I know this site has a strong classical following but...

[l_ricks]

...the question i have may apply to classical.

I'm trying to write a song/chord progression gear toward an easy-listening/R&B feel (ie. Lionel Richie, Hall and Oates).

Okay, hears my issue, I know about using the major triads in a major scale; I, IV, V. I know there are several ways to lead to other chords (ie. iii --> ii or vi,  ii --> IV, V, bvii).

This is my dilemma. I have a few books of popular music and I've always noticed that there are some chords that do not apply to the tonics and dominants of the scale. For example:

- A simple arrangement of the song yesterday by the Beatles, in the key of "C".
- According to the  theory: I=C, ii=Dm, iii=Em, IV=F, V=G, vi=Am, vii=Bdim.
- The first three bars (or measures for the classical people  ) are C, E7, Am respectively.

Here's the question, how does that E7 fit in there? Is there a theory behind it? Rule of thumb? Or did McCartney and Lennon just experiment until they found it?Is it just a passing note, which i still don't get?

I noticed that in a lot of songs of many genres.

Sorry guys one more, is it possible to have major and relative minor in the same song? If so do you just build off of the 6th in the major key within the octave you are playing in?

[Derek]

in terms of the C, E7 and Am chords in the first three bars:

I went to the piano and played these, and one way of looking at this chord progression is from the perspective of A minor.   C is the III of a minor,  E7 is the dominant chord of A minor, and then A minor is the tonic of course of itself. 

I don't know if I used any of those terms correctly, but it looks to me like a very standard sort of progression.

Another way of looking at progressions that use 7th chords is some of them are considered "secondary dominants". For a long time I viewed these as "changing key rapidly"  but,  apparently music theory books like to call these secondary dominants because such progressions usually are *secondary* to the actual prevailing key in a given piece.

Have you heard the pathetique sonata by beethoven? there are secondary dominants all over the place in that piece.  If you combine secondary dominants with the circle of fifths it makes for a very nice and conventional sounding chord progression.

It all boils down to what sounds good.

My guess is that the beatles and most everyone who writes music does so intuitively by building a vocabulary of chords and scales and just messing around and finding things that sound good.  And by using things that others have done that already sound good.

As to can you have minor and major key in the same piece? Yes, I think my question answered that: a secondary dominant E7 to A can sound like its resolving briefly in a minor, only to go back to C in the rest of the progression.

All of my music theory knowledge is intuitive....this is how I've interpreted what little I've read in real music theory books. Its probably completely incorrect. I often make comments about music theory to my piano teacher and he corrects me and scolds me "this means something *specific*, Derek, it is not open ended"   haha.

[Brian Healey]

Depending on what you want to do in the long term, I would probably say to forget about trying to understand it and trust your ear. It's good to have some theoretical knowledge, but it's also good to not care what music theory says you "should" be playing. There are plenty of songwriters that don't really know what a secondary dominant is, but still write progressions like the one you described just because it sounds right to them. Don't be afraid to use trial and error. Theory is good to know, but it's important to remember that theory is just an explanation of what composers have done in the past. In no way should it be taken as strict guidelines for what you should do. Theory changes as the music changes.

[jlh]

I don't have the music right in front of me, but you can also look at the E7 chord as a "borrowed" chord.  In C major, the iii and the vi are both minor; however, in C minor, the III is major. 

So there are a few good justifications for it in terms of theory:

1) The E7 chord is tonicising the Am chord, so then it would be a secondary dominant.

2) The E7 chord is a chord that was "borrowed" from C minor, leaving the Am chord as vi in C major.

Again, as others have said, if it sounds good, that's what matters.  No matter what chords are used in any given song, they can usually be justified -- if for no other reason than they sound good.

[FST2]

 
 Major and minor in the same song ?
 Yes, that's what you've got here   

 This starts out in F.
 From F(I), it is possible to jump to any chord, then via a smooth progression, the song (i think i am safe to use the 'S' word here ) will work back towards the tonic, F (but not always).
 The Circle of Fifths (Fourths) can be useful here.

  After the initial F here in this s**g, it is changing to D minor (relative minor of F)

 Here is the Tab with info reproduced :-

    Yesterday The Beatles (in F major)
--
[Short changes to relative minor, or dominant.
 Extensive use of ii-V-I progression. Use of V/9]

F         Em7       A7                 Dm   Dm/C
Yesterday    all my troubles seemed so far away.
I       ( ii7       V7               ) vi
          ii ------ V ---------------- I

Bb     C7                      F
Now it looks as though they're here to stay,
IV     V7                      I

C/E  Dm7 G7       Bb    F
Oh   I believe in yesterday.
V  [ ii7 V7 ]*    IV    I
            C
     ii--V--

 Em7 A7  Dm  C  Bb Dm      Gm6      C7       F
 Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say.
(ii7 V7) vi  V  IV vi      V/9**    V7       I
 ii--V---I                (ii-------V7-------I)

...
--
*  Note the short change of scale: G7 implies C major, the dominant.
** Note that Gm6 (: G Bb D E) is a C9 (: C E G Bb D) with no root.



 You can find tons of info on the web about this kind of thing.

 Here is a better analysis of Yesterday :-

 https://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/y.html

 And the same site, loads more Beatles songs :-

 https://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/awp.html


 Here are a few links that will give you some general info about progressions, etc. .

 A lot of these links are for guitar and other instruments, but the basic theory that you are looking for still holds good.


 https://chordmaps.com/

 https://www.olga.net/dynamic/browse.php?printer=0&local=resources/lessons/country/MusicAndChordTheory.txt


 https://www.angelfire.com/music/HarpOn/theory2.html


  https://www.musesmuse.com/mirko-1.html


 https://www.musesmuse.com/mirko-2.html


 https://www.musesmuse.com/mirko-3.html


 Ok, that should keep you busy for a while . . . .

[l_ricks]

Thanks alot for all of the info guys it's really helping out a lot and it has my brain going.

I know you said there is some theory involved, but what i'm also wondering is if you use the relative scale to the scale you are playing in do you complete progression in that scale.

Example:

You do a I-V-IV progression in the scale of "C",then proceed to do a i-v-i progression in the scale of Am. Then proceed to do a progression in C. Does that sound any good? Is it a theory thing or one of personal taste.

I haven't had a chance to try it yet because I'm about to take my kids to the dentist, but you advice would be helpful.

Thanks again for all the help.