Bride of LimpyLoo's Tip Du Jour

[LimpyLoo]

Topic One: Functional Harmony

 

 

I've been searching for quite a long time for a way to concisely describe Functional Harmony--both to understand it and communicate it--as fundamentally it is extremely simple: even the most complex harmonic progressions you've ever heard follow the very basic, kindergarten-level principles of Functional Harmony.

 

So here it. in all its glory, the the definition of Functional Harmony that I have finally arrived at:

 

 

 

Notes, moving

 

 

Now, this seems like an idiot truism. It really seems like a worthless bit of faux-wisdom. But like I said, even the most bizarre Herbie Hancock reharmonization could be constructed paint by numbers-style by a 10-year old.

 

Alright, let's start with Diatonic Functional Harmony (and get it out of the way because frankly it's the least interesting bit in all this). All of the triads in a C major scale fall into one of three (basic) categories according to their, you know, function: Tonic, Sub-Dominant, and Dominant.

 

Cmaj (and its variants, like Amin and sometimes Emin) is the Tonic

 

Fmaj (and its variants, like Dmin and sometimes Amin) is the Sub-Dominant

 

Gmaj (and its variants, like Emin and the kinda-gross Bdiminished triad) is the Dominant

 

 

 

The relative functions of the chords are determined by certain notes moving to other notes. And which variant can serve as a substitute depends on both the previous and subsequent chords and how strong or weak the motion would be.

 

So in a progression like

 

Cmaj - Fmaj - G7- Cmaj

 

which, when voice-led in root position, looks like this:

 

(the "D" in the G7 chord has been omitted for functional and aesthetic effect)

 

G A G G

E F F E

C C B C

 

The movement that you are seeing between the notes is the crux of Functional Harmony. For instance, the "E" (which can be thought of as a sort-of resting note) is suspend to "F" and then held through until it resolves in the final chord. This is also the crux of the (highly reductionist) concept of Tension And Release, although in this instance the tension is rather polite. And notice that when thinking simply of movement between notes, The (diatonic) functional variants of these chords can be slipped in and serve the same duty. So we could swap out the second (Fmaj) and final (Cmaj) chords and instead have Cmaj - Dmin - G7 - Amin, giving us the very similar

 

 

G A G A

E F F E

C D B C

 

or change the voice-leading so we get a stronger effect

 

G F F E

E D B C

C A G A

 

This is how Bach, for instance, approached his harmonies: with carefully-constructed movement.(We'll talk about Bach again in a few minutes when it's time to discuss the merit of technical and mathematical elegance and why we should even bother learning stuff like this).

 

Now, shedding the diatonic shackles, let's tweak the first example so the movement is slightly stronger and more interesting:

 

G A Ab G

E F F E

C C B C

 

Now, what would happen if we ignored all the traditional music theory bullshit...what if we stopped thinking of chords per se and instead just focused on devising interesting movement between the individual notes? What if created a sequence of four-note stacks that were created simply according the movement of the individual notes? What if instead of using the Sub-Dominant and Dominant we used chords that shared the same functionally-important note or notes.

 

So if we focus on the movement from E to F, and find four-note chords that contain the note F.

 

Dbmaj(#11) = Db F G Gb

Bbmin/maj7 = Bb Db F A

Gbmaj7 = Gb Bb Db F

Bmaj(#11) = B D# F F# (for the OCD foks, the F is technically an E#)

etc

 

If you want to sharpen your writing/arranging chops, I would recommend finding a simple tune--maybe a children's song--and reharmonizing it by swapping out the kinda-boring diatonic chords for slightly-crazier chords that share the same functionally-important notes. The big trick is to accommodate the melody. Personally, I am a dissonance fiend so I am happy to hear chords that grind up against the melody like a [insert sexual joke].

 

But anyway, that is the logic to non-diatonic Functional Harmony.

 

 

And finally...why should we care? Why not just plunk out notes and arbitrate your choices using strictly your ears? Well, if music is indeed math, then I think technical elegance should be kept in mind. If you like Bach, then I would argue that you like Bach for much the same reason that you find beauty in mathematics and nature, which is to say, the way things are organized.

 

Now just to be clear, I definitely do not think that it's necessary to slave over your compositions note-by-note in this fashion, every single time. Rather, I think simply having it on your radar is enough.

 

Anyway, hope this was useful to someone, somewhere.

 

-LimpyLoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MisterE]

Wow, looks like some good info. I've always wanted to understand some basic theory stuff and this kind of thing specifically, but it's like my brain can't decipher any of it. Your post looks laid out pretty well in easy to understand terms but I don't think I'll ever be able to grasp this stuff. Unless maybe I get a butt-ton of anti-seizure pills...

http://theweek.com/article/index/254721/this-pill-could-give-your-brain-the-learning-powers-of-a-7-year-old

Anyway I imagine this info should be useful to people who aren't allergic to theory like me.

[LimpyLoo]

Wow, looks like some good info. I've always wanted to understand some basic theory stuff and this kind of thing specifically, but it's like my brain can't decipher any of it. Your post looks laid out pretty well in easy to understand terms but I don't think I'll ever be able to grasp this stuff. Unless maybe I get a butt-ton of anti-seizure pills...

http://theweek.com/article/index/254721/this-pill-could-give-your-brain-the-learning-powers-of-a-7-year-old

Anyway I imagine this info should be useful to people who aren't allergic to theory like me.

 

I'm very curious about that pill. I would be very interested in taking it and then studying all the things I've ever wanted to learn.

 

Like, I'd love to be fluent in French and Spanish.

[Leon Sumbitches]

Thanks for putting this up man, I've got a bit of time on my hands at the moment so I'm trying to get a bit more acquainted with theory. This will help. Cheers!

[mcbpete]

Limpy - I probably won't be commenting much on them but will be reading these coming posts thoroughly. I'm severely lacking music theory knowledge so am gonna be reading this thread with great interest. So thanks man!

[awepittance]

any examples of this you've used on one of your own compositions?

[LimpyLoo]

any examples of this you've used on one of your own compositions?

 

Yeah It's all over the place in my stuff. I'll try to find a couple examples, but actually I was planning on posting some examples on solo guitar just for stark demonstration. I'll try to do that in a couple hours. I sorta realized that posts like these need audio or else people take in the information on strictly an intellectual level. Whereas ideally people would simultaneously hear the effect and understand it intellectually.

 

Anyway good idea, thanks.

 

Limpy - I probably won't be commenting much on them but will be reading these coming posts thoroughly. I'm severely lacking music theory knowledge so am gonna be reading this thread with great interest. So thanks man!

Oh great thanks a bunch. I'm excited to write more. Cheers.

[mcbpete]

BTW (I think I mentioned this on another theory topic) for those like me, who are pretty good technically/production wise but are lacking basic-to-intermediate general musical theory I really recommend this book. I'm [very] slowly working through it since picking it up a few months ago:

 

[foresense]

Interesting, thanks.

Okay so where do you find chord progressions? Is there a dictionary, like chess openings? Or how do you construct them? The skill I want to learn is going from something in my head to putting it down in the sequencer, and then building on that.. It feels like eating with chopsticks to be honest.

Creating movement like that sounds nice though. But how does it work? Do you pick the chord you want to reach, and try to go towards it in a musical way? Because that is what interests me mostly. Is that where you grab the big book of progressions or do you know a lot by heart and pick from that?

Is there an easy way to try? Stuff like this seems useful for learning: http://www.mucoder.net/en/tonespace/

I also like microtonality, how much does that break the whole idea of chord progressions? Are there things that you could pass over into that realm?

[LimpyLoo]

 

Interesting, thanks.

Okay so where do you find chord progressions? Is there a dictionary, like chess openings? Or how do you construct them? The skill I want to learn is going from something in my head to putting it down in the sequencer, and then building on that.. It feels like eating with chopsticks to be honest.

Creating movement like that sounds nice though. But how does it work? Do you pick the chord you want to reach, and try to go towards it in a musical way? Because that is what interests me mostly. Is that where you grab the big book of progressions or do you know a lot by heart and pick from that?

Is there an easy way to try? Stuff like this seems useful for learning: http://www.mucoder.net/en/tonespace/

I also like microtonality, how much does that break the whole idea of chord progressions? Are there things that you could pass over into that realm?

 

 

(Hey y'all sorry I didn't post any audio today,

I've got some sort of gross, very physically-demanding flu so I've been out of commission)

 

IMO a good place to start is learning other people's chord progressions

Pick a band or an album or whatever and just start learning stuff

That and learning cliches, common cadences, etc

And through doing that you will develop an ear--and a general sense--for harmonic movement

and you will have a bunch of "cells"

little pieces of information that you can piece together to make what you want to make

 

And yeah it is kind of a method to get from one chord to another

So you might think of four chords

and then find/devise a "passing chord" to move from chord one to chord two

and then from two to three, etc

So maybe you pick

 

C F G Am

 

and then pick passing chords to throw in between

 

C (Gbmaj7) F (Ab/Gb) G (Bb/Ab) Am

 

[slash chord (X/Y) means X-triad with Y as a bass note, btw]

[luke viia]

BTW (I think I mentioned this on another theory topic) for those like me, who are pretty good technically/production wise but are lacking basic-to-intermediate general musical theory I really recommend this book. I'm [very] slowly working through it since picking it up a few months ago:

 

 

+1. picked this book up last year to learn/re-learn some new things, good stuff.

[plastic]

I had a few courses at uni in music theory about 7 years ago, specifically in the material that LimpyLoo here is presenting. Only, we called it Tonal Harmony instead of Functional Harmony, but I'm guessing they are about the same thing. But anyway, I wanted to add a few things for you guys if you care to read. Keep in mind strict Tonal theory is basically how to write music like Bach.

 

I find it much easier to contemplate this sort of thing using the roman numeral system. For those that don't know what that is, it is defining the Tonic triad as I, and all the notes in the scale go up from there. Major triads are capitalized, minor are lower-case. So for instance, in the key of C, it would look like the following. Keep in mind that these are built on the major scale of the key of C, so some turn out minor, others major.

 

C major = I

D minor = ii

E minor = iii

F major = IV

G major = V

A minor = vi

B diminished = vii° (side note: "diminished" in regards to triads means that the 5th is not a perfect 5th. It's important to note, because in Tonal Harmony this chord almost always contains the leading tone)

C major = I

 

If we use this method, it doesn't matter what the tonic is, and we don't have to write note names or say whether it's major/minor because all the information is right there. In minor, the numerals go like this:

 

i, ii°, III, iv, v, VI, VII, i

 

As you can see, since the tonic of a minor scale is built on the 6th note in a major scale, the major/minor chords just kind of shift down a couple spots. Not really important regarding anything, but it makes it easier to remember what a minor scale looks like.

 

So these are just triads, i.e., chords made of three notes not including the seventh. Maybe I can get to sevenths later, if anyone has an interest, as they kind of have some extra parameters to consider when using them in tonal theory.

 

Now, with that out of the way, let me try to expand on Limpy's voice leading explanation. The way I learned voice leading was that it's the relationship between the top note of the chord and the bottom note of the chord, the two most easily discernible notes to the human ear (which is why it matters). So in tonal harmony there are certain no-nos with regard to what treble (top) and bass (bottom) notes can do in relationship to each other when moving from one chord to another. These things include: no parallel octaves, parallel fifths, no jumping in opposite direction to a perfect fifth, no fifths in the bass position except in special circumstances, more than three parallel thirds in a row is pushing it. Other things to do include having at least one of each note of the triad if doing three voices (notes), double the bass note somewhere in the chord if more than three voices.

 

Taking all of this into consideration we can come up with the standard chord progression that is easiest to voice lead with the rules of tonal theory:

 

In Major:

I -> iii -> vi -> IV -> vii° -> ii -> V -> I

 

In minor:

i -> III -> VI -> iv -> VII -> ii° -> V -> i

 

(Notice that even though in the natural minor scale the the chord built on the 5th is a minor chord, here we use a major 5th. This is because the having leading tone (special name for the major seventh interval from the tonic) will create more tension making us want to hear it resolve to the tonic, which is the strongest closure possible in tonal harmony)

 

So equipped with these, we can pick and choose which chords we want to use out of the seven available, though usually want to have V in there. E.g., The absolute most popular chord progression in the history of the world is I -> IV -> V, and is probably used in every other song you'd hear on popular radio. The next most popular, mostly used in jazz is I -> ii -> V. Another random one could be i -> VI -> iv -> ii° -> V.

 

Now that we have a good setup for voice leading, you can add in non-chord tones such as suspensions, pre chord tones (I made that up, can't remember what they're actually called), passing tones, and from there even add passing chords like Limpy was talking about.

 

Other things to consider in tonal theory include: cadences, inversions (kind of just assumed people knew what this is about up there, let me know if you need explanations), chromaticism, modulations, and transformations. Possibly if anyone wants I can write some on that stuff, but at this point... I'm done for now. Hope it was helpful to at least someone.

 

Oh, and here's a kind of silly track of mine that uses strict adherence to tonal theory concepts, including a bunch I didn't talk about, but pretty bare in the realm of passing chords (passing tones all over), so the standard progression I talked about is very prominent. (originally commissioned by a start-up video game company making a game with a steampunk theme. Guess they didn't like IDMz, cuz they rejected it):

 

http://delyria.bandcamp.com/track/sprockets

[LimpyLoo]

Dude kinda get your own thread or something lol

[plastic]

Er, sorry. I was trying to help! I can leave if you want.

[LimpyLoo]

Er, sorry. I was trying to help! I can leave if you want.

 

Nah dude I'm just playin lol

[Guest]

If you're really serious about chord progressions and want to be a popstar learn these;

 

[foresense]

If you're really serious about chord progressions and want to be a popstar learn these;

 

 

lol, ya but check, my shit sounds more like that then it does to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3FJxDsa-5k

I don't know how this came about, but it sounds effortless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnVgaxqVBo

[plastic]

Of course it sounds effortless. It's fucking Bartok. lol

[mcbpete]

Woah that was amazing - really well done visualisation of it too

[jmbf44]

I really like these threads Limpy.

 

For anyone that's interested, Tchaikovsky wrote a book on just this topic. It shows you a lot of voice leading "tricks" without getting weighed down too much with the theory behind it. Here's a link to it on the IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Practical_Study_of_Harmony_(Tchaikovsky,_Pyotr)

 

 

In Major:

I -> iii -> vi -> IV -> vii° -> ii -> V -> I

 

In minor:

i -> III -> VI -> iv -> VII -> ii° -> V -> i

 

I think maybe you were going for the circle progression:

 

In major:

I > IV > vii^o > iii > vi > ii > V > I

 

In (natural) minor:

i > iv > VII > III > VI > ii^o > v > I

 

But otherwise I completely agree with your post. Roman numerals are really useful for writing/analysing chords as you're not restricted to a specific key.

 

In the circle progression each chord goes up by a fourth (or down by a fifth, same thing). It was used pretty extensively in Classical era Classical music (e.g. Mozart, Haydn). For example, in the majority of Mozart pieces, you're bound to hear a I > ii > V (or more specifically I > V⁷/V > V⁷) progression around 100 times. Another common chord progression, where you substitute a IV chord for the ii chord is the doo wop progression: I > vi > IV > V⁷. You hear this progression a lot in 50's music and at the end of a bunch of the Needle Drop's videos.

 

I don't really thing using the circle progression or its derivatives is particularly useful for more contemporary music. If you want to make a chord progression, just simply pick a couple chords. If its diatonic, it'll sound fine. For example:

 

i > VI > III > iv

i > III > VII

I >iii

III > i > VI > iv > VII

 

Something else that I think is really useful in electronic music is counterpoint (which is initially where harmony came from). The text that Mozart, Beethoven, etc used is still used today: Fux's Gradis ad Parnassum. Basically counterpoint is the art of combining 2 or more independent (melodically and usually rhythmically) melodies in a pleasing way. For example, if you have a bass line, and you want to write a melody that is complementary but still independant, you could use counterpoint.

 

Here's a link to a great online description with exercises from the book: http://homepage.eircom.net/~gerfmcc/SpeciesOne.html

 

I'm a huge fan of both 20th century string quartets and Bartok as well. A good book on Bartok's technique is The Music of Bela Bartok: A Study of Tonality and Progression in Twentieth-Century Music by Elliott Antokoletz (any book by Antokoletz relating to 20th c. music is badass btw). It's pretty intense reading, and he analyzes using pitch class sets. (As an aside, someone ought to do a little writeup on pitch class set theory. I think it would be extremely useful for writing electronic music. Basically, aspects of music like pitch and interval are broken down into numbers and can be manipulated mathematically to get new material while still being cohesive.)

 

If you've not heard any Bartok, go get the Emerson Quartet's recording of his string quartets (he wrote 6) and listen to them as loudly as you can. His 4th and 5th are my favorite pieces of music. Here's the best version I could find of the end of his 4th on youtube, but it's nowhere near as aggressive as the Emerson's recording:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsd2OtqEIqM

 

Also, first post. Hi.

[foresense]

Interesting read, welcome to the board!

 

Will see if I can piece all this info together into something practical for me :)

 

I know a little Bartok, but I haven't listened much of him. I have the Tokyo String Quartet version here with Janacek on it as well (nice but didn't really dig into the Bartok part, so much of it). Will try and find the Emmerson version.

 

Here's some stuff I like. I have the Quartetto Italiano version of this, it was the first album of classical music that sucked me in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Ep2lDjnNM

 

also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAkfSnQ2sU

 

I think I had the Emerson version of Shostakovich string quartets in mp3, but I misplaced it. Should get it too, I really liked that.

[plastic]

I really like these threads Limpy.

 

For anyone that's interested, Tchaikovsky wrote a book on just this topic. It shows you a lot of voice leading "tricks" without getting weighed down too much with the theory behind it. Here's a link to it on the IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Practical_Study_of_Harmony_(Tchaikovsky,_Pyotr)

 

 

In Major:

I -> iii -> vi -> IV -> vii° -> ii -> V -> I

 

In minor:

i -> III -> VI -> iv -> VII -> ii° -> V -> i

 

I think maybe you were going for the circle progression:

 

In major:

I > IV > vii^o > iii > vi > ii > V > I

 

In (natural) minor:

i > iv > VII > III > VI > ii^o > v > I

 

But otherwise I completely agree with your post. Roman numerals are really useful for writing/analysing chords as you're not restricted to a specific key.

 

In the circle progression each chord goes up by a fourth (or down by a fifth, same thing). It was used pretty extensively in Classical era Classical music (e.g. Mozart, Haydn). For example, in the majority of Mozart pieces, you're bound to hear a I > ii > V (or more specifically I > V⁷/V > V⁷) progression around 100 times. Another common chord progression, where you substitute a IV chord for the ii chord is the doo wop progression: I > vi > IV > V⁷. You hear this progression a lot in 50's music and at the end of a bunch of the Needle Drop's videos.

 

I don't really thing using the circle progression or its derivatives is particularly useful for more contemporary music. If you want to make a chord progression, just simply pick a couple chords. If its diatonic, it'll sound fine. For example:

 

i > VI > III > iv

i > III > VII

I >iii

III > i > VI > iv > VII

 

Something else that I think is really useful in electronic music is counterpoint (which is initially where harmony came from). The text that Mozart, Beethoven, etc used is still used today: Fux's Gradis ad Parnassum. Basically counterpoint is the art of combining 2 or more independent (melodically and usually rhythmically) melodies in a pleasing way. For example, if you have a bass line, and you want to write a melody that is complementary but still independant, you could use counterpoint.

 

Here's a link to a great online description with exercises from the book: http://homepage.eircom.net/~gerfmcc/SpeciesOne.html

 

I'm a huge fan of both 20th century string quartets and Bartok as well. A good book on Bartok's technique is The Music of Bela Bartok: A Study of Tonality and Progression in Twentieth-Century Music by Elliott Antokoletz (any book by Antokoletz relating to 20th c. music is badass btw). It's pretty intense reading, and he analyzes using pitch class sets. (As an aside, someone ought to do a little writeup on pitch class set theory. I think it would be extremely useful for writing electronic music. Basically, aspects of music like pitch and interval are broken down into numbers and can be manipulated mathematically to get new material while still being cohesive.)

 

If you've not heard any Bartok, go get the Emerson Quartet's recording of his string quartets (he wrote 6) and listen to them as loudly as you can. His 4th and 5th are my favorite pieces of music. Here's the best version I could find of the end of his 4th on youtube, but it's nowhere near as aggressive as the Emerson's recording:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsd2OtqEIqM

 

Also, first post. Hi.

Excellent first post!

 

Actually I wasn't going for the circle progression, this was a progression prescribed to pretty much guarantee a feeling of movement towards the tonic, make for easy voice leading and successful counterpoint melodies (keep in mind I only had a few semesters of this stuff before circumstances forced me leave, so this was like super beginner stuff ). I agree that this is indeed not the best thing to be using in contemporary music, but someone earlier wanted to know a prescribed chord progression, so I (tried) to deliver. One thing that something like this is good for, however, is learning relationships between chords, and especially just having somewhere to start. Like, while the track I posted certainly used this progression quite a bit, there were also some liberties taken .(though not in the voice leading and counterpoint area). So yeah, when I first started writing, and before my little theory trainging, sometimes just picking out some diatonic chords just led to the music sounding like it was just kind of wandering, so something like this can be helpful in that regard.

 

Honestly, it sounds like you may have a bit more training than myself, so maybe you should make a post about pitch class set theory. I have some vague ideas about that kind of stuff, but it's not something I've delved into quite yet (though, thanks for the idea). Atonal stuff that I have done include serialism and polytriads, though not super extensively.

 

Thanks for the suggested reading, too!

[foresense]

okay what I'm going to try from her on out is do my melody stuff as usual, and when I get stuck analyze what I did and see where I could lead it. that would be the most practical thing for me.

 

so first I would be looking for the root in the melodies I write, correct? how do I do find it, and how do I go on from there? I remember faintly that it's usually the note you end with. Is this somewhat correct? I usually know how to find the root by heart, but to be able to analyze it would be a good skill to start with.

 

teach me oh grand wizards

[LimpyLoo]

okay what I'm going to try from her on out is do my melody stuff as usual, and when I get stuck analyze what I did and see where I could lead it. that would be the most practical thing for me.

 

so first I would be looking for the root in the melodies I write, correct? how do I do find it, and how do I go on from there? I remember faintly that it's usually the note you end with. Is this somewhat correct? I usually know how to find the root by heart, but to be able to analyze it would be a good skill to start with.

 

teach me oh grand wizards

 

It's not so much a matter of finding the root of the melodies you write. This is kinda why I was trying to steer the thread away from diatonic harmony 101 but Danke wanted to bring us back

 

You should MAKE the root, not FIND it.

 

if your melody notes are G A Bb

 

Then yes you could stick to the keys of F or Bb or Eb.

 

But you could also do literally anything else as well.

 

You could have the root be F# and have a sort of Spanish Phrygian sound (the characteristic sound of Flamenco).

 

You could have the root be Ab (yes, Ab) and have a fucking crazy Lydian b2 sound (imagine putting a b2 in a maj7 chord!).

 

 

I would just pluck around and use your ears, settle on something and then move it somewhere, and maybe use motivic development to twist your melody around.

[foresense]

yeah man, I pluck around all the time. But I'd like to get back to a track and know what's going on inside the patterns I did, that's my struggle. Motives become buried in thick static loops that are difficult to break apart and modulate on. It would be useful to know which of the notes I can describe as a motive's base elements, so I can replicate and modulate those at will.