"Whether I am playing a flatted fifth or any other note that is "in the key" is, immaterial is too strong of a word, but not as important to me as knowing my part sounds right with what others are doing and fits the character of the song."
And all I am saying is, you know it will "sound" right without experimenting until you hear it.
If someone says play a C in 2nd inversion, whatcha gonna do?
C chord - C-E-G
1st inversion- E-G-C
2nd inversion G-C-E
I am not 100 per cent sure that the other two note orders matter, it's mostly which interval is the lowest note.
One of the J boys will be by shortly to square any errors away!!
Harmony Wheel and Mode Question for bass
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
The Beatles didn't know squat about theory back in the day...but I imagine Paul must have learned quite a lot in later years. Writing an Oratorio is not something you just pull out of thin air. You need to compose it, and you need to follow the rules.
Yes, Charly, I do agree that knowing music theory is more helpful than not knowing it. My message was meant for John to ease up on the "feelin' stupid" thing...Music Theory makes us all feel stupid because it is a complex system developed long ago, filled with bizarre Greek words and Roman numerals, and it takes a lot of brainwork to describe some passages that take five seconds to play. But I still stand by my statements, especially the part about "superimposed rules of engagement" having the potential to stifle musical innovation. Music theorists used to slam pop composers for committing such "crimes" as allowing a harmony of fifths to remain in lockstep when ascending up to another chord, rather than having to invert into some other interval--just one of many accepted "rules" of "correct composition"--which probably would have forced Crosby Stills and Nash to throw in the towel.
But it's definitely best to know the rules before you break 'em.
Yes, Charly, I do agree that knowing music theory is more helpful than not knowing it. My message was meant for John to ease up on the "feelin' stupid" thing...Music Theory makes us all feel stupid because it is a complex system developed long ago, filled with bizarre Greek words and Roman numerals, and it takes a lot of brainwork to describe some passages that take five seconds to play. But I still stand by my statements, especially the part about "superimposed rules of engagement" having the potential to stifle musical innovation. Music theorists used to slam pop composers for committing such "crimes" as allowing a harmony of fifths to remain in lockstep when ascending up to another chord, rather than having to invert into some other interval--just one of many accepted "rules" of "correct composition"--which probably would have forced Crosby Stills and Nash to throw in the towel.
But it's definitely best to know the rules before you break 'em.
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
"If someone says play a C in 2nd inversion, whatcha gonna do?"
Tell them to say it in English!
Actually, they'd say play G C E and I'd never know or need to know it is the second inversion of C. I hang with dummies....
Mark, I agree that the Beatles no doubt learned a lot along the way - I would think George Martin taught them a lot.
What rips me the most about theory is there are so many illogical, at least to me, occurances. I.E. back to the key signatures - it isn't one sharp symbol being C, two being the next note D, but it jumps to G, then the second note of the C scale D has the three symbols where you'd expect E to have the three, being 3rd in the C scale.....
As for Mark's comments on the "superimposed rules of engagement" having the potential to stifle musical innovation, if I come up with a bass riff that lays with the beat, fits with the song, has ghost notes, rests, and is in 5/4 time, I don't care technically what it is - it feels and sounds right and I'm gonna play it.
Guess my frustration is getting in here......... sorry.
Tell them to say it in English!
Actually, they'd say play G C E and I'd never know or need to know it is the second inversion of C. I hang with dummies.... Mark, I agree that the Beatles no doubt learned a lot along the way - I would think George Martin taught them a lot.
What rips me the most about theory is there are so many illogical, at least to me, occurances. I.E. back to the key signatures - it isn't one sharp symbol being C, two being the next note D, but it jumps to G, then the second note of the C scale D has the three symbols where you'd expect E to have the three, being 3rd in the C scale.....
As for Mark's comments on the "superimposed rules of engagement" having the potential to stifle musical innovation, if I come up with a bass riff that lays with the beat, fits with the song, has ghost notes, rests, and is in 5/4 time, I don't care technically what it is - it feels and sounds right and I'm gonna play it.
Guess my frustration is getting in here......... sorry.
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
Let me try a go at explaining the whacky key signature thing using a piano keyboard as a reference:
C MAJOR: No flats or sharps on the signature, right? That's because when you play a C Major scale on the piano, you go from a low C to a high C pressing just the white keys. No sharps or flats, and it sounds just right. Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do---all white keys.
A Minor: No flats or sharps on the signature, right? Just like C Major? That's because when you play an A Minor scale on the piano, you go from a low C to a high C pressing just the white keys...and it sounds spooky (it's minor).
G Major: One sharp on the key signature, on the F line, so it's an F sharp. If you play a major scale starting with G, you have to play the black key at F Sharp (or "Ti", for us "Do Re Mi" types) to make it sound correct. Do Re Mi Fa So La (all white so far) Ti (this one's black) Do (white again).
And so on... All those sharps and flats on the key signature tell you where you have to substitute the black keys instead of the white ones.
Very unscholastic explanation. Did it help or hurt?
C MAJOR: No flats or sharps on the signature, right? That's because when you play a C Major scale on the piano, you go from a low C to a high C pressing just the white keys. No sharps or flats, and it sounds just right. Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do---all white keys.
A Minor: No flats or sharps on the signature, right? Just like C Major? That's because when you play an A Minor scale on the piano, you go from a low C to a high C pressing just the white keys...and it sounds spooky (it's minor).
G Major: One sharp on the key signature, on the F line, so it's an F sharp. If you play a major scale starting with G, you have to play the black key at F Sharp (or "Ti", for us "Do Re Mi" types) to make it sound correct. Do Re Mi Fa So La (all white so far) Ti (this one's black) Do (white again).
And so on... All those sharps and flats on the key signature tell you where you have to substitute the black keys instead of the white ones.
Very unscholastic explanation. Did it help or hurt?
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
DAMN, I screwed up the A Minor explanation...it goes from A to A, not C to C.
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
Yes, Mark. Thank you very much. May be unscholastic, and I don't play piano, but it made perfect sense. I didn't realize the # and b actually denoted the variations and also the line they were on told the note that was short or flat. I just thought the number of #s or bs told you the key signature. See, I told you I knew nothing....