Can each chord in a progression create its own key? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Difference between keys and scales?I-IV-V blues progressionMinor key and its chordsPlaying scales over I IV V progressionTips on Memorizing Chords that are in Different ScalesConfused about how to know the chord progression for each scaleCan't understand parallel progression. Can explain with example?Parallel chord substitutionsDo scales over progressions change the key of the song?How to turn each chord in a progression into separate scales?Are Secondary Dominants related to Chord-Scales?

Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?

NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE

Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?

When to apply negative sign when number is squared

What was the last profitable war?

When does a function NOT have an antiderivative?

How to evaluate this function?

Statistical analysis applied to methods coming out of Machine Learning

Centre cell contents vertically

Where and when has Thucydides been studied?

French equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

systemd and copy (/bin/cp): no such file or directory

How could a hydrazine and N2O4 cloud (or it's reactants) show up in weather radar?

Relating to the President and obstruction, were Mueller's conclusions preordained?

First paper to introduce the "principal-agent problem"

How does TikZ render an arc?

Problem with display of presentation

Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary?

How to resize main filesystem

Short story about astronauts fertilizing soil with their own bodies

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?

Is it OK to use the testing sample to compare algorithms?



Can each chord in a progression create its own key?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Difference between keys and scales?I-IV-V blues progressionMinor key and its chordsPlaying scales over I IV V progressionTips on Memorizing Chords that are in Different ScalesConfused about how to know the chord progression for each scaleCan't understand parallel progression. Can explain with example?Parallel chord substitutionsDo scales over progressions change the key of the song?How to turn each chord in a progression into separate scales?Are Secondary Dominants related to Chord-Scales?










2















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
























  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:07











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:10











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:41











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:44











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:50















2















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
























  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:07











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:10











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:41











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:44











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:50













2












2








2








Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.







scales chord-progressions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 12 at 20:35







foreyez

















asked Apr 12 at 18:34









foreyezforeyez

5,73242690




5,73242690












  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:07











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:10











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:41











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:44











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:50

















  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:07











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:10











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:41











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:44











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    Apr 12 at 19:50
















Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:07





Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:07













@Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

– foreyez
Apr 12 at 19:10





@Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

– foreyez
Apr 12 at 19:10













That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:41





That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:41













@Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

– foreyez
Apr 12 at 19:44





@Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

– foreyez
Apr 12 at 19:44













You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:50





You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

– Dom
Apr 12 at 19:50










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3














Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




C:I I/V i/vi
C G Am


On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




I V vi
C G Am


...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




EDIT



You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






share|improve this answer

























  • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

    – Michael Curtis
    Apr 12 at 18:57











  • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 20:46



















5














I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






share|improve this answer























  • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 19:55






  • 1





    Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

    – Tim
    Apr 12 at 19:57












  • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

    – foreyez
    Apr 12 at 20:00












  • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

    – Laurence Payne
    Apr 12 at 20:14











  • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

    – Michael Curtis
    Apr 12 at 20:18



















2














Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






share|improve this answer






























    2














    No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



    But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



    Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



    It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "240"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82693%2fcan-each-chord-in-a-progression-create-its-own-key%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3














      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer

























      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 18:57











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:46
















      3














      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer

























      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 18:57











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:46














      3












      3








      3







      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer















      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 12 at 19:54

























      answered Apr 12 at 18:51









      Michael CurtisMichael Curtis

      12.4k844




      12.4k844












      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 18:57











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:46


















      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 18:57











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:46

















      it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

      – Michael Curtis
      Apr 12 at 18:57





      it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

      – Michael Curtis
      Apr 12 at 18:57













      what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 20:46






      what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 20:46












      5














      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer























      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 19:55






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        Apr 12 at 19:57












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:00












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        Apr 12 at 20:14











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 20:18
















      5














      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer























      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 19:55






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        Apr 12 at 19:57












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:00












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        Apr 12 at 20:14











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 20:18














      5












      5








      5







      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer













      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Apr 12 at 19:53









      TimTim

      106k10107266




      106k10107266












      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 19:55






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        Apr 12 at 19:57












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:00












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        Apr 12 at 20:14











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 20:18


















      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 19:55






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        Apr 12 at 19:57












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        Apr 12 at 20:00












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        Apr 12 at 20:14











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        Apr 12 at 20:18

















      of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 19:55





      of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 19:55




      1




      1





      Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

      – Tim
      Apr 12 at 19:57






      Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

      – Tim
      Apr 12 at 19:57














      well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 20:00






      well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

      – foreyez
      Apr 12 at 20:00














      You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Apr 12 at 20:14





      You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Apr 12 at 20:14













      He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

      – Michael Curtis
      Apr 12 at 20:18






      He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

      – Michael Curtis
      Apr 12 at 20:18












      2














      Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



      There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






      share|improve this answer



























        2














        Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



        There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






        share|improve this answer

























          2












          2








          2







          Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



          There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






          share|improve this answer













          Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



          There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 12 at 18:48









          ttwttw

          9,5671034




          9,5671034





















              2














              No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



              But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



              Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



              It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






              share|improve this answer



























                2














                No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






                share|improve this answer

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                  But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                  Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                  It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






                  share|improve this answer













                  No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                  But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                  Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                  It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 12 at 19:14









                  Laurence PayneLaurence Payne

                  37.8k1872




                  37.8k1872



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82693%2fcan-each-chord-in-a-progression-create-its-own-key%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

                      QGIS export composer to PDF scale the map [closed] Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Print Composer QGIS 2.6, how to export image?QGIS 2.8.1 print composer won't export all OpenCycleMap base layer tilesSave Print/Map QGIS composer view as PNG/PDF using Python (without changing anything in visible layout)?Export QGIS Print Composer PDF with searchable text labelsQGIS Print Composer does not change from landscape to portrait orientation?How can I avoid map size and scale changes in print composer?Fuzzy PDF export in QGIS running on macSierra OSExport the legend into its 100% size using Print ComposerScale-dependent rendering in QGIS PDF output

                      PDF-ში გადმოწერა სანავიგაციო მენიუproject page