú   Šâ·ú   Šâ¸ú   Šâ¹ú   Šâºú   Šâ»ú   Šâ¼ú   Šâ½ú   Šâ¾ú   Šâ¿ú   ŠâÀú   ŠâÁú   ŠâÂú   ŠâÃú   ŠâÄú   ŠâÅú   ŠâÆú   ŠâÇú   ŠâÈú   ŠâÉú   ŠâÊú   ŠâËú   ŠâÌú   ŠâÍú   ŠâÎú   ŠâÏú   ŠâÐ


----------



## Waywyn

Hey billval3,

actually not a book suggestion but just a thing which helps a lots to get into moods and actually could take a lifetime to explore it all (if you start changing the actual chords )


If you have the basic understanding of the seven modes (ionian, dorian etc.)

I would spend some time to take the 1st, 4th and 5th chord of each mode's related major key, keep the bass note of the actual mode as a pedal and jam through it by playing the actual mode's scale.

E.g. C ionian is C maj. I, IV and V chord is C,F and G, so play C maj scale over Cmaj, F/C, G/C

If you want to play C phrygian (3rd mode), the related maj key would be Ab maj. I, IV and V chord of Ab maj would be Ab, Db and Eb (remember to keep the bass of the actual mode which is C). So this would be Ab/C, Db/C and Eb/C ...

Now improvise with the C phrygian scale (which is basically Ab maj starting on C)


Another example:

F aeolian -
Aeolian is the 6th mode and the maj root key would be Ab maj (again? what a surprise )
So take the I, IV and V chord again of Ab maj which would be Ab, Db and Eb again. This time you keep the bass note as F (because we are in F aeolian)

Now improvise or play the F aeolian scale (which is again basically Ab maj starting from F) over this chord progression.

Hope I explained it well enough to not actually confuse 
Generally this is pretty basic stuff with another approach, but it turns out to be of great help from time to time.


----------



## jsaras

You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.

Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.


----------



## Frederick Russ

DeOlivier @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> I really liked the Persichetti book as well, and I highly recommend it. But what helped me most to improve my harmonic language was starting to study EIS. It made a difference like nothing else did before.



+1 for EIS. Its like a huge jump start harmonically. Another resource to couple that with would probably be Jack Smalley's Composing Music for Film book - great practical tips and relaying complex ideas in layman's terms.


----------



## jsaras

DeOlivier @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> ...what helped me most to improve my harmonic language was starting to study EIS.



Yes, +2. Even just completing Book 2 (which is the germ upon which the whole method is based) could make a big difference in one's view of harmony.


----------



## Jackull

jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> DeOlivier @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what helped me most to improve my harmonic language was starting to study EIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, +2. Even just completing Book 2 (which is the germ upon which the whole method is based) could make a big difference in one's view of harmony.
Click to expand...


+++ to eis. of course if you have the time, this is worth exploring & in my experience it opens up a different way on how i approach harmony-melody & music in general. the first 2 book is the basic foundation that already brings you to a new level of musicality but the later books is where the fun begins o=<
however, you need somebody to walk you thru with this as it is not a self study methodology. good luck.


----------



## synthetic

Careful, EIS seems to be some sort of cult based on the proselytizing I see on here. One of us, one of us, one of us... 

Smalley's book is very good in general and I learned some nice harmonic things from it as well. I also like Brindle's Composition book. I see he has a 20th century composition text, I might need to check that out. He's such a great writer that I may learn to love 12-tone music. :D


----------



## rJames

synthetic @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> Careful, EIS seems to be some sort of cult based on the proselytizing I see on here. One of us, one of us, one of us...



Not me! I hope no one else here takes EIS.


----------



## billval3

I find it interesting that two of you mentioned using modes. Is it common for film composers to use modes other than major & minor (ionian & aeolian)?


----------



## billval3

jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> NEVER use V7-I...



Do you mean never use V7-I as a final cadence, or not at all?

What about use of secondary dominants?


----------



## Leandro Gardini

One more vote for EIS...what has been better than EIS for who have studied it???


----------



## Waywyn

billval3 @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I find it interesting that two of you mentioned using modes. Is it common for film composers to use modes other than major & minor (ionian & aeolian)?



Well, let me put it like this. With min and major you actually work with two modes only. When you use the other five too, you obviously have a few more options


----------



## Rob Elliott

Great discussion.


:D


----------



## rJames

Interval relationships vs keys/modes.

Harmony in fourths/fifths is the new dominant. (transition)

Melody and the power of unisons/octaves.

Sparse harmony using intervals instead of keys.


----------



## Evan Gamble

jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.



THis type of thinking can be very bad for the ART of putting music to film...

Now if your working on a soup okay fine go about this route :wink:


----------



## Ed

billval3 @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> I find it interesting that two of you mentioned using modes. Is it common for film composers to use modes other than major & minor (ionian & aeolian)?



All the time?


----------



## bryla

Make up your own progressions 

I'm starting figuring out all sorts of weird scales, and seeing what kind of intervals and chords they consist of, and try to bring some harmonic progressions out of it... it's a battle though


----------



## rJames

Evan, even though I agree with your general idea, the job market for composers may reflect a different idea of what is "good."

I find that my musical knowledge takes a back seat to my ability to "copy," a current style. I've found that jsaras' advice about orchestration can go a long way. And although his advice is very general, I think it fits into tips and tricks.

But yes, our ultimate goal should be to elevate the current style.


Evan Gamble @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THis type of thinking can be very bad for the ART of putting music to film...
> 
> Now if your working on a soup okay fine go about this route :wink:
Click to expand...


----------



## Rob Elliott

bryla @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Make up your own progressions
> 
> I'm starting figuring out all sorts of weird scales, and seeing what kind of intervals and chords they consist of, and try to bring some harmonic progressions out of it... it's a battle though




This is sage advice and a quick way to find a 'voice' in a sea of competition. :D 


Rob


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Since everybody is chiming in with good advice, I'm making this thread a sticky...


----------



## Evan Gamble

rJames @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Evan, even though I agree with your general idea, the job market for composers may reflect a different idea of what is "good."
> 
> I find that my musical knowledge takes a back seat to my ability to "copy," a current style. I've found that jsaras' advice about orchestration can go a long way. And although his advice is very general, I think it fits into tips and tricks.
> 
> But yes, our ultimate goal should be to elevate the current style.
> 
> 
> Evan Gamble @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THis type of thinking can be very bad for the ART of putting music to film...
> 
> Now if your working on a soup okay fine go about this route :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah I understand, but I'm finding more and more that there are very few scores I enjoy. Especially ones that go with these formulas, in a good film.

Take for example United 93. Every time they showed Al Qaeda, Powell chose to use "evil" music (low minor tones with ominous beat). This was a horrible decision IMO, for one the audience didn't need music to tell them that the acts that were about to follow were evil, and two it treated the terrorists as if they were the same evil as the bad robots in Transformers! (obviously they are much more complex).

Now the way he chose to score the final scene was amazing (with the exception perhaps of his percussion). The chords washing over the action was amazing, he chose not to be so on the surface.

This is just one example of the trend to tell an audience exactly what they should feel in a scene using the previously stated "tips". I personally avoid these if at all possible ( don't get me wrong I have used them many times myself though).


----------



## Conor

Here's an insight which I have found to be particularly helpful:
If your approach to music is based on "tips and tricks," it will sound like that, which you probably don't want. (See Evan's observations about United 93. I can't second them since I never saw that flick, but the general sense of cheapness he describes is all too common.)

Here's another:
If you ever, EVER start to think in terms of what you "can" and "cannot" do, get your head out of that $%&*ing book and go listen to some music. You'll learn more that way anyway.

Maybe you want to follow a strict set of guidelines -- whether it's classical harmony, or jazz progressions, or serialism, or something out of EIS, or whatever -- because one of those offers the sound you're going for.

Maybe you want to create your own unique set of guidelines for a piece, because that's the sound you're going for.

Maybe you want to refrain from using any identifiable guidelines at all, because that's the sound you're going for.

Maybe your harmonies are the result of slow and subtle changes over time (e.g. minimalism). Maybe your harmonies are merely the coincidental collisions of different lines following their own independent paths (e.g. linear composition). Maybe you don't have any harmonies. It depends on what kind of sound you're going for.

Now in my long-winded way I have finally arrived at something resembling the point:

We, having no idea what you are going for, cannot possibly give you very good advice. :oops: All we can do is throw out some ideas which you may find interesting enough to try out. From there you can judge for yourself what is useful.

That's the spirit in which I gave the (rather broad) examples above -- not "tips and tricks," but ways of thinking that have inspired me to new discoveries. Hope one of them can do the same for you. o-[][]-o 

Ignore anyone who would actually presume to tell you what kinds of sounds to use. Such a person has his/her own agenda, and probably doesn't care about yours.

Cheers,
Conor


----------



## billval3

Conor,

Thanks for your input. I want to engage in a little healthy debate based loosely on what you wrote.

I'm reminded of a podcast I was listening to this morning, in which mixing engineer Charles Dye was being interviewed. He apparently has a DVD out called "Mix it Like a Record" and teaches classes all over the place based on the content of the video. Anyway, he was talking about how mixing was not traditionally taught in books. You learned it by watching what some more experienced guy was doing. It was not "quantified," to use his word. In putting together his course, however, he decided that there must be a way to teach guiding principles that would work in many (if not all) situations.

This reminded me of conversations I've had about orchestration and now about harmony. Is orchestration quantifiable? Is harmony? Are there guiding principles that can be taught in a book? I think the answer is yes to all of those questions.

The danger you are warning against is that a composer might view a given technique, tip, trick, whatever you want to call it, as something to be applied unthinkingly. That is, he or she, might just blindly copy others without using their own ears and without having their own vision.

I agree that this is a serious pitfall to be avoided, but that doesn't negate the idea that we CAN share helpful ideas with each other. It doesn't mean that we should come up with platitudes like, "You can't teach music, you simply have to feel it!" And I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying, by the way.



CobraTrumpet @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> If you ever, EVER start to think in terms of what you "can" and "cannot" do, get your head out of that $%&*ing book and go listen to some music. You'll learn more that way anyway.



Point taken, but I think you take for granted how much can be learned by reading a book. I get a little annoyed when people insist that all the novice composer needs to do is to study lots of music. I'm starting to gain some momentum in my own studies now, but previously, it didn't necessarily do me a bit of good to study complex scores when I didn't have a clue what I was looking at. I was perfectly capable of reading scores, naming triads, and doing basic things like that. With only a basic knowledge of harmony, however, it can be very difficult and frustrating to try to glean anything from what you're looking at (or listening to).

I agree that we can learn more from real world examples than from theory, but I don't find that most books try to teach theory devoid of examples anyway. I also think that most good textbooks (e.g. Piston's _Harmony_) teach common practice and then explain how composers have moved beyond it. I'm actually just getting to that part of the book, which explains why I was asking the question about dominant harmony above.

You spoke of the "sound I'm going for." But what if I don't know what I'm going for? What if I don't know enough to know what I'm going for? Maybe you were just highlighting the broad nature of my question. If so, fair enough.



CobraTrumpet @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> All we can do is throw out some ideas which you may find interesting enough to try out. From there you can judge for yourself what is useful.



:lol: Maybe I phrased my question poorly. All I was suggesting was that some people could do exactly what you just said! I'm not thinking that some million dollar secret is going to be unearthed that will become the panacea for all of my composing difficulties!

Sorry that was so long-winded and I hope you don't take it as a personal affront. It's more me ranting about some things that have been bothering me in general.


----------



## Conor

No worries -- no offense taken at all, and of course no offense intended either. In fact I only meant to say "you" in the general sense of "you, whoever is reading this post looking for advice," since it's become a sticky and all.

YOU, by which I now mean Bill, definitely have your head on straight, so more power to ya. :D

I don't believe that there is nothing to be gained from books (or from fellow composers on forums for that matter). But our medium is *sound*. To learn about music in any significant way, you have to experience sound -- you have to hear it, and you're not gonna get that by reading.

Of course, the key is to understand what you're hearing. You need a certain amount of ear training and theoretical knowledge. But when you have the basics down and are looking to discover that extra "something awesome," which I take to be the spirit of the question, I believe a different approach is in order.

Almost without exception, my most enlightening musical learning experiences have gone something like this:

Music: La la la, la la la, SOMETHING AWESOME, la la la.

Me: Lolwut?

Music: La la la.

Me: No no, I got that part. *rewind*

Music: SOMETHING AWESOME.

Me: OMFG THAT'S AWESOME!

Music: La la la.

Me: Shut up, I'm working here. *rewind - listen - transcribe - play keyboard - check the score - ask a friend - etc. * ... *rewind again*

Music: SOMETHING AWESOME.

Me: Ha! Gotcha! All your SOMETHING AWESOME are belong to me! I has discovered your secrets, I is using them whenever I please, I is bending them to suit my wishes!

Music: La la la.

Me: Yeah, that's right. Pwned.

____________________________________

Hope that entertained somebody. 

I would never say "You can't teach music, you just have to listen." A novice composer has every right to call bull$%&* on that one, because a lot of things CAN be learned from books, and a lot more can be learned from good teachers. But past a certain point I believe it's a teach-a-man-to-fish kind of thing.

Some more random things to check out:
- Deceptive movement off of dominants (e.g. not V-I but V-vi, V-VI, V-bVI, V-bV, V-bII, etc.)
- Intermediate harmonies created by voices in the "main" harmony moving early or late
- Anything and everything moving in parallel
- "Harmonization" of the dotted-quarter/eighth-note "melody" in Mars from The Planets
- Varying harmonic treatment of the low brass triplet fanfare in Mahler 5
- Charles Mingus' "Self-portrait in Three Colors"

Cheers,
Conor


----------



## billval3

Thanks, Conor.


----------



## bryla

Conor, your little something awesome story, is exactly how this happens to me! Although I also transcribe a lot of stuff besides the 'something awesome' and it seems that a lot of techniques can also be found there.

Regarding Mars: D'you mean the triads moving chromatically?


----------



## clarkcontrol

CobraTrumpet @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Maybe you want to follow a strict set of guidelines -- whether it's classical harmony, or jazz progressions, or serialism, or something out of EIS, or whatever -- because one of those offers the sound you're going for.
> 
> Maybe you want to create your own unique set of guidelines for a piece, because that's the sound you're going for.
> 
> Maybe you want to refrain from using any identifiable guidelines at all, because that's the sound you're going for.
> 
> Maybe your harmonies are the result of slow and subtle changes over time (e.g. minimalism). Maybe your harmonies are merely the coincidental collisions of different lines following their own independent paths (e.g. linear composition). Maybe you don't have any harmonies. It depends on what kind of sound you're going for.
> 
> Ignore anyone who would actually presume to tell you what kinds of sounds to use.




While I appreciate the spirit of this message, I think I should clarify "guidelines vs. techniques" as I see it, because we should always be thinking technically, even when we are experimenting.

When I compose, I have to (try to) understand and consider all the musical implications of every note. Harmonies CAN be coincidental collisions, but only as it is experienced by the audience. As a composer, to disregard tonal/harmonic implications (even hidden ones) is lazy. Unless you are going for a sound-effect score (and even then there are harmonic and rhythmic implications) there are always going to be harmonies (or implications thereof).

So I humbly propose is that we should always be aware of these relationships. It is found in every style of music, which is great, because the way these techniques are used (guidelines) helps to define the music, orchestration, etc.

The danger of saying "maybe you're not using any harmony" is that people trying to think outside the(ir) box will try to disconnect what tools they already possess from the process of innovation.

Someone asked if film composers use the modes of the major scale. The answer is yes, %99 of the time (my guess,btw).

But that doesn't even count modes of harmonic/melodic major/minor, pentatonic, or synthetic scales.

Remember, really drilling this stuff will FREE you. You will compose faster, counterpoint will be easier, you will hear harmonies and voicings better, understand more of the subtleties between styles, all of that.

Especially when you WANT to convey a sense of harmonic ambiguity.

Here's the most important point: "Ambiguity" vs. "Obscurity"

In my previous post, I wrote that understanding modes helps me to determine what's NOT in the harmonic sound I'm creating. This means that I can describe harmony with a diad, triad, etc. The examples I was using consisted of a triad with a bass note. This means that if I want more ambiguity, I just remove more notes.

The problem with ignoring harmonic implications is that you run the risk of the music lacking any sense of structure, direction, progression, etc.

At its worst, the music is just meandering around, saying nothing, or the WRONG thing. Think of any music that is not stylistically typical (in a bad way). The voicings in a jazz chart reference classical harmonic practices, for instance. And even non-harmonic implications like using sampled vocal phrases in a videogame soundtrack without checking out what they translate to in english.

One last thing: Some believe that thinking in modes will limit the way you think about harmony. Like in Jazz: a turnaround is dmin7 (d dorian) G7 (G mixolydian) Cmaj7 (C ionian)

This chops up the linear aspect of the whole progression: dmin7 (C major scale) G7 (C major scale) Cmaj7 (C major scale)

Both say the same thing. The second description is easier to imagine linear motion with. Me, personally, I think both ways. The piano being a visual instrument, I can "play around in a key" where I will progress through different modes from the linear movement of the bass note: plagal cadences, deceptive cadences, walk downs/ups, etc. without always verticallizing. More analysis will always come in the editing stage to help direct the arrangement.

O.K. that's enough for now.

Clark


----------



## bryla

clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> One last thing: Some believe that thinking in modes will limit the way you think about harmony. Like in Jazz: a turnaround is dmin7 (d dorian) G7 (G mixolydian) Cmaj7 (C ionian)
> 
> This chops up the linear aspect of the whole progression: dmin7 (C major scale) G7 (C major scale) Cmaj7 (C major scale)


Both if you don't understand the modes within that major scale, you don't understand the scale at all


----------



## bryla

Rob Elliott @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> bryla @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your own progressions
> 
> I'm starting figuring out all sorts of weird scales, and seeing what kind of intervals and chords they consist of, and try to bring some harmonic progressions out of it... it's a battle though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sage advice and a quick way to find a 'voice' in a sea of competition. :D
> 
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...

What does 'sage' mean?


----------



## clarkcontrol

bryla @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last thing: Some believe that thinking in modes will limit the way you think about harmony. Like in Jazz: a turnaround is dmin7 (d dorian) G7 (G mixolydian) Cmaj7 (C ionian)
> 
> This chops up the linear aspect of the whole progression: dmin7 (C major scale) G7 (C major scale) Cmaj7 (C major scale)
> 
> 
> 
> Both if you don't understand the modes within that major scale, you don't understand the scale at all
Click to expand...


The scale comes first. The mode is determined by a note in the scale. One can understand modes in a non-technical to a total technical sense: All the white notes and this note here is the key note, C major from g to g, 5th mode C major, G mixolydian.

This can be why "instinct" composers can shy away from thinking modally. They think that without all the terminology, there is no substance. I'm just saying that the jazz turnaround example is akin to having someone saying "O.K. we're in the key of C for the duration of this turnaround" instead of "D dorian, G mixolydian, C ionian."

Clark


----------



## bryla

You misunderstand.....


----------



## billval3

When I asked about modes I meant do many composers write in a particular mode, i.e. "Here's a cue in the A Phrygian mode."

That, to my understanding, is different than saying, "Here's a cue in F maj, which includes notes from the A Phrygian scale over an Am7."

Or am I totally missing the point of what's being said?


----------



## clarkcontrol

clarkcontrol @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> Modes can seem cumbersome if your harmonic rhythm is fast, but that's what every chord change in a jazz chart can imply (though most jazz tunes are almost completely diatonic to two or so modes, like the blues).



Correction: Should read "most jazz tunes are completely diatonic to two or so KEYS, like the blues."

The chord changes in most standard jazz repertoire reflect modes of general key centers. The chords represent the modes inside the key. Think "Autumn Leaves."

The whole tune is basically in one scale (let's say Bb major, as that's the published key).

But wait, you say, doesn't the song start with C minor and end in G minor?

And I say "Hell, yeah!" (or something)

The changes are C minor (dorian), F7 (mixolydian), Bbmaj7 (ionian), Eb major (lydian), Amin7b5 (locrian), D7 (5th mode harmonic minor), G minor (aolian) for the first eight bars.

SO, you could play Bb major scale notes for pretty much everything EXCEPT for the D7, which is the same but the F natural is sharpened for that chord change. Much easier, no?

So modes can have a complicating effect on tonality when the key doesn't change, but the real power comes from substituting modes, creating what may seem like chromatic violations of the home key.

So the substitutions could be:

C minor (phrygian--Ab major scale)
F7 (super locrian--Gb ascending melodic minor scale)
Bb maj7 (lydian--F major scale)
Eb maj7 (Eb Diminished scale)
Amin7b5 (A backwards diminished to create a more dominant sound)
D7 (D backward diminished)
G min7 (phrygian--Eb major scale)

You COULD play Bb major scale melodies over all of the tune, but that might get boring. You could also "try" chromatic notes to liven up the melodic development, but knowledge of scales and their modes will speed up the composing, arranging, and editing process. It will unlock new tonalities so you can integrate colors deliberately, rather than always gravitating to familiar territory.

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

billval3 @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> When I asked about modes I meant do many composers write in a particular mode, i.e. "Here's a cue in the A Phrygian mode."
> 
> That, to my understanding, is different than saying, "Here's a cue in F maj, which includes notes from the A Phrygian scale over an Am7."
> 
> Or am I totally missing the point of what's being said?



They are one in the same. The usefulness of thinking in modes is more obvious when thinking of the progression I described above, versus one scale/mode/pedal for a cue.

John Williams would be a better subject to analyze versus Zimmer where he will remain diatonic to a key, but use modes within that key. John Williams will change keys alot, so understanding each key center as well as the mode helps to understand his melodic writing:

Think C major triad root position over Db bass to a G major triad 1st position over an A bass (top note is common tone). By analyzing possible modes for each vertical harmony, one can deconstruct the "progression," see how the linear movement (c to b, e to d) in the triad is reflected in each mode, then reassemble, deviate with a different mode, expand or compress the harmonic ambiguity, or whatever.

Clark


----------



## Conor

clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> The problem with ignoring harmonic implications is that you _run the risk_ of the music lacking any sense of structure, direction, progression, etc.



Because risk is something to be avoided in music, right? :wink: 

To be serious about it, I like what you have to say, and here you've raised some crucial points about what harmony _does_. It creates structure, direction, and progression. But is it therefore indispensable at all times? Is it the _only_ element of music that can effectively create these things?

I don't want to give the impression that I advocate _ignoring_ harmony. (I'm a jazz musician too -- I live for it! :mrgreen: )

But I have started to (sometimes) adopt a mindset where harmonic concerns come late in the compositional process, so that I have already achieved structure, direction, and progression through other elements (melody, rhythm, dynamics, orchestration/color...). This has been quite enlightening, like looking at everything through a new lens.


----------



## billval3

bryla @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Make up your own progressions
> 
> I'm starting figuring out all sorts of weird scales, and seeing what kind of intervals and chords they consist of, and try to bring some harmonic progressions out of it... it's a battle though



Do you typically use this technique for a whole piece/cue? What kind of situations do you find it works best in?


----------



## billval3

rJames @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Harmony in fourths/fifths is the new dominant. (transition)



Could you explain what that means?


----------



## bryla

Depends on the scale.


----------



## Dave Connor

billval3 @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> When I asked about modes I meant do many composers write in a particular mode, i.e. "Here's a cue in the A Phrygian mode."
> 
> That, to my understanding, is different than saying, "Here's a cue in F maj, which includes notes from the A Phrygian scale over an Am7."
> 
> Or am I totally missing the point of what's being said?



Exactly right. One is generally in some mode no matter what if you're doing anything that is triadic or traditional in nature (as most mainstream films still are by far.) This is a different story from deliberately using a single mode in order to evoke the unique characteristics of that mode. Even so, the choice of major or minor is a choice of mode in the scientific sense. 

So usually when someone talks about writing _modally_ they are referring to the more exotic sounding modes mentioned here. The gravitational aspects of those modes in respect to harmonic movement are quite different than the traditional V-I of diatonic harmony (Ionian.) Cadences now become v-I or bVII-1 or bII-1 etc., depending on the mode.


----------



## Dave Connor

billval3 @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Yes, I understood all of that. I think the original intention of my question may have been misunderstood.



I was only confirming that you understood since you asked if you were missing something (I basically said you weren't missing anything.)



billval3 @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> A question for you (or whoever): Aren't v-I or bVII-1 cadences still basically dominant in nature? I ask because someone suggested that dominant progressions should not be used anymore.


Not dominant in the classic sense but dominant to various degrees psychologically. The main point being is that ALL the harmonic movement yielded by modal harmony is an avoidance of traditional diatonic harmony while allowing for cadences that are not V-I. Therefore: I III VI V I will sound differently in each mode. 



billval3 @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Also, I would still love it if someone would explain whether or not a lot of modern film music is making use of secondary dominants.


Yes, all day long every day but mainly in the sense that any chord may be preceded by it's V. As has been pointed out here, the absolute hewing to diatonic harmony is largely avoided so you aren't going to get secondary dominants in that traditional context sense. Period pieces where the idea is to sound Classical being the obvious exception.


----------



## clarkcontrol

Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> billval3 @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A question for you (or whoever): Aren't v-I or bVII-1 cadences still basically dominant in nature? I ask because someone suggested that dominant progressions should not be used anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Not dominant in the classic sense but dominant to various degrees psychologically. The main point being is that ALL the harmonic movement yielded by modal harmony is an avoidance of traditional diatonic harmony while allowing for cadences that are not V-I. Therefore: I III VI V I will sound differently in each mode.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see where you're coming from.

I see roman numerals in a stricter sense. Just as we use modes to define a scale degree as the key note, roman numerals also define a scale degree. These cannot be moved, just as modes cannot be moved (or they would be a different mode!). For instance, when dealing with a minor key, the first note of the scale is the sixth scale degree of the relative major. So a V7-i progression in a minor key (as described by its key signature) is actually III7-vi.

So I agree with you as " I III VI V I" will sound different in each mode, in reality the reason why they don't sound the same is because they aren't the same. 

I realize you simplified terminology to make it easier to explain, but I wanted to clarify.

v-I or bVII-1 cadences can substitute for a dominant to tonic progression, but it will be weaker harmonically. Any chord can cadance to another, it's just that the V-I relationship has the strongest pull in western music.

There are many ways to color the dominant cadence. No need to be shy about using it. Here's one in C:

Chord Notation: Galt7-Cmaj7b13
Modes used: G super locrian, C harmonic major
Polytonal spelling: Ab minor triad (root position) over G bass, E major triad (1st position) over C bass. Only one note moves in the R.H.

The polytonal nature of this particular example makes it great for contemporary film or post-modern jazz. Polytonality, to be honest, is why I got into modes so much. 

Clark


----------



## Dave Connor

clarkcontrol @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Ah, I see where you're coming from.
> 
> I see roman numerals in a stricter sense.



Sure, because they are used that way. I just didn't want to explain all that or type One, Three, Six etc.


----------



## clarkcontrol

O.K., that's what I figured.

Here's something else I can't figure:



Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> ALL the harmonic movement yielded by modal harmony is an avoidance of traditional diatonic harmony while allowing for cadences that are not V-I.
> 
> The absolute hewing to diatonic harmony is largely avoided so you aren't going to get secondary dominants in that traditional context sense. Period pieces where the idea is to sound Classical being the obvious exception.



In the great majority of what I consider the middle of the road modal film scoring, I find that diatonic harmony is very present. The minimalistic nature of "Batman Begins" encourages pedalpoint movement to "cadence around" the scale.

Listen to "Pirates of the Caribbean" as well (the main themes). Very diatonic.

I really don't mean to be confrontational, I am somewhat confused by your explanation. I am just using these popular movies as an example where Zimmer (as he usually does when he's not ripping off Holst) is "absolutely hewing to diatonic harmony."

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

I guess the question is what are you calling modal harmony or modal harmonic movement?

If you use the notes and modes of the parent scale to achieve harmonic movement, isn't this diatonic, by definition?

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

Jeez, Clark, don't be rude. Let the man answer!

He probably means "non-Classical-traditional harmonic movement."

I think technically, though, that it would still be called diatonic. Plus, There are some pretty cutting edge progressions in Beethovens work, for example. It would be hard to find something that hasn't been done already in a diatonic modal sense from over 150 years ago.



Now, back in your cage, Clark!

-Clark's mother


----------



## Dave Connor

_Diatonic_ refers to the degree relationships in a Major scale such as C Major. Technically it means no chromatics involved in the basic scale (according to _Harvard's Dictionary of Music)_. So Mozart and those behind and in front of him are diatonic composers (Classicists.) The modes generally refer to the old church modes. The Gregorian Chants really don't convey classic diatonicism any more than Bartok's highly modal works convey Beethoven's or Schumann's harmonic language.

I agree that Diatonic music is alive and well in film and always has been. Recent years however have steered away from traditional use of classic diatonic relationships with a freer more transient use of chords found within classic harmony. So it may be technically a diatonic treatment of a triadic formation or movement but not strict diatonicism as found in Beethoven or Mozart.

Regarding modal melodic and harmonic treatment or approach, this indeed will yield non-diatonic harmonic movement. I didn't suggest that it is common in film in a strict usage but is used in a transient way often interspersed with various tertian harmonies (moved around however.) My suggestion is that it is a valid and highly usable device for fresh sounding harmonic movement that is not subject to the tyranny of V-I diatonicism. But it's just a single device and there are many more (which Conor seemed to list very well.)


----------



## clarkcontrol

O.K., it's official. I have no life today.



CobraTrumpet @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with ignoring harmonic implications is that you _run the risk_ of the music lacking any sense of structure, direction, progression, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because risk is something to be avoided in music, right? :wink:
> 
> To be serious about it, I like what you have to say, and here you've raised some crucial points about what harmony _does_. It creates structure, direction, and progression. But is it therefore indispensable at all times? Is it the _only_ element of music that can effectively create these things?
> 
> I don't want to give the impression that I advocate _ignoring_ harmony. (I'm a jazz musician too -- I live for it! :mrgreen: )
> 
> But I have started to (sometimes) adopt a mindset where harmonic concerns come late in the compositional process, so that I have already achieved structure, direction, and progression through other elements (melody, rhythm, dynamics, orchestration/color...). This has been quite enlightening, like looking at everything through a new lens.
Click to expand...


Great point. Why do I hammer about all these technicalities? I mean, if Dave doesn't come after me with a tuning fork to the head from all my nit-picking it'll be a miracle (so it's not about being popular). Here's why:

As this musical grammer becomes second nature you can compose faster. No more guessing "what am I going for here?" --EVEN IF you adopt that "mindset where harmonic concerns come late...in the process."

You can "follow your ear" with impunity because you are confident that you can edit most efficiently later, changing only those things to streamline musical intent without inadvertently cancelling out what compelled you to those notes originally.

Nobody's ear is as perfect as they want it to be. That's where this stuff can help cover the rest of the distance from your inner ear to your outer ear, or your brain to the page.

It can help with transcription, too. I can hear and identify voicings (really crunchy, chromatic ones) a lot easier, I can deconstruct techniques then reengineer them to avoid that "copied my paper word-for-word from the encyclopedia syndrome."




Next time, instead of nit-picking, I'll come back with more harmonic goodies...

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

Dave,

Thank you for honoring me with a reply. I see where you are coming from, I believe. I guess my only issue would be considering these two things:



Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> _Diatonic_ refers to the degree relationships in a Major scale such as C Major. Technically it means no chromatics involved in the basic scale
> 
> Regarding modal melodic and harmonic treatment or approach, this indeed will yield non-diatonic harmonic movement.



So the last sentence would imply that modal treatment would yield non-diatonic movement. I guess what's not being said here is that for every harmonic change there is a new mode _based on a new parent scale_.

This is akin to my reharmonization of "Autumn Leaves" where I used a different parent scale to generate the mode of each chord change.

I think we are saying the same thing. It is important to note that a lot of people think "stagnant harmony" when they hear "modal," like the "modal jazz" movement that rebelled against the highly chromatic late bop stylings.

Sorry to be so picky, but just saying "mode" doesn't guaruntee chromaticism, as every mode has a parent scale it is diatonic to.

Clark


----------



## Dave Connor

Clark. Thank you for honoring me with a reply. I see where you are coming from, I believe. I guess my only issue would be considering these two things:

_Diatonic refers to the degree relationships in a Major scale such as C Major. Technically it means no chromatics involved in the basic scale

Regarding modal melodic and harmonic treatment or approach, this indeed will yield non-diatonic harmonic movement._

So the last sentence would imply that modal treatment would yield non-diatonic movement. I guess what's not being said here is that for every harmonic change there is a new mode based on a new parent scale.

D.C. Not in strict modal writing where everything is derived from the single mode. If you change modes you are now dealing with that new scale - true. But yes if you are changing modes or even key centers in diatonic based writing there is always an attendant scale (which can of course be ignored which will generate it's own tensions.)


Clark. I think we are saying the same thing. It is important to note that a lot of people think "stagnant harmony" when they hear "modal," like the "modal jazz" movement that rebelled against the highly chromatic late bop stylings.

D.C. Sure, something can be modal in that it is dominated by a particular modal quality such as Miles Davis' "So What." But that's not the same as deriving all harmonies from a mode the same way we derive harmonies in diatonic music. The point being that you can use the classic approach of building triads upon each degree of a scale of either a mode or diatonic scale to simplify the process of creating a harmonic palette that is cohesive. It's a tip or trick so to speak :wink: 

Clark. Sorry to be so picky, but just saying "mode" doesn't guaruntee chromaticism, as every mode has a parent scale it is diatonic to.

D.C. I would say that the mode IS the parent scale just as a diatonic scale can be and that they are two different things. Really the issue is that the Ionian mode came to dominate and was identified as diatonic (because it is two tetra chords I would imagine) and became literally _Traditional Harmony_ so we grope for something less traditional sounding as all composers have from the beginning of it all.

I enjoy this Clark so thank you too.


----------



## billval3

Here are two related quotes from http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Fifth-Walter-Piston/dp/0393954803/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226664331&sr=8-1 (Piston) to chew on:



> ...after common practice...a number of composers sought and achieved ways of weakening the dominant effect, even to the point of extinction. In part this can be accounted for by the resurgence of interest in modal harmony, in which triads on modal degrees were used more frequently and prominently. A natural concomitant of this was the appearance of the cadential minor dominant resolving to either a major or a minor tonic. (p. 471)





> ...even in the period after common practice, the evidence indicates that in many cases composers were intent on preserving the feeling of some kind of tonal center, a point of harmonic gravitation fully comparable to the classical tonic but defined by a non-classical array of harmonic conditions.
> 
> The most important means of defining a tonal center, in the absence of a preceding dominant, became and remained the solitary tonic element in itself, asserted vigorously or subtly but always definitely, whether as a triad or as a single pitch used somewhat like a pedal point, or even as a dissonant element in a chord. (p. 483)


----------



## Dave Connor

We disagree on the definition of diatonic but this is actually quite common. Some composers do not even consider ANY of the minor scales (let alone modes) as being diatonic (see Wikipedia.) The Major Scale from C to B is to me diatonic (as also defined in the Harvard Music Dictionary.) It's really about one's mental approach. If I'm dealing with a mode I am thinking very deliberately non-diatonically. That's the whole point to me. So I stay within the mode which of course is not diatonic i.e. a major scale.

But this is what composers do: think in ways that aids their creativity. It's about the music in the end rather then the semantic description of a very abstract art.


----------



## Dave Connor

clarkcontrol @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Or A phrygian. Key signature: F major (Bb). I personally would treat my roman numeral chord spellings as components of an F major scale (that being the key signature), so my "tonic" chord would actually be iii or iii7, while the "minor dominant" would be vii or vii7. If I wanted to force a traditional dominant sound on the "minor dominant" vii sound, THAT would be chromaticism because I would be putting a G sharp into the mix. A G sharp is not diatonic to A phrygian.Clark



This is the exact opposite of how I would approach it. The whole point of the mode is to stop thinking about the degrees of a Major scale but rather the degrees of the mode. 'A' would be i in this case or the first degree. Otherwise I'm thinking (as you do apparently) in 'F' which is what I'm deliberately trying to avoid.

Did you notice that my explanation of using the modes was identical to Pistons with the same terminology and stated purpose of their use? I wasn't aware of his take modal harmony at all. It's really a very simple procedure of giving yourself a set of entirely new chordal relationships on the 7 degrees of a scale. A new one, two, three etc. To think that my i is actually a iii of a Major scale is interjecting way too much thought into the process.

But this is my thought process which might be as tortuous to you and yours is to mine. (Just a further explanation.)


----------



## clarkcontrol

Right.

Well, I'm glad you haven't given up on me. :wink: 

O.K., I like to think if I'm in phrygian, etc., I am diatonic to that mode.

The only reason I take issue with the roman numeral thing (and I guess Piston) is that I believe it is a bit naive to disregard the parent scale (that generates the mode).

Sure, it means that you can't "shake" the major, minor, or whatever scale from lurking in the background, but this ALSO means that when adopting a new tonic note, you don't lull yourself into one-dimentional thinking about the harmonic references you create with the "new" V-I or any other progression. 

Maybe someone transposing their favorite licks to another mode doesn't care about certain unintentional relationships that would take the audience somewhere they haven't considered-----but if they WERE conscious of certain collateral relationships they wouldn't approve, as the audience actually HEARS SOMETHING that they didn't write!

I prefer to enjoy my modes responsibly. :mrgreen: 

See, for me this goes way beyond two layers (parent scale, mode) relationship. I can be thinking simultaneously in multiple tonalities and/or diminished and tritone substitutions, for example.

E/C could be read as:

C harmonic major (diatonic), 
C major7 b13 (chromatic), or 
E major chord/scale over a C pedal/scale/chord (polytonality).

I'm not trying to convert anyone here (least of all you, Dave). I just want people to realize that there are many ways to look at one thing, and I'm very glad that you see it differently, because there is no one way (thank god).

But that just means that I am dilligent about all of it, always wanting to see Every connection.

Clark


----------



## Dave Connor

clarkcontrol @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Right.
> 
> Well, I'm glad you haven't given up on me. :wink:
> 
> O.K., I like to think if I'm in phrygian, etc., I am diatonic to that mode.
> 
> The only reason I take issue with the roman numeral thing (and I guess Piston) is that I believe it is a bit naive to disregard the parent scale (that generates the mode).



Ok I will nitpick here for a bit of fun. The modes are not derived from a parent scale, they _are_ parent scales. They are not C to C is Ionian, D to D Dorian etc, in that they are not _derived_ from a single scale. They are each a scale in it's own right. It is taught C to C, D to D etc., as a way of finding them easily using the C major scale. For a thousand years they were essentially the _Key_ of a chant or whatever. So you have a chant in the Lydian mode which are the intervals we understand them to be today. Those guys were not thinking about some other scale as a parent they were thinking about whatever mode they were in. I understand that you want to maintain the association with a parent scale since we were all taught that way but that's a teaching device not a historic fact. But we all have are ways of thinking.

I totally agree with your avoidance of limiting your options by only dealing with the scale steps of a particular mode in an ultimate sense as a composer. I have so many devices back there in my gray matter that I too will immediately see the relationships you mentioned. My ultimate approach is anything goes at any time. Truth is that this discussion has made me want to return to the modes to explore those limitations. Even if I only use that approach for a few bars than launch in whatever direction, I remember how cool those chordal movements sound and it would be fun to revisit them.


----------



## billval3

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> The modes are not derived from a parent scale, they _are_ parent scales. They are not C to C is Ionian, D to D Dorian etc, in that they are not _derived_ from a single scale. They are each a scale in it's own right. It is taught C to C, D to D etc., as a way of finding them easily using the C major scale.



I agree with Dave. A mode is a series of whole steps and half steps. The Ionian mode is W W H W W W H. The Mixolydian mode is W W H W W H W. It's not "really" a I scale starting on V, even though we might use that line of thinking to figure out what given mode works out to be.



Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> I totally agree with your avoidance of limiting your options by only dealing with the scale steps of a particular mode in an ultimate sense as a composer.



Also (and maybe this is something Clark has been getting at) it may be important for us to keep in mind the relation to the "norm" (i.e. Major/Minor). That way we can be aware of what we are accomplishing by choosing to use, say, Mixolydian instead of a standard major scale.

While we're at it here's some potentially useful information from Persichetti's _Twentieth-Century Harmony_:



> The distinctive flavor of these...modes is exploited by employing harmonic progressions in which the characteristic scale steps occur often. This tone keeps the mode from becoming a major or natural minor scale. For example, a lydian passage on D should contain a high percentage of passages that contain the tone G# (raised fourth step); otherwise the lydian flavor will be lost.



I think this is an important point that I may not have readily figured out on my own! Persichetti goes on to list the "primary" and "secondary" chords of each mode. The primary chords are the "tonic, plus two dominant equivalents." So, instead of I, IV, and V (in Ionian), we have:

i, ii, and IV in Dorian
i, II, and vii in Phrygian
I, II, and vii in Lydian
I, v, and VII in Mixolydian


----------



## Dave Connor

All very good points bv. Persichetti has a very good take on the modes. In fact his book is excellent all around.


----------



## clarkcontrol

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> I understand that you want to maintain the association with a parent scale since we were all taught that way but that's a teaching device not a historic fact.



Coincidental that they are all "derived" from the major scale, no? I don't see why we should ignore theory, and I'm glad you guys give that a nod. I also don't want to be known as the "theory nazi" or some such thing, but there is another reason why I resist the urge to "explore those limitations," though I'm NOT saying you're wasting your time by doing so.

Charlie Parker didn't declare that his revolutionary jazz language had particular features that tie into classical theory. But jazz players now can create shortcuts to getting particular chromatic harmony by thinking about the "generating scale" as I see it (parent scale has a double meaning now in this thread so maybe I should use Grandparent Scale--hahaha!).

Let's say that we want to generate a highly chromatic sound but we don't want to think b9, #9, #4, #5 (b13), b7. So we think Super Locrian instead, and play diatonically within that mode.

NOW, here's the thing: If we play the grandparent scale here as if we are cadencing around the chord tones in that original key, then we actually outline the altered harmony perfectly! No need to reinvent the wheel. Plus the original harmonic language sounds much different in the new context. Twice the mileage out of the same material!

billval3, you put a great quote there on lydian harmony. Here's how thinking of the grandparent scale helps my point here. Persichetti says we must highlight the salient features of the lydian sound (the #4). Well, in the generating scale this is the leading tone, and it tends to partner well with moving to the tonic (think "Maria" from West Side Story). In the relative minor it moves well to the key note, or makes a real neat add 9 sound to the aolian minor chord. All this info translates directly to the success of outlining the lydian sound. Using a maj7 voicing from the grandparent scale sounds great over the lydian key note. Etc., etc.

The purpose ultimately being that I can work less. There is so much overlap, working on one sound (ascending melodic minor) can help another (lydian b7) and another (super locrian) because they are the SAME sound.

Melodic material generated in one mode can be used in another mode that uses the same grandparent. This is the primary reason for thinking in modes as a jazz player. The jazz solo can outline the chromatic harmony in a unique manner (NOT outlining the 1, 3, and 5 of the mode as you would "normally"), sound totally consonant with the chromatic harmony, all the while accenting the unique elements of the grandparent scale in order to most strongly emphasize its salient color.

This works so well for film music, IMHO.

All with less work.

Great discussion, guys.

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> My ultimate approach is anything goes at any time. Truth is that this discussion has made me want to return to the modes to explore those limitations. Even if I only use that approach for a few bars than launch in whatever direction, I remember how cool those chordal movements sound and it would be fun to revisit them.



It's all good.


Tip #47: Let's say we're in C ionian. I want to outline elements in the scale that could imply another color (ambiguity-opportunity for transposition, eventual chromaticism, etc.) but also remains faithful to the mode diatonically. So over a C pedal I could play a downward melodic figure C-B-G-D cadencing or resolving up to E.

It could also be a chord that resolves the C and the D upward to D and E. Great material for orchestration: Two outside notes could be woods then strings on the B and G sustaining through the two chords, all over low C in cellos.

So I'm "thinking" G ionian language to temporarily suspend the "classical" sound of a Major scale. This can be preceded by the same shell transposed to C ionian so the eventual melodic shape would be F-E-C-G then C-B-G-D resolve up to E.

The chord treatment would be the same thing (but both chords would resolve upwards) so you would get a neat melodic shape from the outside voices (F-G-C-D on top and G-A-D-E on bottom). Inside voices would move twice as slow: first chord is E and G, second is B and G.

I really should provide mp3s of this stuff. It looks so complicated on the page, but it sounds simple (and it's pretty effective).

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

billval3 @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Persichetti goes on to list the "primary" and "secondary" chords of each mode. The primary chords are the "tonic, plus two dominant equivalents." So, instead of I, IV, and V (in Ionian), we have:
> 
> i, ii, and IV in Dorian
> i, II, and vii in Phrygian
> I, II, and vii in Lydian
> I, v, and VII in Mixolydian



I've got to go back and check this out again. Fooling around with these chords just like they are provides some pleaseò¡3   ‹†—¡3   ‹†˜¡3   ‹†™¡3   ‹†š¡3   ‹†›¡3   ‹†œ¡3   ‹†¡3   ‹†ž¡3   ‹†Ÿ¡3   ‹† ¡3   ‹†¡¡3   ‹†¢¡3   ‹†£¡3   ‹†¤¡3   ‹†¥¡3   ‹†¦¡3   ‹†§¡3   ‹†¨¡3   ‹†©¡3   ‹†ª¡3   ‹†«¡3   ‹†¬¡3   ‹†­¡3   ‹†®¡3   ‹†¯¡3   ‹†°¡3   ‹†±¡3   ‹†²¡3   ‹†³¡3   ‹†´¡3   ‹†µ¡3   ‹†¶¡3   ‹†·¡3   ‹†¸¡3   ‹†¹¡3   ‹†º¡3   ‹†»¡3   ‹†¼¡3   ‹†½¡3   ‹†¾¡3   ‹†¿¡3   ‹†À¡3   ‹†Á¡3   ‹†Â¡3   ‹†Ã¡3   ‹†Ä¡3   ‹†Å¡3   ‹†Æ¡3   ‹†Ç¡3   ‹†È¡3   ‹†É¡3   ‹†Ê¡3   ‹†Ë¡3   ‹†Ì¡3   ‹†Í¡3   ‹†Î¡4   ‹†Ï¡4   ‹†Ð¡4   ‹†Ñ¡4   ‹†Ò¡4   ‹†Ó¡4   ‹†Ô¡4   ‹†Õ¡4   ‹†Ö¡4   ‹†×¡4   ‹†Ø¡4   ‹†Ù¡4   ‹†Ú¡4   ‹†Û¡4   ‹†Ü¡4   ‹†Ý¡4   ‹†Þ¡4   ‹†ß¡4   ‹†à¡4   ‹†á¡4   ‹†â¡4   ‹†ã¡4   ‹†ä¡4   ‹†å¡4   ‹†æ¡4   ‹†ç¡4   ‹†è¡4   ‹†é¡4   ‹†ê¡4   ‹†ë¡4   ‹†ì¡4   ‹†í¡4   ‹†î¡4   ‹†ï¡4


----------



## Dave Connor

clarkcontrol @ Mon Nov 17 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you want to maintain the association with a parent scale since we were all taught that way but that's a teaching device not a historic fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidental that they are all "derived" from the major scale, no?
Click to expand...


No. The modes pre-date what we call the major scale (i.e the major scale is derived from the Ionian mode.) You could pick any mode and say it's the parent of them all (i.e. there is only one mode with different starting points.) You seem to suggest there is only the major scale with different starting points and we call these the modes. As bv pointed out, the modes are scales based on whole and half steps as opposed to derivative of any scale. Remember you have a thousand years of the modes and no such thing as a major scale in the sense we see it today. Even Persichetti's use of the modes is not traditional to the ancient concept. He's building triads on the various degrees which is not the way they were used. The writing back then was far more linear and not the Tertian Harmony we know today.

Also you mention the super locrian being used in whatever way. I would distinguish between the interjecting of any mode anywhere and _being_ in a given mode. I can use C major anywhere but it doesn't mean I'm in C. My point is that if I'm in C I'm going to do things based on that key so if I interject a modal scale into it I'm not in that mode but just using it.


----------



## billval3

Dave Connor @ Mon Nov 17 said:


> clarkcontrol @ Mon Nov 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you want to maintain the association with a parent scale since we were all taught that way but that's a teaching device not a historic fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidental that they are all "derived" from the major scale, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The modes pre-date what we call the major scale (i.e the major scale is derived from the Ionian mode.) You could pick any mode and say it's the parent of them all (i.e. there is only one mode with different starting points. You seem to suggest there is only the major scale with different starting points and we call these the modes. As bv pointed out, the modes are scales based on whole and half steps as opposed to derivative of any scale. Remember you have a thousand years of the modes and no such thing as a major scale in the sense we see it today. Even Persichetti's use of the modes is not traditional to the ancient concept. He's building triads on the various degrees which is not the way they were used. The writing back then was far more linear and not the Tertian Harmony we know today.
> 
> Also you mention the super locrian being used in whatever way. I would distinguish between the interjecting of any mode anywhere and _being_ in a given mode. I can use C major anywhere but it doesn't mean I'm in C. My point is that if I'm in C I'm going to do things based on that key so if I interject a modal scale into it I'm not in that mode but just using it.
Click to expand...


Dave, I think you're dead on. If we accept this "parent scale" idea, why couldn't we say that the major scale is derived from the fifth step of lydian? Or that the natural minor scale is derived from the third step of lydian?

A lydian scale starting on G would be G A B C# D E F# G
If we make a new scale based on the third step we get B C# D E F# G A B

There you have it. I've just proven that everything is derived from the Lydian mode! :shock: 

I think we all agree we can do whatever we want with the tools we've been talking about. I don't think you can change the definition of what the church modes are or where they came from, but they can certainly be thought of and used in many ways.

Dave, that's an interesting point about the modes not being used in a tertian manner in the first place. Clark, you suggested we not even necessarily think about conventional triads when making use of various modes. Good stuff!


----------



## gsilbers

nice stuff in here.. 

a few points... 

as for why not a V-I cadence.. the rational is to not "finish" the music.. as the movie goes on. unless is an act breakk or something that really calls for it. but u dont want to tell the audience this movie is over when its 8 mins in.


----------



## jsaras

clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> clarkcontrol @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Autumn Leaves." The whole tune is basically in one scale (let's say Bb major, as that's the published key).
> 
> The changes are C minor (dorian), F7 (mixolydian), Bbmaj7 (ionian), Eb major (lydian), Amin7b5 (locrian), D7 (5th mode harmonic minor), G minor (aolian) for the first eight bars.
> 
> SO, you could play Bb major scale notes for pretty much everything EXCEPT for the D7
Click to expand...

.

One thing I learned from hanging with Barry Harris was what he called the "major sixth-diminshed" scale, also called the "major bebop scale". It's a major scale with an added #5, making it an eight note scale. So in Bb major, the added note would be an F#. The F# is a great passing tone, but when the F7 comes up it's the b9 of the chord.

The relative minor of Bb major is G minor. Still using the Bb major bebop scale over the the Ami7b5 - D7- Gmi, the added F# allows you to properly outline the D7 chord and you also get the b9 and #9.

So a single scale can give you a major key ii-V7 with an altered dominant as well as a minor key ii-V7 with altered dominant. It keeps the mental processing for playing jazz to a minimum and it allows your ears to take over and get you into some fun trouble!

Barry has a very involved harmonic system based on this scale, but I don't want to give it all away.

Peace,
Jonas


----------



## clarkcontrol

Dave Connor @ Mon Nov 17 said:


> clarkcontrol @ Mon Nov 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidental that they are all "derived" from the major scale, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


My point is they're all connected. Unless you're going to channel traditional medieval music, as you explain very well as being linear and not harmonic in the vertical sense, then the modes simply are a theoretical device and nothing else.

THAT'S why I have a hard time just "being" in a mode. Contemporary musical conventions (tertian harmony, polyphony, etc.) keep me from feeling successful in that regard. I suppose that's also why:

Persichetti, as you pointed out, abitrarily designated "dominant" chords for each mode. Jazz utilizes modes to create shortcuts to realizing complex harmonic relationships.

So modes really have more value if we use them out of their original context (sacred medieval monody). You don't have to agree with me here, of course, it's just my view.

RE: Mode Usage

Sure, we can all say that lydian is the mother of all modes. Once again, my point was that they are all connected.

Sure, excessive analysis/application can over complicate any compositional process (my "Autumn Leaves" example). Sure, there might be better ways of conceptualizing harmony for a given situation. My point for that exercise, though, was to show that diatonic melodies in superimposed modes can describe extreme chromatic harmony, a far cry from just playing around in the Bb scale for the whole tune!

I got into modes late in the game. The reason I eventually delved into modal application is because as I got into more extreme harmonic expression, I had to accept that chords and scales are the same thing. I used to think that they were stupid. I mean, why not just call it 3rd mode of a major scale instead of phrygian? But they can be shortcuts:

For instance, Fmaj13#11 is all the white notes. So it's easier to just imagine a C major scale than do all that addition. BUT, it's still important to understand the chord, as each note has a different harmonic/melodic pull.

Quartal harmony begets pentatonic scales, synthetic scales begets atypical harmonic relationships. The bonus with modes of the major scale is that if I accomodate the harmonic/melodic precedent of major/minor diatonic practices (connected to the "grandparent" or "uncle Lydian" or the relative minor), I can avoid or deliberately reference those sounds when using them. And that's the beauty of it.

I mean, think of a deceptive cadence. That's a very basic example.

It would be silly to ignore the relationships between the modes of the three diminished scales. Diminished substitutions can create the most interesting harmonies.

So when I approach synthetic scales (and not just the subtly modified Barry Harris example) or unusual pentatonics, this habit helps me intuitively create logical tension and release melodic shapes or harmonic progressions when there is no kinship to other modes or a "grandparent" scale, or whatever you want to call it.

1/2 step in the scale can encourage vii-I or IV-iii type cadences, intervals of thre or four half-steps encourages tertian harmonic relationships, etc.

It's the same reason I use modes for anything else. I just use them, I don't try to be "in" them in the medieval sense. Even when I'm playing "So What" or "Little Sunflower" I see the mode I'm utilizing as part of a larger scheme, so I can exploit any and all melodic opportunities as indicated by the chord/scale relationships.

Clark


----------



## clarkcontrol

RE: Autumn Leaves

[quote:ee2c1aebc8="Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:42 pm"]The most obvious and not quite earth-shattering substitution would take place over 
/A-7b5/D7/G-/ , where A-7b5 and D7(b9) would naturally suggest G harmonic minor.
Borrowing from a very near parallel universe would in this case bring a different shading to the whole, without shaking the foundations the way the implication of G phrygian would.
In phrygian, there is a V-7b5 and you could argue that it is relating to V7 in some obvious ways, but there is not such thing as II-7ò¡Ÿ   ‹–µ¡Ÿ   ‹–¶¡Ÿ   ‹–·¡Ÿ   ‹–¸¡Ÿ   ‹–¹¡Ÿ   ‹–º¡Ÿ   ‹–»¡Ÿ   ‹–¼¡Ÿ   ‹–½¡Ÿ   ‹–¾¡Ÿ   ‹–¿¡Ÿ   ‹–À¡Ÿ   ‹–Á¡Ÿ   ‹–Â¡Ÿ   ‹–Ã¡Ÿ   ‹–Ä¡Ÿ   ‹–Å¡Ÿ   ‹–Æ¡Ÿ   ‹–Ç¡Ÿ   ‹–È¡    ‹–É¡    ‹–Ê¡    ‹–Ë¡    ‹–Ì¡    ‹–Í¡    ‹–Î¡    ‹–Ï¡    ‹–Ð¡    ‹–Ñ¡    ‹–Ò¡    ‹–Ó¡    ‹–Ô¡    ‹–Õ¡    ‹–Ö¡    ‹–×¡    ‹–Ø¡    ‹–Ù¡    ‹–Ú¡    ‹–Û¡    ‹–Ü¡    ‹–Ý¡    ‹–Þ¡    ‹–ß¡    ‹–à¡    ‹–á¡    ‹–â¡    ‹–ã¡    ‹–ä¡    ‹–å¡    ‹–æ¡    ‹–ç¡    ‹–è¡    ‹–é¡    ‹–ê¡    ‹–ë¡    ‹–ì¡    ‹–í¡    ‹–î¡    ‹–ï¡    ‹–ð¡    ‹–ñ¡    ‹–ò¡    ‹–ó¡    ‹–ô¡    ‹–õ¡    ‹–ö¡    ‹–÷¡    ‹–ø¡    ‹–ù¡    ‹–ú¡    ‹–û¡    ‹–ü¡    ‹–ý¡    ‹–þ¡    ‹–ÿ¡    ‹— ¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹—	¡    ‹—
¡    ‹—¡    ‹—¡    ‹— ¡    ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹—¡¡   ‹— ¡¡   ‹—!¡¡   ‹—"¡¡   ‹—#¡¡   ‹—$              ò¡¡   ‹—&¡¡   ‹—'¡¡   ‹—(¡¡   ‹—)¡¡   ‹—*¡¡   ‹—+¡¡   ‹—,¡¡   ‹—-¡¡   ‹—.¡¡   ‹—/¡¡   ‹—0¡¡   ‹—1¡¡   ‹—2¡¡   ‹—3¡¡


----------



## billval3

clarkcontrol @ Tue Nov 18 said:


> Persichetti, as you pointed out, abitrarily designated "dominant" chords for each mode. Jazz utilizes modes to create shortcuts to realizing complex harmonic relationships.



Persichetti's selection of chords was not arbitrary. His point was that those chords contain the tone(s) that give that mode its unique "flavor." As you are saying, there's no reason to believe we should _have_ to constrain ourselves to a particular mode. I think that limitation can breed creativity, though. So if I'm going to purposely limit myself to, for example, writing something Lydian, I will be sure to include a high percentage of chords that contain the raised 4th in them. Otherwise, the piece will end up sounding like major with a few non-diatonic notes thrown in.


----------



## bryla

Wow... I have learned a lot more about harmony transcribing John Williams than not reading this thread... Sorry, but why write so much about this? I am looking forward to order and recieve my persichetti though


----------



## Dave Connor

bryla @ Tue Nov 18 said:


> Sorry, but why write so much about this?



I do it just to relax and distract myself while not writing or producing music 12 hours or more a day. However I do plan on doing some modal writing cause it's a great tool. Consider that John Williams knows this stuff sideways.


----------



## billval3

clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 19 said:


> Speaking of sound, I wonder what music of Persichetti would qualify as using these modes and their "dominants" in a pure sense. Does anyone know offhand?



He has a "Source Material" section at the end of his chapter on modes. It lists examples of Dorian writing, Phrygian writing, and so on for each mode. I don't think they are necessarily compositions that use the modes in a pure sense, though.


----------



## bluejay

One quick question: I notice that Horner (and others) sometimes use a figuration of 1 3 5 #5/b6 5 3 

Can anyone give me any theoretical basis for this? I mean I've already used this device so it's not that important but I was wondering if there was anything particularly clever going on here.

Here are a couple of thoughts I've had

- The #5 note implies the mixolydian b6 or phrygian dominant mode meaning the current chord is essentially a dominant of a minor chord (the b6 being the minor third of the tonic minor).

- The #5 note implies a chord/mode/key change? Perhaps to the parallel minor mode.

- It's an inversion of a maj7#5 chord.

- The #5 is nothing more than a chromatic embellishment.

All help welcome. As I said, I'm hardly losing sleeping on this, it's more out of intellectual curiousity than anything else.


----------



## DeOlivier

I was also wondering how this figure could be described in theory. This seems to be one of the most common clichés in film music, often used to depict something supernatural (as in LOTR, "Many Meetings" for example). Interestingly, I always saw that notated as 1 3 5 b6 ... (which would imply a mixolydian or major scale with a b6), though personally I see it more as a #5, thus a chromatic alteration of the 5th. I also avoid to use the 7 or b7 together with this figure, it compromises the typical color.

There's also a minor version like 1 b3 5 b6 5 b3 1. As this is most often used together with root progressions in thirds and tritones, I'd consider the 1 the tonal center normally - so I won't describe it as the dominant of a minor chord or the inversion of a maj7#5 chord.

Not a profound theoretical analysis, but just a few thoughts I had... 

-Oliver


----------



## bryla

Bluejay, all depending on the harmony it implies the harmonic major scale


----------



## clarkcontrol

DeOlivier @ Sun Nov 23 said:


> I personally I see it more as a #5, thus a chromatic alteration of the 5th. I also avoid to use the 7 or b7 together with this figure, it compromises the typical color.



My opinion: I consider it a b13 (as part of the harm. major).

Using a seventh (flat or natural) under the b13 creates a quartal harmony sound (combined it with the third) that I find particularly pleasing. This, of course, precludes a graceful melodic shape; I was thinking of harmony only...

And if by typical color you mean a major triad sound built on the b6 (a la Dave), then I would say depending on the voicing, usually yes.

And I like the connection that Dave pointed out there. You could also use the same R.H. triads (C root position to Ab first position) with the L.H. chords Eb-Db-G to Ab-Eb. This makes the C major the altered dominant sound (13-b9-3) to the tonic chord Ab.

Same chords on top dressed differently from below. Makes for an interesting perspective on how those two chords (C-Ab) pull to each other.

Clark


----------



## alphabetgreen

billval3 @ Mon 10 Nov said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> of course there are many, many harmonic devices and such, but what I would recommend is for you to refer yourself to solid books on harmony instead.
> A device works for specific situations and to think that a few "tricks" will get you to the next level may be erroneous.
> 
> There are quite a few great books out there, have you checked out the Walter Piston one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm working through Piston's book right now. I also worked through Ottman's books over the Summer and have been reviewing the notes I took.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not looking for some kind of easy path to harmonic genius! I just wondered if there were any specific insights that composers in this forum have found to be particularly helpful.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure. I've got a wee trick I'm willing to share with you.

You will know about the Augmented Sixth chord by now, I would have thought, and the fact that there are 3 versions of them (4 including the Swiss).

Well, has it ever occured to you that the German Sixth is the enharmonic equivalent of the dominant seventh of the key a semitone higher than the original key. Therefore, it would resolve to the Neapolitan Sixth exactly like a perfect cadence. So if you were looking for an alternative method of cadencing off a piece you could do so with the following progression.


I - German 6th - Neapolitan 6th - V7 - I

It adds a sort of angsty type twist to your music that I rather like.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## alphabetgreen

billval3 @ Sun 23 Nov said:


> clarkcontrol @ Wed Nov 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of sound, I wonder what music of Persichetti would qualify as using these modes and their "dominants" in a pure sense. Does anyone know offhand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has a "Source Material" section at the end of his chapter on modes. It lists examples of Dorian writing, Phrygian writing, and so on for each mode. I don't think they are necessarily compositions that use the modes in a pure sense, though.
Click to expand...


That's the only complaint I have of Persichetti's book. That the examples aren't properly entitled.

Personally, I have composed using his method of assigning primary and secondary chords in this way. I once wrote out 'Twinkle twinkle' in all the four modes (Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian. I didn't use Ionian or Aeolian because of their tonal implications and Locrian mode has two rogue notes so distinguishing primary and secondary chords would have been rather difficult), and used each mode's primary chords in the final cadence and generally as strong chords at the beginning of each measure/bar and I have to say it did work splendidly. There was a real modal feel to each version, and they were all completely different. There's one hell of a wide basis and scope for composition there.


----------



## alphabetgreen

billval3 @ Mon 10 Nov said:


> jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER use V7-I...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean never use V7-I as a final cadence, or not at all?
> 
> What about use of secondary dominants?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I must say. That got me a bit. I think what he means is that film music is almost constant. It never has an ending it just decrescendoes until it's not there any more. So for real 'incidental' music, the implication of a perfect cadence could imply something about to finish which would be erroneous in a film setting.


----------



## alphabetgreen

alphabetgreen @ Sat 07 Feb said:


> billval3 @ Mon 10 Nov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> of course there are many, many harmonic devices and such, but what I would recommend is for you to refer yourself to solid books on harmony instead.
> A device works for specific situations and to think that a few "tricks" will get you to the next level may be erroneous.
> 
> There are quite a few great books out there, have you checked out the Walter Piston one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm working through Piston's book right now. I also worked through Ottman's books over the Summer and have been reviewing the notes I took.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not looking for some kind of easy path to harmonic genius! I just wondered if there were any specific insights that composers in this forum have found to be particularly helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. I've got a wee trick I'm willing to share with you.
> 
> You will know about the Augmented Sixth chord by now, I would have thought, and the fact that there are 3 versions of them (4 including the Swiss).
> 
> Well, has it ever occured to you that the German Sixth is the enharmonic equivalent of the dominant seventh of the key a semitone higher than the original key. Therefore, it would resolve to the Neapolitan Sixth exactly like a perfect cadence. So if you were looking for an alternative method of cadencing off a piece you could do so with the following progression.
> 
> 
> I - German 6th - Neapolitan 6th - V7 - I
> 
> It adds a sort of angsty type twist to your music that I rather like.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon
Click to expand...


Or you could 'draw' it out even further, using an interrupted cadence to procrastinate the ending:

I - Ger 6th - Neap 6th - I (second inversion) - V7 - VII7 - I


----------



## clarkcontrol

I really dig the 6th chords. I was already steeped in jazz harmonic theory when I learned in a formal sense the history and use of these chords. I always (and even to this day) associate a secondary-dominant tri-tone substitution to the sound of these chords.

It's just easier for me, particularly when I want to use chromatic harmony to spice up the key in other areas of the scale.

For example, in jazz, the 1-6-2-5(-1) progression is very common (the "turnaround"). I like to substitute one of these with its tri-tone, thus getting 1-6-b6-5. This uses that classical 6th chord but under a different name.

One can take this to the extreme, using 1-b3-b6-b2 to get that "Bill Evans" turnaround, using all the tri-tone subs to create an extreme departure from the original scale, but it resolves to the tonic nevertheless.

I usually use these chords in an intermediate context. One progression I like that applies well to film music is:

In "C:" Cmaj, Bbmaj/D (or G7/D), Eb, Ab, Cmaj/G, etc.

Of course this works well in C minor, but then the Eb and Ab are diatonic to the key. This example is supposed to show the kinship of tri-tone substitutions to classical harmony and how the chromaticism enhances the original mode.

Clark


----------



## alphabetgreen

clarkcontrol @ Sat 07 Feb said:


> I really dig the 6th chords. I was already steeped in jazz harmonic theory when I learned in a formal sense the history and use of these chords. I always (and even to this day) associate a secondary-dominant tri-tone substitution to the sound of these chords.
> 
> It's just easier for me, particularly when I want to use chromatic harmony to spice up the key in other areas of the scale.
> 
> For example, in jazz, the 1-6-2-5(-1) progression is very common (the "turnaround"). I like to substitute one of these with its tri-tone, thus getting 1-6-b6-5. This uses that classical 6th chord but under a different name.
> 
> One can take this to the extreme, using 1-b3-b6-b2 to get that "Bill Evans" turnaround, using all the tri-tone subs to create an extreme departure from the original scale, but it resolves to the tonic nevertheless.
> 
> I usually use these chords in an intermediate context. One progression I like that applies well to film music is:
> 
> In "C:" Cmaj, Bbmaj/D (or G7/D), Eb, Ab, Cmaj/G, etc.
> 
> Of course this works well in C minor, but then the Eb and Ab are diatonic to the key. This example is supposed to show the kinship of tri-tone substitutions to classical harmony and how the chromaticism enhances the original mode.
> 
> Clark



Yeah, I take it from b6 you mean German 6th and b2 you mean Neapolitan 6th.

It is in fact, the tritone that gives a dominant seventh its flavour. In classical harmony in the 18th century it was built from the construction of the harmonic series, as the 7th note of the dominant chord is the next note to appear in the harmonic series after the primary triads have been outlined.

When you say *Bbmaj/D (or G7/D)*, do you actually mean *Bbmaj/D (or Gmin7/D)*?


----------



## clarkcontrol

alphabetgreen @ Sat Feb 07 said:


> When you say *Bbmaj/D (or G7/D)*, do you actually mean *Bbmaj/D (or Gmin7/D)*?



They are not the same chord spelled differently. It could be either chord, though. The focus of the example was supposed to be the b6 (Ab).

The main idea being that you can use a chord up a half-step to create a dominant relationship. This can also happen from below.

over a C pedal: Bmaj (1st position) to emin

This generates the following harmony: C diminished major seven to Cmaj7.

This is great for tension-release to extend the turnaround cadence I described above. The complete progression: C, Eb, Ab, Cmaj/G, G7, Co(maj7), Cmaj7

Clark


----------



## alphabetgreen

clarkcontrol @ Sat 07 Feb said:


> alphabetgreen @ Sat Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say *Bbmaj/D (or G7/D)*, do you actually mean *Bbmaj/D (or Gmin7/D)*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the same chord spelled differently. It could be either chord, though. The focus of the example was supposed to be the b6 (Ab).
> 
> The main idea being that you can use a chord up a half-step to create a dominant relationship. This can also happen from below.
> 
> over a C pedal: Bmaj (1st position) to emin
> 
> This generates the following harmony: C diminished major seven to Cmaj7.
> 
> This is great for tension-release to extend the turnaround cadence I described above. The complete progression: C, Eb, Ab, Cmaj/G, G7, Co(maj7), Cmaj7
> 
> Clark
Click to expand...


Right, gotcha!

Oh wow! That sounds really good!


----------



## clarkcontrol

Glad you like it!

Here's another one:

This works well with a broad sus string patch. Instant underscore...

Using this chord-a-semitone-away idea again, play a C pedal low while playing a Dbmaj7 in root position in the octave below middle C. This gives us that "half-step rub" effect again like the Bmaj/Cped from above.

While sustaining the R.H. pinky (on middle C) with the C pedal below, move the Db triad to Ebmaj then Dmaj then Fmaj (in second position).

Messing with the order of these polychords can create tension and release without actually cadencing in the traditional sense. One can actually rationalize the chord spellings and assign modes to each sound, etc., but the general idea is going from more chromatic to less chromatic equals a "cadence."

Clark


----------



## alphabetgreen

clarkcontrol @ Mon 09 Feb said:


> Glad you like it!
> 
> Here's another one:
> 
> This works well with a broad sus string patch. Instant underscore...
> 
> Using this chord-a-semitone-away idea again, play a C pedal low while playing a Dbmaj7 in root position in the octave below middle C. This gives us that "half-step rub" effect again like the Bmaj/Cped from above.
> 
> While sustaining the R.H. pinky (on middle C) with the C pedal below, move the Db triad to Ebmaj then Dmaj then Fmaj (in second position).
> 
> Messing with the order of these polychords can create tension and release without actually cadencing in the traditional sense. One can actually rationalize the chord spellings and assign modes to each sound, etc., but the general idea is going from more chromatic to less chromatic equals a "cadence."
> 
> Clark



Wow! I'll try that out and get back to you when I've a moment.


----------



## alphabetgreen

[quote:d50df6904e="billval3 @ Mon 10 Nov, 2008 23:12"]I find it interesting that two of you mentioned using modes. Is it common for film composers to use mts all<=
br>
explainable and there is nothing there, I don't know whether I would fe=
el<br>
comfortable charging a fee for telling them that.<br>
So I am still musing at present.<br>
<br>
I did enjoy the Mystery Tour and that aspect of going around with others is=
<br>
fun.<br>
Perhaps I am just better as a relief person - for very very occasional paid=
<br>
work, if you have the need for someone now and then on tours.<br>
<br>
*Shopfront*<br>
The shopfront idea is very inte


----------



## Farkle

bluejay @ Sun Nov 23 said:


> One quick question: I notice that Horner (and others) sometimes use a figuration of 1 3 5 #5/b6 5 3
> 
> Can anyone give me any theoretical basis for this? I mean I've already used this device so it's not that important but I was wondering if there was anything particularly clever going on here.
> 
> Here are a couple of thoughts I've had
> 
> - The #5 note implies the mixolydian b6 or phrygian dominant mode meaning the current chord is essentially a dominant of a minor chord (the b6 being the minor third of the tonic minor).
> 
> - The #5 note implies a chord/mode/key change? Perhaps to the parallel minor mode.
> 
> - It's an inversion of a maj7#5 chord.
> 
> - The #5 is nothing more than a chromatic embellishment.
> 
> All help welcome. As I said, I'm hardly losing sleeping on this, it's more out of intellectual curiousity than anything else.



I do love this gesture... it pretty much defines a Sci-Fi, and/or fantasy sound. It's used in LOTR the "Approaching Rivendell" cue, and in Total Recall, somewhere where they're traveling through Mars. 

I have a couple of opinions about this gesture, and please take them as just that... one composer's thoughts. 

I always think that this particular gesture is referring to two things. First, the concept of "mixture", where a composer will blend major and minor modes (Liszt and Chopin do this a lot). The 1-3-5-b6 feel (to me) blends a major chord, and it's relative IV (in minor). So, if the arpeggio is C-E-G-Ab, then that gesture is implying a C major to F minor relationship. That's the first implication (I - IVmin)... mixture.

The second relationship (which we hear from James Horner's score for "Star Trek II") is a mediant relationship. That gesture implies a relationship between the chord (I'll call it the tonic, or I, for simplicity) and it's bVI related chord. So, again, a C-E-G-Ab arpeggio creates an implication between C major and Ab major. Again, playing the "mixture" game (I is related to major, bVI is related to natural minor), but it also relates to the Scott Smalley concept of chords related by mediant (as used by Hermann, Goldsmith, Elfman, etc.). 

In either case, my take on the gesture is that it creates this really cool ambiguity between key centers, and between major/minor modes. And, that, I think, is the strength of that gesture... it is _really_ evocative, because it leads the ear toward several key centers and modes at the same time, without committing to them.

I did an orchestral piece last year for Hartford's Civic Orchestra, and I used this concept all over the place... sounded awesome!

Anyways, those are my takes on the gesture. Oh, and a cool thing... Maurice Ravel did this _awesome_ piano trio called _Gaspard de la Nuit_, which is a brilliant piano triptych. The first piece, called Ondine, starts with this figure (1-3-5-b6) in this cool rhythmic right-hand piano pulse... it's sooo eerie and mysterious. Definitely check it out!

All the best,

Mike


----------



## bluejay

Thank you very much for that Mike! Really, really interesting.

I had a girlfriend called Ondine so I will definitely go and check that piece out.


----------



## Farkle

Thank you for the kind words, and I'm glad I could steer you towards spending more money on Ravel... =o 

Your girlfriend would totally dig the piano piece, it's about a water nymph who tempts mortals to magical bliss, and a watery death. Dark love, baby!

Mike


----------



## bluejay

I've been studying some of the Star Wars score and I've just noticed that JW is using a close voiced chord: -

C E G Ab

... and the scale played over is C mixolydian b6 (i.e. C D E F G Ab Bb C).

For anyone with the signature edition scores, this is in the Star Wars Suite score, page 16, bar 68 - it's in the woodwind and vibraphone. The scale is spelled out with the piccolo solo.


----------



## Thonex

I saw the legendary jazz guitarist Joe Pass at a seminar once.

When asked how hew coupl remember all those myriad of chords he knew.... he said:

"hey... I only know 4 chords.... major, minor, augmented and diminished!" :wink:


----------



## jsaras

..and if you talk to a jazz musician about the "modal" period it can encompass Miles Davis' "Kinda Blue" (pretty tame) or John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" (somewhat wacky). 

Someone once asked Ellington if he played avante-garde music, to which he replied, "Do I have to go THAT far back?".

Ah, words!


----------



## mf

jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.


That is the quintessential book on filmscoring harmony. 
jsaras, you're the MAN.
Hollywood, here I come!


----------



## billval3

mf @ Sun Dec 13 said:


> jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be Stravinsky if you're working on movie cues. You probably already know enough theory. Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the quintessential book on filmscoring harmony.
> jsaras, you're the MAN.
> Hollywood, here I come!
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bass lines don't necessarily have to move in thirds. You could have mediant relationships where the bass line moves in steps as well (to have the "Hollywood" sound, that is).


----------



## mf

Right, and even a bass line that doesn't move at all, like a pedal: C - Ab/c - F/c - Dbmaj7/c - Bb9(7)/c - G7sus/c - Eb9(7)/c - C
(works nice with this chromatic top line: g - ab - a - ab - ab - g - g - g )


----------



## bryla

And Ab on top of a Db7+? (That don't contain an Ab) You mean A?


----------



## mf

I know chord notation may vary, that's not a D but a D flat major with major 7th


----------



## Gary Eskow

Never think of harmony and counterpoint as being separate elements.


----------



## GregP

Interesting discussion but here's an idea you might like.

It was suggested to me years ago that I should try to think across the page rather than down it. In other words, horizontally rather than vertically.

Personally, I find it much easier because if I were to put my hands on a keyboard, they would always want to go to the familiar chords and if I try to think in chords, my brain does pretty much the same thing.

The surprising thing is that if the musical lines are strong enough, the harmony often works itself out.

It'd be an interesting experiment to try if you have been thinking in chords for years.

Hope it helps


----------



## johan25

Formula for Epic chord progression (used in Pirates theme, Blood diamonds score):

a minor/F major/C major/ G major


You can do a lot with this simple progression, of course you do need to come up with an strong theme and a proper arrangement/orchestration of that same theme.


Cheers


----------



## mducharme

johan25 @ Tue Jan 04 said:


> Formula for Epic chord progression (used in Pirates theme, Blood diamonds score):
> 
> a minor/F major/C major/ G major



This progression is quite interesting, isn't it?

I call it the "never-ending deceptive resolution". It's very clearly in the key of C major in the transposition you give, yet you never hear a V-I - the closest you get is V-vi, and the IV-I also confirms the key somewhat but it's quite weak.

The progression, in roman numeral analysis, is vi - IV - I - V ( - vi - etc.)

Ascending 5ths give you a good sense of key, but do not result in cadence the way descending 5ths do. This leads to a certain ambiguity. The deceptive resolution from V-vi that occurs in chords 4-1 brings you back to the beginning of the progression, so it can keep looping forever in that fashion without ever strongly confirming the key even though we know what key it is in. That allows a composer to repeat it a great many times without becoming boring.


----------



## caseyjames

Regarding equivalent Dominant and Sub Dominant functions in the modes, such as Dorians i ii IV and Phrygians i II vii, what elements are guiding these substitutes?

I am interested in methods that would let me find the most likely dominant and sub dominant function in any arbitrary scale.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## mducharme

Hugo Riemann's theories describe what you are looking for, at least as far as the typical modal borrowings go. Part of the problem is, however, that you end up with chords that function differently depending on context.

Take bVI for instance, in major keys. If you have bVI following V, it's obviously a tonic substitute - you are doing a deceptive resolution to the borrowed submediant, a common idiom.

If you take the same bVI chord and do bVI-bVII-I in a major key, in that context, it sounds like IV-V-I, so then bVI acts as a subdominant substitute.

Therefore I would probably use the rule: any chord that is in common use in minor/major mode pieces will function as it does in minor/major. Other chords will function based on several factors: scale degree the chord is built in, common tones with previous chord, strength of function of previous chord, minor 3rd relationship. The minor 3rd relationship, all things being equal, is the biggest determinant of chordal function, for you see in major keys you have ii acting as a IV substitute, vi acting as a I substitute, iii acting as a V substitute. In minor keys, you have VI acting as a iv substitute, VII acting as a V substitute, III acting as a I substitute. Those are all Riemann's theories. Context has a huge bearing here though as noted before, for if VI follows V in minor, it takes in a tonic substitute function.

Sorry the answer could not be more clear, but the rules governing this are somewhat weakly described, and this is the biggest point of contention between music theorists.


----------



## skanafchian

Just wanted to pipe up and say that this thread has been a really good insight in to the way that other film composers view their harmony in scoring. 

Whilst I think not really being a pianist definitely has it's detriments when writing (and especially these days, with the use of MIDI), I find that my fingers don't "find themselves" on set chord progressions...and that could be seen as a bit of a blessing. I guess that's the only way of optimistically looking at it! 

Shahin


----------



## BadOrange

skanafchian @ Sat Jun 25 said:


> Just wanted to pipe up and say that this thread has been a really good insight in to the way that other film composers view their harmony in scoring.
> 
> Whilst I think not really being a pianist definitely has it's detriments when writing (and especially these days, with the use of MIDI), I find that my fingers don't "find themselves" on set chord progressions...and that could be seen as a bit of a blessing. I guess that's the only way of optimistically looking at it!
> 
> Shahin



Despite the absurdity of pretty much everything Riemann did, his theories which I suppose in this case, the mirror minor mode where the 5th is the root followed by its undertones , lol yeah i know ) don't really apply in this instance. 

VI in the minor mode of c would have a root of Eb so not really a tonic substitute in any way. 


But moving on, this whole concept of functional harmony is one I really would not get stuck in unless you are just starting. There is no natural order. The german naturalists were out to lunch. Undertones, mirror harmony systems .... I mean it is right up there with holistic "medicine" . And although Riemann does talk about chords of chords and the relation you mention, the way he justifies it is completely asinine. 

Theory , which should not really be called theory is merely a system of representation for a given type of music. The term functional harmony is flawed beyond reproach. Chords don't have a yearning to go to specific places. The reason you might feel they do is more a concept of trends and how you brain uses those trends to anticipate where it will go next. ( Huron, Sweet Anticipation ). 

Patterns exist , no doubt and they usually apply to a specific style of music but thinking of it as some form of function is wrong, unsubstantiated in any way. The overtone series as theorists with no foundation in science like to bust out to explain the 12 tones don't seem to be able to explain the minor triad. 

As someone that has studied more theory than one should ever care to do, I think the best approach is to learn the basics despite the awful wording and after that, just analyze music and develop your own systems for certain harmonic colours.


----------



## José Herring

This thread has been going on for years and I've never bothered to check it. But, I did skim through it today and there's a lot of good stuff in here.

I'd like to add that I'm a big fan of the Persichetti book. But, also recently I've been reading the harmony book of Schoenberg and Hindemith. The Schoenberg book is great as it extends the idea of functional harmony to its probable limit. But, the Hindemith book is blowing my mind. In it he bases harmony on the overtone series and places all notes of the chromatic scale with its relationship to a fundamental pitch. Took a while to wrap my head around, but its blowing the lid off music and harmony for me. It has replaced for me, the idea of thinking in terms of finding a function for some harmony and thinking in terms of (that's a v of v with an alter 3rd type of thinking which drives me crazy and I've never been comfortable with that). It gives a faster understanding of why a bflat chord works in gmajor without having to stress the limits of your intelligence trying to figure out a chord's "function". Well worth the read.

Also, the Hindemith book helps to put better organization into Persichetti's idea that "any tone can follow any other tone and any tone can sound simultaneously with any tone". Which I firmly believe, but that without some understanding of how a tone relates to another tone in a given context quickly leads to gibberish, which I'm afraid to admit has always been my problem with Persichetti's music. Somewhere in the balance between too much freedom and too much restriction lies real music.

Josê


----------



## guinness28

Sorry but can someone tell me what EIS is ?
Thanks
Alex (from France)


----------



## Casey Edwards

guinness28 @ Sun Aug 19 said:


> Sorry but can someone tell me what EIS is ?
> Thanks
> Alex (from France)



http://www.vi-control.net/forum/index.php?h=0&pf=0&c=21


----------



## JAM

This topic has been a really insightful read, especially with the chord progressions laid out and the discussions around them.

Thank you very much


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

When I get stuck, one thing I really like to play with is equally dividing octaves or sets of octaves. I picked this up studying Coltrane and holdsworth. It can lead to some interesting modulations and some nice substitution ideas. It took me a while to really understand what the hell was going on cause Im not a "schooled" musician. I also like to play around with whole progressions omitting the third and fifths of each chord. Take an intervallic chord structure such as root minor 2nd minor 7th and move it through the progressions. Switch the structure up from time to time and combine the movements with octave divisions and you get some really interesting progressions and textures. It also gives you a lot of freedom with your melodies because you can use almost any tonality over structures like this because the thirds and fifths are very ambiguous. You just have to pay attention to your voice leading and make sure you resolve everything as naturally as possible.


----------



## brunodegazio

[resolved]


----------



## reddognoyz

I have found some beautiful things by trying to figure out the absolutely worst, jarring, unexpected modulation, and finding the strongest voice leading and building the strongest expectation that melody note is landing where it most wants to go.


----------



## Shubus

jsaras @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> .... Much of of the harmony in movie scores is triadic (major or minor triads) with the bass lines moving in mediant relationships (a.ka. in major and minor thirds). NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK.
> 
> Evil villain onscreen? Use several minor chords, perhaps moving in major thirds. The "love interest" suddenly appears? Switch to major chords, perhaps moving in minor thirds. Using these simple devices along with some impressive-sounding orchestration can make for very effective scoring.



Boy this sure hits the nail on the head! These formula driven scenarios are exactly what I hear ad nauseum.


----------



## Peter Alexander

It's not formula driven at all. When you study counterpoint ala Fux you immediately begin learning mediant chord progressions in each mode. 

In Scoring Stages 1, I went through at least one extended passage where Bruckner harmonized in mediant harmony - which also include V I 

>8o


----------



## clarkus

Tip:

Remember that harmony can be, but is not necessarily, what generates music. Melodies rule.

What does this mean?

It means counterpoint. Listen to anything by John Williams (good film composer, right)). He is firmly rooted in the romantic symphonic tradition, and that is a contrapuntal tradition.

When two (or more) melodic ideas are sounding together, harmony results. Melodies are often composed with some harmonic scheme underlying. They are free to braid together, creating what intervals the composer hears / composes. Those resulting intervals are heard by our audience as "harmony," (even if they - the audience - don't have the terminology for that). But our audience is hearing, more fundamentally, the logic of our musical ideas unfolding in time.

Another way to say is: a musical conversation is taking place between our instruments or orchestral sections. And people hear that conversation. They are less interested in a "progression of chords," which is, after all a static thing. You can arpeggiate chords and then you are on the way to something more active, more melodic. But when a melody is sounding over THAT is when people get interested.

Again, listen to John Williams. I keep bringing him up because people think counterpoint is Bach, and Bach is a particular, only partly useful, style, for film and commercial composers: the Baroque. 

Sibelius, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Ravel, Shostakovich ... these are some of the symphonic composers Williams is inspired by, and these are composers who often write contrapuntally.

Sometimes you do hear "Melody and accompaniment" with the composers I've listed. "Pavane for a Dead Princess" by Ravel is this sort of writing. There's a secondary part and then then there is the melody, and there's not much, if any, dialogue between the two. But this kind of writing is one strategy among many for a composer ("Tutti" writing would be another, wherein all the instruments play the same thing, and writing over an ostinato, or short repeating figure, is another).

When you write contrapuntally, all sorts of "harmonies" result, some of them surprising, that can linger for just a moment. The harmonies I am talking about are the result of notes sounding briefly together as the melodies unspool in the soprano, in the bass, in the middle voices. Though I mentioned earlier that there is a harmonic basis that composers have in mind as they compose this way, in my experience it's a flexible one (as in "I am progressing through a series of harmonies in 4th;'s leading back to the tonic chord," for example, or "I am progressing by thirds here"), and this basis can be stretched or deviated from depending on what the melodies want to do, what the music seems to need.

Sorry if this comes off as a mini-lecture (I do teach this stuff). But I always feel I should pipe up when I hear composers talking about chord progressions, as if you need to just pick certain sets of chords. If I haven't made myself clear, a "chord progression" may be in a composer's mind as they set out to make some music, but its just part of what we - ideally - are thinking about. A musical thought is not a chord or a chord progression. A musical thought unfolds the way sentences do in conversation. That's the way music is understood, the way it's heard by an audience. It is fundamentally "linear," i.e. comprised of lines.

John Williams.


----------



## SaintDufus

reddognoyz @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> I have found some beautiful things by trying to figure out the absolutely worst, jarring, unexpected modulation, and finding the strongest voice leading and building the strongest expectation that melody note is landing where it most wants to go.



Why were you trying to find the _worst_ modulation?


----------



## mikehamm123

I've dabbled in jazz theory enough to know that understanding the harmonic 'rules' is essential--unless your ear is so good that you just 'get' it and can just understand what to do in all those situations. Otherwise--copying solos and learning songs, *and* studying the theory, is the best way to get a handle on it. 

Its not an 'either or' type of thing.


----------



## Hafer

I know, it already was asked in 2012 but what exactly is EIS?


----------



## ed buller

Equal Interval System: http://theequalintervalsystem.com/

e


----------



## Hafer

Thanks!


----------



## ZeroZero

jsaras said:


> You don't need to be Stravinsky....... NEVER use V7-I, though occassionally IV-I is OK....



Could someone explain the never use II V I's thing, so much music IS II V I's


----------



## rJames

ZeroZero said:


> Could someone explain the never use II V I's thing, so much music IS II V I's


You gotta be careful about taking things out of context in a long, long thread (1st post Nov 2008) like this.

jsaras was talking about film music and he was stating his advice. A few responses down the page and someone disagrees.

The idea is that a V7 to I is very FINAL. Maybe he is saying, "let the film, do the talking."

The most important rule I've ever heard in a music class is that " if that is what you want, no other rules apply," or something like that.


----------



## Vik

ZeroZero said:


> Could someone explain the never use II V I's thing, so much music IS II V I's


Well, since so much music already is based in II V I, that alone would server as an argument to try to avoid it for me, unless it's... needed.


----------



## mikehamm123

V i seems to work, i.e. in minor keys


----------



## Vik

Sure, I think it's the II before the V which often sounds so outworn, especially in major keys.


----------



## ed buller

rJames said:


> The most important rule I've ever heard in a music class is that " if that is what you want, no other rules apply," or something like that.



Perfect

e


----------



## ZeroZero

rJames said:


> You gotta be careful about taking things out of context in a long, long thread (1st post Nov 2008) like this.
> 
> jsaras was talking about film music and he was stating his advice. A few responses down the page and someone disagrees.
> 
> The idea is that a V7 to I is very FINAL. Maybe he is saying, "let the film, do the talking."
> 
> The most important rule I've ever heard in a music class is that " if that is what you want, no other rules apply," or something like that.



I get it now, frankly it's a sweeping statement. Beethoven used it far too much in my opinion and Jazz battered it to death, but it still is the final cadence. I tghink the OP was thinking about what are called deceptive cadences, or perhaps atonal works. Anything goes and that's good as long as you have some sense of control.


----------



## Ashermusic

I am not going to call out anyone specifically, but a heads up to newbies, there are some appalling statements in this thread so take all of it with a grain of salt. If it is what you hear in your head while you are composing, do not give a nanosecond's thought as to whether it has or has not been used an awful lot. If it has, it is because it works!


----------



## ZeroZero

True Asher! I was just curious about the OP.


----------



## reddognoyz

Ashermusic said:


> I am not going to call out anyone specifically, but a heads up to newbies, there are some appalling statements in this thread so take all of it with a grain of salt. If it is what you hear in your head while you are composing, do not give a nanosecond's thought as to whether it has or has not been used an awful lot. If it has, it is because it works!



I am hoping I said something appalling in here! : ) I do try my best.


----------



## did

rJames said:


> Interval relationships vs keys/modes.
> 
> Harmony in fourths/fifths is the new dominant. (transition)
> 
> Melody and the power of unisons/octaves.
> 
> Sparse harmony using intervals instead of keys.



...and all this harmony will be optimised with a controled counterpoint, essential in almost music composition style


----------



## Parsifal666

rJames said:


> The most important rule I've ever heard in a music class is that " if that is what you want, no other rules apply," or something like that.



Zappa lived by that, so does Zorn, so does (a more arguable example) Cage.


----------



## mikehamm123

This has great examples of using chords that are a third apart--major or minor third apart, using major or minor chords.

It includes sound samples:

https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/film-score-harmony-chords-by-thirds--cms-21412


----------



## mikehamm123

My method has been to cop licks (aka "stealing") but more often to internalize composers or styles that I like, so that the answers or suggestions just 'come'.


----------



## andreascw

Wow! Thank you all for the good tips. I really liked reading the '20th century harmony' by Vincent Persichetti. I can also recommend it!! Very good!!


----------



## Ilko Birov

andreascw said:


> Wow! Thank you all for the good tips. I really liked reading the '20th century harmony' by Vincent Persichetti. I can also recommend it!! Very good!!



It's next on my list!

I'm currently going through Hindemith's Traditional Harmony course: 

As well as Kitson's Elementary Harmony:


----------



## KEM

I think harmony is probably the most important, intriguing part of music, and sadly it's one of the things I'm most clueless about haha, I really want to start learning about harmony, complex harmony I should add, but man it's a hard thing to grasp because it's so much.


----------

