the major 3rd is between G and B. The thing with stringed instruments like guitars is that the normal rules of building chords from thebottom note up don't really apply, all the strings are used and as there are only three notes in a triad some notes are doubled at the octave, hence why there are 3 E's in a E minor chord in open position.

to make it E sus 4 you add an A so you would end up with E B E A B E, the A is the 4th note up from E (E F G A), this is neither major or minor, but creates a dissonance between the A and the B which needs to resolve which is why following it by E major (the A note moves to G#) sounds good. Thats what I mean about chords in context. A sus4 chord on its own is one thing, putting it in progression with other chords is something else

Kafla, you are exactly right, diminshed chords usually are used as passing chords, i.e between two chords on strong beats that belong to the key. They work because they are dissonant and contain a tritone which needs to resolve

in C major there are 4 commonly used chromatic (not belonging to the key) aug chords. that can be used to pass between the chord above and below it: i.e.

 C#dim    D#dim          F#dim   G#dim  
C       Dm       Em       F       G        Am       Bdim

so for example you try playing C / C#dim / Dm / G /

again, of course you can write having no knowledge of this and do it by ear, but i'm a firm believer in mixing experimentation with standard knowledge

Chris

Thats a key point. I'm sure there are plenty of bands, even composers of more classical music that dont know the correct name for the things they are playing. Being able to come up with great sounding harmony and actually knowing the technical details of what you have done are 2 different things.

But then again, knowing the technical details can only be helpful!

of course you can argue one way or the other. Yes there are loads of popular music musicians with little knowedge of chord theory, or the why chords work the way they do, but there are a lot, especially producers and in house songwriters, who do. I also have yet to meet a serious contemporary classical composer without any theoretic knowledge (but that is whole different world compared to songwriting).

If you take a songwriter like Burt Bacharach, who noone will deny is a master songwriter, he has a full knowledge of harmony, especially from a jazz perspective, and this is heard in his songs and the way in which he manipulates chords. I doubt there is a single serious jazz player who doesn't understand ii V I relationships, substitute dominants or chord/scale relationships.

I suppose its just up to the individual songwriter how far you want to go, and what you want your music to sound like (maybe a decision that can only be made one you know whats out there?). From my experience, knowing the rules and then breaking them if you want to, can put you in a better creative position than not knowing the rules and just going by ear. I usually start by experimenting, try things out, but at some stage I draw on theory to trim and shape a harmonic progression, depending on the style. And i believe that when not expanding your knowledge an individual can have a tendancy to rely on the same ideas that are within their capablilites. Maybe Chainsaw will now try a diminished chords in a song, something he may not have done without this thread.

BUT, this is just my experience and opinion.  Glad this has started a discussion though, if not about chord/harmonic progressions, then about the value of such knowledge?

 
Chris

I think the important thing for songwriters is the fact that if you lack knowledge in this area, you probably are limited in your writing skills to some extent. For example, if you don't know what a diminished chord is, or how to play one, you're unlikely to stumble on one (especially if you're a guitarist).

Like Chris says, I've never come across a classical composer who's not well versed in harmonic theory, and it doesn't get in the way of their compositions - it enhances them.

I understand how many pop musicians actively avoid learning theory because they think it will somehow contaminate their creative process. I think this is because they think theory is a set of rules, but actually, it's an understanding. If you're curious enough to learn this stuff, chances are you're brave enough to try it which will probably have a positive impact on your writing.

Just because I know a little theory doesn't mean I've stopped using my ears to find the right chords for my songs. It means I have a deeper pool to draw from, and a few more ideas in front of me when I play myself into a corner and can't get back to my progression.

 I've tended to use harmonies to progress a melody further without losing its feel, as in adding an extra 8 bars of the same melody but with that extra harmonic colour.

One thing I've started doing is instead of adding a harmony to a riff, i'll add a full octave to it, and it actually works out better at times.

Hi everyone,

A very interesting topic and one which tends to split opinion amongst writers: is knowledge of theory a necessity or hindrance for songwriting?

My own experience tells me that theory up to a point is necessary - for example if writing vocal or instrumental harmonies, you need to be aware of 3rds and 5ths. When it comes to the real details of constructing diminished chords etc - I dont think this is necessary provided you have a decent ear. When I began looking into passing (mainly diminished) chords a few years ago, I was pleasantly surprised to discover I had stumbled across many myself simply by messing around when moving between chords.

I really cant see how having a good solid knowledge of theory can hinder the creative process in any way but at the same time, history shows us that it cannot be that much of an advantage either since many, many great songwriters have a relatively limited theoretical knoweldge: Lennon/McCartney, Dylan, Ray Davies, Noel Gallagher, Jagger/Richards etc.

My own opinion on what makes a great writer is a combination of two main things: a good ear and lots (and lots and lots) of hard work/practice.

the last comment is spot on, music is what just comes out of you. easy to say but it is.
i believe that reading between the lines too much is only a hinderance. im sure the greats don't really have clue about theory or what they are doing. it just happens

I like to use lots of harmonies often in what I write and there also tends to be lots of counterpoint.
I loved the harmonies of The Beatles and I guess hearing how those harmonies can completely make and shape a song
I have a hard time knowing when to stop :p

dont underestimate the influence of George Martin in the Beatles songs...
but you are comparing different tyoes of songwriters. A question of style?
Burt Bacharach, well versed in theory, and any of those great american songwriters, all with a jazz background, Porter, Bernstein.
I challenge someone to write a song in the style of George Gershwin without a jazz based harmonic knowledge?
Jagger/Richards, not so, but because of the style, working within a limited harmonic pallette, at least in the beginning
Ray Davies DID have a basic theoretic background, he had classical piano lessons, and this is heard in some of the more subtle chord progressions in the kinks music
Dylan, all about the words, not the music, most songs three chords?

I agree with both views :-)

I'm torn on this musical knowledge malaki :p

On the one hand you have great masters and composers of music, I'll throw a name up in the air," Stravinsky" who know's music like

my belly knows Meat and Potato pies :p  And indeed there are many musical styles that are difficult of course unless you at

the very least know your instrument back to front. But... Taking someone like Kieth Richards as an example, ( at least I think I've got

the right person here :p ) he likes to write using a piano because he can't play one. Or couldn't :p Of course the more you play the more

you learn. But I am going through the same thing with the piano at the moment. I have been playing it for only a few weeks and haven't got a clue.

Which means my fingers are free. They are not following any patterns. They are not jumping to familliar shapes. They are moving freely and searching.

And in the process, some really nice things are coming out. Things I maybe wouldn't have thought of and certainly wouldn't have thought of on my bass or

guitar which I know too well. I like that feeling of not being constrained by anything, although I must say that it's not completely avant garde

The more dischord, the more strange changes and wierd timings and interesting melodies the more I like it.

I see how having the knowledge let's you know before hand what wierd and strange things might work but I just like finding that out for myself.

Hello,

I've just joined this forum, and thought I'd contribute, since I'm a big harmony nerd.

Here is an interesting way of looking at suspended chords:

Let's say we want Dsus. A regular D major triad would be D F# A (D, then 4 semitones, then 3 semitones).

A suspended chord is in fact a hybrid between a triad and another triad a tone below.

So, you can write Dsus as "C/D". This means the bass note is D, but the top notes are C E G (not D F# A). It's as if you took all the D triad down a tone, but kept the bass.

Counting up from D, E is the 2nd, G is the 4th and C is the 7th. So the full chord symbol would technically be D7sus24. However, you can choose which notes to take from the D triad and which to suspend (=take from the C triad).

In four parts (piano, guitar, singers, etc.) it looks like this:

A      A      A      A      C
F#    G      E      G      G
D      D      D      E      E
D      D      D      D      D
Dmaj      Dsus4   Dsus2   Dsus24   D7sus24(=C/D)

(notes from C triad in bold)

It's kind of a spectrum, and you can pick whichever one you want to suit you.

Hope it'll be helpful to someone...

I don't see how you can write Dsus as D/C - a Dsus is DGA and a D/C is basically a D7 CDF#A.

C/D, not D/C. Other way round.

C/D still has no A in it though - I see what you're saying, because the D in C/D is actually a suspended 2nd. I think this is a problem of how you notate the chords, because if I see a Dsus I immediately go for a suspended 4th. But a C/D isn't technically a Dsus; it's not even quite a D7sus2. It's just a C/D...
Dsus= DGA
Dsus2= DEA
C/D= DCEG

Fight