I wrote this song and have known it for about 2 weeks now. It uses some unusual techniques as well as what I like to call "micro-harmonies". If interested I can discuss them.

Really cool!


Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk

Nice work! I'm interested in hearing you talk about micro harmonies

Thanks, guys!

Josh,

You may have a more formal education in theory than I do. My experience is from years of classical piano and some time with Steve. It is possible there are more traditional ways to express these concepts, but this is how I approach it:

In the first pass of the A section the chords appear to be
Am9,11; Am9,11 that feels like Cmaj7,9 ; Am9; Am6 that feels like C#11 leading into a C section (no birth jokes, please)


The second pass of the A section is
Am7; Am7 that feels like C6; Am6; Am9 that feels like C6 maj7 leading into the same jokeless C section

I mentioned these "feels like" in that the first triplet is with A in the LH and the second is with C in the LH. Although the A is maintained, the C is louder creating the "microharmonies". By example the Am6 with the C emphasized has the strong C-F# tension that feels like C#11.

I think this writing method is used, although possibly less consciously when people write with a 5th in the bass (C/G) or a 3rd in the bass (C/E). Thinking about these more formally with higher order chords (6,7,9,11...)
creates more possibilities.

The tension of notes played close together in time within the context of greater chords is beautiful to me. In this piece, there are really not a lot of notes happening at once, and it doesn't shred, but there are 679 chords, #11 chords and so forth with these delicate microharmonies. Subtle beauty.

I'm not certain that it's "microharmonies" or whatever, but I thought it sounded cool Daniel! Define it however one likes, really it's the end product that matters in my opinion. If it sounds like music, then it probably is... Nice work, it was fun to listen to!

Ah cool! You're talking about what's called chord inversions and substitutions.

The human ear hears everything off of the lowest note being played. That's why an Am7 spelled lowest to highest ACEG is Am7 and spelled CEGA is really more of a C6. As you get into more complex upper structures (tensions and tones above the octave that give you the numbers like #11, 13, 9 etc) and maybe start removing some of the core notes from the chord like the 5th and the root, you start getting into substitution.

The best example of substitution that I know of is the tritone substitution.

Take G7, right? G B D F
Now take Db7 Db F Ab Cb (really B)

You'll notice that the 3rd and 7th of each chord are the same. The 3rd and 7th of 7th chords are also the most "telling" notes of the chord.

Now, if you remove the 5th of each chord, you're left with (G B F) and (Db F Cb), chords that are identical save for their root notes. When there's only one note difference like that, it's really easy to switch them around. This is a really common replacement for the V7 chord in jazz, illustrated really nicely by the song Footprints by Wayne Shorter.

Footprints is a 12 bar jazz blues tune in D dorian with a chord progression of:
|Dm|Dm |Dm|Dm|
|Gm|Gm |Dm|Dm|
|E7 |Eb7|Dm|Dm|

The E7 makes a lot of sense there as a V7/V, or a secondary dominant briefly making the home key V chord the "destination chord" but what the hell is that Eb? That's the tritone substitution, switching out the diatonic V7 chord for a bII7 to lead back to i.

I recommend checking out guitarist Jody Fisher for more stuff like this, he's a virtuosic solo jazz guitar player that I had the privilege of working with during my time at the National Guitar Workshop and he goes so, so deep into this stuff. It's really incredible.

And anyway as Scott says, it's the result that matters more than the theoretical classifications anyway.

Thanks for sharing this exploration with us, Dan. I DID have a couple of questions.



I thought you were referring to "micro-tunings" to get your "micro-harmonies." But you seem to be referring to a single note of the chord as "louder" that determines the microharmonies. Am I understanding that correctly?



I'm not familiar with characterizing different notes and their relative and comparative loudness (or note velocity) within a chord as anything but...that chord. With a louder root, or fifth, or third, or 11th or whatever.

Can you help me understand your definition of "microharmonies" a little better, please? Thanks, Daniel!

Jayessker and Josh posted while I was writing this, so maybe that cleared up microharmonies!

The 3rd tells you what it is (major or minor) and the 7th tells you where it's going. In ensemble situations one can abandon the root and fifth altogether ( Why? 'Cause the bass player is playing those!) I guess if you ARE the bass player AND the harmony AND the melodic voice there is a lot to consider.

Non-Diatonic dom7ths could also be labelled as V7 of____

Ie, G7 in a diatonic chord progression like Dmin7 G7 Cmaj6 is "V7 of 1" but if it were D7 G7 C7 (continuous dom7ths) D7 = V7 of 5 G7 is V7 of 1 C7 is V7 of 4 etc etc. All in an effort to see a key center. Understanding this greatly aids in transposition...

A tune like "Footprints", or "So What" is considered " a modal tune, but each of the chords and their respective relationship to one another (as tied together by the melody) need to be considered; there may be more than one key center (note pool) to draw from.

Non diatonic chords imposed into the progression are also borrowed from other keys, this could be explained as modal interchange or whatever also. Inserted diminished chords could be explained as passing diminished, and have a voice leading or contrapuntal, possibly even polyphonic nature. Or, it could be " Hey, I liked the sound of this and did it. I also called it this_____" and that's okay also in my book.

The music, that's what's important.

But, again that is just an opinion. Remember, I am nobody.

So what Josh is talking about is incredibly interesting and seemingly relevant. I may have to read it a few more times to quite get it.

What I am thinking about is how we perceive chords based on how we play them. Of course inversions are one basic way to adjust this. In arpeggiated chords, sometimes new notes feel like new chords when they are just parts of what was played before. Frequently our ears hear the root note of a chord based on either what is the lowest note, the loudest note, or the last played note in the case of arpeggiated chords.

By how we emphasize chords, we can change how chords are perceived with some ambiguity. The more complex and arpeggiated the chord, the more options are available. This is my point with the chords in the A section of my song with whether or not these are Am chords or C chords, and how they are heard.

In an older, more basic example I wrote on keyboard as 2 notes at a time displayed on two lines:

E.A.E.G.E.F#.D.C#...Repeat...E..A..E..G..E..F#.D..B
...A.A.C.C.D..D..A.....Repeat.......A..A..C..C..D..G..G

So in this case, the D chord is originally built as a 1st inversion but in the second case was used to build a Gmaj7. The chords could be written as A, C, D, Repeat, A, C, Gmaj7. They begin the same with D and F#, but arrive in a different place.

As we play different parts of the chords opposite each other, arpeggiating with two voices, we can hear different elements of the chords such as emphasizing the tension of the C and the F# in an Am6, leaving the listener open to interpreting the C#11 vs. the Am6. As the LH moves, does the chord move or is it just more revealed? When is it the same chord more fully expressed or a different chord? When working with these non-block chords we can be ambiguous about the chord and specific about the harmonic interactions.

So reading Scott and Josh's notes, I may very well be approaching a known concept with different language. This different language is helpful to me in creating music. I very much like Scott and Josh's approaches for defined chord situations (even though I must read it again and again) and I like this approach for creating ambiguous chords and emphasizing their internal relations.

Overall good info, though I did have a bit of trouble understanding what I was looking at with those two sets of letters. Are those notes or full chords played atop one another in each hand?



I think this is answered by looking at the phrasing. When we're talking about chord phrasing, it's called harmonic motion and it's the study of how and when the chords shift. Often times harmonic motion is intrinsically linked to the melody, so discussing it in isolation is somewhat incomplete, though still valid.

When I'm looking at a set of arpeggiated chords, I'm looking for patterns in the arpeggio, much like you have already pointed out. Sometimes however, the patterns will shift in small ways that still outline the same chord. If I'm looking for a shift, I'm generally looking for 3 things.

1) harmonic motion - how long have the chords been lasting so far? Is this the turnaround of the phrase? It's common to see a change in harmonic motion at the turnaround of a phrase.

2) Total aggregate note sets - I'm looking at all the notes that fall within one chord pattern. Let's say the arpeggio is Am11, from bottom to top A C E G B D. So as long as most of those notes are included, especially the core A C and E, it'll likely be the same chord.

3) Shifts in the lowest notes - I can't stress enough that the human ear hears based off the lowest note. Therefore, taking the same Am11 chord, if the lowest notes start to change from A C E G B D to something like F C E G A D, I'm going to start looking for a new pattern. If we take this new note combination and put it into 3rds, we get F A C D E G, or Fmaj7(9, 13).

Just how I analyze stuff like this, take what works for you and leave the rest.