Question on Arpeggios (Theory)

[Russell L]

Simplified: using an F-chord in the key of G, or using a G# chord in the key of E, or whatever, is just altering the scale of the original home key and making new chords based on these new "accidental" notes. See?

That is, if it ain't diatonic, it's got accidentals, or you have completely modulated, one or the other.

 

[Russell L]

What you've got there is *almost* a classic cycle of fifths progression:

E G# C# (F#) B ...

It's very normal for minors/majors to be swapped around to give harmonic movement to a piece along with added 7ths to aid the flow (and other extentions too!).

The above will work great with any combination - try it. Keep the B as major (probably a B7 - the dominant 7th) and then the others can be any mix of majors and minors and sound great. Then you can experiment with adding 7ths/major 7ths, altering fifths etc...

That's jazz man!

True, but the progression is SO familiar and recognizable as a simple I, V of iii, vi. That's good analytical thinking, though.

 

[mambo4]

"Hey lads, let's replace this minor chord with a dominant 7 chord , it sounds more like rock and roll"

/analysis

 

[aborgman]

G#/Ab tomato/tomato. I know it sounds the same, but on paper it technically isn't the same note.

Technically they shouldn't even be exactly the same note - but frets (or keys on a piano) force it to be.

 

[Russell L]

"Hey lads, let's replace this minor chord with a dominant 7 chord , it sounds more like rock and roll"

/analysis

I thought we said that it's E G# C#m B. Typically, it could be E G#7 C#m7 B7. Which minor chord are you referring to? There was a debate about the G# being minor. If you mean the C#m, it could be C#7 and called V/ii.

 

[wumusic]

I thought we said that it's E G# C#m B. Typically, it could be E G#7 C#m7 B7. Which minor chord are you referring to? There was a debate about the G# being minor. If you mean the C#m, it could be C#7 and called V/ii.

Ok - now I'm confused.

Key = E
Progression = E - G#m - C#m - B, I - iii - vi - V

Isn't the G# a minor triad? G-B-D#?

 

[JimmyM]

Some good information here, and some bad (or sloppy).
Maybe I can bring some sanity.
In rock music, it's extremely common to find chord progressions that don't stay diatonic.

Painfully simple example: The coda of the Beatles' "Hey Jude." If it's in G major (I can't quite recall), the chords are G major / F major / C major.
F major is not diatonic in the key of G major.
Paul and the gang used their ears to play their parts.

You're welcome.

it's actually in F and the chords go F/Eb/Bb/F.

doug, i've known you for a while on here, and i've always dug what you had to say, but you using that as an example is totally non-applicable. theory doesn't tell you that you can't use notes that are out of the key of the song. in fact, what you're saying is what's known as "butchering the idea of theory to suit your agenda."

instead, theory tells you that Eb is a flat 7th to F, and you would call it Eb instead of D# even though they're the same note. anything the beatles ever did can easily be explained with theory, and to think it was only because they used their ears and ignored theory is not only completely inaccurate to what theory is about, but it's also inaccurate to what the beatles did. while they didn't know how to read music, make no mistake...all of the beatles constantly studied chord theory and tried to incorporate new chords they learned in their music.

 

[slybass3000]

Let's say I'm creating a bass line to a song that's in the key of E major. The main chord progression of the song is simple, just E major, Ab major, C# minor and B major. So...

E - Ab - C# - B

I wanted to use a lesson on creating bass lines with arpeggios for this one. The question I have is that the arpeggio shape for the Ab is a minor (being that it is the 3rd of the major scale) but the chord in the song is an Ab major.

So I shouldn't arpeggiate that Ab as a minor, I should arpeggiate it as a major? But that then uses a C, which is not part of the E major scale.

Can anybody shed some light on this?

First, I think it been mention that your Ab chord is actually a G# chord because it is part of the E major harmony.

The very interesting thing you bring in your chord progression is actually the G# major chord. It should be thought as a G#7 which makes a dominant function and a cycle of fifth root motion that is present in all western music harmony. I'm not talking about country music here but the whole harmonic system in America and Europe.

The scale of that chord is based on the C# minor harmonic scale which is the relative minor of E major which is the key center of your song. C#-D#-E-F#-G#-A-B#(C). Notice how it is almost the same as your E major scale except for the B#(C), which is the major 7th of C# minor harmonic.

i know it might be a lot of new stuff but it is actually very simple to understand.

Congrats on your Ab (G#7) chord. You just brought some new note in the harmony in a very classic way !

 

[dougjwray]

it's actually in F and the chords go F/Eb/Bb/F.

doug, i've known you for a while on here, and i've always dug what you had to say, but you using that as an example is totally non-applicable. theory doesn't tell you that you can't use notes that are out of the key of the song. in fact, what you're saying is what's known as "butchering the idea of theory to suit your agenda."

instead, theory tells you that Eb is a flat 7th to F, and you would call it Eb instead of D# even though they're the same note. anything the beatles ever did can easily be explained with theory, and to think it was only because they used their ears and ignored theory is not only completely inaccurate to what theory is about, but it's also inaccurate to what the beatles did. while they didn't know how to read music, make no mistake...all of the beatles constantly studied chord theory and tried to incorporate new chords they learned in their music.

Yup, I always respect what you say, too, Jimmy. Let me back up a bit here...
I was sensing that the OP was letting a little knowledge of theory intimidate him into not trusting his ears. Maybe he was actually asking for more theory info, in which case I was wrong and a few people here were right, and they offered to help. He was stumped by the non-diatonic chord, and I quickly jumped to the fact that they do occur in rock all the time, to reassure him and to indicate that your garden variety textbook theory sometimes leaves out a few things. Your typical first year student of Baroque counterpoint takes it as gospel that parallel fifths are horrifying, yet the Ramones made perfect, beautiful use of them. Why is every chord in "Dock of the Bay" major? Because Otis Redding tuned his guitar to an open major chord, and wrote songs by lying his finger across the strings and moving it up and down (to gorgeous effect). My point is that it's good to have an open mind and use theory to your advantage, rather than to get discouraged because a non-diatonic chord shows up.
Here's a fascinating site containing classical analysis of everything the Beatles ever recorded.

Alan W. Pollack's Notes on ... Series

The analyst is so much in the classical world that he "reverse engineers" stuff-- to him, a C major chord existing in a Beatles A major song is there because it is the relative major of the home key's parallel minor. Okay, sure... that's an elegant explanation, but... I never fail to be stunned by the Beatles' unmatched ingenuity with chords, but I don't believe they arrived at such chords in exactly that way. To this day, Paul still actually insists that he prefers to think of the composing process as "magic", and refuses to approach it in any other way. (At the same time, he certainly has his personal "bag of tricks" and knows what works and what doesn't... so it's not ALL "magic.") I do learn a lot from Pollack's (the classical dude) analysis of the Beatles, though... for one thing he points out habits that you'd never expect-- like startling similarities between a very early Lennon song and a very late Lennon song. It's fun to peruse (for me, anyway). And I have nothing against using an approach like Pollack's to write "Beatlesque" songs-- that is, taking an un-McCartney, left brain approach to creativity.
Well, in any case, I hope the OP didn't get discouraged or overwhelmed and mastered that E to G# progression (which is gospel flavored, come to think of it).

 

[KalTM]

Alan W. Pollack's Notes on ... Series

Awesome website! Thanks for sharing

 

[JimmyM]

i see, doug. thx for explaining it in more depth. for a second there, i thought you were losing it

 

[RJjr.]

it's actually in F and the chords go F/Eb/Bb/F.


..., what the beatles did. while they didn't know how to read music, make no mistake...all of the beatles constantly studied chord theory and tried to incorporate new chords they learned in their music.

Thanks to George Martin. He taught Lennon and McCartney everything they knew with the exception of how to write a great song and sing it the way it should be sung.

Could you imagine the Beatles, post Sgt. Pepper, without George Martin? Well, I suppose you could, but I wouldn't want to. By the way, for a classic collaboration between Lennon and Martin listen to "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite." 2 geniuses at work each in their own way. Especially the waltz section that Martin wrote. There's a quote from Lennon that he told Martin to make it sound like you can smell the sawdust. George Martin was the unsung Beatle!

 

[dougjwray]

Thanks to George Martin. He taught Lennon and McCartney everything they knew with the exception of how to write a great song and sing it the way it should be sung.

Could you imagine the Beatles, post Sgt. Pepper, without George Martin? Well, I suppose you could, but I wouldn't want to. By the way, for a classic collaboration between Lennon and Martin listen to "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite." 2 geniuses at work each in their own way. Especially the waltz section that Martin wrote. There's a quote from Lennon that he told Martin to make it sound like you can smell the sawdust. George Martin was the unsung Beatle!

There's also a story about Paul and George (Harrison) taking a bus to the oppsoite end of Liverpool just to meet a guy who was rumored to know how to play a particular jazz chord on the guitar! So, they were voracious learners even before George Martin.

 

[dougjwray]

i see, doug. thx for explaining it in more depth. for a second there, i thought you were losing it

Whew!

 

[Russell L]

Ok - now I'm confused.

Key = E
Progression = E - G# - C# - B, I - iii - vi - V

Isn't the G# a minor triad? G-B-D#?

Here ya go: (let capital letters stand for major triads, lower case letters stand for minor triads). We have already determined that the originl Ab triad was going to be relabelled G#. Ok? Read slowly...

Diatonically, what we get in the key of E is I-iii-vi-V, (E-G#m-C#m-B). If we like, we may make the iii a III by using a G# major triad, as someone else suggested (you erroneously labelled it iii above). In that case The G# major triad contains a note that is not a part of the E major scale, namely, the note B#. That B# makes the G# triad a major triad, instead of minor triad, (as the note, B, would do). Also, it turns the G# triad into what may be called a secondary dominant chord known as "Five of Six" (V/vi). It can also include a dominant 7, if desired (V7/vi). The G# major triad or G#7, either one, will resolve to the vi-chord (C#m) in the same way as any other V-chord resolves back to its I (or i) chord. That's why this kind of chord is called a secondary dominant chord.

The differences in this thread are whether to have the progression go: E-G#m-C#m-B...or...E-G#-C#m-B...OR...E-G#-C#-B. It's arbitrary as to which we use. I am trying to clarify what they all mean in relation to each other. I hope this time was easier to understand.

 

[Russell L]

The I-iii-vi-V progression, as well as many other similar ones (like I-vi-IV-V, or I-vi-V/V-V, for instance) have been heard in all of western music (speaking of western civilization here) from country music to blues to rock to easylistening to jazz to pop, etc., etc. They are hallmarks, iconic sounds.

 

[Russell L]

Heh, heh, once in class when a professor said, "You cannot us parallel 5ths," I raised my hand and said, "Why? I do it all the time."

Prof.: "Mister Lowery, if you wish your music to sound 18th century, you will NOT use parallel 5ths, otherwise it will sound like modern rock music."

Oh yeah. LOL.

 

[wumusic]

Here ya go: (let capital letters stand for major triads, lower case letters stand for minor triads). We have already determined that the originl Ab triad was going to be relabelled G#. Ok? Read slowly...

I'll try...;-)

Diatonically, what we get in the key of E is I-iii-vi-V, (E-G#m-C#m-B).

I see - here's where my confusion was: I was "only" considering the diatonic scale

If we like, we may make the iii a III by using a G# major triad, as someone else suggested (you erroneously labelled it iii above).

Yes - I must learn to type slowly as well as read slowly, apparently. You guys are quick on these things here. Going back and reading my post, I should have typed G#m and C#m.

The differences in this thread are whether to have the progression go: E-G#m-C#m-B...or...E-G#-C#m-B...OR...E-G#-C#-B. It's arbitrary as to which we use. I am trying to clarify what they all mean in relation to each other. I hope this time was easier to understand.

Yes, I'm on the same page now:

1. Considering the diatonic scale, in the key of E, the third triad (iii) is G#m triad, and you can use the notes in G# Phrygian mode in the key of E to construct an arpeggio as the OP wanted to do.

2. We don't necessarily have to stick with the diatonic scale and can arbitrarily use whatever chord progression we want - you have eloquently described how other scales can be theoretically valid / explained using the modified from diatonic chord progressions.

Absolutely easier to understand. Thank you for taking the time to write it out and explain it.

 

[JTE]

The question I have is that the arpeggio shape for the Ab is a minor (being that it is the 3rd of the major scale) but the chord in the song is an Ab major.

Here's the initial confusion. The "arpeggio shape" is part of it (it's not a shape, it's a collection of notes, as too many people just look at shapes rather than music). But the critical factor is not understanding the harmonized scale. That bit of data would confirm that the expected chord if we were to stay diatonic to E major would be G#min or G# B D# (incorrectly enharmonically Abmin or Ab B Eb). However the song trumps theory with a major chord instead of the expected minor.

So I shouldn't arpeggiate that Ab as a minor, I should arpeggiate it as a major?

Yep, because that is what the chord is!! Yep, if the chord is G# (or Ab) then use the notes of the chord, which are G# B# D# (or Ab C Eb)

But that then uses a C, which is not part of the E major scale. Can anybody shed some light on this?

As has been pointed out, it goes out of the key there, and that's common. And knowing the key of E you'll know to raise the 5th note of the E major scale there instead of playing B natural, you'll want to use B#.

John

 

[mambo4]

Which minor chord are you referring to? There was a debate about the G# being minor. If you mean the C#m, it could be C#7 and called V/ii.

I was referring to the G# min specifically, but more generally to the fact that it's extremely common to break the "rules" of diatonic harmony
by using a Major or Dominant 7th chord in place that "should" use minor chords -simply because its sounds good.
I doubt most songs written this way were done with any deeper analysis than that...
IOW It's not G# major because " its the secondary dominant of the vi chord (V/vi), dude!" but because "that sounds cool, dude!"

All of this detailed explanation is fun for theory wanks like me,
but it's impractical as an answer to "what do I play here?"
(Answer: play the chords as written, don't worry about the key so much.)