circle of fifths

^^^Toned bollocks?

  paco said:

The cycle of fifths isn't so much for practical use in composition but more for learning the key signatures (the numbers of flats and sharps) and also the sequence in which the sharps or flats occur. It may help with chord movements such as the V - I progression (the strongest resolving progression) or II-V-Is, but by that point you will have had all these basics memorized.

 

Going one way on the cycle, you go up in perfect 4ths (which are inverted 5ths), starting with F, and these are all the keys with flats. Going the other way, up in perfect 5ths, starting with G, are all the keys with sharps.

 

The key of C (major) has of course no sharps and no flats and is at the top of the wheel. This key signature also applies to the relative minor which is a 6th down, A minor, and all other related modes with same key sig., such as D dorian (built of the 2nd degree), E phyrigian (built of the 3rd) and so on.

 

The key of F (major) has one flat, Bb. All key signatures with flats start with the Bb and go up from there in 4ths. So the sequence of flats is Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb, Cb, Fb.

 

The next key with flats is the key of Bb (up a 4th from F), which has Bb and Eb.

And so on with the rest:

Eb, 3 flats (Bb, Eb, Ab)

Ab, 4 flats (Bb, Eb, Ab, Db)

Db, 5 flats (Bb, Eb, Ab, Db)

Gb, 6 flats (Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb)

Cb, 7 flats (Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb, Cb)

 

The key of G major, has one sharp, F#. The order of sharps goes up in 5ths.

F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#.

The next key with sharps is D (up a 5th from G), with 2 flats, F# and C#.

The rest are the keys of:

A, 3 sharps

E, 4 sharps

B, 5 sharps

F#, 6 sharps

C#, 7 sharps

well that's what mnemonics means isn't it?

  greenbank said:

put in a random note. if you like it carry on, if not start again. add another note. if it sounds good keep it, if not try another one. when you do like it keep it and then repeat again as required. sorted!

that resembles my process often

usually i enter a note, suspend myself in that moment and see what i crave next, do i want to climb from here? do i want to fall, how far? after those questions the next note is usually only a 6 answer multiple choice question, and if i answer wrong, i've narrowed it down. though of course if i move along quickly i can make the previous note feel ok by what follows it, and so on... like hastily filling in a sudoku, knowing those last few squares that aren't going to work, because you didn't plan ahead, can just be covered up by some interesting noise anyway.

maybe that's what's cool about really old recordings, you get the impression that everything is right, but you aren't absolutely certain, because the aren't notes in a vacuum

edited because i typed "they" instead of "the"

i even mistyped this edit

CRADLE OF FILTH!!!!

at this point i just steal samples of other peoples music and add my own shit on top where i can make it fit

it's so much easier when you don't actually make half the music :P

this thread is ghey

Knowing all your scales lets you write music more quickly. You can concentrate on sounding different rather than poking around for a scale that works.

even further... knowing as much theory as you possibly can, lets you write music more quickly.

lets use an analogy: you have a synthesizer. you dont know what any of the knobs really do. sure, you can sit around for hours and turn the knobs, and eventually youll find something that pleases your ear. but if you actually really understand what an envelope does, or what is going on with an lfo, or a filter etc, then you can work more quickly, and with more intent. you can be more creative, because it is less an act of discovery, and more an act of emoting. sure, there is always discovery in creation, but I really believe that it should be guided by intent. understanding, and control... all in varying degrees...

why WOULDNT you want to know what everything on your synth does?

now, lets remember, we are writing MUSIC. there is hundreds of years of history. 12 notes, and so many ways to use them, its ridiculous. why wouldnt you want to know as much about the varying techniques? again, like the synth, if you know what an envelope does, you can use it more wisely. if you know how chords like to resolve, or how keys like to change (etc etc etc)... you can do all of these things more wisely. do you have to use them like everyone else does? no. just like you dont HAVE to use an envelope like its intended... but the point is you KNOW what it can do, what it is often used for, and you are being creative and emotive in finding different ways to use it.

  Kcinsu said:

even further... knowing as much theory as you possibly can, lets you write music more quickly.

 

lets use an analogy: you have a synthesizer. you dont know what any of the knobs really do. sure, you can sit around for hours and turn the knobs, and eventually youll find something that pleases your ear. but if you actually really understand what an envelope does, or what is going on with an lfo, or a filter etc, then you can work more quickly, and with more intent. you can be more creative, because it is less an act of discovery, and more an act of emoting. sure, there is always discovery in creation, but I really believe that it should be guided by intent. understanding, and control... all in varying degrees...

 

why WOULDNT you want to know what everything on your synth does?

 

now, lets remember, we are writing MUSIC. there is hundreds of years of history. 12 notes, and so many ways to use them, its ridiculous. why wouldnt you want to know as much about the varying techniques? again, like the synth, if you know what an envelope does, you can use it more wisely. if you know how chords like to resolve, or how keys like to change (etc etc etc)... you can do all of these things more wisely. do you have to use them like everyone else does? no. just like you dont HAVE to use an envelope like its intended... but the point is you KNOW what it can do, what it is often used for, and you are being creative and emotive in finding different ways to use it.

this is correct, goods post. the argument that knowing theory (ie knowing why things that sound good sound good) stifles creativity is normally upheld by those who know none, not that im looking-down upon those people, allot of good music has come from people with know knowledge of why music works like it does. but allot MORE great music has come from those who know how to create beautiful chords and melodies as well as compressing a snare so that it sings and as well as being able to write music emotionally and originally rather than following the cool brigade or money.

also, those who can write a truly great chord sequence by knowing how chords work tend to be more consistent, if you know HOW to make a great sound, HOW to mix it and HOW to use it in a melodic or harmonic track you spend your time standing on the shoulders of giants rather than fumbling in the dark.

Harmony is a massive part of music, and just like the ability to mix helps to create beautiful tracks, as does the ability to take the ear on a journey using melodies and harmonies. I have heard a fair few good tracks from people who know no theory, or course, but if they knew WHAT they were doing and how it affected there track they could either make it even better by subtly changing the voicings etc, or they could at least be sure of being able to do a similar thing again.

besides, learning theory takes no more than a few hours a week fiddling around with a keyboard with 'whats actually going on' in mind. the net has all the resources you need to get you started, and there are plenty of good books that will take you further if you want. I mean, you put all that time into arranging, sequencing rhythm, mixing etc, why not spend just a little bit of that time learning how to use notes well?

bah, wouldnt let me edit - oh well

EDIT - as regards the original post, the circle of fifths is used for learning the order of sharps and flats, and for (more importantly) demonstrating the relationship between closely and not so closely realted keys.

ie, lookng at the circle, C and F are next to each other, this means they have only 1 note different between them (F has a Bb as opposed to C's B)

this shows you the closest keys to modulate too, those that will sound the most 'standard'. and as such you can see that C to B is quite a big jump, showing you that they have 5 notes different etc.

the circle is not commonly used for composition. as it is not harmonic as such (it regards all the major keys, not a cycle within one).

if you were playing the root notes you would describe it as a melodic progression of 2-5-1-4-b7-b3 etc etc or you could say 2-5-1-4 (then treat the last 1-4 as a 2-5) and end up on 1 (the b7 in previous example etc). either way its a melodic progression modualting between keys.

even if you played the major chords of each root (as that is what the circle is referencing) you would probably just describe it the same way but saying its using parralel majors or some such device. as there would still be a HOME chord where it sounds like the progression has come to rest!

but using the circle as a basis for a melodic idea is a valid idea, because at the end of the day if it sounds good do it (and use theory to explain WHY it sounds good!)

  welcome to the machine said:

you put all that time into arranging, sequencing rhythm, mixing etc, why not spend just a little bit of that time learning how to use notes well?

exactly. for hundreds of years, notes were the building blocks of music. these days, we barely use them, and when we do, it's never to the extent that they can be used. people can argue that we are past notes now... that we are making music of the future or whatever... but I think the past is important (not to mention the fact that, most people arent rejecting notes completely... they are rejecting any deeper understanding of notes). you need to know when to use it, or reject it... but I dont think you should do just one or the other. I think we are in a transistionary period right now. we have completely rejected older methods, and made up our own genres... some with not a single note in them, only atonal sounds and rhythms. its almost like we are just getting out of the 12tone phase equivilant of electronic music. 12 tone music died, because people didnt want to reject the past. they want to grow from it. thats why minimalism came about... it was a complete rejection of rejecting the past. this will happen in electronic music as well. we will move into a new era, where people are both skilled producers AND composers. we've learned new ways to look at and design sounds, but we've foolishly blinded ourselves from all the other things the world of music has to offer... people ask why electronic music isnt more popular... its because we secluded ourselves. yes, there has been amazing music that has rejected the norms, and conventions.... but I believe the truly amazing music is yet to come.... and if we arent careful, it will be pop music that reaps the benifits. some smart person is going to recognize how awesome alot of the sound design techniques/production tricks sound, and apply it to more accessible pop music... and everyone in this scene, will cry out, saying it isnt as good, its cheap, a rip off... but no one will be trying the same combinations, but with more artistic merit, because they will be too stubborn and proud. electronic music will surely die if we just cling to our one little niche and reject everything that we dont understand, disguising it with titles such as modern, and new.

yeah it's pretty much the same thing no matter what you do. if you don't study what people have done before then youre at a serious disadvantage, especially because your best competition definitely has.

& because you've been listening to the same 12 notes all your life, if you analyze the experimental notes you wrestled with, you probably came up with the same structures & cadences that have been used in western jams forever. You just took the scenic route.

  heliumbaboon said:

& because you've been listening to the same 12 notes all your life, if you analyze the experimental notes you wrestled with, you probably came up with the same structures & cadences that have been used in western jams forever. You just took the scenic route.

Right. Plus the "cycle of fifths" isn't really a cycle...it just keeps going into other keys like Bx and whatever, but they all have the same intervalic relationship.

  heliumbaboon said:

& because you've been listening to the same 12 notes all your life, if you analyze the experimental notes you wrestled with, you probably came up with the same structures & cadences that have been used in western jams forever. You just took the scenic route.

Im not sure if I followed your meaning completely... can you elaborate?

I'm saying if someone is going to make up a melody by ear odds are it's going to end up in the key of something whether they intended it or not, because what sounds 'right' is based on harmonics. It saves lots of time to pick a key early on.

gotcha. yeah, I agree...

what i described was essentially picking a key. if you had something specific in mind that you wqanted to convey then this would work but take longer to get the desired results but it's ace for when you have a bit of writers block. to clarify - i was partly joking when i said about doing it like that but i don't think that knowing music theory is necessary really.

if you listen to any music at all then you'll know what chords mean what and where to use them. not knowing the name of a chord or key is no barrier to being able to use it (and use it 'correctly' within the established grammar or whatever of music).

  greenbank said:

what i described was essentially picking a key. if you had something specific in mind that you wqanted to convey then this would work but take longer to get the desired results but it's ace for when you have a bit of writers block. to clarify - i was partly joking when i said about doing it like that but i don't think that knowing music theory is necessary really.

if you listen to any music at all then you'll know what chords mean what and where to use them. not knowing the name of a chord or key is no barrier to being able to use it (and use it 'correctly' within the established grammar or whatever of music).

Hmm, I disagree, what about using more complex chords and extensions, using substitutions to lead you around the piece or to trick the ear into hearing elements better/worse etc. I listen to music allot, I have always made it and played it and I havent always known theory. I used to compose in much the same way as you describe, i would get frustrated sometimes because I could never be sure that something would sound good, i'd try loads of ideas, and only really complete a few of them.

they all had their merits, but with some of the ideas my lack of knowledge of how it all worked meant I was missing obvious things that I could have easily done to tie my track together and sort out problems.

most people can hear the basic harmony of a piece, allot can hear the 7 m7 Maj7 relationships as well even if they cannot explain what they are, but I dont know of many people who without a bit of learning would use a m7b5 chord, or add a b9 to a chord to lead you to a different one, or could go back and substitute similar chords later under an existing melody.

Its quite hard to chart out whats going on in an intelligently written piece even for someone adept at playing and transcribing.

there are a million and one harmonic devices, or sets of changes, and I dont believe that someone, even after listening to allot of music, could have them all internalsied, or could use many of them well in a piece without knowing a little about what is going on.

if you go completely on your ear then you will probably create some nice tunes if you are a good musician - but they wont be very advanced unless you have a very special talent. when you hear a really good progression and think 'wow those chords are amazing' you will struggle to replicate them, or use similar ideas in your tracks, if you dont have the first clue of how it all fits together.

I mean, a producer would be thought to be shooting themselves in the foot if they didnt know how to use a compressor, or how to use little eq tweaks to bring out the best in sounds. by deciding not to learn what goes on in a mix gives you a similar situation to the guitarist who thinks of eq as bass-mid-treble, with just three controlls and doesnt ever wonder at WHAT point the bass boosts or whatever. (i teach production to someone who thinks like that, its a nightmare, his thoughts of eq go four ways, boost and cut treble, boost and cut bass and he finds it hard to get used to using anything else). i mean, you wouldn't say that someone who knows only how to do a low cut or high cut knows how to mix.

so basically what im saying is

- you cannot remember/internalise all the chord sequences you may want to use without knowing how to standardise what they are

- learning theory is easy as hell, and takes about as much time to get the basics as learning the basics of mixing or synthesis

- it will make your tracks better in the long run

i dunno, obviously this doesn't count for atonal or purely rhythmic music, but theres such a richness of sounds out there waiting to be used that i dont see why people dont just learn a little bit. when you know it its just sits there in the background, you still write what you feel sounds good, but if you come up against a problem you can normally solve it in a second. and as someone said above, I have never had writers block since I have known theory.

thank you welcome to the machine

for taking some time to make some quality posts

hope you can continue to resist the poop and boners of general banter

i think you gave me that extra nudge to make myself finally learn to read music (lol) and investigate some theory eventually

i have been getting the feeling a lot lately that my compose-in-the-dark methods, at best, have my face pressed against ceiling... i mean to say that even at my best i feel limited

think it was the mix analogy that did it

It's good to see some pro-knowledge posts here. I totally agree that if you're serious about being a musician you should learn basic music theory as a starting point and then from there you have a foundation on which to build if you want to use extended harmony. You should also develop skill on an instrument. At the same time, it's important to be learning harmony by ear and hearing it as you learn the theory. While people using the stumbling through the dark approach may come upon things that are good, more often than not will end up sounding ignorant in jam settings, usually referred to in musician circles as hackers or slackers.

Of course learning was a given in now traditional forms of music: classical, jazz, even rock, soul and funk. You wouldn't be taken seriously if you didn't have proficiency on an instrument and a sound understanding of music. Modern classical guys like Mahler and Debussy explored more advanced harmony (chromaticism, parallel movement, mixed mode, quartal voicings etc.) with that depth of understanding what they were doing theoretically and sonically. In jazz, proper understanding of chord/scale relationships and extended harmony is crucial. Modern forms of music: hiphop based, electronic etc. have become increasingly production focused with less emphasis on the actual music, and you can hear the difference when there is some knowledge and skill behind it.

Thought I'd add something more constructive after my last post. This is a brief outline of basic diatonic harmony, chord and mode construction and chord/scale relationships for anyone not familiar with this info.

Every "key" has 7 main diatonic (only proper key notes) chords and modes (scales) constructed from the 7 degrees of the major scale. So basically these are the main chords and scales used in a particular key. The chords have functions in terms of where they naturally tend to resolve to, and are constructed in intervals of thirds, with 1-3-5 being a triad, 1-3-5-7 being different types of 7 chords and then extension tones above the octave.

In the key of C, for example, the chords constructed from C are the root or I chords. Depending on the flavour of harmony these chords could be:

a simple triad: C, E, G (1-3-5), Cadd6: C E G A, Cadd9: C E G G

Cma7: C E G B, or with extensions- Cma9: C E G B and D

The mode starting from C is Ionian or major scale- C D E F G A B C

Starting from D in the key of C, is the II chord, which is sub-dominant (as is the IV chord, which shares common notes). The II chord in C is:

Dm7 (minor7th): D F A C. Minor flavoured because of the flat 3. The most characteristic tones of all chords are the 3rds and 7ths. Extensions could be, the 9, 11 and or 13 (E, G, B) creating Dm9, Dm11, Dm13

The associated mode based off the second degree is the Dorian mode: D E F G A B C D. This scale is played over m7 chords and is popular is jazz and is one of the main scales used in one-chord funk. It's comparatively a minor scale with a raised 6th.

The III chord starting from Em and/or Em7: E G B D. The 3 chords function is referred to as Mediant and not as strong in resolution. The mode starting from the 3rd degree is the Phrygian mode.

E F G A B C D. The flat 2nd, flat 3rd gives the scale a spanish type flavour. It's a minor scale, with a flat 2nd.

The IV chord, is Fma, Fadd6 (and/or 9 or 13) or Fma7, with possible extensions of 9, #11, 13:

F A C E (ext.'s G B D).

The function is sub-dominant, less active and tends to lead to the dominant.

The mode based off the fourth is Lydian. F G A B C D E. Same as a major scale but with a raised 4th.

V chord, G7, or G dominant 7th. G B D F, having a major 3rd and flat 7th. There is wider range of extensions typically used with dominant 7 chords, (b9, 9, #9, #11, 13 etc). This is a different character of 7th chord than the others as the interval between the 3rd and 7th is a tritone (flat five), and these are the defining notes of the chord as the 3rd (B) naturally resolves to the tonic of C major © and the 7th (F) resolves to the 3rd of Cmaj (E). This is a V-I progression. This strong tendency for these notes to resolve is what makes the V chord dominant, and is based upon the natural phenomenon of the Harmonic Overtone series. You'll also notice that the 3 and 7 of G7 are both 1 semi-tone away from the 1 and 3 of Cmaj chord.

The associated mode is Mixolydian, and is the mode most often played over 7 chords. Comparatively, it's like a major scale with a flat 7.

The VI chord is the relative minor, in this case A minor. The chords can be Am, Am7, or Am9, 11, and/or 13. A C E G, B D F. The mode is Aeolian or "minor" scale. A B C D E F G A.

The VII chord is a Bm7b5. The triad based off the 7th degree (1-3-5 - B D F) is a diminished triad constructed of 2 minor 3rds. The mode off the 7th degree is Locrian and is similar to Phyrgian but with a flat 5.

So in review, the 7 chords and modes for the key of C major (you can tranpose this for all the other keys)

I - Cmaj7, Ionian

II - Dm7, Dorian

III - Em7, Phyrgian

IV - Fma7, Lydian

V - G7, Mixolydian

VI - Am7, Aeolian

VII - Bm7b5, Locrian

This only accounts for the diatonic harmony, other scales can be played over top the chords, such as the blues scale over m7 or 7 chords, and chords outside of the primary key can be introduced.

  Adjective said:

thank you welcome to the machine

for taking some time to make some quality posts

hope you can continue to resist the poop and boners of general banter

i think you gave me that extra nudge to make myself finally learn to read music (lol) and investigate some theory eventually

i have been getting the feeling a lot lately that my compose-in-the-dark methods, at best, have my face pressed against ceiling... i mean to say that even at my best i feel limited

 

think it was the mix analogy that did it

no problem man! I'm glad it helped, I was thinking as I was typing all that up 'I hope someone will get something from all this!'

I think its a really good idea, +1 to what paco said in the post before last.

there is so much good music out there, but imagine HOW good electronic music etc would be if everyone knew HOW to write a chord sequence. Squarepusher for example knows his stuff seriously well, and I think thats one reason why he stands out a bit in the genre. Its all very well having some kind of special skill when it comes to sequencing and techniques but if you add it to being able to marry a heart wrenching melody to a great chord sequence (in things like papalon, male pill 13, port rhombus etc etc) it becomes something a bit special.

theory can seem a bit unrelated to music for the first stage of learning, my advice would be to stick at it through this time because soon it will start to work its way into your music, its also a good idea to start to write some stuff with theory in mind, they may not be great tracks to start with but when you get better you will be building on firm foundations.

feel free to ask anything you are stuck on and I, and no doubt the other learned WATMMers will help out!

to be honest, i think i just get off talking about music...

i would be interested to know wether aphex twin and uziq have ever learnt music, because it certainly doesnt sound like it.

  felch said:

i would be interested to know wether aphex twin and uziq have ever learnt music, because it certainly doesnt sound like it.

Aphex definitely does sound like it. I don't listen to ziq.