Is this even in theory? - Telecaster Guitar Forum
The Number 1 Fender Telecaster Guitar authority in the world.
   

Go Back   Telecaster Guitar Forum > Other Discussion Forums > Tab, Tips, Theory and Technique
Forgot Username/Password? Join Us!
Notices

Tab, Tips, Theory and Technique Formerly "Suger Free Tab & Music 101." Look for and post TAB, talk about playing technique or music theory. Nuts and bolts of playing music... not gear.


Wilde Pickups by Bill & Becky Lawrence WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Amps, Mods, Pedals dallenpickups.com Warmoth.com seymourduncan.com


Forum Jump


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 30th, 2013, 07:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
TDPRI Member
 
geckoman1220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: new orleans, la
Posts: 33
Is this even in theory?

So i was playing around on the tele, just strumming some chords to kill time when I strum an E major 7. without the high e string because i was being lazy.

e--x--
b--9--
g--8--
d--9--
a--7--
E--x--

anyway i was stumming that and then moved it down to a D major 7. I think it sounds really cool when switching between then. But is it in correct theory to do? I dont know what key it would be, but i do know it could also sound cool to move it up to a g major 7 at the 10th fret sometimes.

geckoman1220 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 30th, 2013, 08:31 PM   #2 (permalink)
Tele-Holic
 
czgibson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 787
If it sounds cool, chances are it is cool. Theory doesn't have that much to do with it.

For what it's worth, those two maj7 chords don't turn up in any of the harmonised major or minor scales, so your Emaj7 - Dmaj7 vamp isn't in a single key. If I was soloing over it I would use chord tones to guide me throught the progression. Those chord tones might in turn suggest scales; in this case using E bebop then D Lydian would work quite well. When the Gmaj7 chord arrives, again use chord tones from it to build melodies.

Music theory isn't an attempt to establish "the laws of music", it's an attempt to describe and codify what musicians do.

Those chords of yours sound pretty good to me. Follow what your ears tell you before you listen to what anyone else says.
czgibson is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 30th, 2013, 09:01 PM   #3 (permalink)
Poster Extraordinaire
 
klasaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NELA, Ca
Posts: 7,100
Very common.
Check out Art Garfunkle's version of "I Only Have eyes For You"



Theoretically why? ...
When you drop any chord down a whole step and then bring it back up the lower chord is quasi functioning as either a IV or a V chord.
If you want a name for it it's generally referred to as parallel motion or constant structure (the same shape moving around).
In your case the Dmaj9 (the second chord) is sort of a IV chord - an A triad with D in the bass. So you 'could' think of that progression as Emaj9 to A/D - I to IV.

*If you dropped down to a Dm or Dm7 chord you could think of that as a heavily altered V7 chord.
klasaine is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links   #
Sponsored posting
 

Old August 30th, 2013, 09:05 PM   #4 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
greggorypeccary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 46
Posts: 3,601
No it is not correct, don't ever do that again.

If something sounds good, theory can explain why. If it sounds bad, theory can explain why. You don't need to know the theory to know if it sounds good or not anymore than you need to understand gravity to know what's going to happen to your Les Paul when your strap breaks.

But then again, knowledge is power.
__________________
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and get onboard the Mothership.

Music and other photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgunsher/sets/
greggorypeccary is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 30th, 2013, 09:30 PM   #5 (permalink)
Tele-Holic
 
teletwang67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Age: 17
Posts: 569
Nothing is really "wrong", whatever sounds good is good.
__________________
"I thought, I'll get a Tele because I always hated them. I don't like the way they look or sound, so I'll go get one" - Alex Lifeson
teletwang67 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 03:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Tele-Afflicted
 
slowpinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne ,Australia
Posts: 1,720
Dont be thinking theory is about what you cant or shouldnt do....quite the opposite. If something sounds good but defies (at some level) a theoretical understanding, its the fault of the theory , not the sound.
__________________
"We were making music before language"
slowpinky is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 04:00 AM   #7 (permalink)
Doctor of Teleocity
 
Larry F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10,758
As a young man, Schoenberg submitted a composition for some kind of award. But, nope, it was disallowed because it contained a chord that didn't exist in theory.
__________________
Check out my new book on Amazon: 2000 Blues Licks That Rock!
Larry F is online now   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 06:13 AM   #8 (permalink)
Poster Extraordinaire
 
JayFreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas TX USA
Age: 49
Posts: 6,211
What Ken said... It's a constant structure vamp. So yes, there is theory to describe what you're doing.

Personally I think most theory comes after the fact. If you find something that sounds good, chances are that someone has tried to provide an explanation for why it sounds good. Since it's nearly impossible to PROVE that something sounds good, we call it "theory"... Not "fact".

Where a lot of people get confused is with fundamentals. Things likes modes or key signatures aren't theories, those are fundamental facts.

Many people lump any technical discussion of music or harmony under the heading "theory", but there is a difference between theory and fundamentals...

Not that anyone asked...
JayFreddy is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 07:10 AM   #9 (permalink)
Tele-Meister
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 280
Beethoven was ridiculed for not "following" the rules....
jackleg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 09:18 AM   #10 (permalink)
Tele-Afflicted
 
slowpinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne ,Australia
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
As a young man, Schoenberg submitted a composition for some kind of award. But, nope, it was disallowed because it contained a chord that didn't exist in theory.
I'd LOVE to know what chord it was...wasnt something with Maj 3rd a b9 above a min 3rd by any chance?
__________________
"We were making music before language"
slowpinky is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 09:46 AM   #11 (permalink)
Tele-Holic
 
czgibson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 787
Was it the mythical sus3 chord one of my mates tried to convince us was real?
czgibson is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 10:03 AM   #12 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
bingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Champlain Valley, VT, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,405
Try adding an A in the bass and you can see how it is a substitute for the IVsus chord.

This essentially makes your progression a I IV I IV which is about as common a progression you can have, just all dressed up with maj7th's and suspended 4's and 9's
bingy is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 01:46 PM   #13 (permalink)
Doctor of Teleocity
 
Larry F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowpinky View Post
I'd LOVE to know what chord it was...wasnt something with Maj 3rd a b9 above a min 3rd by any chance?
I used to know what it was. Right now, I can't even remember the piece. But I think this is a pretty well-known bit of Schoenberg lore.
__________________
Check out my new book on Amazon: 2000 Blues Licks That Rock!
Larry F is online now   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 02:11 PM   #14 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
dsutton24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,890
If it sounds good, use it, theory be damned.

Have you ever read any of the articles in the guitar magazines that talk about solos? They basically read like this: Ingmar von Boom starts out with a riff on the major smellatonic, then slides into a arepgiated minor suspect 9, then grooves on the unrooted Flemish forth inversion for sixty three bars, then finishes with an aldente diminished back third from the pike position.

In other words, blah, blah, blah...

I've learned a lot of theory over the past months, and things pop up in pieces that I can't resolve into an established chord but sound nice and fit the overall theme of the piece. So I just play it (or murder it ) and just enjoy it.
__________________
Yet another hobby that is completely out of control...
dsutton24 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 02:37 PM   #15 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
jmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ohio
Posts: 2,340
"the lower chord is quasi functioning as either a IV or a V chord. "

Remember, Gatton's favorite E7th chord was a D major!
jmiles is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 08:33 PM   #16 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
greggorypeccary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 46
Posts: 3,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsutton24 View Post
If it sounds good, use it, theory be damned.

Have you ever read any of the articles in the guitar magazines that talk about solos? They basically read like this: Ingmar von Boom starts out with a riff on the major smellatonic, then slides into a arepgiated minor suspect 9, then grooves on the unrooted Flemish forth inversion for sixty three bars, then finishes with an aldente diminished back third from the pike position.

In other words, blah, blah, blah...

I've learned a lot of theory over the past months, and things pop up in pieces that I can't resolve into an established chord but sound nice and fit the overall theme of the piece. So I just play it (or murder it ) and just enjoy it.
Why jump on someone who want's to understand the theory behind a cool sounding thing he's playing? If you choose to remain ignorant on such things, fine, but I don't get this constant vibe of "you don't need to know that stuff" amongst guitar players.
__________________
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and get onboard the Mothership.

Music and other photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgunsher/sets/
greggorypeccary is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 09:52 PM   #17 (permalink)
Poster Extraordinaire
 
klasaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NELA, Ca
Posts: 7,100
Unrooted Flemish 4th inversion ...

Low to high: F# h E

I like to use it as a C#m11.
klasaine is offline   Reply With Quote

Old August 31st, 2013, 10:09 PM   #18 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
dsutton24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,890
Quote:
Why jump on someone who want's to understand the theory behind a cool sounding thing he's playing?
What the heck is your problem? Nobody jumped on anybody! What I wrote wasn't a criticism, wise crack, or superior attitude, and it certainly wasn't based in ignorance. After forty years of playing the guitar I have been taking lessons over the past eight months or so from an instructor who is a music professor with the emphasis being theory and sight reading from the staff. Why would anybody with a 'don't need to know that stuff' attitude subject himself to trying to learn a complex subject like music theory?

And if you need any proof that many times pleasant sounding chords that don't fit any standard chord forms really do happen take a look at Ferdinando Carulli's Capriccio in C, just happens to be what I'm working on at the moment. That piece also has a fair amount of dischord in it from standard chord forms. It might even be available in tab somewhere...

Music theory goes a long way toward explaining what works and what doesn't, but it's not the last word on what makes music sound good. Music is an art, and thus subject to and tolerant of divergence from the formula.

That, Charlie Brown, is the meaning of music.
__________________
Yet another hobby that is completely out of control...
dsutton24 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old September 1st, 2013, 08:31 AM   #19 (permalink)
Tele-Meister
 
Bob L's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmiles View Post
"the lower chord is quasi functioning as either a IV or a V chord. "

Remember, Gatton's favorite E7th chord was a D major!
That would be E11. Burt Bachrach is fond of that as well.
Bob L is offline   Reply With Quote

Old September 1st, 2013, 09:03 AM   #20 (permalink)
Friend of Leo's
 
greggorypeccary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 46
Posts: 3,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsutton24 View Post
What the heck is your problem? Nobody jumped on anybody! What I wrote wasn't a criticism, wise crack, or superior attitude, and it certainly wasn't based in ignorance. After forty years of playing the guitar I have been taking lessons over the past eight months or so from an instructor who is a music professor with the emphasis being theory and sight reading from the staff. Why would anybody with a 'don't need to know that stuff' attitude subject himself to trying to learn a complex subject like music theory?

And if you need any proof that many times pleasant sounding chords that don't fit any standard chord forms really do happen take a look at Ferdinando Carulli's Capriccio in C, just happens to be what I'm working on at the moment. That piece also has a fair amount of dischord in it from standard chord forms. It might even be available in tab somewhere...

Music theory goes a long way toward explaining what works and what doesn't, but it's not the last word on what makes music sound good. Music is an art, and thus subject to and tolerant of divergence from the formula.

That, Charlie Brown, is the meaning of music.
No problem here, we actually agree. But come on, I'm sure you've seen plenty of guys on forums claiming you don't need to know stuff and you should "just play by feel, maaaaaan" or "theory doesn't matter if it sounds good."

My response was really about the first half of your post, "theory be damned" and "blah blah blah". I did see that you said you were working on this stuff, I was using "you" in the general sense when I should have said "someone". Sorry if I inadvertantly accused you of being "that guy".

But I think the basic premise we all pretty much agree on in this thread is that whatever you play, whether it sounds good or not, can be explained by theory, often in more than one way. But this is kind of like not needing to understand the Theory of Plate Tectonics to know an earthquake is bad, though knowing it makes it more interesting.

Thanks for the TAB crack though....while not a sight reader, I can read.
__________________
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and get onboard the Mothership.

Music and other photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgunsher/sets/
greggorypeccary is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


» Random Photo for Guests
Highway One Honey Blonde
Untitled Document



 


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2



IMPORTANT:Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult! No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2
© TDPRI.COM 1999 - 2014 All rights reserved.