Keychanges - basic rules?

[Wurlitzer]

Hi Ivories.

"Rules" (whether or not that's the right word for them) of composing evolved over long periods of time, and not always for coherent reasons. The various theoretical explanations of how harmony works all have some things going for them, but it's probably fair to say there has never been a complete, thoroughly convincing explanation of conventional, 18th-century harmony, that accounts fully for all its complexities. Wurlitzer mentions Rameau, and his idea that the dominant grows out of the tonic. This idea was well-received by other music theorists, and proved why the dominant was so important within a key. However, they struggled to find an explanation for the subdominant: you can easily see how this chord is almost equally important as the dominant in the music of the period, but Rameau and successive generations of music theorists couldn't find a similarly convincing way of deriving it from the tonic.

It's certainly true that Rameau was not the be all and end all, and there were other theorists who saw things differently from him, but I think with respect I'd disagree with your point about the subdominant.

Firstly, you refer to the subdominant being "almost equally important" as the dominant. That may be true, depending on how you define "importance", but there's no doubt that the identities, usages and connotations of the two chords within the tonal system are radically different.

Opposite, in fact: and this is precisely why the subdominant is called the SUBdominant - because it has a relationship under the dominant that mirrors the relationship of the dominant above it. A lot of people mistakely think the subdominant is so-called because it's "under the dominant" within the scale. Not so: the name comes from the idea of it's being the "under-dominant" to the tonic. ie, just as the dominant lies a fifth above the tonic, the SUBdominant lies a fifth below it.

Rameau gave several very good explanations of this phenomenon, and it boils down to this: the tonic bears the same relationship to the subdominant, as the dominant bears to the tonic. It naturally falls by 5th to it, since our ears make the connection between the root of the tonic and the second overtone of the subdominant's harmonic series.

Now that all sounds nice and neat, but there are several problems and complications, and the need to deal with these can be seen precisely in the way composers actually handled the subdominant in practice.

For example, we don't WANT the tonic to resolve onto something else, because then we'd lose the sense of where the tonic IS! This is why almost every single 18th century sonata movement in a major key modulates to the dominant at the end of the exposition, and I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single one that goes to the subdominant. If it did, the architecture wouldn't work. The effect would be of "falling" into the middle of the piece and having to "climb" back out to the end, which is the exact opposite of what composers were trying to achieve, and would be ultimately unsatisfying.

OTOH the subdominant can have the most incredibly poignant sense of melancholy if used sensitively. For example Bach has a habit of tossing in a subtle move via it right at the VERY end of a movement - like in the second-last phrase or so. The point here is that the architecture of the movement is already completed. We have returned to the tonic and we can feel the end coming - he can then afford to play with us a little by taking the pull of gravity even FURTHER down, because the identity of the tonic is not at stake.

OTOH, ever noticed how the slow movements of classical major-key symphonies are usually in the subdominant key, not the dominant? Similar explnation: the overall key of the piece is not in doubt by this point, because we've already heard the whole I-V-I story of the first movement. Dropping to the subdominant perfectly suits the softer, more introspective quality normally required by the slow movement, and there's two more movements to come to reaffirm the tonic after it, so that's safe enough.

If you see the subdominant in these terms - as a kind of more tonic than the tonic, then the idiomatic usage of 18th century composers make complete sense.

Rameau also had a very canny explanation for the use of IV in a more microcosmic sense, in the typical progression I - IV - V - I, to do with it's similarity to II. We can see IV as just the upper three notes of II7. Thus I falls by natural gravity to IV, which is reinterpreted as II, which falls by natural gravity to V, which falls by natural gravity to I. Natural gravity all the way, baby! makes sense when you look at how interchangeable IV, IVb, II, IIb, II7 and II7b are in that progression in practice.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced by the idea that the primary movement in a blues is towards the subdominant: in early 12-bar blues (pre-50s) it seems to me very common for bars 9 and 10 both to rest on the dominant chord, so you almost get a nice perfect cadence at the end, and almost a sense that chord IV in the 5th and 6th bars is a dominant preparation. Sometimes you even find II-V-I in bars 9-11.

That's an interesting and very valid way of hearing 12-BAR-BLUES, but I was referring more to the roots of the blues. Long before there was the codified 12-bar form, there were people jamming and making up lyrics, without much sense of precomposition or predetermined form, in blues and gospel styles. If you listen to field recordings of this music, a huge amount of it just oscillates between I and IV indefinately. Often it's not even exactly clear whether an actually chord change is happening, or whether it's just the result of linear processes: the lead singer might rise 3-4 for expressive reasons, and a backing singer will naturally follow 5-6 with him, and then the 4 and the 6, along with the held drone 1, makes a chord IV. Sometimes there'll be a bass, which sometimes changes root note but often doesn't. You get the feeling that there's this amazingly organic process going on whereby the typical early African-American vocal mannerisms and the over-arching harmonic axis of I-IV-I are gradually exploring and clarifying each other.

This tradition can still be heard in people like Ray Charles, Aretha etc. When soul and RnB songs settle into 2-chord oscillations that go on for considerable time, the chords are usually I7 and IV7, not anything to do with V.

The 12-bar form, with its important use of V, came later. And the II-V-I ending was most certainly something that was grafted onto it by educated jazz composers, not part of the roots. Bebop composers then took this process even further and put a VI before the II, then III before the VI, and so on and so forth...

Returning to the subject of rules: some rules of harmony originate in the nature of sound, and overtones, as Wurlitzer said. However, a lot of the rules of western composition also originate in the nature of the human voice. Music theorists generally make a distinction between harmony (principles governing how you create and combine chords, scales and keys) and counterpoint (principles governing how you combine several melodic lines). Obviously in practice these overlap a lot. However, most of the traditional rules of counterpoint have their origins in the sense of what was comfortable to sing. The rules of counterpoint in what was known as the Strict Style (as originating in the 16th century, but as taught widely to students in all centuries including this one!) dictate, for example, that a melodic line should stay within the compass of an octave, plus one note higher or lower (a comfortable range for most singers); that if you use a melodic leap of more than a third, it should be followed by a step in the opposite direction; that leaps of a major sixth, seventh, or any augmented or diminished interval should be avoided (as they are difficult to pitch); that dissonant notes should arise as a result of stepwise or oblique motion, and should resolve by step. These rules were all felt to be natural to the voice. The bans on parallel octaves and fifths are also rules of counterpoint rather than harmony (although they impact on writing harmony as well): parallel octaves were prohibited because they weaken the sense of independence of each melodic line; parallel fifths were prohibited because the effect of a perfect fifth is to define a particular chord or sonority very strongly, and to sound it successively on two different chords asserts the identify of each so strongly that it destroys a sense of connection between the two.

Moste definitely. Absolutely. I was going to go into the consecutives thing in reply to Hollowsun's post, but even I get tired of rabbitting on eventually.

[Ivories]

It's certainly true that Rameau was not the be all and end all, and there were other theorists who saw things differently from him, but I think with respect I'd disagree with your point about the subdominant.

Firstly, you refer to the subdominant being "almost equally important" as the dominant. That may be true, depending on how you define "importance", but there's no doubt that the identities, usages and connotations of the two chords within the tonal system are radically different.

Opposite, in fact: and this is precisely why the subdominant is called the SUBdominant - because it has a relationship under the dominant that mirrors the relationship of the dominant above it. A lot of people mistakely think the subdominant is so-called because it's "under the dominant" within the scale. Not so: the name comes from the idea of it's being the "under-dominant" to the tonic. ie, just as the dominant lies a fifth above the tonic, the SUBdominant lies a fifth below it.

Rameau gave several very good explanations of this phenomenon, and it boils down to this: the tonic bears the same relationship to the subdominant, as the dominant bears to the tonic. It naturally falls by 5th to it, since our ears make the connection between the root of the tonic and the second overtone of the subdominant's harmonic series.

Now that all sounds nice and neat, but there are several problems and complications, and the need to deal with these can be seen precisely in the way composers actually handled the subdominant in practice.

For example, we don't WANT the tonic to resolve onto something else, because then we'd lose the sense of where the tonic IS! This is why almost every single 18th century sonata movement in a major key modulates to the dominant at the end of the exposition, and I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single one that goes to the subdominant. If it did, the architecture wouldn't work. The effect would be of "falling" into the middle of the piece and having to "climb" back out to the end, which is the exact opposite of what composers were trying to achieve, and would be ultimately unsatisfying.

OTOH the subdominant can have the most incredibly poignant sense of melancholy if used sensitively. For example Bach has a habit of tossing in a subtle move via it right at the VERY end of a movement - like in the second-last phrase or so. The point here is that the architecture of the movement is already completed. We have returned to the tonic and we can feel the end coming - he can then afford to play with us a little by taking the pull of gravity even FURTHER down, because the identity of the tonic is not at stake.

OTOH, ever noticed how the slow movements of classical major-key symphonies are usually in the subdominant key, not the dominant? Similar explnation: the overall key of the piece is not in doubt by this point, because we've already heard the whole I-V-I story of the first movement. Dropping to the subdominant perfectly suits the softer, more introspective quality normally required by the slow movement, and there's two more movements to come to reaffirm the tonic after it, so that's safe enough.

If you see the subdominant in these terms - as a kind of more tonic than the tonic, then the idiomatic usage of 18th century composers make complete sense.

Rameau also had a very canny explanation for the use of IV in a more microcosmic sense, in the typical progression I - IV - V - I, to do with it's similarity to II. We can see IV as just the upper three notes of II7. Thus I falls by natural gravity to IV, which is reinterpreted as II, which falls by natural gravity to V, which falls by natural gravity to I. Natural gravity all the way, baby! makes sense when you look at how interchangeable IV, IVb, II, IIb, II7 and II7b are in that progression in practice.

I quite agree that in practice, the subdominant is quite unproblematic. Surely it's the fact that it's both the goal of a falling 5th from the tonic ("more tonic than the tonic", as you describe it), AND very similar to chord II, which tends to move onto the dominant, that makes it an agent of stability within a key.

My point about the theoretical problem of the subdominant is that Rameau and other theorists weren't able to derive its origins from the tonic as neatly as they were the dominant. The overtone series had been discovered not very long before (I can't remember the date, but late 17th century); it provided a more modern explanation of all the harmonic ratios that had previously been explained by lengths of vibrating strings, and made it possible to demonstrate how the dominant has its origins in tonic. The fact that the subdominant doesn't feature anywhere in the harmonic series (I think it's about the 21st harmonic, but even that's not in tune) was a concern to harmonic theorists right until the end of the 19th century, and led some of them (notably Riemann, but as far as I remember Rameau also toyed with this idea) to suppose that there must be an (as yet undiscovered) Undertone series, that was the mirror of the overtone series, which could prove the origins of the subdominant in the same way.

Of course these are purely theoretical problems, which have arguably no bearing at all on composition - but we know that theory and practice aren't always the same.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced by the idea that the primary movement in a blues is towards the subdominant: in early 12-bar blues (pre-50s) it seems to me very common for bars 9 and 10 both to rest on the dominant chord, so you almost get a nice perfect cadence at the end, and almost a sense that chord IV in the 5th and 6th bars is a dominant preparation. Sometimes you even find II-V-I in bars 9-11.

That's an interesting and very valid way of hearing 12-BAR-BLUES, but I was referring more to the roots of the blues. Long before there was the codified 12-bar form, there were people jamming and making up lyrics, without much sense of precomposition or predetermined form, in blues and gospel styles. If you listen to field recordings of this music, a huge amount of it just oscillates between I and IV indefinately.

Agreed.

even I get tired of rabbitting on eventually.

Oh no you don't, not really...

[Rousseau]

But if you're interested in the deep underlying principles behind harmony, and how they relate to the science of sound, Rameau's Treatise On Harmony of 1722 is a good place to start, coming at the time it did when it could sum up what the great baroque composers where doing, and influence in turn the classical ones.

Please ignore the Treatise in relation to the so-called science of sound! The Treatise was hopelessly outdated (not in terms of compositional praxis) when it was published. Indeed Rameau had to hastily rewrite it after Pere Castel reviewed it. Castel pointed out that Joseph Sauveur had already demonstrated that the harmonic series is naturally emitted when a sounding body (corps sonore) vibrates, in a paper given to the Academy of Sciences in 1701.

Rameau was barking up completely the wrong tree in the Treatise because he was still advocating monochordal aliquots to determine scales, generate the major triad and justify his compositional system, when of course the harmonic series produces the so-called major triad as it unfolds (1st 5 partials reduced to within the ambit of an octave). His Noveau Système (the Treatise rewrite) of 1726 incorporates Sauveur's findings, and it's not until 1737 in Génération Harmonique that Rameau fully expounds his theory of harmonic generation (much of it is highly questionable in terms of its science anyway).

Sorry, I'll get me coat now

[Rousseau]

It's certainly true that Rameau was not the be all and end all, and there were other theorists who saw things differently from him, but I think with respect I'd disagree with your point about the subdominant.

Firstly, you refer to the subdominant being "almost equally important" as the dominant. That may be true, depending on how you define "importance", but there's no doubt that the identities, usages and connotations of the two chords within the tonal system are radically different.

Opposite, in fact: and this is precisely why the subdominant is called the SUBdominant - because it has a relationship under the dominant that mirrors the relationship of the dominant above it. A lot of people mistakely think the subdominant is so-called because it's "under the dominant" within the scale. Not so: the name comes from the idea of it's being the "under-dominant" to the tonic. ie, just as the dominant lies a fifth above the tonic, the SUBdominant lies a fifth below it.

Rameau gave several very good explanations of this phenomenon, and it boils down to this: the tonic bears the same relationship to the subdominant, as the dominant bears to the tonic. It naturally falls by 5th to it, since our ears make the connection between the root of the tonic and the second overtone of the subdominant's harmonic series.

Now that all sounds nice and neat, but there are several problems and complications, and the need to deal with these can be seen precisely in the way composers actually handled the subdominant in practice.

For example, we don't WANT the tonic to resolve onto something else, because then we'd lose the sense of where the tonic IS! This is why almost every single 18th century sonata movement in a major key modulates to the dominant at the end of the exposition, and I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single one that goes to the subdominant. If it did, the architecture wouldn't work. The effect would be of "falling" into the middle of the piece and having to "climb" back out to the end, which is the exact opposite of what composers were trying to achieve, and would be ultimately unsatisfying.

OTOH the subdominant can have the most incredibly poignant sense of melancholy if used sensitively. For example Bach has a habit of tossing in a subtle move via it right at the VERY end of a movement - like in the second-last phrase or so. The point here is that the architecture of the movement is already completed. We have returned to the tonic and we can feel the end coming - he can then afford to play with us a little by taking the pull of gravity even FURTHER down, because the identity of the tonic is not at stake.

OTOH, ever noticed how the slow movements of classical major-key symphonies are usually in the subdominant key, not the dominant? Similar explnation: the overall key of the piece is not in doubt by this point, because we've already heard the whole I-V-I story of the first movement. Dropping to the subdominant perfectly suits the softer, more introspective quality normally required by the slow movement, and there's two more movements to come to reaffirm the tonic after it, so that's safe enough.

If you see the subdominant in these terms - as a kind of more tonic than the tonic, then the idiomatic usage of 18th century composers make complete sense.

Rameau also had a very canny explanation for the use of IV in a more microcosmic sense, in the typical progression I - IV - V - I, to do with it's similarity to II. We can see IV as just the upper three notes of II7. Thus I falls by natural gravity to IV, which is reinterpreted as II, which falls by natural gravity to V, which falls by natural gravity to I. Natural gravity all the way, baby! makes sense when you look at how interchangeable IV, IVb, II, IIb, II7 and II7b are in that progression in practice.

I quite agree that in practice, the subdominant is quite unproblematic. Surely it's the fact that it's both the goal of a falling 5th from the tonic ("more tonic than the tonic", as you describe it), AND very similar to chord II, which tends to move onto the dominant, that makes it an agent of stability within a key.

My point about the theoretical problem of the subdominant is that Rameau and other theorists weren't able to derive its origins from the tonic as neatly as they were the dominant. The overtone series had been discovered not very long before (I can't remember the date, but late 17th century); it provided a more modern explanation of all the harmonic ratios that had previously been explained by lengths of vibrating strings, and made it possible to demonstrate how the dominant has its origins in tonic. The fact that the subdominant doesn't feature anywhere in the harmonic series (I think it's about the 21st harmonic, but even that's not in tune) was a concern to harmonic theorists right until the end of the 19th century, and led some of them (notably Riemann, but as far as I remember Rameau also toyed with this idea) to suppose that there must be an (as yet undiscovered) Undertone series, that was the mirror of the overtone series, which could prove the origins of the subdominant in the same way.

Of course these are purely theoretical problems, which have arguably no bearing at all on composition - but we know that theory and practice aren't always the same.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced by the idea that the primary movement in a blues is towards the subdominant: in early 12-bar blues (pre-50s) it seems to me very common for bars 9 and 10 both to rest on the dominant chord, so you almost get a nice perfect cadence at the end, and almost a sense that chord IV in the 5th and 6th bars is a dominant preparation. Sometimes you even find II-V-I in bars 9-11.

That's an interesting and very valid way of hearing 12-BAR-BLUES, but I was referring more to the roots of the blues. Long before there was the codified 12-bar form, there were people jamming and making up lyrics, without much sense of precomposition or predetermined form, in blues and gospel styles. If you listen to field recordings of this music, a huge amount of it just oscillates between I and IV indefinately.

Agreed.

even I get tired of rabbitting on eventually.

Oh no you don't, not really...

Posts crossed over...

Yup, the sub dominant was a huge problem for Rameau, the minor mode was an enormous problem and Tartini's difference tone threatened to undermine Rameau's entire system (so he chose to ignore it for as long as possible).

[thenaturallevel]

This kind of movement can work if it's made a feature of the song. A good example of this is the Diana Ross song Chain Reaction
(written by the Bee Gees) which basically goes up and then comes back down again. I can't remember the exact progression off the top of my head (possibly simply C-D-E-F-E-D-C), however, given the lyrical content it makes sense.

[Ian Stewart]

Regarding the move to the subdominant in early jazz, various stomps, marches etc.would move to the flat side. I have played numerous pieces in trad bands that started say in F, the central section was in Bb and then the final section or chorus, which was repeated until the end of the piece for improvisation, would be in Eb.
I feel that this is an underlying tendency in much jazz and Dave Brubeck (who I have to say I have never liked) to me missed the point when he composed a 12 bar blues in C (I think) starting on E7, slowly working through the cycle of 5ths to the F7 chord and then the usual blues structure. This was an intellectual approach that to me does not work.
Mezz Mezrow, who was an excellent jazz clarinetist, also I think missed the point, when he invented a 32 bar blues which he thought would make the old 12 blues redundant.

However I am not sure how relevant theories such as Rameau's are within the equal tempered system. For several days I worked with a sampler tuned to a mean tone tuning. When I went back to equal temperament the tuning sounded dull and lacking in vibrancy. Although it is generally considered a good thing because it makes late Romantic and twelve tone music possible I think we have lost more than we have gained.

[Rousseau]

However I am not sure how relevant theories such as Rameau's are within the equal tempered system. For several days I worked with a sampler tuned to a mean tone tuning. When I went back to equal temperament the tuning sounded dull and lacking in vibrancy. Although it is generally considered a good thing because it makes late Romantic and twelve tone music possible I think we have lost more than we have gained.

Oh dear you've been infected now, there's no turning back

Nail on head of course about Rameau's system being at odds with the equal temperament that he was advocating (as many a theorist pointed out to him).

Nevertheless, we do owe a huge amount to Rameau in terms of music theory.

[Wurlitzer]

My point about the theoretical problem of the subdominant is that Rameau and other theorists weren't able to derive its origins from the tonic as neatly as they were the dominant. The overtone series had been discovered not very long before (I can't remember the date, but late 17th century); it provided a more modern explanation of all the harmonic ratios that had previously been explained by lengths of vibrating strings, and made it possible to demonstrate how the dominant has its origins in tonic. The fact that the subdominant doesn't feature anywhere in the harmonic series (I think it's about the 21st harmonic, but even that's not in tune) was a concern to harmonic theorists right until the end of the 19th century, and led some of them (notably Riemann, but as far as I remember Rameau also toyed with this idea) to suppose that there must be an (as yet undiscovered) Undertone series, that was the mirror of the overtone series, which could prove the origins of the subdominant in the same way.

Ha, yes. The undertone idea was a very clever piece of logical deduction that reality never quite caught up with.

I remember now reading about Rameau's difficulties trying to derive the subdominant from the tonic, and I agree that it can't really be done.

I suppose I don't really see it as a problem because I see the whole issue in relation to the modal system, out of which music had only comparatively recently emerged. The notes of the diatonic system are related by fifths, and in order to make these relationships work in the practical circumstances of a limited number of tones, there is the "kludge" of the one diminished fifth and the various compromises of temperament. Kludges like this are an inevitable part of the process of deriving a practical music-making system from the complex reality of physical sound-generation.

For various reasons - including linear factors as you mention above - "Ionian mode" emerged as the the most tonally stable and became the major scale in the hands of late renaissance composers, and that mode places the diminished 5th two places down the cycle under the tonic.

[And the fact that this had to do to some extent with culturally relative factors can be seen in the observations above, about how a lot of folk or blues-based music in the mixolydian mode actually has a deeper sense of gravity, or "naturalness".)

I don't see the subdominant as needing to be derived from the harmonic series of the tonic in order to validate the theory as a whole. It's the derivation of the whole diatonic system from 5th relationships that is the point. For example, the point of the supertonic is not that it corresponds to the 7th overtone of the tonic, it's that it's the dominant (ie 2nd overtone) of the dominant. In this sense the identity of the subdominant as the "tonic's tonic" makes perfect sense to me, especially when you see how that plays out in practice.

[SunShineState]

what the f**k are you guys on ?? im a big fan of do it cos it sounds good (rather than waste your life analysing the "maths") - so in popular music shove the last chorus up a semitone because it livens things up; and stop worrying about whether the theory is sound or not

[IvanSC]

read the top of the page dude - you are in music theory and practice.

The nerd count round here is exceedingly high.

They only let me in if I promise to wear my pocket protectror and carry a ruler that makes manuscript paper.
(Yes I really DO have one and use it.)

[thenaturallevel]

what the f**k are you guys on ?? im a big fan of do it cos it sounds good (rather than waste your life analysing the "maths") - so in popular music shove the last chorus up a semitone because it livens things up; and stop worrying about whether the theory is sound or not

Are you a member of Westlife?

[Ian Stewart]

what the f**k are you guys on ?? im a big fan of do it cos it sounds good (rather than waste your life analysing the "maths") - so in popular music shove the last chorus up a semitone because it livens things up; and stop worrying about whether the theory is sound or not

That's what composers like Rameau did, tried to find a theoretical explanation, or the principles, behind progressions that sounded right to the ear and those that did not.
Such theoretical knowledge can also help any composing as if something does not feel right, an analysis can often highlight the problematic area. This happened to me recently, a section just did not work and I could not understand why. It then occurred to me that I had gone from A major to an F# minor section in which the second chord was A. This meant the F# minor section was undefined and being dragged back into to A. Once I changed that chord the section worked.
However analysis is a fluid thing, not fixed in stone - look upon musical analysis as more akin to quantum physics rather than the legal system.

[IvanSC]

what the f**k are you guys on ?? im a big fan of do it cos it sounds good (rather than waste your life analysing the "maths") - so in popular music shove the last chorus up a semitone because it livens things up; and stop worrying about whether the theory is sound or not

That's what composers like Rameau did, tried to find a theoretical explanation, or the principles, behind progressions that sounded right to the ear and those that did not.
Such theoretical knowledge can also help any composing as if something does not feel right, an analysis can often highlight the problematic area. This happened to me recently, a section just did not work and I could not understand why. It then occurred to me that I had gone from A major to an F# minor section in which the second chord was A. This meant the F# minor section was undefined and being dragged back into to A. Once I changed that chord the section worked.
However analysis is a fluid thing, not fixed in stone - look upon musical analysis as more akin to quantum physics rather than the legal system.

"And that`s my excuse for being a theory nerd and I`m sticking to it!"

Juust kidding, mate.

Wonder what the chappie who posted that load of old bolleaux you responded to does for fun?

As a matter of interest the stuff about where the root takes you rprogression is very relevant to bass players.
I have long said that the bass player ultimately decides the harmonic structure of a tune in pop music.
LIike you said,
You think you`re in A major?
Have an F# in the bass and tell me you`re still in A major!

Mu-hahaaa!

[The Bunk]

...on the subject of key changes, anybody seen John Otway in action?? Halfway through a song, he announces "key change!!" Everybody stops. He puts a capo on the guitar somewhere like the second fret and starts again. Wonderful!

[IvanSC]

...on the subject of key changes, anybody seen John Otway in action?? Halfway through a song, he announces "key change!!" Everybody stops. He puts a capo on the guitar somewhere like the second fret and starts again. Wonderful!

John is a national treasure.

Him & WWB in their heyday were a sight to see!

[Ivories]

Wonder what the chappie who posted that load of old bolleaux you responded to does for fun?

Translates Latin poetry into Sanskrit.

As a matter of interest the stuff about where the root takes you rprogression is very relevant to bass players.
I have long said that the bass player ultimately decides the harmonic structure of a tune in pop music.

Just what Rameau said.

[IvanSC]

Quotey -wotey:As a matter of interest the stuff about where the root takes you rprogression is very relevant to bass players.
I have long said that the bass player ultimately decides the harmonic structure of a tune in pop music.
LIike you said,:un-quotey-wotey.

and I was replying to the post by Ian, saying just that.

It`s a minor point but it is relative.

I`ll get my coat.....

[Ian Stewart]

Hi Ivories, I think we have met. I think we travelled back together from the CASS conference in Cardiff a few years ago, in Steven's car, as all the trains were cancelled. I try not to rely on my memory though.

[agent funk]

I have long said that the bass player ultimately decides the harmonic structure of a tune in pop music.
LIike you said,
You think you`re in A major?
Have an F# in the bass and tell me you`re still in A major!

Mu-hahaaa!

Yes Ivan, and playing the wrong note with such great confidence the audience assume the rest of the band are playing the wrong chord, that bass is dangerous instrument in the wrong hands!

[SunShineState]

I'm a fan of the George Martin theory - music is art - you start with a blank canvas and have the right to create anything you want -there is no right or wrong.

So the notation and theory is just a way of recording what has already been composed, from an era before we had tape recorders and DAWs - and is therfore now redundant!

I'll get me coat

[hollowsun]

So the notation and theory is just a way of recording what has already been composed .... and is therfore now redundant!

Whoooops!!!

Notation will be used for some time to come to allow future musicians to play music. George Martin used traditional notation all the time.

[Wurlitzer]

SunShineState -

Can I just clarify, at no point did I say, or mean to suggest, that the "X-Factor modulation" is wrong because it contradicts some traditional "theory". I didn't even say it was wrong, as such.

To my ears, most (not all) examples of this are "wrong" because they sound cheesy, cliched and ultimately ineffective, like I can hear the composer fishing around for cheap tricks rather than just relax and enjoy the music.

But this has nothing to do with analysing it, it's just what my ears tell me. And in some cases it works better than others, like anything.

Also, when I outlined how this modulation doesn't fit into the classical scheme of modulation to cloesely related keys via pivot chords, I wasn't suggesting for a moment that that scheme is "right", and the modulation up a semitone somehow "wrong" for that reason. I was simply trying to clarify that they are different techniques, emerging within different traditions trying to do different things.

This can be a helpful thing to do because if you don't do it, people can get the bases of techniques they use wrong - basically viewing them from a style base that they don't belong to. An example in this very thread - the idea of trying to effect the X-Factor modulation "smoothly" and "correctly", by preceeding it with its dominant 7th. In fact what I was doing was the opposite of what you protest. I was saying DON'T bother about doing that, because that's applying a classical mentality to it that is foreign to the style.

Ultimately to me it's ALWAYS about the result, what my ear tells me, and "if it sounds right, it is right".

But knowledge of technique and theory can help us to arrive at that. That's why all the great masters studied it - it ain't coincidence.

[Ivories]

Hi Ian. We may have met, but it wasn't at a conference in Cardiff, because I'm sure I've never been to one. Shame!

[IvanSC]

I'm a fan of the George Martin theory - music is art - you start with a blank canvas and have the right to create anything you want -there is no right or wrong.

So the notation and theory is just a way of recording what has already been composed, from an era before we had tape recorders and DAWs - and is therfore now redundant!

I'll get me coat

(grin) well at least I stopped short of saying it was redundant!
But yes I do still think there is a tendency for paper-driven musicians to overlook how it all started.
And I suppose the theory is that people with not-so-good ears can read and play a manuscript rahter than struggling to just follow the recording as those blessed with better ears can.

FWIW I use ear and manuscript, so I really don`t have an axe to grin done way or the other.
By the way, what had you been drinking the other night? (grin)
I have a double dose of depping on bass for a country band coming up and may well need a good anaesthetic/perception alterer/mood lightener.

[The Bunk]

...on the subject of key changes, anybody seen John Otway in action?? Halfway through a song, he announces "key change!!" Everybody stops. He puts a capo on the guitar somewhere like the second fret and starts again. Wonderful!

John is a national treasure.

Him & WWB in their heyday were a sight to see!

Agree; the man's a legend!
He's touring at the moment; might go and see him in Putney tomorrow. His support act is some band I've never heard of but which is featuring....wait for this....Lloyd Grossman.