Take something simple as an example. A 1,4,5 in the key of A. So why can you go to the two-chord of A which is B minor and play B major to E major and have it sound right?

Is this because we have listened to this change many times before or is there a more technical answer?

Is it because E major is the 4 chord of the B major scale?

Billy

Yes, B -> E sounds good, even if you're in the key of A major.

As you suggest, it's the power of the V -> I progression. If you have any doubts, play it as B7 -> E, and see if your ears hear it as functionally the same. If so, it's a V -> I progression in action.

Depending on context, you'll probably just hear it as a temporary modulation.

Adding to David's excellent explanation the B can also be called as a passing chord. A passing chord is any chord(s) that connects two diatonic chords:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_chord

PS - I have a guitarist friend who calls anything other than a 1-4-5 chord a "b a s t a r d" chord!

Hi Mario,

I guess "music theory" is used to some extent to state the obvious.
I read and played all the examples of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_chord.

All of which I am familiar with how they sound.

"Passing chords may be consonant or dissonant and may include flat fifth substitution, scalewise substitution, dominant minor substitution, approach chords, and bass-line-directed substitution"

Well, all of that is a mouth full and could be something to consider as a composer. Less so as a player unless you are sight-reading the music or have listened to something enough to play it note for note.

They also go on to say A diatonic passing chord may be inserted into a pre-existing progression that moves by a major or minor third in order to create more movement.

So...does it have to move by a major or minor third?

Sometimes I find Wikipedia lacking in their explanations.

Billy

Hi David,

The term "temporary modulation" was an idea I never considered. Thanks for a new bit of info. And, Yes B or B7 sounded about the same or had the same function.

Billy

Hi..
This is a secondary dominant..
B7 is V of E, which is V of A..
So a V of V..

You could also try a V of any of the other chords too..
Say V of ii, F#7 to Bm in A.. or V of iii, Ab7 to C#m..
V of vi is common too..So C#7 to F#m..

(All these examples are in A..)

Billy, you don't really have to know all the theory as long as it sounds good. You are right if you were composing it may help to know what you could do before you were playing it for example. But people with good ears kind of figure this stuff out on the fly in a manner of speaking.

yes, for sure. The theory is not a necessary thing. Even the names of chords

I could play the Asus4 chord a long time before I knew what it was called.

If you play guitar very long, sooner to later you are going to put your little finger down on the high E string on the 3rd fret. Same with the A chord.

In fact the other day I was writing in the chords in BIAB to an original of mine and I had to stop and figure what the chord names were...lol

In fact, my original question came from listening to the way things sound from playing them, not some theoretical basis.

I think the coffee pot is still hot. We could talk about this in person you know!

Billy

Billy, thank you for raising this question as it prompted picking up he guitar and noodling. Ended up with a new bridge or prechorus section, with yes a familiar passing sequence: A —> Bsus4/A —> D. Which then really wants to resolve to A which I will keep for awhile and build something out of that.

Wouldn’t have gone with this progression without the prompt of your post. Thank you.

Couple of thoughts.

Theory is useful to analyze a song to reverse engineer how/why it might have been written.

Most great songwriters do NOT think about theory when composing a song.

Why does a particular progression sound right even when it violates the "rules"?
The reason is often contextual.

I believe in the case you mentioned here it's because the only thing you are changing is the chord quality from dominant to major. So the intervallic structure is still there.

In pop music it's usually pretty easy to break the rules and have it sound fine. More importantly, it's pretty obvious to the ear if something doesn't sound right. If you were doing something more complex harmonically it would be more difficult.

Personally, I would learn enough theory to write the kind of music you want to write. Far too many people get so caught up in the theory. Theory is the least important part of music. Making a unique emotional expression is at it's core.

One other thought.

I understand that most likely everyone on this thread is doing something other than jazz.

But just to make a point that IS applicable to all music...

Jazz theory is complex. Most jazz players make that a priority.

However, when you go back and look at all the great players. Nearly all of them did not make theory the top focus. In fact, many of them picked up licks, learning by trial and error, gradually getting there ear better.

Ear training is much, much more important than theory is for song writers.

The thought that music created by people who have no understanding of music theory is somehow inherently better and that being uneducated is a superior state of affairs is the purview of the uneducated. And by the way, ear training is a typical part of classical training.

The idea that while playing popular music live no thought is given to music theory is simply not accurate. Did you not ever ask what the key was? Was it important to know the Key? Music theory is as much about communication as anything.

David Cuny knew exactly what I was asking about and verified what I was thinking was accurate.

I really did not even ask for the real answer to the question because that lies in the physics of sound and the relationship of the frequencies involved and is generally out of the scope of musical discussions.

And finally, as a result of asking a "theoretical question", one of our guitar players used the idea to develop something he was looking for.

Billy

I never ever said anything about the music being inherently better if created by someone with no understanding of music theory. What I said is that there is often too much focus put on theory. And that most of the great songwriters rely on the ear much more than on theory. That is something easily verified by listening to interviews of various song writers.

And I specifically stated that my comments were coming from a particular style of music: jazz. However, I think it's probably even more true with simpler forms of music like rock, pop, and country. Certainly in less harmonically complex styles of music it's easier to say what you want to say without knowing a lot of theory.

I disagree that music theory is about communication. Theory is tantamount to grammar for writing. It is a way to define the structure.

Your comment saying that my comment is inaccurate is a generalization. And one that is inaccurate. I do know there are people that rely solely on their ear, without knowing harmony. This is most certainly doable. It may be outside your realm of possibility, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people that do it.

Hi Billy,

As other have said, what you are talking about is called dominant motion. It's summarised in a diagram usually called the "Cycle of Fifths" or the "Cycle of Fourths." It's exactly the same diagram and just depends on if you go anti-clockwise or clockwise around it.

I prefer to think in clockwise motion, so for me it's a Cycle of Fourths (see the image below).

The dominant of any chord is the one immediately before it on the diagram.

For example...

The dominant of an A or Am chord is E (or E7)
The dominant of an C of Cm chord is G (or G7)

Some writers use this motion to create songs. For example, in "Fly Me To The Moon" in the key of A minor, the chord progression for the first part is...

Am | Dm | G7 | C | F | Bm7b5 | E7 | Am |

When you look at the chord letters only in relation to the the diagram below, you'll see what I mean by "thinking in clockwise motion".

Regards,
Noel

This made me smile for 2 reasons.

The first is that I have had people say "I don't know anything about theory." And then they play parts that are absolutely theoretically correct. In those cases they actually DO know theory. They just don't KNOW that they know theory.

The second is best served by analogy. When you learn a sport or a craft or a trade, you learn "things". You use those "things" so much they become second nature. A carpenter, when checking for square, measures one side at 3 feet, the other side at 4, and measures between those 2 marks, and if they come out to 5, the frame is square. He doesn't stop to think "Okay I will apply the Pythagorean Theory here." He just does it because by rote he knows that's the right thing to do. Or if you are playing football and you see that the offensive lineman block briefly and then let the rush get through. That means screen pass. But you don't stop and think "Ah. He blocked me for a 3 count and then let me go. It's a screen pass." You just react and "do". Most writers know theory whether they know it or not. Do you think John Petrucci needed Berklee to learn how to play as well as he does? Would he not have become what he is by practicing on his own? He learned MUSIC at Berklee. WHAT to play. HOW to practice.

As to Billy's OP, in any scale, (use C so they are all white keys) if you just move up one triad at a time, 2, 3, and 6 will always be minor chords. CM, Dm, Em, FM, GM, Am, B is a "word they will censor that means out of wedlock" chord that can be looked at as a G7 with no root, a sus, a dim... (all depending on what you consider to be the root note) and back to CM. Every major scale is exactly that. Just like steps in a major scale are WWHWWWH where W = whole and H = half. Those steps never change in a major scale.

Noel, I have never see the Cycle of 5ths where the 5ths go counterclockwise and the 4ths go clockwise. In fact, this clock hangs in my studio.



Maybe it's a southern hemisphere thing like how your water drains in the opposite direction.

Maybe it's a southern hemisphere thing like how your water drains in the opposite direction.

This one made me laugh out loud! I am sure my wife thinks I am crazy!

Good Catch on the backword clock. Here is from my studio. Unfortunatley it does not keep proper time.

I have known several drummers who must have had the same clock as you Dan...lol

Billy

Isn't that just a minor problem?

Ducking and running for cover

Love it!

Actually, it's all very confusing from a musical perspective...

Consider A to D to G to C....

If I think about that as "A going down to D going down to G going down to C," then I have a cycle of 5ths.

On the other hand, if I think of the same motion as as "A going up to D going up to G going up to C," then I have a cycle of 4ths.

So your clock and the image I posted are both simultaneously Cycle of 4ths and Cycle of 5ths (just to make matters more confusing).

I just like to think clockwise! That's how the dominant motion seems to work best in my head. It probably is a southern hemisphere thing. As you say, the musical version of the Coriolis effect.

--Noel

Nothing is "out of key" if you can find a way to get it to fit.

Ask any jazz musician.

Billy, watch this video. Go in to 7:25 to avoid most of the annoying white guy who really thinks he can play but can't really, and listen to what Victor Wooten has to say about "wrong" notes. Then read what Herb said again.

There are no rules. You write your story the way you want to write it. No notes are wrong if you know where to put them. And HOW to put them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdo1qWNWI4

The numbered chords, favoured progressions are just that - favoured by ears after much time & exposure to them.
Mathematics supports them and their on going use perpetuates them.
Being lead by your ears to a set of chords that match a preferred pattern isn't coincidental - it's conditioning but can be fought against.
Choosing to use the number formulation because it's a "rule" is also a matter of conditioning.

If one is exposed to a wide variety of western and non western musical forms and pieces as well as to western forms that have "different" rules well enough and early enough conditions the ear to other options.
Mark Hayes is treading some of those paths at the moment and presenting the User Showcase forum with interesting, sometimes challenging non standard variations of western musical traditions. It's fun.

Hey wow I know that guy!

Thanks for the plug, Ray.

I had a coworker years ago who found the idea of an acquired taste absolutely hilarious. “The idea of an acquired taste is absurd!” he would say, before erupting into gales of forced laughter. Translation: he liked what he liked and that was that, the idea that he might be missing something — even something he might later come to appreciate — was inconceivable to him, and he disavowed any such “conversions” in advance as pretentious intellectualism.

Arnold Schoenberg’s Verklarte Nacht was, at least according to him, rejected for performance because it contained a single chord which did not exist within contemporary theory. The image here is from his text, you can see it’s an Ab7 with a Bb in the bass, an inverted 9th, eek.

Well, said a chastened Arnie, I can’t blame them, one can’t very well ask a musician to play something which doesn’t exist.

https://monoskop.org/images/8/84/Schoenberg_Arnold_Style_and_Idea.pdf (image p. 189)

cool video and a lot of truth in there.

Herb he also has one about Music as a Language that there are several versions of. I think he did one as a Ted Talk and then reprised it several times in clinics. It is SO true!

He once made a comment about theory that made me laugh. He was asked about theory. His reply was that theory is like the tools in your car for changing a tire. You keep those in the trunk, not in the front seat. You just pull them out when you need them. That was a great analogy.