Some notes I made for myself... Pretty much all of common-practice harmony boils down to this. Useful as a cheat sheet. You probably need some familiarity with theory to understand it but the idea boils down to creating a chord progression, either by creating chords under an existing melody or chords above an existing bass line. There are very strict rules for how the chords fit together... It's kind of like a math puzzle. For example there are only a few types of chords that are allowed: major, minor, 7th, diminished, diminished 7th. Some chords we like in IDM e.g. the major 7th don't exist in traditional composition. If you follow these directions you basically end up with a chorale, which you then elaborate on by filling in tones, breaking up the chords and orchestrating (maybe) and you end up with a piece of classical music.
If you see any errors let me know.. I'll post a link to a pdf eventually.
I feel like this is all the useful information I got out of my intro music theory course cropped and then condensed into a single slide. I was actually looking for this information recently but it was so scattered, very nice to find it all in one place.
I have never written an electronic piece with chord progression in mind.
I probably should though
I also play ska saxophone, so obviously I do know some about chord progressions, though not as much as I'd like to.
thanks for the powerpoint. it is quite informative
Oh yeah, i remember this from my first year college music theory class.
It's basically "rules" to create music in the style of Bach. It really doesn't apply anymore.
For example no parallel 5ths or parallel Octaves, that's totally irrelevant for synth music where a lot of the best synth patches are exactly that.
Major 7th chords do exist in music theory, but likie Nyul said, not in that old old old music theory style of Bach. Similarly, that "theory" can't encompass a lot of Jazz.
When I was in college that class was a bust. But it challenged us to do music dictation. Kind of a waste of time in my honest opinion.
I don't think it's a total waste of time, as it teaches you an easy way to create horizontal variety. Ie . you end up with fairly long harmonic progressions and phrases and sections and it suggests the appeal of more complex forms. Of course, what you create will be sort of limited and not sound like most of today's music, but I'd argue that today's harmony is just as restrictive as the old classical music was - in that there are things in common practice you wouldn't normally do today, so sounding archaic maybe isn't that bad... I agree with you that comp 101 doesn't live up to the marketing hype and is mostly irrelevant to much of what was put out in the past 20 years or so....