# Are there chord progressions left to explore? (plus introduction)



## skrjablin

Hello!

My name is Martin and I would like to present myself with a few links to my compositions. (Actually I already posted here in 2010 but since then I think things have developed somewhat, see below)

As many others here, I have dabbled in writing in a more or less purely classical or neo-classical style as an exercise. Examples are these:

"Epic Organ Piece":

__
https://soundcloud.com/hitcomposer%2Fepic-organ-piece-v2

"Divertimento Molto Pizzicato": 




These days though, I write mostly computer game music and a kind of pop music. And that's not simply for commercial reasons (actually, I have made no money on this so far). Rather, one of the reasons for that is that I feel that there are things to explore with the way people like The Beatles and others did free up the way chords could be used in pop, with lots of mediants and other even more "out" things, in order to create more color in music, in ways that even Debussy and Ravel never really explored (I think...).

I hope you will allow me to post a few examples of that, even if some of them might not be classified as "serious" (weird term?) or "classical". Because personally I feel that these compositions are just as serious and perhaps more interesting in some ways than my pieces in olde-time classical style.

Quasi-Medieval Suite (

__
https://soundcloud.com/hitcomposer%2Fquasi-medieval-suite
): this piece was made using a program named Goattracker in order to get a retro Commodore 64 sound, for a game I'm planning to make. At least some of its sections demonstrate what I said above about exploring new chord progressions.

Swallows in Flight (

__
https://soundcloud.com/hitcomposer%2Fswallows-in-flight-demo
): some kind of weird pop music with a chord progression that I personally feel satisfied with.

C64 Doge Song (

__
https://soundcloud.com/hitcomposer%2Fc64-doge-song
): another piece of game music, again demonstrating interesting chord progressions in some of its parts.

Can you people agree that I'm on to something here, stylistically, or do you maybe think something like that all possibilities of the tonal system have already been explored fully, more or less?


----------



## Vasks

As to the final 3 "game" soundtracks. It doesn't matter if you choose odd chord progressions; the issue is whether they're truly interesting or poorly conceived. You have to make that call each and every time you try something different.

As for the organ piece: Two weakness: (1) too much large scale repetition and too much sequencing. (2) I found nothing "epic" about it, so that word IMO needs to be removed from the title

As for the Pizzicato piece, I hope you realize that real string players can not play pizzicato that fast..nowhere's near that fast.


----------



## Celloissimo

Vasks said:


> As for the Pizzicato piece, I hope you realize that real string players can not play pizzicato that fast..nowhere's near that fast.


I second this. Even when using two fingers while pizz'ing (like an electric bassist) which helps you play faster "galloping" rhythms, the speed you're asking of the string players is just unrealistic.


----------



## skrjablin

Vasks said:


> As to the final 3 "game" soundtracks. It doesn't matter if you choose odd chord progressions; the issue is whether they're truly interesting or poorly conceived. You have to make that call each and every time you try something different.


I think there can be some kind of value in itself in trying something comparatively more "fresh". But of course, as you say, one has to ask oneself all the time if it's also good and not just strange. I personally like these pieces I made, and I'm a bit curious about what you think -- do you think they are "poorly conceived"?

There is also the thing that compositional weirdness will indeed "signal" some kind of actual estrangement. In the "medieval" piece, the unusual progressions try to signal an arcaic feeling (not authentic at all though), and in Swallows in Flight I meant to portray a kind of dreaming emotion. But I've tried to hit a spot where it's a bit different but doesn't sound _too_ strange, whatever that is. Because that is what I find interesting myself...



> As for the organ piece: Two weakness: (1) too much large scale repetition and too much sequencing.


Yeah, I'm aware of that, it sort of turned out that way and I can't think of how to improve it. "Epic" was quite ironical, but whatever... 



> As for the Pizzicato piece, I hope you realize that real string players can not play pizzicato that fast..nowhere's near that fast.


Sure, it was originally conceived for piano but I just thought it sounded good with those midi pizzicatos... and it adds some kind of "novelty" aspect to it. I have no hopes of getting this played by real players.

Thank you for answering!


----------



## Vasks

skrjablin said:


> do you think they are "poorly conceived"?


Deep down I believe this is the reason why you posted here, but it's not up to me (or another here). Your ear knows what is conventional and what is quirky. Just because you may initially like the quirky passage doesn't mean you go with it. You must determine whether the quirkiness at hand will be interesting to others or is just plain rubbish that no one will like. You must keep re-evaluating that spot until you are fully convinced whether it stays or goes.


----------



## Mahlerian

skrjablin said:


> These days though, I write mostly computer game music and a kind of pop music. And that's not simply for commercial reasons (actually, I have made no money on this so far). Rather, one of the reasons for that is that I feel that there are things to explore with the way people like The Beatles and others did free up the way chords could be used in pop, with lots of mediants and other even more "out" things, in order to create more color in music, in ways that even Debussy and Ravel never really explored (I think...).


The big difference is that Debussy and Ravel didn't think in terms of "chord progressions" as the term is understood in modern pop/rock music (or New Age). Debussy and Ravel and other modern composers have generally moved away from the diatonic major/minor scale as primary, and harmonies like this:










...which are primarily the result of stacked fourths and fifths (with transpositions) rather than thirds, are not uncommon. As for triads, Debussy has done a whole lot:


----------



## skrjablin

Vasks said:


> Deep down I believe this is the reason why you posted here, but it's not up to me (or another here).


Deep down you believe _what_ is the reason I posted here? That I posted because (I deep down believe that?) my pieces are poorly conceived? I don't quite understand what you're referring to here...



> Your ear knows what is conventional and what is quirky. Just because you may initially like the quirky passage doesn't mean you go with it. You must determine whether the quirkiness at hand will be interesting to others or is just plain rubbish that no one will like. You must keep re-evaluating that spot until you are fully convinced whether it stays or goes.


Hmm, I have indeed heard from more "pop-oriented" listeners that they find my stuff too strange. But on the other hand, if you don't try to be new at all, you will indeed not write a new composition at all, but rather your work will be a rewrite or rehash of old compositions. I'm trying to hit a spot where there is territory left to explore, because that is what rings my personal bell. But whether there are more people like me in the world is another question of course, which I have yet to answer...

What I am fascinated of is how strange chords you can hit while keeping a sense of tonal center, but getting added color. Like, a part of the Quasi Medieval Suite has the progression ||: C | Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C :|| Am | Dbm | Em | Dm Bb | Am | Dbm | Em | F B | C Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C ||


----------



## skrjablin

Mahlerian said:


> The big difference is that Debussy and Ravel didn't think in terms of "chord progressions" as the term is understood in modern pop/rock music (or New Age). Debussy and Ravel and other modern composers have generally moved away from the diatonic major/minor scale as primary, and harmonies like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which are primarily the result of stacked fourths and fifths (with transpositions) rather than thirds, are not uncommon. As for triads, Debussy has done a whole lot:


Of course Debussy did some things with triads. But I'm just saying that there are some things left to explore, and I believe that you are not saying otherwise either. Perhaps no giant discoveries to be found, but some unknown territory at least.

Also, I think it is fascinating how, if you take for example such different figures as Debussy and Schönberg (was the first quote from Schönberg by the way?) they in a sense sound quite similar, in their phrasing and such, which is quite a marker of the times (early 1900's), i.e., when compared to the wildly different phrasing and syncopation and so on, of pop music. So, only for the reason of having a new language of phrasing ("phrasing" is maybe not the actual word I'm searching for here, though) there is new territory to chart out. I like many of Debussy's works and all of Ravel's, but just because they did some things with triads it doesn't tell us that there is nothing fresh to find?


----------



## Vasks

skrjablin said:


> Deep down you believe _what_ is the reason I posted here? That I posted because (I deep down believe that?) my pieces are poorly conceived? I don't quite understand what you're referring to here...
> Hmm, I have indeed heard from more "pop-oriented" listeners that they find my stuff too strange. But on the other hand, if you don't try to be new at all, you will indeed not write a new composition at all, but rather your work will be a rewrite or rehash of old compositions. I'm trying to hit a spot where there is territory left to explore, because that is what rings my personal bell. But whether there are more people like me in the world is another question of course, which I have yet to answer..


What I meant was that you're looking for a consensus as to whether your quirkiness is interesting or not. And what I've been trying to articulate is that you should not be aiming for composing by consensus.

If I share my music here or elsewhere it would not be for seeking opinions as to its strengths and weaknesses. My work has been repeatedly evaluated by myself and once every measure has been finalized that's it; the work then sinks or swims on its merits. Merits that I've decided on, not a committee.


----------



## skrjablin

Vasks said:


> What I meant was that you're looking for a consensus as to whether your quirkiness is interesting or not. And what I've been trying to articulate is that you should not be aiming for composing by consensus.
> 
> If I share my music here or elsewhere it would not be for seeking opinions as to its strengths and weaknesses. My work has been repeatedly evaluated by myself and once every measure has been finalized that's it; the work then sinks or swims on its merits. Merits that I've decided on, not a committee.


That's a stance which I certainly respect. (Although you said in a previous post that I should evaluate repeatedly whether my passages will be interesting to others, but whatever...  ) As for myself, I certainly mainly fall back on my own esthetical judgement as a method of composition, since that is by far the most direct and natural way of thinking musically, I believe. But when you are trying to make "Brauchsmusik" as I've done here, there are also the need to take into consideration if the music can be used for certain purposes, like some game music needing to evoke some special mood. And I actually do have problems with that way of thinking: I seldom know what mood or even genre I will land in when I start from some (to me) interesting musical "seed". But maybe I'm caught up inbetween these two ways of thinking, the "personal" and the "commercial".

As to why I posted here, I confess that it was mainly a way of getting more listeners at all. And then I tried to add some germ of discussion as a double purpose for the thread. Maybe that fired wrong. But I'm generally interested in both the opinions of others, and in possible interesting discussion. And of course I do enjoy positive judgements of my work, I'm just human. But I think I have some integrity too; I'm not just looking for yes-sayers and consensus, but enjoy various kinds of critique as well. Or so I think.


----------



## Vasks

skrjablin said:


> But when you are trying to make "Brauchsmusik" as I've done here, there are also the need to take into consideration if the music can be used for certain purposes, like some game music needing to evoke some special mood. And I actually do have problems with that way of thinking: I seldom know what mood or even genre I will land in when I start from some (to me) interesting musical "seed". But maybe I'm caught up inbetween these two ways of thinking, the "personal" and the "commercial".


I think you mean "Gebrauchsmusik", but I get your drift. Coming to a Classical music website precludes a number of us posters (especially me ) of being helpful with gaming music. But yes if you have Classical music training and knowledge and want to also be in the pop game music scene as well I can imagine being "caught up between the two".



skrjablin said:


> As to why I posted here, I confess that it was mainly a way of getting more listeners at all. And then I tried to add some germ of discussion as a double purpose for the thread. Maybe that fired wrong. But I'm generally interested in both the opinions of others, and in possible interesting discussion. And of course I do enjoy positive judgements of my work, I'm just human.


As do many of the posters here at TC's "Composer Forum". Nothing surprising there.



skrjablin said:


> But I think I have some integrity too.


And if you look at all of what I wrote, I'm asking you to trust your instincts. If you need a critical voice to help you improve seek out a known successful person in that field. Such a person can guide you more directly onwards than some strangers on an Internet site.


----------



## PetrB

Nothing in the links of your music sounded either odd, weird, weirdly new, etc. For me there was nothing much of any real interest, i.e. it all sounded rather generic; perhaps most criminally, that most desirable quality of a distinct musical personality behind any of them was absent. What I did hear sounded pretty interchangeable with many other pieces of like music in like genres.

Some people learn to play music via guitar or piano and learn music primarily from a viewpoint of "chords," and "chord progressions"; there are instruction books and even private lessons structured around chords, indeed those books and lesson methods proudly called "The chord method."

Whether those who so learned are autodidact or were taught by others, it seems when they turn to improvising or composing that the music they make ends up being almost entirely about chords, as if that were the only criterion and basis of music and the only way to compose.

It seems this is your background -- or it is your more than predominant mode of thought when writing -- and that shows in what is heard, i.e. all ChordChordChord, _without it seems, even one thought, concern, or apparent interest in line, or several lines working to make some composite harmony, whether that is actual counterpoint or merely fluid horizontal thinking more in the realm of independent voice-leading._

My problem with music which is all ChordChordChord, regardless of the genre, is that it fails to interest me much at all.

To your question, well, the "Tonal" thingie is currently a near dead or completely moot question / problem these days, more and more music from Debussy or thereafter, is clearly thought about not in terms of common practice harmony, nor is it "tonal" as per the older ideas of chord function, i.e. as a TC colleague _Some Guy_ said, "it is not your Grandma's tonality any more!"

So…. _can one run out of chords / new harmonies while staying within a tonal context_ is not much of a worthwhile real question; if it currently has any real importance to anyone these days. As to the 'running out of chords,' as a short answer -- and considering all musical contexts possible -- _"No, the end is not anywhere near, either historically or within tonality or outside of it in the many forms atonal now is, nor is the jig up for you personally."_

As to someone repeating an already used chord sequence... as long as we're talking just two or three harmonies in a sequence, I think, _"No big deal," since the overall musical context in which we find any particular isolated harmony is such a hugely important factor, and that makes the import of the question of no real concern.[I/]

The best question to ask yourself as a working artist is how to keep your music fresh, regardless if you are or are not staying within a genre with limited stylistic expectations. If you go about music as if it was theory, what you make tends to end up sounding a titch academic and 'not fresh.'

Stop thinking of chords and turn your ears to the confluence of several simultaneous horizontal musical lines, whether purely independent counterpoint, or just thought about by you as each of those lines having some level of independence, and I have a hunch your questions about chord progressions will dissolve._


----------



## skrjablin

PetrB said:


> Nothing in the links of your music sounded either odd, weird, weirdly new, etc. For me there was nothing much of any real interest, i.e. it all sounded rather generic; perhaps most criminally, that most desirable quality of a distinct musical personality behind any of them was absent. What I did hear sounded pretty interchangeable with many other pieces of like music in like genres.
> 
> Some people learn to play music via guitar or piano and learn music primarily from a viewpoint of "chords," and "chord progressions"; there are instruction books and even private lessons structured around chords, indeed those books and lesson methods proudly called "The chord method."
> 
> Whether those who so learned are autodidact or were taught by others, it seems when they turn to improvising or composing that the music they make ends up being almost entirely about chords, as if that were the only criterion and basis of music and the only way to compose.
> 
> It seems this is your background -- or it is your more than predominant mode of thought when writing -- and that shows in what is heard, i.e. all ChordChordChord, _without it seems, even one thought, concern, or apparent interest in line, or several lines working to make some composite harmony, whether that is actual counterpoint or merely fluid horizontal thinking more in the realm of independent voice-leading._
> 
> My problem with music which is all ChordChordChord, regardless of the genre, is that it fails to interest me much at all.
> 
> To your question, well, the "Tonal" thingie is currently a near dead or completely moot question / problem these days, more and more music from Debussy or thereafter, is clearly thought about not in terms of common practice harmony, nor is it "tonal" as per the older ideas of chord function, i.e. as a TC colleague _Some Guy_ said, "it is not your Grandma's tonality any more!"
> 
> So…. _can one run out of chords / new harmonies while staying within a tonal context_ is not much of a worthwhile real question; if it currently has any real importance to anyone these days. As to the 'running out of chords,' as a short answer -- and considering all musical contexts possible -- "No, the end is not anywhere near, either historically or within tonality or outside of it in the many forms atonal now is, nor is the jig up for you personally."[/I]
> 
> As to someone repeating an already used chord sequence... as long as we're talking just two or three harmonies in a sequence, I think, _"No big deal," since the overall musical context in which we find any particular isolated harmony is such a hugely important factor, and that makes the import of the question of no real concern.[I/]
> 
> U]The best question to ask yourself as a working artist is
> how to keep your music fresh[I/][/U], regardless if you are or are not staying within a genre with limited stylistic expectations. If you go about music as if it was theory, what you make tends to end up sounding a titch academic and 'not fresh.'
> 
> Stop thinking of chords and turn your ears to the confluence of several simultaneous horizontal musical lines, whether purely independent counterpoint, or just thought about by you as each of those lines having some level of independence, and I have a hunch your questions about chord progressions will dissolve._


_

That is pretty harsh, I must say. I can accept that my question was pretty moot. And that I haven't quite found a really personal style yet, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do, and I see nothing criminal in that... and there are quite a few polyphonic or at least quasi-polyphonic sections in the works I posted, which makes me want to ask you to perhaps listen once again, but maybe you disliked it too much to want to do that. Maybe those passages are not good at all, but it at least shows that I'm actually really interested in that kind of thinking. And I didn't learn the piano according to the "chord method". I haven't studied formal counterpoint, alright, but I did play a lot of contrapunctal music. Maybe I just have another idea of where to locate oneself on the spectrum between "fresh" and "just strange".

OK, so I react emotionally here, so I won't really "take in" your critique because I percieve it as a bit unfair right now. Maybe later I will have some more suitable reaction. But I would still like to thank you for answering, anyway!_


----------



## BurningDesire

Vasks said:


> As for the Pizzicato piece, I hope you realize that real string players can not play pizzicato that fast..nowhere's near that fast.


If they were any good they could :3 lol but seriously, all they'd really need is to play it with plectrum, and hold the instrument in the guitar fashion. Plucking strings that fast is totally doable, you just have to hold the instrument in a manner conducive to that manner of playing. Of course, there are people who can finger pick that fast, but who can expect professional orchestral string players to be _that_ good? :3


----------



## Torkelburger

You're not on to any new chord progressions at all. These kind of progressions were written way back in the 19th century and have remained popular through today, especially in film music.


----------



## BurningDesire

Vasks said:


> Deep down I believe this is the reason why you posted here, but it's not up to me (or another here). Your ear knows what is conventional and what is quirky. Just because you may initially like the quirky passage doesn't mean you go with it. You must determine whether the quirkiness at hand will be interesting to others or is just plain rubbish that no one will like. You must keep re-evaluating that spot until you are fully convinced whether it stays or goes.


No. Wrong advice sir. You do NOT determine whether others will like it, and decide whether to work with it or toss it based on that. You determine it based on your instincts of whether or not it suits the music in some fashion. If it works towards the musical goals of the piece in some way, then go ahead and keep and work with it. Great art isn't made by making assumptions on what others will like, and then placating that hypothetical. Skrjablin, do not listen to what Vasks said in this post, it is wrong.


----------



## Vasks

BurningDesire said:


> No. Wrong advice sir. You do NOT determine whether others will like it, and decide whether to work with it or toss it based on that.


You misread me. I clearly told him to go with his instincts and NOT on what other people think.


----------



## skrjablin

Torkelburger said:


> You're not on to any new chord progressions at all. These kind of progressions were written way back in the 19th century and have remained popular through today, especially in film music.


You would have to define "these kind of" then. Schubert did some things with mediants and stuff, but his music is far more diatonic and V7-based, if you compare to the chord sequence example I gave on previous page (I'll repeat it here: ||: C | Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C :|| Am | Dbm | Em | Dm Bb | Am | Dbm | Em | F B | C Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C ||).

I certainly don't think I'm alone in exploring these things, but for the classical canon you would have to go as far forward in time as Prokofieff to find "these kind of" things, as I perceive it. And pop harmonics has brought some unique pieces to the puzzle that Prokofieff would never have thought of (or been interested in, I guess). Of course much film music is inspired by people like Prokofieff, so you are on the right track in a way, but if you then remember that there is a frontier in the land between this kind of thinking and jazz thinking too, then you can see that there are interesting things to explore.

One will certainly never come up with something totally revolutionary in this area, but it is possible to do small quite unique patterns of combinations of melody and harmony, like something compared to the quality of Cole Porter's jazz standards (but not jazz, of course, or depending on how you define jazz). Of course, far from everyone is interested in such things.


----------



## BurningDesire

skrjablin said:


> That is pretty harsh, I must say. I can accept that my question was pretty moot. And that I haven't quite found a really personal style yet, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do, and I see nothing criminal in that... and there are quite a few polyphonic or at least quasi-polyphonic sections in the works I posted, which makes me want to ask you to perhaps listen once again, but maybe you disliked it too much to want to do that. Maybe those passages are not good at all, but it at least shows that I'm actually really interested in that kind of thinking. And I didn't learn the piano according to the "chord method". I haven't studied formal counterpoint, alright, but I did play a lot of contrapunctal music. Maybe I just have another idea of where to locate oneself on the spectrum between "fresh" and "just strange".
> 
> OK, so I react emotionally here, so I won't really "take in" your critique because I percieve it as a bit unfair right now. Maybe later I will have some more suitable reaction. But I would still like to thank you for answering, anyway!


PetrB is way harsh, but he has many good points, so its best to not write them off simply because he doesn't have a tactful way of delivering them. Thinking in more horizontal means is a good idea, but its not bad to think vertically as well. I love harmony as you seem to as well, and its extremely important in so much music. Of course there is no such thing as "running out of chords" because one can use the same old chords in an infinite number of ways, and there are so many chords outside of anything standard. For instance take a C Major triad, and voice it with the E way low as a bass voice, the G in a mid range voice, and the C in a high voice. It sounds totally different than just a standard C Major triad in the middle of the piano, even though the notes are technically the same. Even different inversions of the chords in the same register sound totally different, or the same voicing in different registers, or with different timbres playing the various tones in the chord. Then there's the relationship between harmony and timbre itself, and that when you hear most tones besides pure sine waves, you're in a sense always hearing chords. There is alot of interest in exploring harmony friend  just don't forget about the horizontal elements in music, because when you combine interesting harmonies with interesting rhythms and phrases, and interesting horizontal interplay of melodies, then you make something really special 

I think you definitely have a long way to go, but then we all do as composers, and I admire your passion, so please put it to use and keep on getting better and learning more. Study the music of those who you admire, experiment with different approaches to writing. I look forward to hearing what you write in the future ^_^


----------



## norman bates

I wonder if it's true that all harmonic possibilities are exhausted as I've read sometimes on this forum. The harmony of many jazz pieces (especially in the post-bop genre), even with all influences taken from classical music to my ears sounds often very original. Maybe because there's also the blues in the mix or the systematic use of extended chords, maybe because of the ideas of Georger Russell, but the music of people like Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Herbie Nichols or Thelonious Monk just to name a few sounds unique.


----------



## Torkelburger

> You would have to define "these kind of" then. Schubert did some things with mediants and stuff, but his music is far more diatonic and V7-based, if you compare to the chord sequence example I gave on previous page (I'll repeat it here: ||: C | Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C :|| Am | Dbm | Em | Dm Bb | Am | Dbm | Em | F B | C Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C ||).


Yeah, I thought you already defined it as "mediants". You mean chord progressions by cycle of thirds, correct? Or do you mean something else? And yes, I am saying the chord progression on the previous page is comparable to 19th century chord progressions. I am not at home so I do not have access to my scores, but just from memory look at Dvorak's 9th symphony (Largo) and Verdi's Requiem for starters. Progressions have root movement by thirds and seconds outside of the key/chromatic inflection, etc. as in your example.


> I certainly don't think I'm alone in exploring these things, but for the classical canon you would have to go as far forward in time as Prokofieff to find "these kind of" things, as I perceive it. And pop harmonics has brought some unique pieces to the puzzle that Prokofieff would never have thought of (or been interested in, I guess). Of course much film music is inspired by people like Prokofieff, so you are on the right track in a way, but if you then remember that there is a frontier in the land between this kind of thinking and jazz thinking too, then you can see that there are interesting things to explore.


You are wrong about the timeline, but even if the above comment were still 100% correct, what I originally said is still true: Given what you've posted, *You're not on to any new chord progressions at all*. Sorry.


> One will certainly never come up with something totally revolutionary in this area, but it is possible to do small quite unique patterns of combinations of melody and harmony, like something compared to the quality of Cole Porter's jazz standards (but not jazz, of course, or depending on how you define jazz). Of course, far from everyone is interested in such things.


True, but again, that doesn't change the fact that given what you've posted, *you're not on to any new chord progressions at all*. That was your question, wasn't it? ("Can you people agree that I'm on to something here?" as in "Are there any new chord progressions at all?") The answer is "no". That doesn't mean someone else will someday discover something new in the world of tonality. It just means in your examples, you have not, nor approached it.


----------



## eilrahc

I get the sense that harmony has taken the backseat in much of current contemporary music. A lot of composers choose to focus more on linear gesture and the physical shapings of aural events, although this may just be a dominant trend at the moment. Harmony may have its next field day when other temperament tunings become more standardized and more nuanced vertical possibilities come into composers' toolboxes (perhaps along with changes in notation, performance practice, etc.. so quite awhile away!). As for today, it's pretty hard to be original from tempered harmony alone since instrumental composers are essentially still using the same tools as those from the last century. Modernism really did push harmonic thinking to its very limits given the tools we had/have.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I wonder if it's true that all harmonic possibilities are exhausted as I've read sometimes on this forum. The harmony of many jazz pieces (especially in the post-bop genre), even with all influences taken from classical music to my ears sounds often very original. Maybe because there's also the blues in the mix or the systematic use of extended chords, maybe because of the ideas of Georger Russell, but the music of people like Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Herbie Nichols or Thelonious Monk just to name a few sounds unique.


Where is anybody saying this?


----------



## PetrB

eilrahc said:


> I get the sense that harmony has taken the backseat in much of current contemporary music. A lot of composers choose to focus more on linear gesture and the physical shapings of aural events.


Of the above approach, what _is not_ 'about harmony?' <g>


----------



## PetrB

skrjablin said:


> a part of the Quasi Medieval Suite has the progression ||: C | Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C :|| Am | Dbm | Em | Dm Bb | Am | Dbm | Em | F B | C Dbm | F Em | F#m | C | Gm | F Gm6 | Eb C ||


Not that the above must be couched in latin-based terms or Roman numerals, but the way you've laid it out screams _"pop music background,"_ (and pop music mentality re: theory)... which is why you're talking about and thinking in terms of "Chord Progressions" more than any other mode of approach.

That would 'explain' why you would sincerely formulate the notion that you are on a sort of 'edge' of a harmonic stylistic 'newness,'

That other mode, by the way, as a colleague named it, is "Classical Music 101." There is nothing earth-shaking or radical, nor 'to be your undoing,' in proposing you look to that arena for another sort of approach to music and your composing it.

Though I have seen others so affected / infected with that pop chord prog mentality who have been unable to shake it, I think it worth a try.


----------



## eilrahc

PetrB said:


> Of the above approach, what _is not_ 'about harmony?' <g>


Do you refer to harmony meaning anything with a 'vertical' relation rather than just strictly tones? If yes, then I would rephrase myself and refer only to the listening of vertical notes, which (generally speaking) I don't hear as something that currently creates musical discourse as much as the other approaches. I see these approaches being occupied with temporal energy and dynamics to create motion, sometimes with little regard to the precise pitches that make up the gestures. Harmonic color can still embellish ideas but musical structure can still be composed without it. I'm not advocating a complete disregard of note choices, but I do believe it has received a diminished role.


----------



## PetrB

eilrahc said:


> Do you refer to harmony meaning anything with a 'vertical' relation rather than just strictly tones? If yes, then I would rephrase myself and refer only to the listening of vertical notes, which (generally speaking) I don't hear as something that currently creates musical discourse as much as the other approaches. I see these approaches being occupied with temporal energy and dynamics to create motion, sometimes with little regard to the precise pitches that make up the gestures. Harmonic color can still embellish ideas but musical structure can still be composed without it, which is why I point out its diminished role.


The point I wanted to emphasize is that mentality of all verticals, chord progressions, being the predominant materials of a piece, that's all. Any time you have two or more pitches sounding, there is something "to be heard vertically," (i.e. _harmony_) but the vertical is often the consequence vs. the initial idea or intent.

Coloration (and instrumental colors and texture) can be a functioning part of what defines form, as the spectralists have already shown us


----------



## eilrahc

PetrB said:


> The point I wanted to emphasize is that mentality of all verticals, chord progressions, being the predominant materials of a piece, that's all. Any time you have two or more pitches sounding, there is something "to be heard vertically," but the vertical is often the consequence vs. the initial idea or intent.
> 
> Coloration (and instrumental colors and texture) can be a functioning part of what defines form, as the spectralists have already shown us


If you refer to the vertical as just a general relationship between two or more simultaneous 'things', then yes I agree harmony is very much alive! I particularly love music that puts a lot of vertical thought into other places besides pitch like polyrhythms, timbral hierarchies, sound events a la Xenakis, etc.


----------



## PetrB

eilrahc said:


> If you refer to the vertical as just a general relationship between two or more simultaneous 'things', then yes I agree harmony is very much alive! I particularly love music that puts a lot of vertical thought into other places besides pitch like polyrhythms, timbral hierarchies, sound events a la Xenakis, etc.


Perhaps you've heard this... and if you have, it bears repeating and thinking about:
"Good counterpoint is good harmony: good harmony is good counterpoint."

(I only add the proviso that neither harmony or counterpoint have to sound at all like Bach, or any other past or present composer


----------



## skrjablin

PetrB said:


> Not that the above must be couched in latin-based terms or Roman numerals, but the way you've laid it out screams _"pop music background,"_ (and pop music mentality re: theory)... which is why you're talking about and thinking in terms of "Chord Progressions" more than any other mode of approach.
> 
> That would 'explain' why you would sincerely formulate the notion that you are on a sort of 'edge' of a harmonic stylistic 'newness,'
> 
> That other mode, by the way, as a colleague named it, is "Classical Music 101." There is nothing earth-shaking or radical, nor 'to be your undoing,' in proposing you look to that arena for another sort of approach to music and your composing it.
> 
> Though I have seen others so affected / infected with that pop chord prog mentality who have been unable to shake it, I think it worth a try.


Oh, so you have trouble reading it, then? To notate this in roman numerals would be silly, as that is a kind of functional analyis, which is exactly part of the question here: what is the functional analysis of some of these chords (are the apparent roots the actual roots for example?) -- because it surely sounds very functional when heard, which I guess is why some of you can't appreciate its freshness.

Here you go (hint: it's in C Major):
View attachment from_quasi_medieval_suite.pdf


You look at a piece of text and then you say "hrumpf, it screams of lowly music background", and then you sneeze. But do you have ears?

Writing in chord symbols was only for the sake of brevity, I can assure you. I thought everybody knew them these days.


----------



## skrjablin

Torkelburger said:


> Yeah, I thought you already defined it as "mediants". You mean chord progressions by cycle of thirds, correct? Or do you mean something else? And yes, I am saying the chord progression on the previous page is comparable to 19th century chord progressions. I am not at home so I do not have access to my scores, but just from memory look at Dvorak's 9th symphony (Largo) and Verdi's Requiem for starters. Progressions have root movement by thirds and seconds outside of the key/chromatic inflection, etc. as in your example.


No, I don't mean mediants solely: look at that chord sequence, or perhaps listen to it...! There are sure mediants in it, but it goes to distant chords like D flat minor and F sharp minor, which clearly feel part of a progression in C Major. Actual modulations are a different chapter, they're interesting to explore, but this particular chord sequence does not really modulate in my ears.


----------



## PetrB

skrjablin said:


> Oh, so you have trouble reading it, then? To notate this in roman numerals would be silly, as that is a kind of functional analyis, which is exactly part of the question here: what is the functional analysis of some of these chords (are the apparent roots the actual roots for example?) -- because it surely sounds very functional when heard, which I guess is why some of you can't appreciate its freshness.
> 
> Here you go (hint: it's in C Major):
> View attachment 50393
> 
> 
> You look at a piece of text and then you say "hrumpf, it screams of lowly music background", and then you sneeze. But do you have ears?
> 
> Writing in chord symbols was only for the sake of brevity, I can assure you. I thought everybody knew them these days.


No theory talk, no matter which variety of jargon, is going to justify or rationalize a piece into being better than it is, just as no 'theory,' alone and of itself, was ever much useful in writing a piece.

Your medieval suite sounds like there are twists and turns meant to be unexpected -- they come off as very satiric, and more the near arbitrary 'wrong-note /displacement' technique than anything more integral. But that may be exactly what you were after for video game stuff. The sound, well, only a gamester who grew up with those cheesy chip sounds could either put up with them, or maybe even have some fond sentimental attraction to them.

But this more obvious sort of musical misdirection has been used time out of mind to disorient, be humorous, satiric, etc. Nothing new there, no matter what the jargon patter about mediants, where is the root, and so forth. You are kidding yourself if even highly trained musicians listen 'that way.'

The more I've seen people start 'with a theoretical premise,' the more painful -- or painfully academic -- the end product seems.

After all the theory study we are supposed to use our ears more than that part of the brain which houses 'theory data,' lol.

Your listing a chain of chords, with or without 'function,' does nothing to further 'argument' for what the piece is... listening takes care of that. And as to the reactions to those links, just look around at the comments so far in this thread...

Maybe all those people don't know what they're talking about?


----------



## skrjablin

PetrB said:


> No theory talk, no matter which variety of jargon, is going to justify or rationalize a piece into being better than it is, just as no 'theory,' alone and of itself, was ever much useful in writing a piece.
> 
> Your medieval suite sounds like there are twists and turns meant to be unexpected -- they come off as very satiric, and more the near arbitrary 'wrong-note /displacement' technique than anything more integral. But that may be exactly what you were after for video game stuff. The sound, well, only a gamester who grew up with those cheesy chip sounds could either put up with them, or maybe even have some fond sentimental attraction to them.
> 
> But this more obvious sort of musical misdirection has been used time out of mind to disorient, be humorous, satiric, etc. Nothing new there, no matter what the jargon patter about mediants, where is the root, and so forth. You are kidding yourself if even highly trained musicians listen 'that way.'
> 
> The more I've seen people start 'with a theoretical premise,' the more painful -- or painfully academic -- the end product seems.
> 
> After all the theory study we are supposed to use our ears more than that part of the brain which houses 'theory data,' lol.
> 
> Your listing a chain of chords, with or without 'function,' does nothing to further 'argument' for what the piece is... listening takes care of that. And as to the reactions to those links, just look around at the comments so far in this thread...
> 
> Maybe all those people don't know what they're talking about?


Have I ever said that theory could justify my piece being better than it is? Another strawman.

Did I use a theoretical approach in writing this? No! Of course, though, there is always some kind of thinking going on, based on what you have learned. I don't know the function of some of those chords, but they sound good to me, and bad to you.

Previously I was a music-illiterate lowly pop musician, now I'm an ivory tower theoretician. Both are strawmen.

People have said that "it's a bunch of wrong notes" about lots of modern music.

Have I said that people should listen analytically? All I mean is that if you're a well-trained musician, you would note such basic things as whether a piece you listen to contains polyphony, at least somewhere in the back of your head.

Ok, maybe it's simply bad music then, and I should listen to what others say about it here. But they haven't said much about the music yet, we have discussed other things. And we're discussing two different things here: the quality of my music, on one hand, and the question that I've asked, on the other hand. Don't try to confuse them!


----------



## dgee

I dunno dude - there is so much tonal/triadic pop and classique that I feel I should draw your attention to before you make claims about what you've done. You have an intuitive snese of how things can work but really just study some C20 classical and pop before deciding it's new

And, no, I can't be ***** telling what it is your stuff sounds like etc. Go forth and explore C20 like never before - maybe try Messiaen, Britten, Tippett, Bacharach and some pop (don't forget French and Brasilian!)from the 70s for kicks - then look at some theory around chordal substitution. Might put things into perspective


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> I dunno dude - there is so much tonal/triadic pop and classique that I feel I should draw your attention to before you make claims about what you've done. You have an intuitive snese of how things can work but really just study some C20 classical and pop before deciding it's new
> 
> And, no, I can't be ***** telling what it is your stuff sounds like etc. Go forth and explore C20 like never before - maybe try Messiaen, Britten, Tippett, Bacharach and some pop (don't forget French and Brasilian!)from the 70s for kicks - then look at some theory around chordal substitution. Might put things into perspective


That batch of South Americans should definitely be looked into: 
Villa-Lobos, Ginastera, and add Astor Piazzola to that, a genial hybrid musician / composer if there ever was one


----------



## skrjablin

dgee said:


> I dunno dude - there is so much tonal/triadic pop and classique that I feel I should draw your attention to before you make claims about what you've done. You have an intuitive snese of how things can work but really just study some C20 classical and pop before deciding it's new
> 
> And, no, I can't be ***** telling what it is your stuff sounds like etc. Go forth and explore C20 like never before - maybe try Messiaen, Britten, Tippett, Bacharach and some pop (don't forget French and Brasilian!)from the 70s for kicks - then look at some theory around chordal substitution. Might put things into perspective


Thank you, I will. Not to find out whether or not I'm doing something unique, but in order to perhaps get some new ideas.


----------



## Torkelburger

skrjablin said:


> No, I don't mean mediants solely: look at that chord sequence, or perhaps listen to it...! There are sure mediants in it, but it goes to distant chords like D flat minor and F sharp minor, which clearly feel part of a progression in C Major. Actual modulations are a different chapter, they're interesting to explore, but this particular chord sequence does not really modulate in my ears.


I would recommend you pick up Vincent Persichetti's book _Twentieth Century Harmony_ as Chapter Three discusses cycles of thirds (and seconds) in some detail. You would know F# minor is still a mediant relationship to C because it is 2 thirds away in the cycle from C (two minor thirds away) and you wouldn't be so confused. I also recommend you study what modes are and what modal interchange is. That would also clear up a lot of your confusion and bewilderment.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> Where is anybody saying this?


I don't know, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular but sometimes I've got that impression, considering all those discussions about the inevitability of atonality and the oldness of tonality. In any case the possibility of doing something that still sounds fresh harmonically it's something that really interests me.


----------

