Can each chord in a progression create its own key? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Difference between keys and scales?I-IV-V blues progressionMinor key and its chordsPlaying scales over I IV V progressionTips on Memorizing Chords that are in Different ScalesConfused about how to know the chord progression for each scaleCan't understand parallel progression. Can explain with example?Parallel chord substitutionsDo scales over progressions change the key of the song?How to turn each chord in a progression into separate scales?Are Secondary Dominants related to Chord-Scales?

How to stretch delimiters to envolve matrices inside of a kbordermatrix?

Why does this iterative way of solving of equation work?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

How to test the equality of two Pearson correlation coefficients computed from the same sample?

What is special about square numbers here?

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

Can smartphones with the same camera sensor have different image quality?

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Wall plug outlet change

Make it rain characters

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Can a novice safely splice in wire to lengthen 5V charging cable?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?

What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?

Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?

Road tyres vs "Street" tyres for charity ride on MTB Tandem

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

Problems with Ubuntu mount /tmp

What is this lever in Argentinian toilets?



Can each chord in a progression create its own key?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Difference between keys and scales?I-IV-V blues progressionMinor key and its chordsPlaying scales over I IV V progressionTips on Memorizing Chords that are in Different ScalesConfused about how to know the chord progression for each scaleCan't understand parallel progression. Can explain with example?Parallel chord substitutionsDo scales over progressions change the key of the song?How to turn each chord in a progression into separate scales?Are Secondary Dominants related to Chord-Scales?










2















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
























  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    yesterday















2















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
























  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    yesterday













2












2








2








Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.










share|improve this question
















Say I have a chord progression in C major:

I V vi

C G Am



When I play each of these chords can I potentially play the scale of each chord over it? So for C I'd play C major, for G I'd play G major, for Am I'd play A minor scale. I'm thinking this is possible because secondary dominants work this way by establishing a temporary key on whatever chord you're currently on. But does this happen in practice where people modulate to a different key on each chord change?



Edit: I was confused that a scale can be played over a chord. I thought the moment you play a scale then you're in a new key. I forgot that in order to establish a new key you need to atleast play a progression in the new key. It's just that I saw a video and they were playing different scales over each chord and it mixed me up. I forgot a scale wasn't the same as a key.







scales chord-progressions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







foreyez

















asked yesterday









foreyezforeyez

5,59932688




5,59932688












  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    yesterday

















  • Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

    – Dom
    yesterday











  • @Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

    – foreyez
    yesterday











  • You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

    – Dom
    yesterday
















Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

– Dom
yesterday





Scales and keys are different concepts. Just because you are playing a different scale over a chord does not mean you change keys.

– Dom
yesterday













@Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

– foreyez
yesterday





@Dom what if I said i was playing a key over each chord? does that then mean I'm changing the key? or do you mean in order to establish a new key I need to be playing a progression in the new key.

– foreyez
yesterday













That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

– Dom
yesterday





That doesn't make sense. You can play a scale and you can play in a key. You don't play a key it's an abstract concept which is why you can play different scales and be in the same key. I swore we've answered the difference between a scale and a key before and if we have, it would most likely be a duplicate of this question.

– Dom
yesterday













@Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

– foreyez
yesterday





@Dom yeah I asked a question in regards to establishing a key. But this is different. I'm just asking if a scale can be played over each chord. I've seen jazz musicians do this.

– foreyez
yesterday













You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

– Dom
yesterday





You typically can't establish a key with one chord (unless you are just playing one chord in a drone or pedal) and in your comment you are using scale and key interchangeably which is making this question make little sense. And it seems like you already know you can change scales over the progression so I'm not sure what more you want to know.

– Dom
yesterday










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3














Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




C:I I/V i/vi
C G Am


On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




I V vi
C G Am


...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




EDIT



You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






share|improve this answer

























  • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

    – Michael Curtis
    yesterday











  • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

    – foreyez
    yesterday



















5














I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






share|improve this answer























  • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

    – foreyez
    yesterday






  • 1





    Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

    – Tim
    yesterday












  • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

    – foreyez
    yesterday












  • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

    – Laurence Payne
    yesterday











  • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

    – Michael Curtis
    yesterday



















2














Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






share|improve this answer






























    2














    No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



    But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



    Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



    It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "240"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82693%2fcan-each-chord-in-a-progression-create-its-own-key%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3














      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer

























      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        yesterday
















      3














      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer

























      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        yesterday














      3












      3








      3







      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.






      share|improve this answer















      Yes, sort of, but it's probably better to call it a tonicization rather than changing keys.



      Importantly, consider the implications of changing the scale to tonicize each chord.



      If you play scales C major, G major, A minor (in this last case let's assume you get the proper raised leading tone in there so harmonic or melodic minor), you will create tonicize each chord. Which means you would relabel...




      C:I I/V i/vi
      C G Am


      On the other hand, if you keep it diatonic and really get the sense of your original chord symbols, you would play all in C major. I don't like describing it this way but the scales will be C major, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian...




      I V vi
      C G Am


      ...if you play it that way you should get the feel of a deceptive progression.



      You can do it either way, but the effect of where the tonal center lies will change.




      EDIT



      You changed it to I vi V. Either way demonstrates the concept.



      The only difference with this is that the diatonic version should have a feel of a half-cadence, or just an opening progression depending on the phrasing.



      The chromatic approach - using G major on the G chord - will have the feel of temporarily changing the tonal focus to G, a tonicization.




      It seems like you are asking a series of questions about the interaction of diatonic and chromatic.



      Secondary dominants and tonicization is one way to achieve chromaticism.



      You may also want to look at chromatic non-chord tones. This will add chromatic notes, but importantly they are harmonically un-essential so they will not cause a tonicization. Chromatic NCT's are a nice way to spice up vanilla diatonicism.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      Michael CurtisMichael Curtis

      11.9k744




      11.9k744












      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        yesterday


















      • it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday











      • what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

        – foreyez
        yesterday

















      it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

      – Michael Curtis
      yesterday





      it doesn't matter that much, works the same either way.

      – Michael Curtis
      yesterday













      what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

      – foreyez
      yesterday






      what you said about keeping it diatonic and then making everything modes was gold, that's what I saw the jazz players do in chord-scales. In addition what you said about tonicization (vs modulation) was a word I didn't remember. great in depth answer.

      – foreyez
      yesterday












      5














      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer























      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        yesterday






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        yesterday












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        yesterday












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        yesterday











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday
















      5














      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer























      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        yesterday






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        yesterday












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        yesterday












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        yesterday











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday














      5












      5








      5







      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.






      share|improve this answer













      I often wonder whether before asking your questions you've actually tried out the theoretical ideas in practice. If not, why not. There isn't a lot of theory involved here. What sounds good (to you or others) is what the result will be.



      In answer - say you're in C, and the chords are C, G, Am F. Over c, use C scale,, over G use G scale, etc., there are not many notes that will need to change. For the G chord, there's only an F/F# difference. For the F, there's only B/Bb difference. Depending where you place those accidentals will determine whether they will fit into the melody or not. So, basically, this is another theory based question that has very little bearing on the reality of music playing. Please, instead of bombarding us with 'what might happen if...', get playing and discover by listening to what is happening when you actually try these ideas out on piano, or whatever.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      TimTim

      105k10107264




      105k10107264












      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        yesterday






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        yesterday












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        yesterday












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        yesterday











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday


















      • of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

        – foreyez
        yesterday






      • 1





        Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

        – Tim
        yesterday












      • well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

        – foreyez
        yesterday












      • You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

        – Laurence Payne
        yesterday











      • He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

        – Michael Curtis
        yesterday

















      of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

      – foreyez
      yesterday





      of'course I did. I was trying this on my midi controller before I asked this question and the scales didn't sound half bad. I don't ask ANYTHING without thinking about it for a bit.

      – foreyez
      yesterday




      1




      1





      Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

      – Tim
      yesterday






      Thinking a bit really isn't giving it enough time. I'd recommend a good few months of experimentation would be a starting point. And playing with others, trying out some of the ideas, is worth a lot more than a few words in an answer here. I hope you don't actually mean playing scales per se. And in any case, it doesn't mean it's creating its own key. Simply using notes which work well in that particular setting.

      – Tim
      yesterday














      well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

      – foreyez
      yesterday






      well this place is my virtual teachers. besides, they never put a limit to how many questions I could ask. in college I was the one always asking all the questions and I finished #1 in my entire school of engineering. questions is my thing. go check out how many questions I ask on stackoverflow.

      – foreyez
      yesterday














      You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

      – Laurence Payne
      yesterday





      You're asking 'theory' to give you permission to do something. Just do it.

      – Laurence Payne
      yesterday













      He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

      – Michael Curtis
      yesterday






      He isn't asing "for permission", the question is "does it create a new key at each chord?" Of course the simple answer is "no."

      – Michael Curtis
      yesterday












      2














      Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



      There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






      share|improve this answer



























        2














        Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



        There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






        share|improve this answer

























          2












          2








          2







          Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



          There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).






          share|improve this answer













          Not really as suggested by modern theorists. The (clock) time is too short. To establiah a new key, one usually must use noted that were not in the previous key. One can use non-tonic chords in any key; you notation shows that, C-G-Am is a C-major (or A-minor) chord progression. Were one to play, C-E7-Am, things might be a bit ambiguous; the G# is not in the key of C but is in the key of Am (and A and G and D). However, were the Am followed (not to unusually by) Dm-G7-C or even D7-G7-C, that would emphasize the F from the G7 and contradict the establishment of Am. To confirm Am, one would usually follow thing by a B0-E7-Am which uses F# a couple of times and no F natural.



          There is a duration effect. One should spend more than a beat or even a few bars in the new key, then "neutralize" (Schoenberg's term, not a bad term for this effect) the note in the old key (F in the case being discussed) and emphasize the new note (F#). This is termed "modulation" (which to me seems, analogously with FM vs AM, to describe a short digression but that train left the airport over 1000 years ago.) Short digressions are usually termed "tonicizations" (why not "tonicickizations" like in "picknicking"?).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          ttwttw

          9,4321033




          9,4321033





















              2














              No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



              But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



              Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



              It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






              share|improve this answer



























                2














                No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






                share|improve this answer

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                  But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                  Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                  It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!






                  share|improve this answer













                  No, secondary dominants don't do that. They might establish a temporary tonic on the chord they lead TO.



                  But try. In your example - C, Am, G - try playing some melodies. When you get to the G, does F# or F♮ fit better? I think it will depend on whether you feel you've modulated to G, or whether G keeps its identity as V of C major.



                  Let's look at an example that includes a secondary dominant. C, D7, G. It might be a bit more obvious. G7, or G(maj7)? The former keeps us in C major, the latter suggests we've modulated to G major. Both are fine.



                  It's also fine to play a succession of maj7 chords, implying the major scale of each. C(maj7), D(maj7), E♭(maj7) ... Use the scales C major, D major, E♭ major ... Not functional harmony any more (we can discard that 'circle of 5ths' thing :-) But nice and funky (or dreamy, depending on style)!







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  Laurence PayneLaurence Payne

                  37.6k1871




                  37.6k1871



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82693%2fcan-each-chord-in-a-progression-create-its-own-key%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -chord-progressions, scales

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Mobil Contents History Mobil brands Former Mobil brands Lukoil transaction Mobil UK Mobil Australia Mobil New Zealand Mobil Greece Mobil in Japan Mobil in Canada Mobil Egypt See also References External links Navigation menuwww.mobil.com"Mobil Corporation"the original"Our Houston campus""Business & Finance: Socony-Vacuum Corp.""Popular Mechanics""Lubrite Technologies""Exxon Mobil campus 'clearly happening'""Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search""The Lion and the Moose - How 2 Executives Pulled off the Biggest Merger Ever""ExxonMobil Press Release""Lubricants""Archived copy"the original"Mobil 1™ and Mobil Super™ motor oil and synthetic motor oil - Mobil™ Motor Oils""Mobil Delvac""Mobil Industrial website""The State of Competition in Gasoline Marketing: The Effects of Refiner Operations at Retail""Mobil Travel Guide to become Forbes Travel Guide""Hotel Rankings: Forbes Merges with Mobil"the original"Jamieson oil industry history""Mobil news""Caltex pumps for control""Watchdog blocks Caltex bid""Exxon Mobil sells service station network""Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited is New Zealand's oldest oil company, with predecessor companies having first established a presence in the country in 1896""ExxonMobil subsidiaries have a business history in New Zealand stretching back more than 120 years. We are involved in petroleum refining and distribution and the marketing of fuels, lubricants and chemical products""Archived copy"the original"Exxon Mobil to Sell Its Japanese Arm for $3.9 Billion""Gas station merger will end Esso and Mobil's long run in Japan""Esso moves to affiliate itself with PC Optimum, no longer Aeroplan, in loyalty point switch""Mobil brand of gas stations to launch in Canada after deal for 213 Loblaws-owned locations""Mobil Nears Completion of Rebranding 200 Loblaw Gas Stations""Learn about ExxonMobil's operations in Egypt""Petrol and Diesel Service Stations in Egypt - Mobil"Official websiteExxon Mobil corporate websiteMobil Industrial official websiteeeeeeeeDA04275022275790-40000 0001 0860 5061n82045453134887257134887257

                      Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

                      Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant