Question about Modes and Scales for Am - G - D - Em progression

Hi @Drew, I haven’t watched that episode of Ricks I got a bit bored of him. It’s interesting to break songs down and rationalise them but I would rather do it myself.
I always played Teen Spirit as straight major chords, which is what the majority of Kurt’s progressions were, and that’s what I mean, by playing Fmajor, Bbmajor then G#major and C#major; it doesn’t fit the diatonic 7 note scale, which has 3 major chords and 4 minors.

Of course I’m probably playing it wrong but it was just an example really, of how Kurt’s, and yes some of the Beatles, progressions made me understand that the ‘rules’ don’t have to be followed.

Another great discovery was alternate tuning as used by Sonic Youth and some other obscure grunge artists. Some lovely diverse melodies and progressions can be discovered this way. I always found it was a great tool to create unique music when I felt trapped by the ‘rules’.

Honestly, I hear you on Rick’s videos - I watched a couple early on, got bored, and stopped - but this one was definitely something special. His analysis of Kurt’s vocal melodies is pretty awesome, but honestly I think his discussion of Grohl’s drumming and how he kind of selectively rushes the 1 on downbeats at the start of every repeat is pretty stellar too, and if you spend any time doing MIDI drum programming, is worth watching for that alone.

It’s definitely power chords over major chords, though, if nothing else because the melody has a very strong aeolean/minor tonality.

but, like, a lot of music that “breaks the rules” isn’t actually breaking rules, it’s simply following a different set of rules, or rather following rules of cadence and resolution that don’t really have much to do with diatonic harmony and can exist kind of independent of it. Music theory has a ton of complexity to it, far more than simply harmonizing a diatonic scale and saying this is the set of chords you can make music from, but a lot of them are basically focused on ways in which resolving from one chord to another sounds good, and that is just as true inside a diatonic harmony as it is outside of it.

By the way isnt it great that we all seem to disagree on how to play even the simplest of riffs.

  • Rick says: Fsus4, Bbmaj, G#sus4, C#maj.
  • You say: F5, Bb5, G#5, C#5.
  • I say: Fmaj, Bbmaj, G#maj, C#maj.

I just love how we all interpret music differently.

Yes I was gunna mention that too, how you can never really break the rules because there’s always a different set of rules that can be applied. I’m certainly no theory expert but I’m sure even the most obscure music can be rationalised and have theory applied to it in many different ways depending on the person and their understanding and musical experiences.

1 Like

Re how to hear Smells Like Teen Spirit -

Harmonic analysis can be subjective, but pitches present is generally more objective and not so much up to interpretation. Re F5 vs F major vs Fsus4, only one of these can be correct; not so much a naming issue or analysis issue.

“Music theory” is definitely not “rules” it’s a set of observations of things that have happened and approaches that have been used up to this point in time. If notes are produced from via computer generated randomization, they aren’t breaking music theory rules, and analysis can be performed on the results produced.

Ok I get it, but in the example of the computer generated randomized music, the result may be garbage and therefore not even worth analysing.

Is it worth analysing something that sounds awful ? Maybe you could just to understand what isn’t working and why I guess.

Sure you could say, whether the music is garbage or not, is subjective, but on the whole harmonies and melodies that work, work for the majority of listeners, and those harmonies and melodies are generally following the mainline ‘rules’ of music theory that have been used up to this point in time in western culture.

I know I might be riling you by calling them rules again, what else can we call them ? Guidelines? “The big book of harmonies, melodies and chord progressions for popular music songwriters” ? Haha I’m joking. Like you say they are observations but they are used over and over again and will continue to be because they work.

With the Teen Spirit thing I am generally bad at identifying chords, I’m ok with single notes and solos but chords are a problem so I’m almost certainly wrong with the Fmajor, but it sounded ok to me and other people I played it to so it worked on some level.

Just compositional techniques or compositional elements, which are which is different than music theory imo. Modal interchange is a technique, and if it happens unintentionally it’s an element that someone else can observe and then choose to use - or not use - as a technique.

I’d guess I’d ask the Q: what are you proposing are ‘rules’? From your comments on Teen Spirit, it sounds like you’re saying that for chords of a progression to not all be in the same key that it is breaking rules? Because there isn’t a rule that chords and notes of a song all need to be in the same key. Techniques for modulation, borrowed chords, chromaticism, etc, are common across most styles of western music, in most cases there’s at least a bit of commonly used language to describe what’s happening. Eg in jazz standards that were written in the 30s/40s we have a lot of secondary dominants, and modulation to new keys via dominants acting as V7 for the new key, in grunge era music we get a lot of modal interchange and specifically mixing major/minor key sounds, in early Beatles tunes there was a lot of the minor plagal cadence, yadda.

Whether techniques were used with knowledge of their name or not, eg whether the composer was familiar with common historical use of the same compositional elements, is kind of a different thing.

But for improvising over chord progressions and the involvement of music theory…my advice is usually first follow your ear…if you don’t like what you get, learn a bit about what’s going on…try some things out…if you still don’t like it, dig a little deeper. If it ain’t broke, no need to fix it, but if someone wants to improve* it’s worth exploring some of the things other people do.

*edit: that is, improve their choices of notes, rhythms, harmony, etc. There are definitely non-theoretical elements one can improve on like technique, tone, phrasing, etc

I’m thinking mainly about the unspoken rules of rock pop and blues I guess. Thats why the Beatles and NIrvana sounded so unique, because they deviated from those traditional chord progressions and melodies. This all got taken out of context I think.
I totally agree with you, I was just telling the story of how I studied rock music when I was starting to learn guitar and learnt about keys and the basic scales and modes and everything seemed to make sense, then I discovered things that didn’t fit those models. I’m certainly not saying those deviations are wrong, or lets call them developments or expansions to be precise, just it became clear to me that you don’t have to use the same key throughout the song or even throughout the chord progression or use the standard I IV V pattern for blues etc (Although the majority of popular music does follow them, but from time to time adopts a new expansion like you said).

Using your ear is the most important thing for sure. As long as it sounds good and feels good to you, that’s what matters.

1 Like

One thing to keep in mind too, is that even at the beginning of the common practice era, or tonal era, modal interchange and advanced key changes was really common. Maybe not so much in the more simple folk music of the time, but by and large it was a common occurrence and widely utilized.

I may have raised this point elsewhere in this thread… but I don’t know if I would agree that the Beatles deviated from “traditional” progressions and melodies. I think a historical footnote worth keeping in mind here is that in their earlier gigs the Beatles were playing a mix of original compositions and pop-music-of-the-day, which today are songs we would recognize as jazz standards. And, accordingly, because they were pretty well versed in that cannon, they themselves tended to write a lot more non-diatonically than we might associate with pop music today, but in ways that would have sounded pretty familiar to pop music listeners in the mid-60s.

Nirvana… again, I don’t know if I would agree fully, either, for different reasons. Kurt loved the Beatles and clearly got a lot of his melodic sensibilties at least in part from them, but he also drew pretty heavily from punk, which WAS more diatonic. Running through Nevermind, Teen Spirit was entirely diatonic, In Bloom was diatonic, Come as Uou Are has some chromatic passing tones but the “bones” of the riff are diatonic, Breed was diatonic, Lithium is maybe the first time you hear something non-diatonic, with the inclusion of the C in what’s otherwise a E (down a step, so sounding Bb in D) major song, and that sort of major-to-minor-for-tension move is as prevalent in folk as it is anywhere else - it’s not like Kurt was writing flat-5 substitutions here or using voicings much more complex than power chords or standard bar chords.

Either way - I thing the important takeaway here is writing with harmonic movement that extends outside vanilla diatonic harmony 1) can sound “normal” and not call attention to itself for being especially “jazzy” and 2) is worth experimenting with because given how heavily into diatonic harmony pop music has gotten in recent years, even just dropping in a half-step-up key change for effect at some point can make a song “pop” in the jumping-out and not genre sense.

Thinking out loud, the internet has been an awesome resource for learning music theory. But, I also wonder if it’s maybe been a little bit of a curse as well as a blessing, as it’s never been easier to learn the underpinnings of diatonic harmony and then when you do, think, “great, this is the set of rules I need to make chord changes sound good,” and it may in part, paradoxically, be responsible for at least some of the dumbing down in harmonic complexity we’ve seen in pop music, augmented by the last real wave of new music before the rise of the internet was heavily influenced by punk bands, which took dumbing down of harmonic complexity as a badge of pride and a bit of an assault upon the musical establishment.

Yeh I may be trying to simplify it all a bit too much, I didn’t study Music Theory like some of the cool people on here, I wish I did, I would of loved it for sure, but anyway, for sure I didn’t hear anyone else using those Teen Spirit or In Bloom or Drain You type chord progressions.

They may be diatonic (well, not if you treat them all as major chords), but they are different to the other pop chord progressions and hard rock riffing and blues that were so prevalent before. Sure there will be plenty of examples of non-diatonic popular music that came before, a lot of prog rock for example, after all experimentation was the whole point of that movement, and punk I guess, but some of the Nirvana and Beatles chord progressions, melodies and harmonies were quite unique, and certainly opened up my mind that there were other possibilities.

Hey, it’s never too late o start, especially if you’re a Vai fan where you’ll probably get a ton out of it. Just make sure you don’t stop at harmonizing diatonic scales into chords.

There’s always more to learn too - I think it was someone here who pointed out to me that before “Kind of Blue” and Miles Davis’s modal period melodies (and in turn improvised soloing) tended to be more arpeggio-driven than scale driven, but whether it was here or elsewhere that’s another one of those historical notes that I take for granted today - that prior to Kind of Blue, jazz - and from it pop - tended to work on pretty tight chord-resolution-based frameworks and melodies based on those chord tones, and after it, a looser, more linear and scale-driven melodic structure (ironically not all that dissimilar to the blues, just with very different scales) became the de facto way of thinking about music and harmony.

1 Like

Thanks Drew,
that’s all very interesting.
Studying music full time would be a dream come true for me, I should of pursued it in college, but around that time Grunge happened and it sort of put me off learning music in a structured way. It really pushed me into a DIY teach yourself frame of mind I guess.

I’ve said before, I’m not always the best at phrasing ‘corrections’ tactfully, so forgive me if this comes off as rude: those songs all have plenty of non diatonic elements. Some less than others, but none are strictly in key.

It might be a terminology thing; I think of ‘diatonic’ as meaning if we are in the key of Bb major, then the only notes we’ll hear are Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, and A. No B, Db, E, Gb, or Ab. In Bloom especially has plenty of modal mixture, and the two turnaround chords that restart the verse are B to A, to get to Bb.

I’d argue Nirvana songs are harmonically a lot more interesting than a lot of top 40 has been in the past 30 years or so, but whether Kurt had any intent to be ‘harmonically interesting,’ well, maybe in 50-70 years I’ll get the opportunity to ask him.

1 Like

Eh, you’re someone who I know knows their stuff, and I have thick enough skin not to take it personally when I’m wrong - don’t worry about being tactful, haha. I was going off memory and there’s probably/evidently clearly some stuff I was missing in there, so I stand corrected.

If anything, that speaks to the point that you CAN write accessible-sounding music without sticking strictly to chords harmonized by a diatonic scale (I share your meaning there). :+1:

1 Like

I agree that pop music has been ultra-diatonic in the last few decades. In fact, it seems like lot of newer pop songs use a single chord for the whole song, and often the melodies are 90% a single note repeated. Not complaining, just noticing.

On the other hand, a lot of R&B is still written that is a lot more harmonically adventurous by comparison. Chord substitutions, diminished and augmented chords, slash chords, etc. I find the non-diatonic elements tend to sound very natural in this context, not like “Jazz Odyssey”, more like I didn’t notice that they went outside the key until I transcribed the chords. Interestingly, I find that many of these songs are just loops, harmonically speaking. The same chord progression is used for the chorus, verse, bridge, but the arrangement and melody often change drastically enough that the listener hears them as distinct sections.

Anyway, if you’re interested in ‘traditional’ harmony that is not purely diatonic, but still very organic sounding (as opposed to the more ‘fusiony’ approach that draws attention to the more ‘outside’ elements), then I recommend Jimmy Webb’s book ‘Tunesmith: Inside the Art of Songwriting’. It’s a goldmine for these harmonic ideas, and is very readable. It’s not focused on R&B (more like pop and adult contemporary songs from the 60’s through the 80’s), but the harmonic ideas work perfectly in an R&B context, and can easily be used for other styles of music as well.

It’s entirely possible that the average CTC-er is not as interested in R&B songwriting and guitar styles as I am, but I often find the genre to be way more harmonically interesting than rock/pop/blues/metal/etc. without being as intellectual and abstract as the more chops- and jazz-oriented music that appeals mainly to musicians. Plus the grooves are to die for, which is mostly what I care about.

Here’s a link to a keyboard-based explanation of ‘Everything’ by Ella Mai

1 Like