Why does this note sound right?

[Darkman]

I created this Am & G sweep (though someone will have already created it some other time of course). The G part contains an Eb, played next to the D. I put it in because to my ears it sounds like it fits. But how does it fit scale wise? I'm not great on theory, so maybe someone can enlighten me. It may be harmonic minor, but then the D shouldn't fit?
Anyway, just a bit of fun....

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/rollthestone/amfsweep.jpg


edited because it was a G sweep, not an F... doh!

[Jed]

The triplets look like this:
A-C-E - A-C-E - - F-E-C - A-E-C - - G-B-D - G-B-D - - Eb-D-B - G-D-B

The triads are: Am, Am, Am, AM, Gmaj, Gmaj, Gmaj, Gmaj

The F on the 2nd downbeat and the Eb on the 4th downbeat are just approach notes. At least that's how it sounds TME (to my ears) YMMV

[borge]

The tab shows Am G (Amb6 Gmajb6?)
which doest fit any scale as far as I'm aware.

It doesn't really 'fit' to my ears, but the repeated melody at the top of each arps are only one note different (relative to their roots) the G has a maj3rd while the A has a min3rd.
Or maybe, its because its so close to being totally familiar and consonant (ie as when the high Eb is an E)
Just baseless thoughts though ;)

[Jed]

Try thinking of it this way:

The Am uses the b6 - and so implies A Aeolian or A Phrygian
The Gmaj uses the b6 - and so implies . . . . . .
. . . . nothing of theoretical importance relative to the A minor

. . . . but, . . the Eb (b6) over the Gmaj mirrors a completely parallel line / timing / phrase / semi-tone approach. . . as the F does over the Am.

I like it. It's got a nice sound . . with that little twist to get one's attention.

[JonR]

I agree with Jed. It sounds "right" (IF it does, and some may disagree...) because of the repeated motif: the use of a b6 at the top of the arpeggio on both chords.
Scale-wise, you'd need to interpret (if you wanted ;) ) the G major one as a mode of either C harmonic or melodic minor, or maybe as G harmonic major.
But that's not important. The additional note is really a chromatic (outside) decoration in both cases. (Both notes are "avoid notes" in the harmony of the basic chord, resolved by descending a half-step to a chord tone.)

[unique1971]

It Is Right.

[Darkman]

Well I'm glad some of you liked it anyway. As you might imagine I took an Am (and G) arpeggio, played it up and added some scalar notes at the higher end to embellish it. After I did the Am, the G pattern just seemed to follow it naturally, but I did notice the Eb didn't fit the scale as I knew it.
If you try playing it with a C or E instead, to my ears it just sounds so "bright and happy" that it simply doesn't work, even though that would fit the A natural minor scale (?).

[JonR]

Well I'm glad some of you liked it anyway. As you might imagine I took an Am (and G) arpeggio, played it up and added some scalar notes at the higher end to embellish it. After I did the Am, the G pattern just seemed to follow it naturally, but I did notice the Eb didn't fit the scale as I knew it.
If you try playing it with a C or E instead, to my ears it just sounds so "bright and happy" that it simply doesn't work, even though that would fit the A natural minor scale (?).Well, as you're calling yourself "Darkman", that makes perfect sense!;)
It's always "right" to change anything to make it sound more like you want. You don't have to care that it might be disobeying some rule or other - because if it sounds right there will ALWAYS be a theoretical way of explaining it, if not justifying it; you just haven't heard about that bit of theory yet. (It's simply not possible for you to play something that has not been played before and theorised about by someone - not if you keep your guitar in tune, that is...)
Always treat the theory you know as a jumping off point for further exploration (and maybe a safe place to come back to). Not a path you have to stick to all the way.

To most rock players, the major key (and major scale) sounds too "bright and happy". That's why they (we!) habitually flatten the 7th, at least. That's become part of orthodox "rock theory", if you like.
(We don't necessarily want to move fully to a minor key, because we still want the "strong" sound we get from a major tonic. Rock needs to be "powerful", but also "dark" or "funky". That's what you get from a major tonic chord, and bVII chord - and maybe also a bIII and bVI - along with the usual major IV and V. It's called "borrowing from the parallel minor".)
Conventional minor keys themselves are generally dark enough for rock purposes (when we want a more introspective or moody sound than major), but some will go further by lowering the 2nd degree: making phrygian mode.
- See, everything has a name! ;)

[daystar]

Always treat the theory you know as a jumping off point for further exploration (and maybe a safe place to come back to). Not a path you have to stick to all the way.


This is a profound statement. I am a looooooong time player who has just recently gone to the woodshed to REALLY learn theory. From time to time I find myself getting "Bogged" down by this new found knowledge as I try to conscientiously follow the rules as opposed to how I have been playing for many years- which is by ear.
I find theory fascinating and am enjoying learning it but your statement helps me put it in perspective. Thanks JonR!!! :)

[JonR]

This is a profound statement. I am a looooooong time player who has just recently gone to the woodshed to REALLY learn theory. From time to time I find myself getting "Bogged" down by this new found knowledge as I try to conscientiously follow the rules as opposed to how I have been playing for many years- which is by ear.
I find theory fascinating and am enjoying learning it but your statement helps me put it in perspective. Thanks JonR!!! :)My pleasure.
That comment related to my idea of theory as a map. A map is useful when exploring a strange new land - no doubt about it. But no one's telling you you have to follow those marked paths; they're the tried and tested ways of getting from A to B (or Bb, haha...) if that's what you want. But you can find your own way.
The map is a good one, crammed with information (if you know how to read it), but it doesn't show everything. It will show a lot of what you don't want, and not everything you might be interested in. It won't tell you what the best scenery is, or the coolest place to visit. That's up to you.
Like notation, the map is just a piece of paper with some information on it. The map won't give you the feel of the place. Being there is different from reading the map!
Same as playing and hearing music is a different experience from reading (even from understanding) theory. Obviously the music is what matters. You only really need theory if the music is a bewildering experience, if you can't find your way by ear. (And most of us reach points like that now and then...)
Which isn't to say studying music theory can't be a fascinating pursuit by itself. Personally I love looking at maps, even of places I don't intend to visit...;)

[Jed]

That comment related to my idea of theory as a map.
<snip>
Which isn't to say studying music theory can't be a fascinating pursuit by itself. Personally I love looking at maps, even of places I don't intend to visit...;)

Very good analogy, very similar to how I think about theory.
LOL I'm also a map collector of sorts. I have maps of everywhere I've been and everywhere I want to go. :D

Don't even get me started about compasses, sense of orientation, weather sense, sea sense, etc . . . But it's all really the same thing for me . . situational awareness. Theory is one tool I use to improve my awareness of music and the songs as I hear and play them.

cheers,