2 Borrowed Chord questions


dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
03/26/2020 10:37 pm

1) Is it generally true that when you borrow a chord from another mode you are substituting a chord (from the new mode) with the same root or position as you would otherwise play if you were using the diatonic chord? In other words, a ii for a II or a iv for a IV. Or is that not a very helpful way of thinking about the possible chords at your disposal (e.g., if you were trying to compose a progression).

2) My understanding is that borrowed chords are fleeting. If you borrow more than a single chord, it starts to be more appropriately thought of as a key change. If that's the case, why say that you are borrowing from any particular mode? Why not just say that you tare playing a non-diatonic chord that for whatever reasons works well in a particular spot. For example, if you use a bVII instead of a vii-dim when playing in a major (Ionian) scale, you can say that you are borrowing it from the Dorian mode, but you could also say that you are borrowing it from the Mixolydian mode or the natural minor mode (i.e., since they all have VII chords) or, I would think, that you are not borrowing it at all but just playing an out of key chord?


# 1
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
03/27/2020 12:17 pm
Originally Posted by: dlwalke

1) Is it generally true that when you borrow a chord from another mode you are substituting a chord (from the new mode) with the same root or position as you would otherwise play if you were using the diatonic chord?[/quote][p]Not really. I've never been a fan of the term borrowed in this context because it seems to imply something that has nothing to do with the concept. But it's part of our musical vocabulary, so I grudgingly accept it. :)

One possible misunderstanding is exactly what you asked. If we are "borrowing" shouldn't we have to give it back? Or replace it with a similar item?

No, it simply means you can use any non-key signature chord you like the sound of. Or that you can use any chord that is not part of the current key you are using. And note that even if we are using a non-key signature chord we still identify it with a Roman numeral with reference to the root. It's simply a non-key signature chord.

The entire reason we use key signatures in the first place is not a set of rules on what you can use or not. It is simply for conceptual clarity & perceptual ease of understanding what we are playing. And this helps us easily identify chords in the key as well as non-key signature chords.

Originally Posted by: dlwalke2) My understanding is that borrowed chords are fleeting.[/quote]

Yes. And if you get more than one borrowed chord, and those chords are related to each other in a different key, then you have a modulation. Typically a ii-V type of thing as a secondary sub-dominant to dominant voice motion.

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeIf you borrow more than a single chord, it starts to be more appropriately thought of as a key change.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote=dlwalke]If that's the case, why say that you are borrowing from any particular mode?

Again, this is why I don't like the term. It has the potential to lead to conceptual confusion instead of clarity.

But to address your point, the reason you say you are borrowing from a specific mode is due to the entire system used in the context of the music.

[quote=dlwalke]Why not just say that you tare playing a non-diatonic chord that for whatever reasons works well in a particular spot.

Well, you can. But please take note of the actual reason: you like the sound of that chord, regardless of the key signature. And this is very important to remember as you consider music theory ideas. The music, the sound, is primary. Theory only exists to help us conceptually organize the sounds. We do not use theory to discover how things sound. We use theory to mentally classify the sounds that happen in music.

[quote=dlwalke]For example, if you use a bVII instead of a vii-dim when playing in a major (Ionian) scale, you can say that you are borrowing it from the Dorian mode, but you could also say that you are borrowing it from the Mixolydian mode or the natural minor mode (i.e., since they all have VII chords) or, I would think, that you are not borrowing it at all but just playing an out of key chord?

That would depend on the wider context. Generally it helps to consider how much the original key signature has in common with the borrowed chord.

In your example, you are staring in a major key, right? That has a major 3rd. And if you use a flat VII, then I would say it is borrowed from mixolydian because it's the closest to your reference point, the original major key. They have all the same scale degrees with only one exception: minor 7th instead of major 7th.

Dorian might also have a flat VII, but also has a minor 3rd. Natural minor has a flat VII, but also has a minor 3rd & minor 6th. They have less in common with major. So, using those mode as your "borrowed" reference makes things less clear. Saying mixolydian is more efficient & add clarity.

Make sense?


Christopher Schlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor

Christopher Schlegel Lesson Directory
# 2
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
04/16/2020 4:49 am

Yes Chris, that makes sense. Thanks. I have been doing sort of a deep dive into music theory which I'm finding fascinating. Well, everything's relative. A deep dive into the kiddie pool I guess. But it keeps pulling me in deeper. Every time I think I kind of got all I want, there are new questions. One thing I'm finding is that there are a lot more ways that chords can relate to each other than I realized. I thought I probably had a more-or-less complete list of the chords that would typically sound good together with diatonic chords, "borrowed" cords from all the different modes, secondary dominants and even what I have referred to as "God" chords (major chords that are 3rds or 6ths aparts, like C-Eb or E or F# or Ab or A) that have nothing in common but can sound good under the right circumstances (like movie soundtracks in circumstances where the director is trying to create a sese of awe). But no. In your response, you mentioned secondary sub-dominants (is that it for the secondary's btw - like are there secondary sub-mediants for example). Ay Carumba! I'm starting to get the feeling that music theory doesn't tell you which chords might sound good together, in a particular order, but instead just gives you a vocabulary for talking about the chords that do end up sounding good. On another site (a reddit music theory sub-forum), someone wrote that music theory is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Still, I have to think that it's going too far to say that music theory doesn't tell you at all which chords might sound good. As you get further and further away from I, IV, V progressions (where it's hard not to have a decent sounding progression), the options for successfully using out-of-key chords becomes more limited. So I guess this is mostly just me grappling with all this stuff more than a specific question. I guess the question is do you think I'm thinking about this stuff in the right way or am I way off base, out in left field, not even in the right ballpark...to use a series of baseball metaphors?

I'll finish with a more specific question (it's in another post of mine from today that you may or may not see). While noodling around the other day I came up with the following progression: D-F#-G-A. The DGA part of this makes perfect sense but I was surprised that the F# sounded as natural and, to my ear, as pleasing as it did given that it's out of key and neither a borrowed chord from any other D mode, or a secondary dom for the G that follows (it IS a secondary dominant of the vi chord which doesn't appear in the progression). Is there a music theory reason why this sounds good?

Thanks again for your input on the earlier question.

Dave


# 3
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
04/16/2020 4:46 pm

I just replied to your other theory!

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeYes Chris, that makes sense.[/quote]

Good deal!

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeI thought I probably had a more-or-less complete list of the chords that would typically sound good together with diatonic chords, "borrowed" cords from all the different modes, secondary dominants and even what I have referred to as "God" chords (major chords that are 3rds or 6ths aparts, like C-Eb or E or F# or Ab or A) that have nothing in common but can sound good under the right circumstances (like movie soundtracks in circumstances where the director is trying to create a sese of awe).[/quote]

There is always a reason why certain chords created certain specific sounds. It's always related to the interval distances involved. In the case of the above chords I find it is usually the voice motion of each note of a chord as it moves to the next chord.

Often when there is contrary motion combined with common tones a great deal of tension is implied creating a dramatic effect.

C major to E for example:

C > down to > B

E > stays on > E

G > up to > G#

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeI'm starting to get the feeling that music theory doesn't tell you which chords might sound good together, in a particular order, but instead just gives you a vocabulary for talking about the chords that do end up sounding good.[/quote]

Good observation. But it tells even more! It gives you a vocabulary to tell you everything. Not just the chords that sound good, but why they sound good to you, why others might sound bad, or just common, interesting, unusual, bland, etc.

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeOn another site (a reddit music theory sub-forum), someone wrote that music theory is descriptive rather than prescriptive.[/quote]

I just posted that in the other thread! :) It's true that you can use it prescriptively in a certain sense. But that is not its function. Music theory describes musical sounds that exist.

[quote=dlwalke]I have to think that it's going too far to say that music theory doesn't tell you at all which chords might sound good.

But "sounding good" is a matter of personal estimation. Music theory can help you mentally classify chord progressions. But it doesn't tell you which ones are good or bad. After all, you can use Roman numerals to label any & every chord progression that is possible. But you still have to decide if you like the sound of it.

[quote=dlwalke]As you get further and further away from I, IV, V progressions (where it's hard not to have a decent sounding progression), the options for successfully using out-of-key chords becomes more limited.

2 things here.

1. Chord progressions have virtually infinite possible ways of being voiced & played (different rhythms & instrumental timbres). I-IV-V has been used in classical pieces & in basic rock & roll songs with drastically different sonic results.

2. The fact that there are only 12 notes to recombine hasn't stopped anyone yet that wants to write a new song. :)

[quote=dlwalke]I guess the question is do you think I'm thinking about this stuff in the right way or am I way off base, out in left field, not even in the right ballpark...to use a series of baseball metaphors?

I think it's great that you are thinking about it at all. But it's good to get clear on what it is & how it can be used.

Music Theory is the set of concepts that describes the nature of musical events. It is the process of mentally indentifying, categorizing & labeling the sounds that occur in music. We do this in order to build a consistent set of ideas to describe what happens in music. Music theory only exists to identify, mentally organize, classify and categorize the sounds that happen in actual music. The sounds are primary. The theory describes the sounds.

It is called theory because it is the conceptual organization of all the musical sounds we can hear. All those sounds are the concrete applications, the practice.

Some music does not conform to the standard of voice leading that classical composers used (no perfect fifth or octave motions, not too many consecutive thirds, etc.). But, of course, there is no reason that music has to do so. Unless you are taking a test on Bach's voice leading in a music theory class. :)

Music theory can tell you the relationship between the notes or chords. But which notes you use or you think sound good or bad depends on the player or composers intention.

For example, playing a C major scale over a C# major chord might "fit" if that creates the very dissonant sound you are trying to achieve. Music theory can tell you what those objects are, and even show you (if you understand enough) why it will be dissonant as hell. Theory only tells you what it is, how you can understand it and relate it to the other musical concepts you know. Theory is only "wrong" when someone attempts to misidentify or mis-conceptualize something. For example, if you want to call the notes "c, e, g" a D major chord, then you are wrong. That is "bad theory".

[quote=dlwalke]While noodling around the other day I came up with the following progression: D-F#-G-A ...

Is there a music theory reason why this sounds good?

[p]Sure. You can & have described the chord progression in theory terms (key of D major: I - bIII - IV - V). But keep in mind that "sounds good" is a personal evaluation. So, you can use theory to identify the chords & their relationship. And you can use that knowledge to realize that you like the sounds of that specific progression. You can even dive deeper into the voice motion of the chords to think in terms of chromatic approach tones fo major chords.

Make sense?


Christopher Schlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor

Christopher Schlegel Lesson Directory
# 4
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
ChristopherSchlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor
Joined: 08/09/05
Posts: 8,328
04/16/2020 4:55 pm

This is from a previous post I did on theory. It has some infomation & ideas that might be helpful to this discussion.

The first people that really understood music in the conceptual sense were the ancient Greeks. Back when they were the first humans to build conceptual knowledge in an organized, systematic manner (back when they were discovering the basic principles of math, biology, science, philosophy - all that good stuff!).

We, of course, don't know exactly how their music sounded (no existing records - written ... or recorded!). But that is no matter. We do know the important parts. They started with the science of physics (the acoustic nature of sound) pitch-specific tones ("pure tones") and then they organized them in a way that is consistent with human hearing and thought. The basics of their diatonic scales and modes have changed a bit since 3000 years ago. But the fundamental ideas and approach are still the foundation of what we use to the present day. Not bad for a bunch of ancient old timers.

Unfortunately, even some of those old timers tried to incorporate some ridiculous, irrational ideas into the newly emerging science of sound and music. Pythagoras, in particular created a bizarre combination of loony mysticism and reality orientated math that resulted in an early form of numerology. Later this was picked up by Johannes Kepler who tried to incorporate geometry, astrology and music in his Musica Universalis (Music of the Spheres).

Then, there are the church modes of the Catholic Gregorian chants, in which the church tries to conceptualize music to fit it's "sacred needs". To be fair, they did organize the modes according to some scientific methods and principles. But also introduced the idea of "wrong notes" and "wrong orders" and in general "wrong ways to do things in music".

Even in the more enlighted Enlightment, we find theorists that are tainting their reality oriented observations with unnecessary, counter-productive addendums.

So, we wind up with a history of music theory that contains some crucial, invaluable information and systems of thought based on reality and proper conceptualiztion. But it is also intertwined with some irrational notions and contradictory ideas.

It is a self-appointed task of mine to rid music theory of the nonsense! :)

The purpose of any theory is to conceptually identify and organize perceptual data. If the theory is not based on any perceptual data it is mere speculation. Theory is not something "disconnected" from reality. I realize there are some people that claim this is true. They are wrong. If a theory (or some part of it) is contradicted by perceptual data (i.e. reality), then the theory is wrong to that degree and needs to be modified.

When you hear, "It works in theory, but not in practice", what that means is, "I have a flawed theory, but I am unwilling to alter it so that it properly matches the facts of reality."

So, music theory is how we mentally identify and organize the perceptual data (the sound) of music. Music is, in a sense, the science of sounds organized in a very specific manner.

We are only interested in what is possible in physics (via the science of acoustics - the nature of sound) and what is valuable to humans (via the nature of hearing and thinking - conceptualization).

It is also important to distinguish between science and convention.

Ever since the classical theorist started calling certain things "wrong" or "improper", there was sure to be a reaction the opposite direction. This eventually resulted in some other group (and eventually "rock and rollers") talking about "breaking the rules".

So, you get the classical theorists suggesting that it is wrong to play certain notes in certain order. And then you get the reactionaries who claim to be "rebellous" because they are "rebelling" against the classical theorists. Which would be funny if not for the tragic fact that the reactionaries also wanted to throw out the science along with the stupid rules the classical theorists superimposed upon the science.

Again, music theory can tell you what the notes, scales, chords are. It can even help you organize and understand huge systems of notes, scales and chords. It can tell you that you are wrong if you want to call a major scale something other than what it actually is. It can tell you that you are wrong if you want to call a iii-I chord progression a resolution instead of a V-I.

But it can't tell you that you have to play a major scale. It can't tell you that you have to play a certain chord progression. It can't tell you that you must use a proper resolution. That is not its function.

In this way music theory is like the principle of mathematical addition. There are rules about numbers and how to add them. Once you pick two numbers to add together, then you get a certain, specific sum. This is like music theory. But the rules do not and cannot tell you which numbers to add together. That is up to you decide.


Christopher Schlegel
Guitar Tricks Instructor

Christopher Schlegel Lesson Directory
# 5
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
dlwalke
Full Access
Joined: 02/02/19
Posts: 240
04/16/2020 7:14 pm

quick PS - I didn't mean to say "that I refer to as God chords" but rather "that I have heard refered to as God chords"

looking forward to getting into the meat of this meaty response soon


# 6

Please register with a free account to post on the forum.