What I'm theorizing about today

ripock

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
3,695
Location
high desert of New Mexico
There is a thread about why people are scared of theory and by its nature it is kind of negative and negativity never achieved anything. I suggest we actually document what we're accomplishing with theory. What positive steps are we taking in our ukulele life to move forward.
 
V of V. One of the basic musical movements is to go from the V chord of a key to the I chord of a key. I have even read about people talking metaphysically about the subject and equating the V as the lonely human and the I as the connection with god and all the goodness which that implies. I don't know about that, but I know the V to I transition always is satisfying. What if we doubled down on that? What if we did a double V-I? In the most ubiquitous key, C, the V-I is going from G to C. If for a moment we consider G as the I chord, what is its V? It is D. Now if we play D G C we are getting D to G, a V-I relationship, and then G to C, another V-I relationship.

And you can use the "V of something" theory anywhere with more or less success. For example the most basic pop music progression is I vi IV V. you could re-interpret it as I, V of vi, vi, IV, V of V, V. In C that would be C, E, A, F, D, G. That would add some individuality to the normal progression. And we haven't even touched the topic of chord qualities: major, minor, dominant, et c.
 
V of V. One of the basic musical movements is to go from the V chord of a key to the I chord of a key. I have even read about people talking metaphysically about the subject and equating the V as the lonely human and the I as the connection with god and all the goodness which that implies. I don't know about that, but I know the V to I transition always is satisfying. What if we doubled down on that? What if we did a double V-I? In the most ubiquitous key, C, the V-I is going from G to C. If for a moment we consider G as the I chord, what is its V? It is D. Now if we play D G C we are getting D to G, a V-I relationship, and then G to C, another V-I relationship.

And you can use the "V of something" theory anywhere with more or less success. For example the most basic pop music progression is I vi IV V. you could re-interpret it as I, V of vi, vi, IV, V of V, V. In C that would be C, E, A, F, D, G. That would add some individuality to the normal progression. And we haven't even touched the topic of chord qualities: major, minor, dominant, et c.
The aspects of theory that people find usable are interesting to me. Those who are "scared" or uncomfortable with theory will be lost at V of V and stop reading. It's overwhelming and I think can be joy-robbing.

Here's where I'd start. Do you know the musical alphabet is ABCDEFG and there is no Z or H chord? You know some theory then.

For most, learning and/or strumming songs is a good route to learning theory and by far the most fun. After you learn a bunch of songs, you will notice things like certain collections of chords show up depending if the song is in the key of C, G or whatever. You will learn that certain keys are easier to sing in for your the range of your voice. Lots of dots connect as you learn songs.

So, since my theory is that learning songs teaches you the music theory that would interest the masses and be most useful, learn the major and minor chords and songs that use them. You could learn how to spell each chord, how the I IV V relate to each other or what that even means, scales related to the keys etc but if you are not into that, you are normal. Learn and enjoy some songs.
 
I don't disagree with you at all. However instead of writing about how theory is stultifying my progress, I'm just annotating what I'm doing. If that resonates with people, fine. If it doesn't, I hope my next entry will be better received. I'm not trying win anyone over. I'm just being me.
 
I'm currently enjoying figuring out what "Nashville numbers" are through Matt Stead's weekly YouTube kanikapilas. As an amateur recorder and clarinet player, this is brand-new to me, although I was already familiar with what subdominant and dominant notes in a scale are (IV and V).
 
Ukulele was my first stringed instrument. I came from a woodwind background and all this stuff was overwhelming to me. Chords kind of blew me away. As a kid I played arpeggios but that was just exercises I performed to keep the instructor off my back. I didn't really understand the principle.

I have been learning a little of this, a little of that.

I actually have never read anything about Nashville Numbers. I understand the Roman Numerals of a key. Is that the same thing?

I just want to reiterate that I am not propounding a curriculum. I am just documenting what I'm doing right now with theory so that people can see what a real person is doing with theory right now, instead of having all that negativity of the original thread.
 
I don't disagree with you at all. However instead of writing about how theory is stultifying my progress, I'm just annotating what I'm doing. If that resonates with people, fine. If it doesn't, I hope my next entry will be better received. I'm not trying win anyone over. I'm just being me.
I really like this!

I'm not currently working on anything specifically theory (although of course, by playing music and reading music and working on tempo etc etc I am always working on some aspect of theory) but I will be taking my uke with me and am hoping to noodle out some more chord shapes up the neck, determining which is the root and using that to help me learn a few more notes up the board.
 
I'm currently enjoying figuring out what "Nashville numbers" are through Matt Stead's weekly YouTube kanikapilas. As an amateur recorder and clarinet player, this is brand-new to me, although I was already familiar with what subdominant and dominant notes in a scale are (IV and V).
I fell in love with the concept of the Nashville numbering system when I took a wonderful circle of fiths workshop, and the instructor had us do an exercise where we figured out the Nashville numbers for a given song, then transposed the key using just that. I'm not explaining it very well, but it was eye opening: starting to see those songs in that numbering system rather than "use these chords G, C, Am" (for example). I'd like to work with this more, too, eventually.
 
I don't disagree with you at all. However instead of writing about how theory is stultifying my progress, I'm just annotating what I'm doing. If that resonates with people, fine. If it doesn't, I hope my next entry will be better received. I'm not trying win anyone over. I'm just being me.
I didn't interpret it as a sales pitch and I didn't mean to attack your approach. We all are passionate about what we think works for us have different paths to get there. There are numerous times that I wish your posts came with illustrations e.g. when you say you improvised on a hungarian minor or some other scale. It is foreign to me and I wish I knew what it sounded like, half so I'd know what you are talking about and half that it might be something I'd use in my own improv soloing.
 
V of V. One of the basic musical movements is to go from the V chord of a key to the I chord of a key. I have even read about people talking metaphysically about the subject and equating the V as the lonely human and the I as the connection with god and all the goodness which that implies. I don't know about that, but I know the V to I transition always is satisfying. What if we doubled down on that? What if we did a double V-I? In the most ubiquitous key, C, the V-I is going from G to C. If for a moment we consider G as the I chord, what is its V? It is D. Now if we play D G C we are getting D to G, a V-I relationship, and then G to C, another V-I relationship.

And you can use the "V of something" theory anywhere with more or less success. For example the most basic pop music progression is I vi IV V. you could re-interpret it as I, V of vi, vi, IV, V of V, V. In C that would be C, E, A, F, D, G. That would add some individuality to the normal progression. And we haven't even touched the topic of chord qualities: major, minor, dominant, et c.
The V of V is pretty much the first useful thing you find when first introduced to the circle of fifths. Playing through the chords anti-clockwise arranges all the chords in this V of V ordering. That is why the they call it "the circle of fifths."
 
My theory exercise today was to look at all the diatonic chords in all the major keys and deciding which closed position chords I favor most for each. I then tried to see if there was a tidy way I could group them together. I chose chords both for close proximity and for voicing. So far the results are a bit inconclusive. There were small pairings: Gb & G, Ab & A. Db & D, and Eb & E. Bb and B were very similar with only one different pattern and that left C and F on their own. But no real tidy groups to report on yet.

Don't get me wrong, it is all pretty similar, but I was hoping to discover maybe four basic patterns that could be recycled to cover all keys. I could force things into such a scheme, but that would certainly make me choose chords that were less than my ideal in terms of reach or voicing. I will keep fiddling with it to see if some decent patterns emerge. At the very least, the list I generated will allow you to play "scales" with the diatonic chords in each key.
 
My theory exercise today was to look at all the diatonic chords in all the major keys and deciding which closed position chords I favor most for each. I then tried to see if there was a tidy way I could group them together. I chose chords both for close proximity and for voicing. So far the results are a bit inconclusive. There were small pairings: Gb & G, Ab & A. Db & D, and Eb & E. Bb and B were very similar with only one different pattern and that left C and F on their own. But no real tidy groups to report on yet.

Don't get me wrong, it is all pretty similar, but I was hoping to discover maybe four basic patterns that could be recycled to cover all keys. I could force things into such a scheme, but that would certainly make me choose chords that were less than my ideal in terms of reach or voicing. I will keep fiddling with it to see if some decent patterns emerge. At the very least, the list I generated will allow you to play "scales" with the diatonic chords in each key.
When you figure that out...the movable 4 basic patterns, I'd like to see it. I'd like to know multiple places to play all chords. The biggest use of that to me is creating chord solos or if you are jamming with someone you can play the chord in a different inversion.

The circle of fifths, I have used for a long time as a practice tool. Going around it in major chords, then minor, sevenths etc. assures that I know the chords in all keys. I can't do that on uke yet. (quickly anyway)
 
The Nashville numbering is almost like the Roman Numeral system. NNS uses Arabic numbers [1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8] and some other symbols, eg., -2 to indicate the second chord in a scale, a minor chord. The RNS for the same chord is ii. I think both are basically the same, just different symbols used.
 
What if we did a double V-I? In the most ubiquitous key, C, the V-I is going from G to C. If for a moment we consider G as the I chord, what is its V? It is D. Now if we play D G C we are getting D to G, a V-I relationship, and then G to C, another V-I relationship.
The end result works, but not per the explanation. The resulting progression D G C sounds okay, because we are now playing the V I IV chords in the key of G major. We are no longer playing in the key of C major.
 
The end result works, but not per the explanation. The resulting progression D G C sounds okay, because we are now playing the V I IV chords in the key of G major. We are no longer playing in the key of C major.
The D is the V of the key of G. The G is the V of C and C is the I of C. So only the D is chromatic when examined in that light. Another way to look at it is that D is the II of C. In that context we have a II V I of C.
 
The Nashville numbering is almost like the Roman Numeral system. NNS uses Arabic numbers [1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8] and some other symbols, eg., -2 to indicate the second chord in a scale, a minor chord. The RNS for the same chord is ii. I think both are basically the same, just different symbols used.
Oh that was my mistake. I thought the Roman numerals was NNS! Thank you for clarifying.
 
The D is the V of the key of G. The G is the V of C and C is the I of C. So only the D is chromatic when examined in that light. Another way to look at it is that D is the II of C. In that context we have a II V I of C.
The II chord of C is Dm, not D.

For example the most basic pop music progression is I vi IV V. you could re-interpret it as I, V of vi, vi, IV, V of V, V. In C that would be C, E, A, F, D, G.
The C E A F D G progression doesn't make sense to me either.
 
NNS seems like a bowdlerized version of Roman numerals. Being fluent in Latin, I'll stick with the Roman numerals--a sentiment I wrote on A.D. X Id. Iul. (June 22nd)
 
Top Bottom