Question about chord transition (C - A) with intermediate chord G/B

[alisondetroit]

Hello everyone!

I am studying piano with my teacher and a question arose about a chord transition he used: from C Major (C) to A Major (A), passing through a G Major with B in the bass (G/B).

My questions are the following:

1) Why is the final chord A Major (A) and not A Minor (Am)? Considering that we are starting from the harmonic field of C Major, the relative minor would be A Minor.

2) What is the function of this inversion of G Major (G/B) in this transition? I understand that the B in the bass creates an interesting melodic line between C and A, but what is the specific harmonic purpose?

3) By using this transition with G/B, are we momentarily entering another harmonic field that justifies A Major? If so, what would be the logic behind this?

4) For other transitions, what is the general logic for applying intermediate chords (such as G/B)? Is there a resource or website that explains the formation and use of these transition chords well, especially how to get from one point to another?

5) In general, how do you form a transition between two chords? What are the most common principles or approaches to creating a smooth and interesting harmonic connection between them?

I would greatly appreciate any help or references you can give me! This is a concept I'm finding a little difficult to grasp.

Thank you! <3

[essence]

Is this kind of dramatic transformation something which Schubert would have done?

https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.18.24.3/mto.18.24.3.black.html

[vandoren]

1)  What is the context?  Was your teacher playing a classical piece?  If so, what piece?  Were they playing a song from a lead sheet?  If so, what song?  Perhaps they were improvising on the twelve bar blues?  If so, in which measure of the blues did they elect to make use of this progression?

Were any of the chords extended, e.g., did they have sevenths, or were they just triads?

2)  using the inversion of the g chord to make a stepwise baseline makes sense. What did they play after the A major?  Was it a landing place for the harmony that functioned like a new tonic after an abrupt modulation?  Or was it leading to a next chord like d minor7?


FWIW:  Here is a context common in jazz where a G chord (G7) would resolve to an A chord. Recall the plagal cadence works like

IV resolves to I

Example:  D resolves to A    Where A is the tonic.

This can be extended to

D  Dm  A

There is a nice voice leading line F# (third of D) to F (third of Dm) to E (fifth of A).

Some extensions that make it sound nice are

Dmaj7 Dm6 Amaj7

A variant of this has G7 replace the Dm6 chord (these chords are not so different other than the bass note).

It looks like

Dmaj7 G7 A

If you explore it you will see that the G7 resolves nicely to the A. E.g., F goes to E and D goes to C#. 

This might be one way to interpret the G chord as a transition chord modulating to A in your example.

[quantum]

More context is needed in order to give an explanation.

1)  What is the goal of the chord progression?  If we were to take the scenario that the goal was reaching A major, making the assertion that the chord should be A minor due to the convenience factor of the relative minor relationship would completely defeat the purpose of achieving the goal. 

2) Without knowing more context, G/B can be thought of as a transition chord. 

The most direct path between two chords, is to move directly to the destination.  Say you wanted to go from C to G, you can do that by just doing C, G.  It can be abrupt, but it works and still fits within diatonic harmony. 

You can smooth the transition by using three chords: C, F, G. 

Or if you were doing a tonicization / modulation to G you could use a secondary dominant:
C, D, G; or C, D/F#, G.

If you wanted to stretch the transition further, you could do:
C, G/D, C/E, G7/F, G.
I, V43, I6, V65, V.


3) More context needed. 

4) The danger of generalizing logic in these harmonic analyses is that one may default to using the generalization rather than applying logical reasoning to each problem one encounters.  Music is not created based on following generalized rules.  Rules are created by observing recurring patterns in music, in order that other people can recreate these same patterns.


5) One could build an entire university course on this topic. 

To begin, take your two endpoints.   These are your start and end goals.  This is your skeleton structure.  Build in the middle to create your transition. 

Example:
Start: C major
End: D major

C, D. 
C, A, D.
C, A/C#, D.
C, G/B, A, D.

Or if you want some Baroque:

Code: [Select]

Chord: C, A,  D,          Em,    A, D.
Bass:  C, C#, D, D, F#, D, G, E, A, D.


[jonslaughter]

Hello everyone!

I am studying piano with my teacher and a question arose about a chord transition he used: from C Major (C) to A Major (A), passing through a G Major with B in the bass (G/B).

My questions are the following:

1) Why is the final chord A Major (A) and not A Minor (Am)? Considering that we are starting from the harmonic field of C Major, the relative minor would be A Minor.

2) What is the function of this inversion of G Major (G/B) in this transition? I understand that the B in the bass creates an interesting melodic line between C and A, but what is the specific harmonic purpose?

3) By using this transition with G/B, are we momentarily entering another harmonic field that justifies A Major? If so, what would be the logic behind this?

4) For other transitions, what is the general logic for applying intermediate chords (such as G/B)? Is there a resource or website that explains the formation and use of these transition chords well, especially how to get from one point to another?

5) In general, how do you form a transition between two chords? What are the most common principles or approaches to creating a smooth and interesting harmonic connection between them?

I would greatly appreciate any help or references you can give me! This is a concept I'm finding a little difficult to grasp.

Thank you! <3

1. Because diatonic music is limiting. Why limit yourself to 7 chords when there are 100's more available?

2. Don't worry about it. The theory doesn't tell you why. Your ear and experience tells you why. The "composer" could have done 100 other things. There is no harmonic reason to go from C -> G/B ->A. It's just a progression. Theory only helps you have some frame of reference, but it not math. It is not logic. E.g., We could say it is a I IV6/ii, V/ii,  V/V progression or I V V6/V/V V/V progression assuming D follows. There are other possiblities. The progression is really too short to know.

One might say that the A is tonicizing D or Dm.

There is no justification. It's just a progression. You can make any series of chords sound interesting by putting them in the right context. When you learn enough music you see it all the time. You should get out of the habit of trying to justify chord progressions. You can literally take any piece of music and change any chord in it and if done intentionally within the context you can make it work. It may not sound the best for a variety of reasons(these are due to the larger context) but you can make it musical.

The problem with music theory is that when it is taught it is taught with the idea that it is a scientific theory.  It is not really a theory but a descriptive language. It doesn't tell you the why but the what. Yes, there are common patterns and some underlying science such as the overtone series but because one can "break the rules" so easily it is pointless to think there are rules. Once you learn enough music and how to improvise you just "get it" and once you "get it" it makes far more sense.

Don't make the same mistake I did. I learned a ton of theory(I have about 100 theory books from Goetschius to Schoenberg to Piston and everything in between). It made things more difficult than easy. When you learn too much theory too soon you tend to think you can apply the theory to create good music but, in fact, it is the opposite. The theory is just a language. A way to name chords and progressions. It's like vocabulary.

What you should be focusing on is technique, style, improvising, reading, memorization, etc. Once you can basically play nearly anything you want(even if it takes you a little while) then you likely will understand how theory fits in to things.

how I learned to use theory was simply to help me memorize better and to understand things better in the sense that if I need some way to comprehend something so I can better memorize it and perform it then I will use "theory". But it is never advanced stuff. E.g., I don't use passing tones, escape tones, appoggiaturas, etc. All this stuff is just part of the music. Yes, I know what they are but I don't analyze music that way(I did, it was pointless).

Music works different than theory tries to tell us. I can't really explain it since I would have to use theory to explain it and that is self-referential.

If you learn a lot of music you will just get it because you will see what the masters are doing(not book writers).

The most important thing about theory is learning how to name chords(chord systems) and all the basic stuff(key signatures, scales, time signatures, etc). But all the stuff about "rules"(which Goetschius is full of) is basically nonsense. Not complete nonsense but nonsensical enough to be counter productive. (Master) Composers don't compose by numbers, they compose through their feelings, experience, and vast knowledge of playing. Again, it is not something that can be explained. You will experience it if you simply learn to play a lot of music and learn to improvise. It all just melds together and the brain automatically does it for you.

I'm not saying don't learn theory. I think theory is very important. I'm simply saying not to get too hung up on thinking it actually tells you how music "works"(in the sense you seem to think it does). If your teacher is hung up on it then likely he has similar issues. You can still learn from him and, again, it is helpful in some ways, but it can hurt you/slow you down if you approach it wrong.

For example, many times when you are analyzing music(a fun and good thing to do) you will come across chords that simply make no sense musically or that there are many ways to analyze it. How can theory be theory if such things exist in music? Is the theory incomplete? What you find is that it is not important how you analyze it but how you analyze it to make the most sense to you(and that does require knowing theory). E.g., "What makes it easier for me to understand so I can remember it" and not "which one is correct". There is no "correct way". In fact, even if you "analyze it completely wrong" it means nothing if it enables you to perform it better.

3. There is no justification. You can do 100 different things.  Go analyze any piece of music in relative notation(roman numeral analysis) and you will find the same basic progressions that all do something different at some point. Obviously we have to start with *some* chord and in homophonic music chords are the foundation because chords are able to isolate and colors. There are 12 notes like 12 colors. Think of chords as colors, not logical propositions or predicates. You have to have some color. Typically one starts with a major or minor color because those are the most stable and give a reference point. Most music is designed to be relatively easy to comprehend in the sense of language. So one starts with a basic color. Then we either continue on that same color(harmony) or we have to change it. When you change harmony you are changing to another color. Not all colors easily fit. Diatonic colors fit most naturally. The "fitting" is due to the overtone series and how sound works, culture, and exposure but any chord can follow if "done right". This "done right" is very hard to explain and theory can't really do it. Only learning music, improvising, and feeling can tell you. There might be some deep reasons why but every theory book I have read cannot explain it and their reasons are all failures or limitations.

What happens is that your brain computes the extremely complex logical equation automatically. There is no way you can compute it manually by working it using rules because it's too complex. You definitely can't do it during improve because you would have to stop and that would break everything. So you just learn to let your brain do the thing it does. Of course it can't do this if you haven't trained it to do it with lots of practice.

But basically you can make anything work. why? Because it's not just about the harmonic change at that point but also context. You can force things to work by what you do later. You learn this when you learn to improvise. Because you will "make mistakes" or play things that sound wrong but you will learn through experience that you can make it work and then it sounds good or even great. You thing just develop this naturally because it's that "special thing" that can't be explained by theory. Your fingers just go for the right notes. Sometimes it's almost like you are not even doing anything and your fingers and arms are being controlled by something else or are on autopilot.

When this is happening there is no "theory" going on. In fact, the better you get the less you will think in terms of any theory. Most theory I learned well I've forgotten. I don't need it. Maybe it's buried in my brain but I simply rely on my brain doing what it does. This does not mean I do not think here and there about what chord I'm on and the voicings and such. But I'm not thinking in terms of "how is this chord logically implied by the previous chord". That is not really a sensical thing to ask even though it seems like it. Again, it is not math(. It is but isn't. There are 12 notes, The power set gives all the chords and scales + many other things we don't use, there are patterns and such but that is where we get our naming from it doesn't tell us how to make music. Just as there are 12 hours in a clock and it doesn't tell us what is happening in the day.

4. You get from point A to B by being able to perform them. Almost anything will sound meaningful if it is intentional. Generally speaking this is done by voice leading because it's much easier to perform and so also sounds most natural. Music is about flow and about tension and release. It is more like sex than math. Even sex has math in it. Essentially what you are asking are things like "Ok, I'm driving a car and computing the velocity vectors of the cars around me, counting the white stripes, and monitoring the temperature gauge, how do I make a right turn. How do other people make right turns". When you drive, you do not think about those things. What it is is this: You have a goal, you want to get to B. So you do things that get you there. They are natural because they are part of a process and the destination, in some sense, is what is most important, now how you get there.

Think of gymnastics, something like the vault. The person runs and throws themselves off and does something and then lands. Or they don't. if they don't land then they fail no matter how great they flipped through the air. It's sort like that in some ways. Of course the journey is important too, but it's basically a balance and when you learn that balance then the "magic happens". E.g., you could think of theory as being able to do the most complex spins in the air but if you can't land(do the music) then it is meaningless. And vice versa. When you can have a balance between the two, you know some theory and some music, you can do some spins and also land well enough then you feel something different. Then you know how to work on improving because you have some reference of things.

My suggestion is to learn all your chords in all inversions. Every day for an hour or so work through every I IV V, i iv v, i ii  V, i iv V, etc in all keys(you could split up the keys and alternate or whatever if you don't have the time). Do all inversions. All modern music is chord based, so isn't it important to know the chords? This is what you are doing. Play the simple closed voicings. Play them enough, maybe for a month at least, until you can play any progress that comes to mind. Do both hand together, separate, you can start to branch out, octaves in one, arpeggiating, etc.

Then do them for scales. Once you do this and get them internalized then you will be able to start making music. You likely will also want to analyze music from the masters. See how they are using the chords and scales. You will see the music differently and see the "internal logic"(which is really what it is, the internal logic of the piece, not some absolute external logic of music). You will see how they use those chords, how they break them up, using them rhythmically, etc.

It may take some time, months, or years. But this is how, IMO, you really learn theory. Of course, again, you need to know some theory but I'm talking about the "theory" in the sense of being able to make music.

5. Generally the way it works is that people are terrible at music, they play other peoples music that they like, they start to recognize common patterns and then they start to use those patterns in their own music. They built up a foundation naturally by learning from others who have figured out some things. It's basically imitation. That is how most humans learn.

E.g., not everyone is going to like the common i V progression. Some people don't like the v chord. It's like food, not everyone likes the same thing. A large part of this is you figuring out what you like. Some of it is conditioning on you(if we are westerners then our musical tastes are going to be conditioned by a lot of pop, rock, and maybe classical music if we are lucky).

In some alien world, they may love certain chord progressions that we hate. It's not all about music. Back in the 1500's certain progressions were used only because someone thought they had some specific religious connection. E.g., 3/4 was relatively popular only because it signified the trinity to those people. It had nothing to do with music. In fact, a lot of what we think is music is not music at all.

----

My suggestion is that you focus less on theory and more on playing. The playing itself will ultimately lead you down the right path. The theory is not as absolute as you think. When I was trying to learn music I read all the theory I could thinking it would make me a great composer. I was heavily in to mathematics and physics so I thought music theory was more like a mathematical theory where it told me how to create music and I just had to follow the rules. I was completely wrong. I tried and tried but never could create decent music. I could create something close in some cases. It did help me create some music, but the very essence of music was missing and I knew it. Sometimes I would be more inspired to create music than other times and sometimes I was more in tune with the rules... in some cases I was pleased with the results but I still always felt something was missing. Only when I seriously started learning piano and got to the point where I could improvise well did I feel what that missing thing was. It's not something describable. If I described it to you it would convey nothing to you because the description is void of the feeling. You'll never know what it is like until you do the things that give you it. Those things, for me, was learning to properly play the piano(lots of practicing of scales, chords, learning pieces, analyzing music, watching score videos, etc).

If you can't sit down at the piano and play any two chords in any reasonable way then how can you answer the questions you have?

Try this, go to the piano, pick two random chords, two ways to voice them(imagine all the non-chord tones of the keyboard disappear or become empty keys that can't be played) and then move back and forth between the chord voicings. Just keep going back and forth. Do it until you can't stand it. Did you notice what eventually happened? If you didn't give up too soon you would have. I did say it was closer to sex than math for a reason. I'm not trying to be vulgar but it is something everyone has in common(not everyone knows math). Take those two chords and play with them now that you have "mastered" them. You should, after some time, fine it much easier to play them, almost without thinking. It might take an hour depending on your ability. Now start trying stuff. You can do many things  You can try adding a 3rd chord, you can change one chord, you can change the mode, you can add a strange note, you can add a passing tone "just some note" in between striking the chords that seems to connect them scale wise. You can add leaps, you can play one soft and the other hard, you can arpeggiate one while doing something to the other. Experiment and experiment and experiment. This is music. "songs" are just refinements of this. A song is just taking ideas that a composer likes and then polishing into something presentable to others who want to hear a story. In some ways a good song is just a good story. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end, it is exciting, has a point, is presented with emotion, etc. When a good story teller is telling a story he isn't analyzing the logic of it or thinking about theoretical things. He's amplifying emotions and is usually visualizing something in his mind that guides him. He might have studied story telling or just picked it up from listening to other good storytellers. It likely took time to develop too. Nothing happens overnight.

I can say that you if you study piano and get to the point where you can improvise enough you will have all those problems solved(the problems might just vanish). Why? Because any questions you have can be answered by sitting at the piano and solving them. You won't have to look outwards and believe others(which always will result in some uneasiness or result in brainwashing) but you can solve them yourself. Sorta like math in this case. If I ask you to solve the equation 3x + 6 = 9 and you know how math works you can solve it and check your answer and be really confident. If you have no idea how to solve it and have to ask others for the answer then you will not understand how to do it and always have issues.