"Progression"

[m1469]

This is hopefully going to be a multi-purpose thread and project for me.  I am posting what I think will probably be an incredibly boring improvisation to most of you, but it's like I simply have to on so many levels  .

I have given myself a prescribed chord progression in the LH, which I have not even made myself do in anything but root positions here, as that is currently the most comfortable and of greatest ease for me in motion.  The chord progression is I-IV-ii-V-iii-vi-IV-vii'-V-V7-I, I don't even remember if this is an "official" form of chord progression, but for some reason at one time I thought it was and started using it to get familiar with chords and progressions in scales.

In this snippet, I am in C Major and the entire improv is just me going through the chord progression listed above.  What I want is to venture from here, in some way that I can and that, yes, makes sense to me.  For some reason, I feel pressure to not do it this way, but for now, I'm going to do it this way regardless!  No, this is not the extent of my musical inclinations, but I absolutely have a need/desire for building blocks that can help me reach what I feel I need to reach.

So, I don't know that I will post in this thread everyday, and I'm not even positive which direction I will take from here.  I can see a variety of possibilities (and more than these, as well, of course, but these make sense to me):

1)  Stay in the same key, stay with the same exact progression, but practice inversions.
2)  Keep the same progression but think in terms of a specific time signature that this one is not.
3)  Start here again, and then modulate to another key (probably dominant), and use the same exact harmony progression there (or maybe something a little different), and either come back to C Major or not.

Or, all of the above!  

Oh, and, since I knew it was going to be a really short clip, and since I was fairly certain I would only record once, I used my edirol which is, I think, much better recording quality.

[ted]

I'll have to pass on this one. It's remote from the way I play, and in any case I don't know what the symbols mean. I can guess, but my limitations preclude any constructive comment.

[m1469]

Hi Ted.  Thanks for listening and for your post .

[Derek]

What I got from studying traditional chord progressions is that you can do anything you want. If the root goes down by a third or a fifth, it'll sound more like it is going "towards a goal." If it goes up by a third or a fifth, it'll sound like it is going "away." All progressions seem to be a combination of going forward and backwards, depending on how much the composer wishes to "delay gratification" in a given passage. This was enough for me to feel like I could understand and "derive" most common practice era progressions---I find it difficult to go much further than this with analysis. Though, I'm sure if I worked at it, I could probably write down the roman numerals I'm using in some "old school" passage I might play. Then once you reach the realm of chromaticism and polytonality, the sense in using symbols really breaks down at that point, because the obvious metaphors of "arriving home" and "departing" really have no meaning anymore, and the sounds become more abstract and subjective in the responses they provoke.

Another insight I had into progressions is, how did they start? Who started using them and why? To me, there are two simple reasons: the renaissance and baroque composers were really interested in the sound of thirds, sixths and 10ths, and they liked the sound of the major scale (and also the harmonic minor, because of similar "Ah, THE END" properties to the major scale. The first progressions, it seems to me, were just harmonizing ascending and descending scales in thirds, sixths and tenths. Then, they started stairstepping (breaking apart) the scale, and got circle progressions and things like the one you posted in the original thread. The truth is you can do anything you want. In fact, the first composers didn't even think in terms of progressions. They thought in terms of scales and harmonizing in thirds, sixths and tenths.

Good luck in your explorations! Would you be interested in hearing progressions by other people? I mean, I guess the truth is I HAVE explored common practice era harmony just not in a textbook way.

[m1469]

Hi Derek, yes, I would be more than happy to hear other progressions and I welcome them here in this thread, or in your own or wherever ... I'll listen and read with thirst !  Thank you for your post and your thoughts, I appreciate it very much!

Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying and I actually do understand that providing roman numerals can only go so far.  There are definitely aspects of my playing and general concepts about music that go way outside of it already, but generally, my goal is to give myself the steps that will end up outside of it.

To sum things up for me, I generally view all sound-manifestation as a form of carving lines and designs out of a kind of wall of sound that already exists.  To me, a scale, for example, represents a kind of line being carved against a tapestry of possiblities, and in my mind, what I choose to carve out is not only *about* what I have carved, but also how it sounds compared to what all of the (seemingly unspoken) possibilities are sitting behind it, too.

[Derek]

The "delaying gratification" thing that I said just made me have some more thoughts. Have you noticed how most great composers, the more experience they gain, seemed themselves to tire of the obvious, hackneyed metaphors of "THE... END!" and so forth? You hear in really late bach fugues, and beethoven sonatas, and so forth, a sort of constantly shifting tonality and very delayed gratification. In fact, they're almost forgetting about that metaphor of "the end" and "going forwards" and they're in the world beyond---the ethereal and infinite world of melody, phrasing, rhythm, counterpoint, etc. I think this is the sort of world I want to be in. In other words, I don't think I'll be disappointed if I never write a perfect imitation Beethoven sonata or bach fugue. Does that make sense?

[m1469]

Yes, sure, it makes sense!  However, you know what that sounds like and I don't know exactly what you are talking about (but can imagine it) because I have so much repertoire to listen to, so many styles to get to know, and so much ground to cover still.  And, even if my goal isn't to express my most musical thoughts in a style of old, or another person's style of new, there are certain things I want to know about.  I would like to know how to cadence.  Now, if that means "the end" to some people, so be it.  To me, it's just a tiny speck that I would like to know clearly and have be a defined part of the great possiblities.

[Derek]

Well, I know it's no bach, but here's a video of some baroque improv I did tonight. I made a large tapestry of piano improv, and wasn't feeling anything. Then I started improvising baroque and it was like AAAHHH. I feel like I'm trapped between two worlds! This started happening back in '04 I think, this oscillation between trying to find my own voice through absolute freedom, and trying to learn the baroque style...

I recorded it with midi and then exported with pianoteq, and used a handy tool called camstudio to capture it in a video, so you can see the keys move.

I'm really not sure what chord progressions I use in this! Since you can see the keys feel free to analyze it. Like I said in an earlier post, I gradually internalized over years that traditional chord progressions just use scales and certain common root movements and constantly harmonize in thirds, sixths, and 10ths. Just those simple guidelines are what has helped me develop this style (well, roughly...obviously that's not all). When I got to a certain point with baroque, thinking in chord progressions was no longer helpful, the chord progressions create themselves due to how you're moving the various voices around (and, this explains to me why we've gone insane since bach's time analyzing the crap out of his music and he had such an easy time creating mountains of it. in other words, it is easier to think in terms of melodies than in terms of chords and theory---the chords take care of themselves because of the interplay of the melodies). I did 2 voices for a while and I'm just starting to get the hang of 3, I think.

Baroque improv (chord progressions...sort of)

I dunno if that's helpful at all, I could probably create simpler examples if you're interested!

I recently found several other baroque improvisers on youtube---the best one being Karst de Jong, I think. I wrote him about how he does his own baroque improv---and I guess he actually does think in terms of chord progressions. So---as you rightly say in the "development as an improviser" post, different people will go about learning things in different ways. So, don't take my post as "do it my way cause its the only right way" take it more as "this is my weird way of doing it, maybe it will work for you, maybe not" 

[m1469]

Thank you very much, Derek!  I'll need to watch it a few times but I have already watched it once (the day you posted it).

Today is a minor.

[goldentone]

These are different, and functional for you, but I like them anyway because it's you playing.  And it's beautiful playing.

[m1469]

These are different, and functional for you, but I like them anyway because it's you playing.  And it's beautiful playing.

Hi Goldentone, Thanks for stopping by and for your comments!  Today was E Major, which I am attaching below.  I obviously don't expect everybody (or maybe anybody?) to be interested in this, and yes, it's serving a kind of purpose for me in posting, though somewhere in me I believe it *could* be of interest to *somebody* for *some* reason  , and so even though I know it's not super complex music and amazing harmonies and all that, I post it.  What I am finding is that, the progression can be used in various ways.  Of course, I guess we all know that, but my aim is to be building this knowledge in motion and not just intellectually.

What I find is that these are being connected to my musical self, and they actually do reflect that, even if not to the fullest.  I mean, they are simple and not that interesting, perhaps, but they still reflect who I am musically, how I feel about each key/scale, and what is going on in my life!  Call me silly, but I find that interesting ... haha.  The one in a minor from Saturday was actually a reflection of a very ... well, nice experience I had just the day before.  One which touched me personally and musically (not that those are separate things from one another).

Anyway, I didn't intend on typing this many words!  I am trying to allow my instincts take me where I wish with this and I expect, or rather suspect, that eventually it will lead beyond this progression (the one in a minor was already slightly different).  Anyway, thanks!

[m1469]

PS-- Maybe everybody here has, at some point, gone through the whole thing of being able to do basic progressions in some sort of formal way, and so this seems extra strange to others for me to be doing as a process.  But, I have never done this at all before, you see?  I have never had a class, I have never had *any* formal training on doing *any* kind of chord progressions, basic or otherwise, except for one year in my adolescence when I was taking lessons (and even still, I think I got by on my ears alone).  I actually failed this portion of my piano proficiency exam in University (you know, the exam that ANY music major, playing any instrument or singing, is supposed to take and be capable of passing) -- that was not a real confidence builder for me .  So, I'm striving to fill in what I consider to be gaps.

[pianowolfi]

I like your path. Once more it confirms my opinion that music theory should be entirely practical. And in any of your progressions there is something very individual from you, they aren't just progressions. I am curious where this path will lead you and us

Hmm well, though this last one is in a different key...it evokes remembrances The waltz...
"Risky business"! I searched it and just listened again and I still (again) find it amazing and very impressive...

[m1469]

I like your path. Once more it confirms my opinion that music theory should be entirely practical.

Yes!  I *completely* agree!  I feel it is imperative that a regular keyboard class is attached to theory classes. 

And in any of your progressions there is something very individual from you, they aren't just progressions. I am curious where this path will lead you and us

Hmm well, though this last one is in a different key...it evokes remembrances The waltz...
"Risky business"! I searched it and just listened again and I still (again) find it amazing and very impressive...

Oh!  Well, thank you.  And, I feel I must add here that I truly don't expect that I will get only compliments in my life!  I actually can handle cricticisms, as well.  Right now is a strange time in my growth, I will admit, and I can't explain it all here.  Much of my growth, though it can involve the forum here, is of course in my practicing and with my teachers.  But, especially regarding your last comment, part of my aim in this is that, there was *something* familiar to me about what I wanted to do in my progression this morning ... as though there were a kind of musical echo in me and it just wanted a voice and found one.  THAT'S what I want, deeply!  Musical words, musical phrases, musical language, to give this music a manifested voice.  I don't know if the echo was from "Risky business" or not (I may listen sometime again), but it was some sort of musical echo all the same.

[Derek]

You know I'm wondering if I took my own study of progressions for granted. I'd often practice things like circle of fifths, and down by third-up-by fourth type things, and 6/3 progressions (really sequences...what is the difference?), etc. when I wasn't really "improvising." But I think they found their way into my improv but mixed up. I think that's really what you're learning. In other words, I expect the end result of your study of progressions to not be that you've collected a set of "recipes" so much as a stronger intuitive grasp of how they all fit together. I think I went through a lot of the same development as you are now, culiminating in the last few months study of baroque improv and a sort of "break down" or assimilation of progressions and counterpoint into my intuition. I'm not saying I'm a master but I think I recall thinking I didn't truly understand traditional music theory for a while and I did things kind of like you're doing here. Progressions, experiments etc. that were focused on some small bit of traditional theory.

In a way I think you could consider these progressions as part of the overall "development of vocabulary" rather than a means towards music making---if that makes sense. They will settle into your subconcious, and when you get the spontaneous engine going again they might come out all on their own, perhaps with something altered.

[m1469]

You know I'm wondering if I took my own study of progressions for granted. I'd often practice things like circle of fifths, and down by third-up-by fourth type things, and 6/3 progressions (really sequences...what is the difference?), etc. when I wasn't really "improvising." But I think they found their way into my improv but mixed up. I think that's really what you're learning. In other words, I expect the end result of your study of progressions to not be that you've collected a set of "recipes" so much as a stronger intuitive grasp of how they all fit together. I think I went through a lot of the same development as you are now, culiminating in the last few months study of baroque improv and a sort of "break down" or assimilation of progressions and counterpoint into my intuition. I'm not saying I'm a master but I think I recall thinking I didn't truly understand traditional music theory for a while and I did things kind of like you're doing here. Progressions, experiments etc. that were focused on some small bit of traditional theory.

In a way I think you could consider these progressions as part of the overall "development of vocabulary" rather than a means towards music making---if that makes sense. They will settle into your subconcious, and when you get the spontaneous engine going again they might come out all on their own, perhaps with something altered.

Yes!  This is exactly what I thought I had been articulating all along with this.  I think that sometimes people don't quite realize just how much I feel I am missing in my development, and I think sometimes people nod things off as un-necessary because for them it's not ANYMORE.  The thing that I have not understood about some of my former improvisations is how I actually did some of the harmonic things that I did (and, I'm talking very basic things, even).  Not because I think that those exactly comprise the music, and not because I can't grasp that there was something subconscious or instinctual happening, but it is just stuff that I literally didn't know I knew how to do.  I know that's all still there somewhere, but I would certainly enjoy a bit more awareness in my endeavors, you know?  So, it's not like I go years without being able to do anything and then by some whim in the world, suddenly I can do things again.  I suspect there will always be more layers ... stuff that I can't reach quite yet, even once I have learned things consciously that I feel like I don't consciously know, now.  But, the point is, that's exactly what I hope to be achieving!  I think I must go through layers to get to the other unknown stuff.  Well, I don't know that I've articulated any of THIS correctly, either!  But, back to Chopets .

Thanks for your comments, btw!  I am not ignoring your post, just so you know!  I'm just kind of slogging through drippy stuff right now.  But, the good news is, I have a new appreciation in my life for many things and individuals!

[pianowolfi]

Yes!  This is exactly what I thought I had been articulating all along with this.  I think that sometimes people don't quite realize just how much I feel I am missing in my development, and I think sometimes people nod things off as un-necessary because for them it's not ANYMORE.  The thing that I have not understood about some of my former improvisations is how I actually did some of the harmonic things that I did (and, I'm talking very basic things, even).  Not because I think that those exactly comprise the music, and not because I can't grasp that there was something subconscious or instinctual happening, but it is just stuff that I literally didn't know I knew how to do.  I know that's all still there somewhere, but I would certainly enjoy a bit more awareness in my endeavors, you know?

I don't know if you feel like wanting to do this but there is the option to analyze what you have done and see how it's built. Writing it down from the recording for instance can give an eminent amount of awareness. 

[m1469]

I don't know if you feel like wanting to do this but there is the option to analyze what you have done and see how it's built. Writing it down from the recording for instance can give an eminent amount of awareness. 

"C'mon ... The night is a puppy!"  ... haha ... random great quote from a movie.

Yes, I have not known how to deal with my improvisations from before, straight up, yo, yo, homeboy.  I am getting around to it, actually, finally, and deciding to embrace them.  I am loosening the psuedo-filter on my inner ear and musician, and I am going to embrace whatever it is that I am hearing, even if it's repeated material from myself, and/or from others.  Even if it's a famous piece already!  I have realized that I put up a certain wall, and I am simply going to take that down now because I realize what is important for me right now, is to listen!  Oh yeah, so, analyzing my pieces I think will be part of that.  I know that there will probably be stuff that I don't know how to analyze in standard terms, I think that's okay.  I'll figure out a way to organize it for myself.  I don't know that I can write it all out, necessarily, though.  I am *just* getting to a point, though, where I can understand enough in order to be able to deal with my improvisations from before.  I don't actually know what that means other than that in and of itself.  And, I will embrace where it leads.

Cheers!

[karsty]

Hello Derek and m1469,

I could maybe reply two your discussion that yes, you can basically do anything you want, however... there do seem to be rules as to what sounds well and what not in a Baroque improvisation. A lot of these rules are being explained in a bad way by various harmony teachers. One trap is indeed that Harmony is being taught in a non-practical and very theoretical way, prohibiting the actual development of an ability to hear and respond in real time to that hearing. A fantastic resource for a practical approach can be found in the Italian Partimento tradition. A lot of materials are now online from the original masters of the 17th and 18th century. Google for 'partimento' or for the website 'monuments of partimenti'. As for the progression that m1469 was referring to I can say the following: The beginning is entirely logical, the progression I IV ii V iii VI is called 'Monte sequence', meaning an ascending harmonic motion (from 'Mountain'). However the continuation IV vii V V7 is not very common in the Baroque or Classical style, simply because the tritone between IV and vii causes a weak progression, unlike the perfect fifth relations of the previous progressions. More stylistically correct would be: IV ii I64 V7 I, or IV (V65)> V V7. To practice further, go from a sound harmonic progression into variations of that same progression until you find a good average between playing just chord tones and using ornamental non-chord tones as well.

Wishing you good luck and especially fun with improvising!

Karst

[Derek]

I've typed about this at length in other parts of the forum but this provides good context for re-iterating it.

For me, the way I finally felt I understood how common practice era harmony worked was to search for "premises" or reasons why the various voice leading rules etc. exist. To me there are three main ones that give rise to these rules:

-thirds and their inversions are considered the most harmonious interval. All voice leading rules are intended to treat thirds with care. Dissonances are generally used to create expectation for again hearing thirds.

-voices which move in parallel are considered to sound the best when the quality changes frequently. Thus thirds and their inversions are used liberally in parallel, and sometimes fifths progressing between perfect and diminished are used, as it has a similar harmonious "changing" quality to thirds and their inversions moving in parallel. Fourths moving in parallel are treated as a "necessary evil" but only when voiced in a 6/3 chord. The reason is that the root note of this chord forms a very noticeable third and a very noticeable sixth, and the fourth is obscured. So we get three voices moving in parallel, without reducing a feeling of independence via frequently changing interval quality. Root position and 6/4 chords bring out the fourth and fifth, and since the quality changes infrequently, independence is reduced (in parallel movement)

-frequent arrival and departure from tonic or dominant sounds are considered desireable, as they provide convenient objective metaphors of "start and end"  "question and answer" etc. etc.

It is within these premises that I've concluded that you can do anything you want. All the complex things that are drawn from the above premises seem so much simpler when you understand where they come from.

An example application of the above premises to help gain understanding about something that appears "complex" in music theory books:
Take a diminished fifth progressing into a sixth, as in a cadence , or as in a neapolitan -to 6/4 preparation. a neapolitan -to -6/4 preparation is kind of like piling up two cadences at the same time, and one gets released one after the other--but before the cadence happens one of the tones you expected is suspended.  It's rather clever but when you realize that it is really just a "nesting"  of  "emphasis of thirds"  it becomes so simple that it makes you wonder why anybody wrote a theory book.  At least...that's how I feel about it...

*edit* to clarify the above paragraph. A neapolitan 6th chord could be thought of as two interlocking diminished fifths. Say in the key of A minor, one diminished fifth would be the F to the B. The other would be A to D#. When we play one of these two diminished fifths each alone, they want to resolve into a sixth. The one from F to B wants to go into E to A. the one from A to D# wants to go into G# and E. Played together, it creates "both" expectations at once. When we move into the 6/4 (E A C E), we satisfy the lowest of the two diminished 5ths embedded within the neapolitan, because now we hear the E to the A, the sixth into which the F to B wanted to go. However, the other diminished fifth made us want to hear the dominant chord, E major (A to D# wants to go into G# to E). But we don't hear it yet, but the expectation is still there. This explains to me why the 6/4 preparation is such a powerful sound. And, there's multiple ways to prepare the dominant in this way, all of them can be explained because of this premise where we treat the third as the most important interval. They simply vary in degree in terms of how much "pull" there is, and beyond this point it is all a matter of taste for the composer exactly how to do it in any given spot in a piece.

I haven't yet been able to find satisfactory premises for anything beyond common practice era harmony. I can't find anything akin to "objective metaphors." From late romantic on, all is color, all is subjective. I really don't see the point in writing down any theory at this level. When I create music, I either "switch on" the above premises and imitate baroque/classical, or I completely ignore them and simply intuitively search for sounds I enjoy hearing. *edit* on the other hand, those premises are really always there and can be mixed with music that is based on color and chromaticism (Jazz is an example of this approach, I think). In my own style, I tend to like to use everything rather than actively avoid or actively use one or the other approach.


I believe that the above premises for common practice era harmony really only explain some very basic "objective metaphors" in classical harmony. They do NOT explain precisely why Bach, Beethoven, etc. wrote music that is so good. I believe that no amount of music theory can possibly explain that---beyond a certain level, quality of music is determined by the depth of personal knowledge of the person who wrote it. It is too complex, too deep, and too subjective to explain "why" music is good. This is why I don't see much value in going beyond the "basics" in theory. But even the basics are rarely explained in the way I briefly described above.