Which key (should be simple, but I'm confuddled)

goldtop

Noodling earlier today on a chord sequence - A Bm D A - when I had a brainfart and played - A - B - Dm - A. It felt wrong in my original context, but played on its own works for my ear.

It shouldn't be hard (three chords, FFS!) but I can't really decide what key it's in. In the key of A, it would be a I II iv I - is that even a thing? I can see it's not diatonic (unlike A Bm D A), but after that I'm clueless.

(All advice very welcome. I don't normally try to get 'into the weeds' on music theory, and rely on my ear, but since watching a few Beato theory videos, I've tried to delve deeper than before.)

Danny1969

If it's not diatonic then it's using borrowed chords and whatever you play over it will need to be adjusted for the borrowed chords. Amaj has a C#  and F# which will jar over the Dm's natural C and F notes for example. So it's not really in one key but you can have what jobbing muso's call the "home chord'  .... this is where the music feels at rest and thus can be loosely though of as the key. 

@viz ;;
will hopefully be along to explain it better than I just did 
  

goldtop

Thanks. A 'feels' like home to me, especially if I get to this chord sequence via an E7 chord.

When I add9 to the chords, I see a scale emerging that's something like: G# A B C# D E F

viz

Danny1969 said:

If it's not diatonic then it's using borrowed chords and whatever you play over it will need to be adjusted for the borrowed chords. Amaj has a C#  and F# which will jar over the Dm's natural C and F notes for example. So it's not really in one key but you can have what jobbing muso's call the "home chord'  .... this is where the music feels at rest and thus can be loosely though of as the key. 

@viz ;;;;;;;;;;
will hopefully be along to explain it better than I just did 
  

I II iv I is a lovely progression. Duran Duran often use it. Also Vulfpeck in the verses here:

https://youtu.be/rr6f26I2cBI

As D69 says, it’s “in A”; whether it’s A major or A minor is a tad ambiguous, because, out of the three chords, two aren’t diatonic. But I’d say A major just inches it, what with it being the first and last chord and all. But it’s a pretty wistful A major. 

The iv is borrowed from A minor and is a really common borrowed chord. You often hear it being played after the IV. (Creep, and the bridge in Don’t Look Back in Anger are my go-to demonstrations of a IV-iv-I progression). But I think it’s even lovelier when you do what you’ve done which is to avoid the IV completely. Sleepwalk by Santo and Johnny has that, and it’s sublime. 

The II is like a secondary dominant (though it’s not used as one in your progression) and it’s very popular in ska and punk as well as other stuff, especially when the IV is major. It’s a Kind of Magic, for example. 

(It’s also used in the Lydian mode, but that’s not the case here, because Lydian mode doesn’t even have a 4-chord of any description)

But to do the major II chord AND the minor iv chord is really special. It’s really cool that you’ve stumbled across this little gem and picked up on its charms!

goldtop

viz said:

Danny1969 said:

If it's not diatonic then it's using borrowed chords and whatever you play over it will need to be adjusted for the borrowed chords. Amaj has a C#  and F# which will jar over the Dm's natural C and F notes for example. So it's not really in one key but you can have what jobbing muso's call the "home chord'  .... this is where the music feels at rest and thus can be loosely though of as the key. 

@viz ;;;;;;;;;;
will hopefully be along to explain it better than I just did 
  

I II iv I is a lovely progression. Duran Duran often use it. Also Vulfpeck in the verses here:

https://youtu.be/rr6f26I2cBI

As D69 says, it’s “in A”; whether it’s A major or A minor is a tad ambiguous, because, out of the three chords, two aren’t diatonic. But I’d say A major just inches it, what with it being the first and last chord and all. But it’s a pretty wistful A major. 

The iv is borrowed from A minor and is a really common borrowed chord. You often hear it being played after the IV. (Creep, and the bridge in Don’t Look Back in Anger are my go-to demonstrations of a IV-iv-I progression). But I think it’s even lovelier when you do what you’ve done which is to avoid the IV completely. Sleepwalk by Santo and Johnny has that, and it’s sublime. 

The II is like a secondary dominant (though it’s not used as one in your progression) and it’s very popular in ska and punk as well as other stuff, especially when the IV is major. It’s a Kind of Magic, for example. 

(It’s also used in the Lydian mode, but that’s not the case here, because Lydian mode doesn’t even have a 4-chord of any description)

But to do the major II chord AND the minor iv chord is really special. It’s really cool that you’ve stumbled across this little gem and picked up on its charms!

Cool - there's a fair bit for me to unpack in that. Especially that video which seems to use a few dozen more chords than I've used for my own stuff!

The IV -> iv change I had come across a few times - first one I remember was Love Me Tender, where it's possibly a bit too 'sweet' for modern ears. Context is everything, because Creep and DLBiA don't feel like that at all!

Thanks - much appreciated. I'll loop it and experiment more with some melody.

goldtop

Just spotted that with some chord inversions it's possible to include a E D# D C# chromatic line.

viz

^ lots of juicy melodies to be made from that progression

Nitefly

The Fortunes' "You've Got Your Troubles" uses that I - II - iv but ends the line with the V - lovely song.

viz

Nitefly said:

The Fortunes' "You've Got Your Troubles" uses that I - II - iv but ends the line with the V - lovely song.

Good spot!

Cranky

goldtop said:

Thanks. A 'feels' like home to me, especially if I get to this chord sequence via an E7 chord.

When I add9 to the chords, I see a scale emerging that's something like: G# A B C# D E F

Every so often, swap the E7 for a G#dim, or play one after the other en route to home.  Or a IV-iv-bVII7.

All about the journey, right?

goldtop

G#dim don't half look like an E7 where I forgot the root note!

I'll experiment with some inversions and maybe a pedal tone.

Cranky

Resolving to A, a G#dim and E7 sound very similar to me.  I like playing the G#dim on the middle 4 strings (frets 11-12-11-12) and then give the open low E a little tap at the end.

The G#dim is also darn near a D6, so it sounds nice to do a G#dim-Dmin-A sequence (a vii-iv-I that kinda masks as a IV-iv-I).

 I don’t pretend that my new discoveries aren’t old news.  I’m just sharing my recent epiphanies.

Danny1969

For me, the most important thing is to be aware of what chord you are playing over and to know what notes are in that chord. Because anything not completely diatonic  / using borrowed chords will require you to cater for it out of the home key in that way. 
So a maj third chord in an otherwise standard maj  chord progression is going to throw you unless you know it's coming and sharpen your home key 5th.  The minor 4th is common as well and creates a lovely melon cony sound but again, you need to know it's coming and it's got a flat third. 

That's mainly how I improvise in my limited fashion. I also use a lot of arps as well but generally use close cousins rather than the obvious ..... F#m over Dmaj which is essentially a Dmaj7 I know but attacking it as an F#m creates a different flavour. 

There was a guitar teacher on the old forum, Paulo I think who said you should be able to remove the underlining chords of a well written solo but still be able to hear them because the solo on it's own is referencing them constantly. I've always remembered that.  

viz

Danny1969 said:

There was a guitar teacher on the old forum, Paulo I think who said you should be able to remove the underlining chords of a well written solo but still be able to hear them because the solo on it's own is referencing them constantly. I've always remembered that.  

Soo true! I love that. 

And there’s also the opposite of that: in classical theory tests where you’re given a tune and asked to harmonise it - it’s amazing how many chord progressions you can come up with which work for a tune, and make it have a totally different meaning. 

goldtop

viz said:

Danny1969 said:

There was a guitar teacher on the old forum, Paulo I think who said you should be able to remove the underlining chords of a well written solo but still be able to hear them because the solo on it's own is referencing them constantly. I've always remembered that.  

Soo true! I love that. 

And there’s also the opposite of that: in classical theory tests where you’re given a tune and asked to harmonise it - it’s amazing how many chord progressions you can come up with which work for a tune, and make it have a totally different meaning. 

I was watching a David Bennett video about that - fascinating stuff. He did a short section of Eleanor Rigby:

sir_strumalot

Danny1969 said:

If it's not diatonic then it's using borrowed chords
  

Being pedantic, it might not be in a key at all, you could treat it as a modal composition and play over each chord in isolation. If there was more context, e.g. a melody or a longer chord progression then maybe it would be more obvious how to analyse it.

rsvmark

https://youtu.be/Di-K8IU0Ruw

Here’s another take on it referencing a Lukather solo over a non diatonic progression. Rich breaks down the approach so even I can understand it

viz

^ he’s a good communicator and I love his playing, but I think his approach to music analysis is really confusing and in some cases just inaccurate (eg the bit about secondary dominants). His analysis method starts at an unnecessarily complicated part of the theory journey (relating things to the relative major scale at the beginning and throughout) and then he has to make certain convolutions to drag himself back to the progression. I also don’t agree with his position that you have to analyse what to do over the chord that is currently playing and ignore the key you’re in, and he overcomplicates the bit about those simple chromatic tunes being anything to do with 4ths and 2nds. I dunno. He knows some theory but he has come at it from a really complicated direction.

Dithered over whether to post this or not, but what the hell

rsvmark

viz said:

^ he’s a good communicator and I love his playing, but I think his approach to music analysis is really confusing and in some cases just inaccurate (eg the bit about secondary dominants). His analysis method starts at an unnecessarily complicated part of the theory journey (relating things to the relative major scale at the beginning and throughout) and then he has to make certain convolutions to drag himself back to the progression. I also don’t agree with his position that you have to analyse what to do over the chord that is currently playing and ignore the key you’re in, and he overcomplicates the bit about those simple chromatic tunes being anything to do with 4ths and 2nds. I dunno. He knows some theory but he has come at it from a really complicated direction.

Dithered over whether to post this or not, but what the hell

What the hell indeed @viz ! No problem here. Full disclosure in that Rich is actually my teacher for the last few years and I knew nothing when I started learning with him. I find it useful as a general rule (as a beginner) to understand the relationship back to the relative major scale which gives that base as a starting point. Maybe I would do because that’s the way he has taught me! I am currently practicing a Landau thing- Am7 Gm7 F#m7 and improvising over that which is quite similar in that I am really trying to get to melodies and then really outline the change to the F#m7 when it gets there. Baby steps for me mate!

viz

Cool, and like I said, I love the way he explains things, just not some of the things he's explaining Plus his tone is to die for.

I'd say:

0) The fact that minor and major are related is not NEARLY as important as the sounds they provide on their own merits. Yes, C MAJOR and A MINOR are related a bit like a brother and sister are related, but minor and major are no more related than "boys" and "girls". 

1) When analysing a bit of music, the first thing to do is establish the home note. Maths and counting and theory are irrelevant to this. It's about feeling where the music flows towards and rests. It's like those black hole demonstrations with a stretched trampoline with a hole in the middle; all the balls travel along different paths but they ultimately flow towards the hole. That's the home note, the tonal centre, the note of resolve, etc. In this case it's Bb, and it's not really relevant to mention Db at this stage. Just listen to where the home note is. And practise listening to music and identifying what the home note is. But don't try it on Sweet Home Alabama or you will go mad.

2) The next thing to do is discover whether the key is major or minor, which is determined by one thing only, and that's the 3rd note of home note's chord. The 3rd note of the Bb chord is a minor 3rd (Db) not a major 3rd (D), so the key is Bb minor. 

3) The next thing is to harmonise the minor scale to find out what the song's "vanilla" minor chords are. I really wouldn't use the relative major as a yard stick here, it's an unnecessary deviation from the story, though I like your chap's mention of tones, semitones, and the 3rds / 5ths / 7ths. But it needs to be based on the minor scale, which has TSTTSTT as its intervals, and the chords are min dim maj min min maj maj (min). You just have to learn that. OK you can derive the relative major from this, and vice versa, but that's less relevant than the Bb minor harmonised scale on its own merits.

4) So we expect the following chords: Bbm Cdim Db Ebm Fm Gb Ab (Bbm)

5) If we add the 7ths, we expect: Bbm7, C half-diminished, Dbmaj7, Ebm7, Fm7, Gbmaj7 Ab7 (Bbm7)

6) But what we get in this song is (I'm adding the 7ths in to all the chords even if they don't necessarily sound): Bbm7 - Gb7 - Ebm7 - Fm7 - Gbmaj7 - F7 

7) the first interesting chord is the Gb7 which "should" (I say "should", I really mean "should, if the world was very boring") be a Gbmaj7, but the 7th has been flattened. It's actually an augmented 6th not a flattened 7th, it's known as a "German 6th chord" in classical music, but the important thing is it gives you the blues note. It's the augmented 4th of the Bb root. It's an E instead of an Eb. It's nice and juicy.

8) the next interesting thing is that F7 instead of an Fm7. In minor keys, you "should" have a minor dominant chord (a v chord instead of a V chord). But the major 3rd of a proper V chord has certain advantages, so he chooses to break away from the vanilla harmony and apply a "harmonic minor" device, which is to raise the 3rd, converting v to V, and thus play F7. This is really common in minor keys; in fact it's more common to do it than not to. Yer brain tends to do it automatically.

(The above two things aren't secondary dominants. Secondary dominants are when you take a chord that's not the V (like, say, the Cdim which is a iidim) and make it a C7, before resolving to the chord 4 notes above - ie the F chord. In other words pretending for a moment that the iidim - v progression is working like a V-i). That's not happening here, so they're not secondary dominants. So I wouldn't mention that at all in this analysis)

Ddigger

Thanks Viz.  Much appreciated.

I always look forward to your posts and enjoy the way they put music theory into real world perspective.