Chord Progression Theory Question

[Maukio]

Hi, for the longest time I only really worked on my lead guitar, but lately I've been in more of a song writing mood and have quit wanking around and have been trying to create more "songs." Last night I found a nice little chord voicing I liked and slid it up, down, and around the neck until I came up with a little catchy tune, the problem is I don't understand why it works! Here is the progression...

Pre-Verse:
I, I, I, IV, bIII,
I, I, I, IV, bIII

Verse:
I, bIII, II, bVI. bVII,
I, bIII, II, bVI, bvII,
I, bIII, II, bVI, V,
I, bIII, II, bVI, bVII

Chorus:
bVIImaj7add4, Vsus4

Ends on V7sus4

I believe all these chords are correct. All right, now the thing I don't get is why does this sound so good when all the chords are major? I don't know a ton about theory but I learned it should be M,m,m,M,M,m,m. Then I noticed that I had flat third, flat sixth, and flat seventh. This is the natural minor scale or Aeolian mode. But with the natural minor scale I learned that it should be m,m,M,m,m,M,M. So how does this song work? Are there key changes? Please fill my theory void! Also, if necessary I could record it and upload it somewhere if that'll help you all any.

I guess it just bothers me that this progression seems to defy the rules I learned. Not that I feel the need to always be guided by the rules and norms, but this song seems to "work" in a "normal" way and I don't know why. It doesn't sound out there, it sounds like a normal progression I might hear any band play, but I don't understand why it works! And that's where I get frustrated. Especially since I kind of like it, but I only figured it out by ear, and in the future I'd like to be more efficient and figuring something like this out instead of just trial-and-error/guessing until it sounds right to my ear. Any help is appreciated!

[JonR]

The "rule" you are following (mostly) is known as "borrowing from the parallel minor".
A major key has major chords on I, IV and V;
A minor key has major chords on bIII, bVI and bVII.
The major key can borrow any or all of those minor key chords - and rock music frequently does. (In fact, it's a basic rule of rock theory.)
The major II chord could be regarded as borrowed from the parallel lydian mode, but more often major IIs are "secondary dominants" (although that doesn't seem to be how it's working here).

What I think is the odd change in your sequence is the II - bVI change. I also think the "maj7add4" chord is strange. But it may depend on what shapes you play. (And in any case, whether I think it's odd or not is neither here nor there, if you like the sound! ;) )
Could you post the key and chord shapes you're using?

[willhutch]

Interesting question. Several months back there was a lot of discussion that relates to your question. Kimock figured prominently in these discussion and was using the term "pentatonic harmony".

I didn't follow all the theory in these discussions. But most fundamentally, the point was that music based on pentatonic harmony (blues, for instance) has its own set of rules. Diatonic theory is inadequate to describe it. One example of this is the presence of the pitch that lies in between the minor and major third. This pitch has an exact mathematical logic in pentatonic harmony but isn't even recognied in diatonic harmony. Secondly, in this pentatonic paradigm, you get progressions much like the one you wrote down: I, bIII, IV, V, bVII. Music coming out of Stax records in the 60's is full of this sound. You hear these chords all over rock-n-roll music.

So where does this leave us?

You can try to force an explanation on the chord progression using diatonic theory. But this will certainly be contrived and clumsy. My preference is to forget about trying to explain it in those terms and just understand it (at least most of your progression) as "blues harmony". Minor pentatonic of the I will provide the appropriate notes - just remember to bend that minor third a little.

This is unsatisfactory for most of us theory geeks. But some of us may be assuagd with the idea that there is an internal logic to this form of music - only it is a logic that the music theoy we are taught does not account for. In other words it IS following the rules, just not the rules that your theory teacher taught you.

Hope someone finds this interesting or useful.

[Clifford-D]

I remember those threads with Kimock

This might have been the beginning of those didscussions.

Brad347 says
"Interesting pentatonic-related stuff that I've been running across in my Beatles-harmony related Master's thesis:

I think much rock harmony that seems to be functionally-derived, is in fact pentatonically derived. As in, it's functional harmony that comes from a synthetic "pentatonic key." Not as in "all the notes used are in a pentatonic key" as typical, but rather as "harmonize each chord in a pentatonic scale, and use only/mainly chords built from roots that are in the pentatonic scale."

For example, hamonize each note of an A minor pentatonic scale with a major chord. You get (in traditional Western terms) the I chord, bIII chord, IV chord, V, bVI, and bVII.

TELL me that doesn't sound like many, many rock tunes (Hendrix comes to mind, as do the Beatles). It always struck me as odd that so many musicians who were going by "ear" rather than knowing a lot of theory, would somehow default to strange parallel-minor substitutes like bVII way more often than they would 'find' the very common diatonic chords like the ii chord or vii (half) diminished. Furthermore, while we hear bVII a lot, especially in Hendrix and Lennon, we rarely hear the minor iv in the music of either composer, which is functionally the same. It's just not a pentatonically-derived major triad!

I'm starting to think that just as jazz developed its own peculiar set of 'music theories' over time, rock has a set, as well, just waiting to be codified.

Of course after seeing what the codification of "jazz theory" did to jazz, I can't in good conscience be the one to attempt it!" :)
__________________

And Kimock replied
"Re. the pentatonic derivation of rock music.
Part of the issue with analysis of contemporary music that has
strong blues influences, is the difficulty in the translation of basic 7-limit overtonal relationships into the lower dimension of european 5-limit harmonic function.

Following the overtone series of a vibrating string, what Brad is referring to as flat three and flat seven triads, can be clearly seen as the seventh partial string nodes equidistant to the second partial.
The actual distance, the physical proportions, put E as a mean tone, a center, to D and G, geometrically.

This obvious symmetry would not have escaped the notice of any culture using harmony compounded up to the seventh partial.
It both sings and plays beautifully, we've all heard it and felt it, it's just very poorly rendered on a 2-limit instrument like piano.
The D and G chords are over 30 cents sharp in 12 tone.

It is as primary a harmonic resource in 7-limit as 1,4,5, is in 3-limit.
A symmetry around a tonal center, as above so below.

The notion that some "synthetic pentatonic key" might be more or less responsible for these relationships is a rare moment of insight for a western musician, but the reality of the harmonic origins of this shared and deeply experienced language are the farthest possible thing from "synthetic".

I think he's got that one backwards!:)

Respectfully, again, just another monkey staring into the back of a TV...."

Then Brad asks
"Steve,

What do you mean by "7-limit" and "5-limit" overtone relationships? And I totally see your point about the notion that an overtone-derived idea would be "synthetic" is backwards! you could not be more right."

Steve replies
http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/encyclopedia-index.aspx

Here's way more than we really need in terms of definitions, but it's good stuff and I'll bet you can handle it.
The short version, in context with the Beatles harmonic analysis was meant to draw the distinction between the unambiguously triadic 5-limit european harmony and the African based blues, R+B, and rock and roll influences in the Beatles music. Well, most pop and jazz music by then for that matter.
5-limit in this case refers to a musical system that generates it's pitches using up to the 5th partial, but not beyond.
So, 7-limit would include no partial beyond the 7th, you get the idea.

The most obvious example then would be the Dom 7th chord interpreted by both systems.
In 5-limit harmony rendered in equal temperament, a 2-limit system, the major triad is afforded "special collection" status and gets to serve as a resolved tonic area.
So, if you're in the key of C and you add a B flat to the C triad you've changed the chords' function from tonic to dominant and basically moved your tonal center down a 5th to F.
So, your 7th chord is a major triad with a subdominant spur, B flat.
The B flat in this case is two fifths below the root of the triad, it's a 3-limit pitch. If your "inversion" (misnomer, sorry) is 1357, it's 200 cents from the octave, so the whole collection is at 0, 400, 700, 1000 cents.
Been there..
To get the 7-limit hit, imagine the circle of fifths spiraling out until E is in between C and G. Imagine it continuing to spiral out until B flat shows up in that resolved tonic area.
C 7 is now a resolved tonic area with no need for further resolution.
Our 1357 dom 7th chord in 12 tone is now the second, third, fifth and seventh partials of C.
It's all overtones. Resolved.

0, 386, 702, 969 cents. Big difference.
This spiraling out of the circle of fifths brings other pitches into proximity as resolved areas that 5-limit harmony treats as chromaticism or alteration that by context or intent may not be.

Let's drop the 7-limit thing now and just say blues, ok?

In blues music, what y'all call the minor third on the one chord is actually the 7th partial of the four chord. It's not a half step diatonic or chromatic from the major third. It has no conflict with the major third, it's not even a 5-limit pitch.
There's no need to "mix them up" or alternate them, they co-exist.

Get your low E and A strings in tune with your tuner.
Copy the 5th partial of your low E string onto your G string.
Copy the 7th partial of your A string onto your high E string...carefully.
Brad, check that sound out, that's a beautiful interval...
I wish I could call it ga of sa and ni of ma, but the Indians don't use the 7th partial either. I still think of it like that tho...

Anyway, that's a really short, cheap shot at 7-limit, septimal, whatever you want to call it, blues harmony.
Listen again to that interval created by the 5th partial of the tonic with the 7th partial of the subdominant. Use your good ear, tune it right...
New sounds, instantly recognizable.
That's what I'm talkin' about...

Hope that helps....:messedup

Peace, still a monkey lookin' in the back of my tv....sk

_________________________________________

Very interesting

My thinking changed forever after these posts


:)

[Maukio]

What I think is the odd change in your sequence is the II - bVI change. I also think the "maj7add4" chord is strange. But it may depend on what shapes you play. (And in any case, whether I think it's odd or not is neither here nor there, if you like the sound! ;) )
Could you post the key and chord shapes you're using?

Yeah, the II chord in general sounds a bit weird, I am letting one open string drone within almost the entire progression, and I think why the II doesn't sound quite as bad is because on that particular chord (II) the drone is actually a minor third while I'm fretting a major third. I don't know what you'd call that chord (1,b3,3,5). I didn't realize that until you pointed out the II being weird and I examined a bit more carefully. Also, I don't know how to tab this right, but I'm playing this in the key of A so my bVIImaj7add4 is fingered...

3
3
4
4
3
3

And occasionally I'll throw in my pinky onto the 5th fret in front of one of the two 4s as I transition to the Vsus4, which I finger like this...

0
0
2
2
0
0

Anyway, hope that helps.

Thank you all so much for the help. I read all of that theory discussion and while I don't understand it all right now, it's very interesting and I'll have to find that original thread and see if I can extract some chunks of theory knowledge from it.

What's funny to me is I wrote out the mmMmmMM and that my progression has the bIII bVI and bVII but I still didn't put the two together. It was all right there I just needed someone to help connect the dots. I knew it sounded fine (mostly) and that's the way I figured it out, as I do most things. This will help give me a lot of options when messing around with songs, thanks!

[Maukio]

Because of your post JonR, commenting about the weird II I noticed I had totally missed the open drone string in my progression and how it was affecting the chords. I knew it was there and liked its effect but I hadn't payed any attention to what it was doing. I revised my progression, which I now believe is 100% correct for the drone string. Btw, what do you call a chord with a major and minor third (1,b3,3,5)?

Pre-Verse:
Iadd4, Iadd4, Iadd4, IV, bIIIadd9,
Iadd4, Iadd4, Iadd4, IV, bIIIadd9

Verse:
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6. bVII,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, bvII,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, V7,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, bVII

Chorus:
bVIImaj7add4, Vsus4

Ends on V7sus4

[willhutch]

Yes Clifford-D. That was the stuff that I didn't understand then, and still don't understand now.

[Maukio]

Man, I love knowing this stuff! I don't see these rules as boundaries or limits or anything, just guidelines, but I was able to quickly come up with a very nice ending to pin onto this progression. I'm sure I could have figured it out by ear, but it would have taken more time. Knowing the reasoning behind this stuff just makes figuring out stuff so much quicker and less frustrating!

[JonR]

Yeah, the II chord in general sounds a bit weird, I am letting one open string drone within almost the entire progression, and I think why the II doesn't sound quite as bad is because on that particular chord (II) the drone is actually a minor third while I'm fretting a major third. I don't know what you'd call that chord (1,b3,3,5). I didn't realize that until you pointed out the II being weird and I examined a bit more carefully.It's not that the II chord is weird in itself, it's the change to bVI that sounds strange. But if you're adding other notes as you say, that may make it work better.
However, I'm not totally clear what shape you're describing, which string is your drone. If you're in the key of A (as you say later), II is B major, and although I can imagine a shape that includes both b3 and 3 (D and D#) I'd like to know exactly what you're playing.
Also, I don't know how to tab this right, but I'm playing this in the key of A so my bVIImaj7add4 is fingered...

3
3
4
4
3
3If you have tabbed that right, I'd call that a Cmaj9#11 (voiced 5-R-#4-7-9-5), or Gmaj7/C (because there is no E).
Just because G is the lowest note doesn't make it the root. I think C sounds the root, maybe because a sus4 and maj7 don't normally exist in the same chord.
In fact, I find it a pretty ugly chord, because of that top G. As a whole it's not too bad, but it's this interval that would make me avoid using such a shape:

3
-
-
4
-
-

I'd pick that out of the chord and think "hmm, no thanks". Much better to leave out the top G.
But that's purely IMO, of course! ;)
And occasionally I'll throw in my pinky onto the 5th fret in front of one of the two 4s as I transition to the Vsus4, which I finger like this...

0
0
2
2
0
0Again, that's more like an A-root chord (Asus2) than an E-root (Esus4). (Technically it could be either, but I think A sounds more like the root.)
That's why it sounds OK to end on this chord - it isn't really Vsus4, it's Isus2.

For it sound like Esus4, you'd need the B on 5th string:

0
0
2
2
2
0

[JonR]

Because of your post JonR, commenting about the weird II I noticed I had totally missed the open drone string in my progression and how it was affecting the chords. I knew it was there and liked its effect but I hadn't payed any attention to what it was doing. I revised my progression, which I now believe is 100% correct for the drone string. Btw, what do you call a chord with a major and minor third (1,b3,3,5)?

Pre-Verse:
Iadd4, Iadd4, Iadd4, IV, bIIIadd9,
Iadd4, Iadd4, Iadd4, IV, bIIIadd9

Verse:
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6. bVII,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, bvII,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, V7,
Iadd4, bIIIadd9, II(b3&3), bVIadd6, bVII

Chorus:
bVIImaj7add4, Vsus4

Ends on V7sus4Still not clear which string is the drone - looks like the D string, but I still can't work out the shapes. A drone string (esp one as low as the D) may affect chord identity, so you may have your function numerals wrong - that is, there may be a more revealing/logical way of analysing it.
(As I said above, I think your Vsus4 is actually a Isus2; and your "bVIImaj7add4":eek: is a bIIImaj9#11 (OK, that's no simpler...:rolleyes:))

At the same time, you could have a largely modal (non-functional) sequence, for which roman numeral analysis is not going to be too helpful.

[gennation]

At the same time, you could have a largely modal (non-functional) sequence, for which roman numeral analysis is not going to be too helpful.

That's kind of how I look at things, if it's not in Key you're going to need a different scale or a subset of a different scale/group of notes, or just need to look outside the scale/Key you are in. I just term this idea as "modal" and go find the scale, this takes a lot of guess work out of it and gets you to playing over it quicker...at least for me.

But, in using Roman Numerals you do see non-functioning chords stand out against the "in Key" functioning chord. And, it shows you how close your "out of Key scale" (or mode) is away from the Key scale. Which in turn helps you "connect" your lines using the smallest steps between the scale, which can lead to voice leading.

Chances are if you're using a "drone string" throughout that this is indeed modal based. (I haven't played through your song yet, but droning is very vulnerable to modal playing and shifting)