One question about dissonance in chords / chord progressions

Hello everybody,

I was used to compose strictly using only diatonic harmony and scales. So when I composed a piece, I usually chose one key and took all the material, like the chords and the melody from the notes of this key. And I tried to compose pieces that I like with this diatonic material, for years, day after day, but I never came out with any stuff that I liked, although I used thousands of note combinations and chord combinations over the years (imagine, I try to compose a piece that I like, every day), there was not one thing that I liked. So I began to be in doubt about all the diatonic cage, I thought I had to experiment with other scales or harmonies. Obviously the sound of diatonic music, was not what I was searching for in my brain, which confused me a lot, because there were many diatonic pieces of rock-bands that I liked a lot. But I was composing for two acoustic guitars and everything I played, which was diatonic, sounded like folk music on the acoustic guitar. And I was looking for a more jazzy, complex, flamenco-style.

So I stated to experiment adding non-diatonic-scale tones. I build up progressions from a diatonic scale, but add some altered chord tones, that are not in the key of the piece. So I play one bar for example a "Bm" chord and then the next bar a "D+5" (which is dissonan t)and then again resolve the dissonance in the next bar with an "A" chord, than mybe a "Bmadd-11" etc. If I play the chords on their own it sounds very dissonant, but if I add a melody/theme to the progressions it seems to fit and the overall diatonic sound character is gone and it seems please me.

My question now is, is this still tonal music and is it possible to play such chord progressions, where one chord is dissonant and the next consonant again etc. ? Or is this already atonal music or "wrong" music?

This is most definitely tonal music. Jazz does this type of thing all the time. Atonality is the lack of a definite pitch center. Many people mis-use the word severely.

It seems to me that you might be thinking too much in staying in a particular key. Composing a strictly simple chord progression can be helpful in your future as a composer, but you also need to stretch your horizons a bit. It seems that you've gotten a good start by using a lot of more dissonant ideas, but you can even spread your horizons more. It's possible for you to create quartal or quintal harmony (chords based on 4ths and 5ths, instead of thirds) and even possible for you to stack certain notes together that aren't easily defineable to create a chord progression. You may find that this type of harmony is a kind that pleases you, and exploring the area, even if you don't like it, will teach you something.

Also, why do you describe atonal music as "wrong" music? There's nothing "wrong" with atonality. I also suggest that you sit down and listen to as much music that spreads your horizons as well, including atonal music. While you may not "like" it, you should be able to come away with an understanding of techniques that were used that could help you in your own ventures.

So there is nothing wrong with using dissonances or notes that are not in the key ? I always thought, that this would be false. I thought that one can't use notes that are not in the key or are not diatonic or are not blue notes. But I am happy if you say that it still can be "good" music. I am sorry, I didn't want to say that atonal music is wrong music, I just meant that in the ear of the average pop-music listener it seems to be "wrong" music.

But what I found out is also, that when I compose a melody and play a second melody, a counterpoint (no chords) over it, I can't use such notes, that are out of the key, because then you hear really extreme dissonances. Or am I wrong with this ?

So there is nothing wrong with using dissonances or notes that are not in the key ? I always thought, that this would be false. I thought that one can't use notes that are not in the key or are not diatonic or are not blue notes. But I am happy if you say that it still can be "good" music. I am sorry, I didn't want to say that atonal music is wrong music, I just meant that in the ear of the average pop-music listener it seems to be "wrong" music.

But what I found out is also, that when I compose a melody and play a second melody, a counterpoint (no chords) over it, I can't use such notes, that are out of the key, because then you hear really extreme dissonances. Or am I wrong with this ?

You can do anything you want with music. Dissonances are not bad at all bud. :D Dissonant is a harsh word I think 1235 chords are way nicer than 135 chords. Don't limit yourself.

Dissonance means a lot of things to a lot of people.

My concept is way WAY further out than most, while some people will be offended by anything beyond simple triads.

It's already been made clear that simply stepping out of diatonic chords has nothing to do with an atonal label...it's true, jazz is constantly changing keys, hell, Bach and Beethoven did it as well.

As far as your melody/counterline dissonances - I guess that's because of your preconceptions of tonality. You're expecting a certain progression/key/scale, and your brain fills in the gaps; when it's surprised (i.e. by a note outside the key), it sounds harsh or dissonant.

Your ears will change as you develop as a listener, you'll hear something dissonant today that you will find quite consonant in 5 years...

Your ears will change as you develop as a listener, you'll hear something dissonant today that you will find quite consonant in 5 years...

I agree. May I add that "consonant/dissonant" depend on the cultural/historical background of a listener. A maj7 chord, for example, was not though of as consonant until very recently. Several cultures have a very unique way of defining "consonant", like the greek culture. It is what you learn to hear as being consonant, paired with your own development as a listener.

Apart from that, simply by using secondary dominants (for example), one could easily produce a (non-serial, of course) 12-tone piece. That is not atonal music. What you are talking about is (definitely) not atonal music. Even (true) atonal music sometimes has big trouble being atonal. :laugh:

To conclude, know your basics, but don't limit yourself to them. If it sounds good, use it. Let the voices lead you, but know your voice-leading. Sometimes the voices will create dissonance and sometimes consonance. It is what you do with this pattern of perpetual tension/release that produces "good" music. :laugh:

Sounds like you would've saved a lot of time experimenting if you got yourself a book on harmony, I recommend Walter Piston's.

And welcome to the forum, nice to see more guitarists around :laugh:

I would say go for it! Sometimes adding extra notes here and there can create new chords, or transitions. For example, adding a Bb to a Cmaj chord forms a C7. You could change the Bb to a B and form a major seventh Cmaj7. Perhaps even experiment more, and end up with a mix on consonnance/dissonance. One composer I've heard so far mixed diminished and augmented chords with sevenths to form a mix of consonnance/dissonance. It's a very nice effect and can add to your vocabularity so that you can express what you want to convey in your music.

I agree with manossg in that much music is not atonal. Instead, even mixed chords have some form of tonal center, or a tone that dominates the chord. There's also a whole area of study in non-functional harmony, or harmony not necessarily in the tonic key.

Edit: Corrected due to references to the wrong chords.

...adding a B to a Cmaj chord forms a C7.

...adding a Bb forms a C7.

:P

Aww. Only a half-step off! :P Thanks for the correction, Robin.

Adding a B to a Cmaj forms a Cmaj7, not a dominant.

Adding a B to a Cmaj forms a Cmaj7, not a dominant.

You could add both B and Bb and form a nice, crunchy cluster chord! :P Hey, we're talking dissonance here! :P

I was going to correct that but some people sem to refer to a Cmajor7th as a C7, for some reason, anyone do this?

You could add both B and Bb and form a nice, crunchy cluster chord! :P Hey, we're talking dissonance here! :P

*SCREAMS*

That's sounds truely horrible, why would you want to do that to your ears?

I was going to correct that but some people sem to refer to a Cmajor7th as a C7, for some reason, anyone do this?

Must be typos. For a long time I used to think of C7 as Cmaj7 until I researched and found out that C7 refers to the seventh dominant. Perhaps people get the sevenths confused. They're both sevenths, but one's a major seventh while the other's a dominant seventh.

You could add both B and Bb and form a nice, crunchy cluster chord! :P Hey, we're talking dissonance here! :P

Wait a minute, that's four chords at that cluster now isn't it? :P CMaj7, C7, or Em, or Edim if you leave out the C. I was thinking about clusters with two chords, but this clearly expands the horizon. Oh dear.....

Mark,

a) It is agreed among musicians that C7 refers to a dominant chord. Have you seen a C7 with a natural b in a serious musical publication?:P

b) Cluster chords are wonderful! I use them mostly to provide special effects, or, sometimes to provide a lot of dissonance (in a specific rhythmic motive, so as to maintain unity). It might be a matter of personal taste, but a lot of contemporary composers use them all the time. I would refer you to the music of Schnittke, for example. Anyway, you should use them only paying a lot of respect for the harmonic series (that means, using the upper registers-they sound awful at the lower registers). Try playing a Cmaj with your left hand and high on the piano play Bb,B,C and E. Somehow it starts sounding less horrible and more...interesting??? :P

Ok. But what you are all talking about - Cmaj7 and C7 - aren't dissonant chords (for me). This is all in the diatonic scale (maj7, dominat7 etc.). But what I experiment with at the moment is: chord sequences with a high tension and release factor. I play one chord (for example I am in the key of Aminor), that is diatonic (for example an "Am") an then the next bar a chord that has one note in it which is not in the Aminor-tonality (for example an "Em+9"). To resolve the tension (of the +9 which is an F# and is not in the Aminor-tonality) I play the next bar again one consonant chord, that is in the Aminor-tonality again (for example a "C"). Then I might create tension again and play the next bar a "Dmb11" which has the F# again, that is not in the key of Aminor, so I have a dissonance again. Then I could do a modulation, from the Dmb11 to D, than I could start with the D in the Dmajor-Key for example. This is what I experiment with at the moment. For me all these altered chord tones like b9,b11,+9,+11,+5 sound really dissonant and I really have to get used to that. But I think it is possible to use them, if you don't play such a chord more than one bar or less. After one bar you should resolve to a consonant chord. But I am still not shure if it is the right way, because it really sounds crazy if you play an "Am"and then an "Em+9" for example, because of the +9. But I hope its nothing wrong with playing such chords like an Em+9 after an Aminor.

...I hope its nothing wrong with playing such chords like an Em+9 after an Aminor.

There's nothing 'wrong' with playing any chord after Amin. Some people will hear it differently, to some Maj7ths are dissonant; perhaps not to you or I...

We each have individual thresholds of consonnance. ...

I didn't really wade through the rest of your post. Too many words.

+9

I <3 +9 chords especcially on a major triad, it gives it a melancholic sound which always deserves it's own special place in a composition, also if you remove the third, you get a power chord on a power chord. I keep wondering what a phrygian 9 would sound like. Or a minor chord with a major 7 instead of a major chord with a minor seventh.

Dissonance is in the eye of the beholder (Eye?), for me dissonance would be anything that doesn't immediatly form part of the scale I'm using, mostly because I started out writing modally instead of harmonically, I didn't even know what a chord was until like one year ago.

What I'd reccomend is that everyone uses their knowledge of music to come up with their own chords and find their own uses for them.

...I keep wondering what a phrygian 9 would sound like.

it'd have to have a b9 for Phrygian...

...Or a minor chord with a major 7 instead ...

It'd sound like a Min-Maj7, ascending melodic minor. Quite common...look at My Funny Valentine.

...

it'd have to have a b9 for Phrygian...

Yeah, it would be a devil's interval on a perfect triad, wish I had my guitar with me at work...

Try to stop thinking diatonically. You can play all 12 notes in 4-8 bars (even less?) and still remain within a certain tonic center. The 9th degree added to a min7 [Em(add9)! Em+9 tells something completely different-an augmented chord!] chord provides a perfectly consonant chord. Even diatonically, the F# relates to G major, which is very-very close to C major. You could also add the 11th (perfect), 13th (major), which are perfectly acceptable tensions for such a chord. For some people, these tones are not tensions at all! :P Building tension and release doesn't have to do with diatonic or non-diatonic tones. You could be all chromatic and have no tension. And be completely within the tension-release pattern without deviating from the key.:cool:

b9 tensions are very commonly used, especially in dominant chords (forming a like-an-upper-structure full diminished chord). b11 tensions...that sounds interesting and dissonant. +9,+11...you are referring to major 9th and 11 or augmented? The 11th is perfectly consonant in a minor chord, but for a major chord you would have to use a #11. +5? You mean augmented fifth (#5), right? You have me confused with this "+" sign.

A Phrygian with a 9th would sound like some traditional scales, in which such chromatic intervals (1,b2,2 etc) are used (at least in greek traditional music). As a chord, it would sound like a cluster, except if you spread the chromatic notes very apart in registers. Then, maybe you just meant b9! :whistling:

A minor chord with a maj7 is directly derived from the harmonic minor (and the ascending melodic, as Robin mentions). It is less commonly used, but a nice sound nonetheless.

I love this thread! :toothygrin:

Yeah I mean augmented when writing the "+" sign. This is a common way of writing. "-" for diminished and "+" for augmented. The "+" doesn't mean that the tone is added, I would have written Emadd9 then. I really begin to love those altered chords with augmented and diminished chord/scale tones in it. Because if I can use different scales to solo over the chords. Before I was always using modes and so on to solo, but that was all diatonic stuff, now I can play wh-scale, diminished scale, arps and so on. And I don't care at the moment if the dissonant parts make it harder for average listeners to like my music. If I like it, its good ;)

If I like it, its good

And besides, you'll find an avid listener for any genre of music.

Yeah I mean augmented when writing the "+" sign.

Then the Em+9 would turn out to be an Em chord with an augmented 9th=> an Em chord! :w00t: The augmented ninth of E is g! The major ninth is f#! ;)

And I don't care at the moment if the dissonant parts make it harder for average listeners to like my music. If I like it, its good ;)

That sums it all up. If you like it, it's good. The rest are just optional guidelines and shortcuts. :)

Just by the way, 9th (and 7th) chords are very definitely dissonant.

They just happen to be rather pleasing to the ear.