A level of music theory I wish I possessed

[MiltyG565]

In this video, David breaks down the theoretical concepts which make the iconic Creep chord progression work.

 

The lesser educated among us (i.e. me) would play Creep and think "That's weird that it does that, but it sounds cool" and just forget about it, but learning about the technical and theoretical concepts behind it really is very interesting to me, and I truly wish I possessed this in-depth understanding of music theory. Same goes for Jacob Collier; as unique an individual as he is, I wish I possessed his truly frightening understanding of what makes music, music. Some day I will get around to actually learning theory.

 

I also was not aware of how many different places the chord progression was used - I thought it was almost unique to Creep.

 

 

[Mottlefeeder]

Nice chord sequence, I wasn't aware of it before.

Good explanation too.

[zbd1960]

Chord III is one of the lesser used chords. What's also odd is the heavy chromatic alterations involved in this sequence. You start in G (1 sharp), then B (5 sharps), C, then finally Cmin (3 flats)

[tauzero]

I thoroughly enjoy David Bennett's videos - not just about chord progressions but also about time signatures.

[dodge_bass]

34 minutes ago, zbd1960 said:

Chord III is one of the lesser used chords. What's also odd is the heavy chromatic alterations involved in this sequence. You start in G (1 sharp), then B (5 sharps), C, then finally Cmin (3 flats)

You’re right about the chromatic alterations but nothing in this sequence suggest a change of key so best to not approach it like that when you think about it because you lose sight of the bigger picture - I.E it’s just a slightly cheeky chord sequence in the key of G major. 
 

Chord iii is pretty common actually; perhaps less common is chord three as dominant chord rather than a minor chord. Chord IV going to IV minor is a very common alteration popularised by the Beatles - it’s just a more interesting way of getting back to the I chord (G in this instance).
 

So really its ultimate just a I - IV chord sequence (very common!) with a little variation to make it a bit more interesting to the listener. 

[Burns-bass]

Do you think that Tom and Johnny were operating at this level of theoretical complexity or simply played a series of chords they liked?

 

Similarly, it’s unlikely (but not impossible) that Charlie Parker was thinking processing all the complex substitutions at 300 bpm.

 

 

[SumOne]

Edit: Now I can see the video.

 

It would be nice to have that level of music theory knowledge, but I'm not sure that it's really needed. My guess is that Radiohead were influenced by hearing those songs listed by artists like Elvis, Bowie, Pixies. Or they were noodling about as it's not too far off the chords that the circle of 5ths would point you to (G- C - B diminished). 

 

I mean, most people can speak/write without really being able to spell out the theory for how they do it. Sure, some theory helps (you need to have learned to speak/write!) but writing a sentence like  'It sounds great; however, did he make it himself?' Aparrently (via Chat GTP) is a compound sentence that includes Pronoun, Verb, Adjective, Conjunctive Adverb, Verb, Reflexive Pronoun, Interrogorative clause. Do people who write a sentence  know all theory/terms?  I kind of think, as with  music theory, you could over analyse every piece of speech/writing/music in that level of technical detail, but it wouldn't necessarily make for a better speaker/writer/musician (hence why so many popular musicians can't even read music, let along go deep into technical terms and theory). 

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by SumOne

[Baloney Balderdash]

9 hours ago, tauzero said:

I thoroughly enjoy David Bennett's videos - not just about chord progressions but also about time signatures.

 

This got to be the best introduction to time signatures on YouTube :

 

1 hour ago, Burns-bass said:

Do you think that Tom and Johnny were operating at this level of theoretical complexity or simply played a series of chords they liked?

 

Similarly, it’s unlikely (but not impossible) that Charlie Parker was thinking processing all the complex substitutions at 300 bpm.

 

 

Agree, music theory should be used to analyze music, not to write music, your ears should.

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash

[Munurmunuh]

G - B - C - Cm

 

The relative minor of G major is E minor, so going G-B is a preparation for a nice V-i "perfect cadence" into E minor. Nothing unusual.

 

From this perspective of E minor, the B-C is V-VI — a perfectly standard "interrupted cadence".

 

Within the first three chords there's been a nice chromatic voice going d-d#-e — with the C-Cm, this then reverses, so you have d-d#-e-eb. This gives the four bars a nice looping round on itself quality.

 

There's a probably a specific name for the Cm-G iv-I "plagal cadence" — eg I can think of pieces by Bach that end like that — but if I ever knew it, I've forgotten it.

 

All these elements would make sense to someone doing A-level music. But I do think the theory is just explaining why it sounds good to us, rather than suggesting to the composer what should come next.

 

Personally, I think that the important part, given that this is rock music, not classical music, is the inner voice with the chromatic steps looping round on itself, rising hopefully, falling plangently.

[MacDaddy]

2 hours ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

Agree, music theory should be used to analyze music, not to write music, your ears should.

 

Many years ago, I brought a song to the band. As we were going through it, the guitarist asked what happens next. As a joke I said "bass solo". Nobody laughed or said 'no', so I thought "bugger, I've got to do a bass solo". 

Probably 90% of what I came up with was performed on the spot due to my knowing a bit of music theory.

[Baloney Balderdash]

40 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

 

Many years ago, I brought a song to the band. As we were going through it, the guitarist asked what happens next. As a joke I said "bass solo". Nobody laughed or said 'no', so I thought "bugger, I've got to do a bass solo". 

Probably 90% of what I came up with was performed on the spot due to my knowing a bit of music theory.

And I am certain it would have been a much better solo had it been based on your hearing and intuition, rather than theory.

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash

[zbd1960]

12 hours ago, dodge_bass said:

You’re right about the chromatic alterations but nothing in this sequence suggest a change of key so best to not approach it like that when you think about it because you lose sight of the bigger picture - I.E it’s just a slightly cheeky chord sequence in the key of G major. 
 

Chord iii is pretty common actually; perhaps less common is chord three as dominant chord rather than a minor chord. Chord IV going to IV minor is a very common alteration popularised by the Beatles - it’s just a more interesting way of getting back to the I chord (G in this instance).
 

So really its ultimate just a I - IV chord sequence (very common!) with a little variation to make it a bit more interesting to the listener. 

I wear a 'traditional' / 'classical' harmony hat - I'm not that familiar with what goes on in other genres. I agree it's essentially a IV/I cadential sequence. No key change is inferred as there are for example no pivot chords or attempts to create a new tonic etc.  

[MacDaddy]

22 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

And I am certain it would have been a much better solo had it been based on your hearing and intuition, rather than theory.

 

 

Only one way to test that. Bass solo kicks in 2:25. See what you think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dad3353]

Nothing wrong with that. Suitably sober, adds to the whole song. Well done. 

[Baloney Balderdash]

1 hour ago, MacDaddy said:

 

Only one way to test that. Bass solo kicks in 2:25. See what you think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be perfectly honest I am not impressed.

 

Also, what exactly is this supposed to proof?

 

Where is the version where you don't base the solo on music theory but primarily use your ears and intuition, so we can compare and see which is better?

 

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash

[MiltyG565]

Oh cripes, I thought this might happen.

 

Wanting to learn music theory does not negate one’s musicality or expression. I know it isn’t necessary to write great music, I’m not suggesting it’s a precursor to writing or performing well, I’m just saying I would like to understand it.

 

Equally, many great musicians and composers through the years have had at least a firm grasp of music theory and have used this knowledge when writing their music. Whether you enjoy the end product or not is somewhat irrelevant as, again, it’s art.

 

It’s a completely false dichotomy to suggest you either do or don’t need it to write music - nobody is suggesting that’s the case. I do not need to understand how a car works to drive it, but I enjoy learning and understanding it, and this is something I do with my primary interests.

[JJTee]

Can’t beat a bit of Beato when it comes to theory…

 

 

[Baloney Balderdash]

7 minutes ago, MiltyG565 said:

Oh cripes, I thought this might happen.

 

Wanting to learn music theory does not negate one’s musicality or expression.

I never claimed anything like that.

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash

[MiltyG565]

25 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

To be perfectly honest I am not impressed.

 

Also, what exactly is this supposed to proof?

 

Where is the version where you don't base the solo on music theory but primarily use your ears and intuition, so we can compare and see which is better?

 

 

I’m going to suggest that “intuition” is nothing more than unconsciously internalising music theory from decades worth of music consumption, performing, and writing. No doubt what you would intuitively play would be theoretically possible.

[MiltyG565]

Just now, Baloney Balderdash said:

I never claimed anything like that.

You literally did when you replied to MacDaddy saying he would write a better solo if he didn’t use his knowledge of music theory.

[Baloney Balderdash]

6 minutes ago, MiltyG565 said:

I’m going to suggest that “intuition” is nothing more than unconsciously internalising music theory from decades worth of music consumption, performing, and writing. No doubt what you would intuitively play would be theoretically possible.

Then you don't understand what theory is.

 

Or more specifically what (western) music theory implies.

 

5 minutes ago, MiltyG565 said:

You literally did when you replied to MacDaddy saying he would write a better solo if he didn’t use his knowledge of music theory.

No I didn't.

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash

[wateroftyne]

34 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

To be perfectly honest I am not impressed.

 

Also, what exactly is this supposed to proof?

 

Where is the version where you don't base the solo on music theory but primarily use your ears and intuition, so we can compare and see which is better?

 

 

I think you may have misinterpreted the previous posts.

[chris_b]

Musical theory is never a bad thing. We should learn as much as we can. Music is basically feelings and patterns.

 

We don't necessarily need to know degree level music theory, but we should know our patterns, what the notes are called, their relationship to each other, and know how they fit together.

[MiltyG565]

6 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

Then you don't understand what theory is.

 

And specifically what (western) music theory implies.

 

Do you think if a Sitar player were to write a solo on anything that it would comply with western music theory, or would it, perhaps without the sitar player knowing any music theory at all, comply with traditional Indian music theoretical concepts? Do you think if you played a sitar, would you play something that sounded western, or something that sounded Indian, assuming you have no Indian musical background? As another contributor said, you pick up things like in the English language that we speak, you don’t need to know the theory behind it all to intrinsically pick it up, but we all apply the concepts the same way. That is unconsciously internalising the concepts and redeploying them. The fact that most of us couldn’t explain why the language has these rules doesn’t matter, it does, and we all apply them without realising. And it’s the same with music.

[Baloney Balderdash]

4 minutes ago, MiltyG565 said:

Do you think if a Sitar player were to write a solo on anything that it would comply with western music theory, or would it, perhaps without the sitar player knowing any music theory at all, comply with traditional Indian music theoretical concepts? Do you think if you played a sitar, would you play something that sounded western, or something that sounded Indian, assuming you have no Indian musical background? As another contributor said, you pick up things like in the English language that we speak, you don’t need to know the theory behind it all to intrinsically pick it up, but we all apply the concepts the same way. That is unconsciously internalising the concepts and redeploying them. The fact that most of us couldn’t explain why the language has these rules doesn’t matter, it does, and we all apply them without realising. And it’s the same with music.

You still don't seem to grasp what the concept of theory means and implies.

 

I really can't be assed to go into this discussion. 

 

But theory is secondary, you got it the wrong way around.

 

The theory is based on the language, the language is not based on the theory.

 

 

Edited March 20 by Baloney Balderdash