# Best mystical chord progressions?



## SBK




----------



## mac

Any theory types want to label those chords?


----------



## WindcryMusic

Both are chromatic modulations.

First one is C#m (through two inversions) into CMaj and then Cm. The key is that the E acts as a pivot/passing tone.

Second one is Fm (root position) into GMaj/D.

(Edited 2nd change to fix boneheaded mistake … don't want to mislead anyone.)


----------



## Naoki Ohmori

The last chord progression of the second one at 1:14- is an inverted quartal chord E♭ F ♭B(F ♭B ♭E) to F major 6/4(C F A), isn't it?


----------



## Piano Pete

Took a quick listen to this. Feel free to correct me, but it does not seem like there is any B major. (Also, if B-major had a D# in the bass, it would be in first inversion--not second).


----* EDIT*: I accidentally forgot to clarify this, but the D-flat minor chord is not the Neapolitan chord in c-minor. D-flat *MAJOR* is. When I commented on hearing the D-flat as that chord, I was speaking purely to that note's relation to an implied key, not the quality of the chord built upon that. In the case of it being a minor chord, common tone/pivot tone or chromaticism would be technically correct. Additionally, I gave an analysis of how this could potentially be looked at in the c-minor to Bb-minor. Instead of thinking of what I wrote in c-minor _to _b-flat minor, you could perfectly well analyze this entire thing in b-flat minor. My apologies. Regardless, all of the concepts remain true. ----


What I got from my quick listen. Wall of text incoming, this took longer to type than I thought:

Examples:

1- c#m -> C -> cm (Chromatic noodling/parallel motion or however you want to think about it. I hear it more as the Neapolitan [Db major, the flat major II in the minor mode of c-minor] than c#, but to each their own). *Just because it starts on a note does not mean that the first chord is the tonicized element*

2- First time: fm -> G. (With the first example being what it is around C, it is hard for me not to hear this at iv -> V in the key of c-minor).

Second time after they tweak it: ebm -> F (They just transposed it. Makes sense to my ear thinking of it in b-flat minor: iv -> V).


If you want to get into the theory, you could think of this entire clip a few ways, so there could be just as many right answers as wrong. I think the easiest method would be to think of this entire thing in in c-minor.

cm -> Db (this would be the Neapolitan if you want to get fancy and lock it into c-minor; chromatic noodling is acceptable) -> C -> cm. *In the case of the final example with Lord of the Rings footage, they stay on C-major.*

Now, to get from the first progression to the second example you could look at it a few ways. Two are:

1- Mediant Modulation, C/cm going to ebm with chromatic movement to the F chord due to the F being inverted. If you were to put Eflat-minor and F in root position, you would have parallel movement-- just going to F-major instead of minor. (It sounds like they went back to C major during the film clips. If they had continued like they did before to c-minor, the e-flat would be present for the eb-minor chord, thus serving as a common tone.)

2- The section has modulated down a whole step from c-minor to Bb-minor; in this scenario, the ebm -> F would make sense as a half cadence that just hasnt resolved in the new tonic. This also theoretically works as well since c-minor is the second chord of Bb-major (as such can be borrowed in Bb-minor where the eb-minor chord lives-- hence my reason for Bb-minor instead of major). From this, we get an overall movement of [ii] (c-minor), iv (eb-minor), V (F-major). Typically in analysis brackets [x] indicate a borrowed chord. If you want to take into account that version with film ends in C-major, it would work since you have it function has a secondary dominant. II (V/V) (C-major), iv (eb-minor), V (F-major).

-- Another geeky bit about my last comment, the C-major, eb-minor, to F major could be analyzed as descending chromatic movement (C down to eb-minor second inversion to F first inversion), but I feel that while that is a credible viewpoint, it is best to try to think of harmonic movement in root position before adding in that linear element in this case. Ultimately, the chormaticisim or stepwise elements is a product of the voicing, not harmonic function.--

With all that in mind, since there is nothing following it to really determine what is the "correct" analysis, you could still wiggle your way back to C/c-minor or anywhere else of your choosing with the right notes. I think the important thing to take away with this example, so that way you are not restricted to just utilizing information in this exact progression, is that mediant modulations, common tones, borrowed tones, and chromatic movement can aid in the harmonic progression of your work. Also, depending on how you do it, you can really free up yourself from getting stuck in a key by doing these sort of ambiguous half cadences etc. The more you delve into the theory the more you start seeing how you can extend progressions by borrowing and doing all sorts of things; additionally, you start to see how the less straightforward progressions are related, thus enabling you to do some really neat things atypical of what we would expect.


Again, you could look at this from many perspectives, each with valid points, and I could go on for awhile.


To touch briefly on the possibility of the f-minor -> B-major progression (which I did not hear here, but I hastly listened to the video), that scenario could be thought of as such:

1) Mediant progression!

How so?

2) Ab to B. (In this case rename the Ab to G# to be technically correct).

3) Now, f-minor shares two common tones with Ab. The difference here, the root that would make for a well defined mediant relation (G# [Ab] -> B) is the third in f-minor. That it also has the common tone of c or b# is extra.

Hope this helps.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Piano Pete said:


> Took a quick listen to this. Feel free to correct me, but it does not seem like there is any B major. (Also, if B-major had a D# in the bass, it would be in first inversion--not second).



All I meant is that the right hand voicing on a keyboard would be 2nd inversion, i.e., with the 3rd of the chord as the highest voice.


----------



## Piano Pete

That would work then. I just saw B/D# and my brain went to lead sheet.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Piano Pete said:


> That would work then. I just saw B/D# and my brain went to lead sheet.



Actually, I have to eat humble pie here. I just listened to the video again on a better pair of speakers (was in a hurry and listening on EarPods this morning), and I somehow got the 2nd chord of the #2 change wrong (blush). The #2 change is actually Fm to GMaj/D. Also, the guy plays the same modulation but down a full step at time index 1:12 (Ebm to FMaj/C in that case).

Man, I can't believe I misheard that somehow. I really must be getting old.


----------



## Piano Pete

No worries haha. I never hold that sort of thing against anyone. It still brought up a neat point that, that progression could work.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Piano Pete said:


> No worries haha. I never hold that sort of thing against anyone. It still brought up a neat point that, that progression could work.



Oh yes, that Fm to BMaj/D# type of change certainly does work, too. I've used it more than once myself, and it also appears in lots of well known scores. In fact I almost wonder if I had just assumed it would be one of the changes when I saw the title of the video, and that led me astray?

Thanks ... I'm just annoyed with myself. All my life I've prided myself on my ear for harmony, and I'm not accustomed to misidentifying chords. Maybe I was hearing tones in my tinnitus.


----------



## Piano Pete

I made an edit to my post, for my sanity's sake, regarding my calling the Db-minor the Neapolitan of C-minor. D-flat minor is *NOT *the Neapolitan; D-flat _major _is. I forgot to clarify that what I was hearing was strictly the C to Db movement-- and mostly a spelling thing for me. With the chord being what it is, common tone/pivot tone would be a technically better description of function. Further clarification has been marked in the edit of said post. Aside from that of clarification, the concepts and ideas still hold true though. My bad.


----------



## Mundano

Piano Pete said:


> 1) Mediant progression!


that is it. Mediant progression gives the "aura" of mystical or magic... explore Mediant progression from minor to minor, from minor to Major, from Major to Major, from Major to minor, etc. It has not relationship with classical cadences or Neapolitan (Neapolitan is an II second grade). It is a sequence of mediants. Its very beautiful, i use it a lot. And it has to do more with modal music than grade II. If u analyze C#m to CMaj, it is only AMaj to CMaj, the mediant taken....


----------



## mikehamm123

Good stuff.

This is something I did in a similar ballpark:


----------



## SBK

mikehamm123 said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> This is something I did in a similar ballpark:



awesome man!


----------



## ism

Lehman has a very helpful discussion (with lots of examples) using neo-Romanian theory in “Hollywood Harmony”:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/hollywood-harmony-9780190606398?cc=ca&lang=en&


----------

