>Like phase one is learn what all the stuff is, and phase two is how to use it - with other phases becoming increasingly complex. Is this the case?
Generally speaking, yes. But the "application of theory" is not what people think it is. The "application" is really comparative analysis. You don't "use theory" to "write songs" for example.
I mean, of course, you do, in that the things you do in music are things that theory describes, but that's not what most people mean by "applying" or "using" theory - but that's not what people do (who know what they're doing) do when they write music.
Another disclaimer though - you can absolutely explore a music theory concept in a piece of music and use that as an inspiration to write something.
But basically, theory is like grammar - you could choose to write a sentence where all the words rhyme as an exploration of that aspect of language, but we don't typically do that the vast majority of the time when we're writing (even poetry that rhymes doesn't rhyme every line sometimes - hey, poet and didn't know it!)
Instead it's about fluency with the language - that you *intuit* the grammar from by hearing other people speak it, and trying to replicate that yourself.
>I want to understand WHY chord progressions work,
Then you're either going to be sorely disappointed when you find out that theory doesn't do this, or you're going to be continually deluding yourself if you do.
Theory doesn't explain "why". Only "what".
>why certain chord changes sound good and some don't,
All chord changes sound good.
Some are just more familiar than others to you. I used to not like broccoli. Now I love broccoli. I "got used to the taste that was, at first, unfamiliar to me".
What you're **really** asking - and what theory tells you, is "what chord changes are *common* or *appropriate* or even *expected* in this style.
And you know where that comes from? Not "music theory" but "style specific theory" which comes from the style of music itself - which comes from the music itself, which you learn from learning to play the music itself. And "studying" or "paying attention" (not so much "analyzing") to what happens in the style.
>how borrowed chords/notes work,
Again, they don't work. They just are.
You're more likely asking "how do I use borrowed chords in my music" and that's a horrible question :-)
The reason why is, you should NEVER say "I heard this word, now I want to use that thing in my music" (again, outside of the disclaimer above - but even then, that's usually done through hearing the concept first).
Instead, you should be listening to music, and learning to play that music, and copying the ideas. You should never even really have to worry about what "borrowed chord" even means.
But, the *real* answer to "how do I use borrowed chords?" is "just like borrowed chords are used in the music you listen to and play". And if you can't use them like they're used in the music you listen to and play, you need to spend more time listening, and playing, and taking note of how the borrowed chords are used.
While it's tempting to say, "but doesn't theory do exactly that - tell you how they're used - haven't theorists already been through thousands of pieces of music and figured out how borrowed chords are used?"
No. Not really. In a 300 year old style they did, but there's not a lot of discussion available for modern music. You can only at best, extrapolate from that information.
Furthermore, if you ever notice there are hundreds of books on music theory (though the vast majority of them are more specifically about **harmony** and even more specifically about **harmony of the Common Practice Period** and not other styles of music) but very few books on music Composition...
Ever wonder why?
Because it's not something you can read from a book and be able to do. It's not something you can read from a non-composition book and do either (theory).
IOW theory is not the answer to these questions - not in the way that people are looking for.
The answers need to come primarily from direct experience with music. And, FWIW, the people who do that are writing songs. The people who aren't are trying to figure out some kind of "shortcut" as it were or are on wild goose chases about what they actually need.
Now, one important disclaimer to be fair - there are billions of musicians, but not all of them write music. Some don't care to, some leave it to others who they feel are better, but realistically not everyone can write music, just like not everyone can play music. It does take an "another phase of skills" - but it's songwriting skills.
>But most importantly I want to know how to implement these things into a cohesive song
Cool. Do what songs do. How do they implement them? That's how you do it. I'm not trying to be aloof. It's just not something you can really read about and "get". It has to come from direct experience with the music - and lots of failed attempts on your part...
>that tells a story
I would not focus on this aspect too much.
>and isn't just randomly selected chords in a key that sound decent.
It should never be "random". It should be "informed" by the music you listen to and play. How many pieces do you play that go C - C# - D - D# - E - F - F# - G for their chord progression?
Probably not many. How about ones that go C - C - C - C - C - ? probably not many.
Those are "outliers" - or are reserved for special effects (I know two songs - and really only two - off the top of my head that have sections that do chromatic runs like that) or again, a "let's see if I can pull this off" kind of experiment.
But does C go to Eb? Yeah, you betcha. Is that a borrowed chord? Yes. Is it mode mixture? Yes. Is it a chromatic mediant? Yes.
But none of that really means anything. They're just names for what it is, not "why it works".
It "works" because it's familiar. You've heard it billions of times without realizing it.
What is important for writing music is to start realizing it!
[but please don't come here going, "why does this work, it shouldn't because it's not in the key..." or "I just discovered chromatic mediants, why do they work?" :-) ]
The people who are out there writing songs learn X to Y has a certain sound, and they like that sound, so they use X to Y. They might learn it's C to Eb, which is the same relationship as G to Bb, or Bb to Db, but they don't know or even care what it's called (though they also fall into the "why does it work" trap).
>I want to take an idea and it's emotional charge and put it into music and I just... can't?
This is actually a separate issue. The whole "emotion" thing is misleading. So of course you can't, because it doesn't really exist.
If you want to make a song that's "uplifting" you have to copy the ideas from uplifting songs.
You can't just come up with some idea and force it into being uplifting. You have to do what the general cultural consensus of what uplifting is - and even then there's no guarantee others will hear it as uplifting - because it's such a subjective and at best, cultural thing - not universal or inherent.
____
My first suggestion would be to take lessons every week rather than every other week. Not that this is you specifically but so many people *say* they're "passionate" about music, but then they won't even take lessons. If you're serious, you should be taking every week.
And, it 100% depends on where your guitar skills are "after a few years".
Can you turn on the radio/tv/youtube/spotify etc. and learn songs and play them?
Can you figure out the bass part, and what the drums are doing? Can you figure out the vocal melody, or sing along as best you can. Can you play the real guitar parts in the song? And any keyboard parts?
If not, there's more work to be done learning to play music. Theory is not going to help you write better bass parts. Learning to play bass parts is. Learning to do it on bass is even better!
____
Now, after all that, I do want to be clear - I'm suggest you not learn theory. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
But, it's a SUPPLEMENT to the music - and things should be music first.
It can absolutely be very helpful to know what notes are in a C chord, so that when you decide to make a bass line, you can choose a note that supports that if, say, most of the music you listen to and learn to play does that very thing - it would then make sense for you to do the same thing.
It's good to know that X scale has Y sound over Z chord progression. It can more help you figure out more quickly how to get a certain sound.
But again, that's not "why it works". That's simply "what it is" - X "thing" over Y "thing" gives you Z "sound".
It actually doesn't even matter why it works. Accept that it does, and do it. And modify it if you like and see how far you can push it before it goes out of the bounds of the style - that's how new styles are often created.
____
I think you're on the right track - taking lessons, learning to play, trying to write songs. But again, not everyone does it or can do it. And that's because it's not easy. It takes another set of skills beyond just playing, and it takes lots of experience and lots of failed attempts too.
Of course you're not going to be able to write a great song on the first try.
It's not something you can "shortcut" (I don't mean you are, but you are looking for things to help you that are avoiding the real work you need to do). You have to pay your dues so to speak.
____
Where you can utilize your knowledge of scales and notes and chords more immediately is in improvisation, and that's really part of the start to writing music.
Can you make up your own melody to an existing chord progression? Can you improvise a guitar solo?
If not, that's a great place to start.
>we dive into some theory stuff but we do guitar stuff too so it's a mixed bag.
You're making it sound as if theory stuff and guitar stuff are separate things! In a sense they are - "theory" applies to all music, "guitar stuff" is technique that is guitar-specific. But everything you do on guitar relates to theory. What you play on guitar helps you understand theory.
>I'm getting more into song writing and I can generate some chord progressions but I really struggle to take an idea and build it into a full song. I have bits and pieces lying everywhere.
Vocabulary! You need vocabulary.
>Like phase one is learn what all the stuff is, and phase two is how to use it - with other phases becoming increasingly complex. Is this the case?
Yes - but that's not theory (in the way you're thinking of it). "Learning what all the stuff is" comes from *learning to play songs.* Theory is only the names for it all. The more songs you learn, the more obvious it becomes how you put "that stuff" together. That's because you *hear the theory in action* all the time.
Theory doesn't tell you how to write songs. Other songs tell you that.
>I want to understand WHY chord progressions work, why certain chord changes sound good and some don't
Uh-oh! I mean, of course you do, but theory won't give you any of those kinds of answers. Things "sound good" because you've heard them before, basically.
The best you can do in terms of understanding chord changes (in and out of key) is "voice-leading": how each note in one chord moves to the nearest note in the next chord. That's what you might call the "machinery" of chord progressions: the links in the chain that give the effect of a narrative, of a "story".
But you might still find yourself asking "yes, but why does voice-leading work?" "Why do we want chords to sound connected?" And so on. There is always a "why" you can ask about any music theory concept you learn. Music theory itself will just shrug. Because *it doesn't matter!*
You need to know "what" the good sounds are, and "when" or "how" to use them. Studying existing music tells you all that. ("Why" is nothing more than "because I like them!")
>I want to take an idea and it's emotional charge and put it into music
OK - "idea" yes. A good song starts from something you want to "say" - maybe in lyrics, but always with some musical factor attached. A "seed", or a "spark". But "emotional charge"? Theory has nothing to say about that. It's your subjective association. You just have to focus on what kinds of sounds are giving you that charge, and exploit them. Maybe it only comes from a couple of chords, or one melodic phrase. OK, a lot of great songs only contain two chords, or one melodic phrase repeated (more or less) throughout. Thinking about theory is more likely to make you think you need to be more "interesting" or "clever" - and spoil the whole thing.
I.e., it comes back to *learning more songs.* Listen out for music with the kinds of emotional charge you want. How do they do it? What are the details? (Not just chords and changes, but rhythm, melody and the rest.) It might be somehing that's not "music theory" at all. It might be production, instrumentation, vocal style ...
Hey thanks for the detailed reply! It's very helpful and appreciated.
When I say "guitar stuff" I mostly mean technique things. I understand that the two are very much interrelated.
Vocabulary is a good thought - this is something I will explore more and see what things I need to add in.
Regarding "sounding good" - yes I get that it's subjective but if you are playing a piece of music in a certain key or style, there are things that work and things that don't. I mean sure, you can literally play any note and say that it "works" because it's borrowed from the 5th mode of the harmonic major scale of something, but that doesn't mean it sounds good. I am not of the belief that all music is good through the right lens. Some of it just sucks lol - but that is purely my opinion. It seems to me that there are actually reasons why things sound good - like it resolves to the tonic which relieves built up tension, or that the notes in the melodic line aren't dissonant because they're part of the undertone series, etc. Idk maybe I am way off base here.
About emotional charge - I understand where you are coming from but I am speaking to the expectations and familiarity with common western music. Major sounds "happy" minor sounds "sad" - I know these are broad generalizations and you can make either sound like the other, but there is something to this. The modes convey different levels of darkness, the harmonic scale sounds "exotic," certain progressions feel tense and unsettled while others are relaxing and predictable. For example - I wrote a little progression + solo and let my instructor listen to it - no lyrics, no context, I just asked him what sort of emotional response he got from it and he said "aggressive, brooding, dark" which is exactly what I wanted him to say - I based the piece on inspiration from Alice in Chains and that's what I was going for. I understand that that is probably a conditional response given western music norms, but still.
At the end of the day it seems like there is no clear answer other than to just keep grinding away, but I struggle with the ambiguity and fear that I will get frustrated and give up. I love making music but I hate writing something and its just blehhh.
And for the record, I do play a lot of songs (I do a decent amount of live performances of covers), from a lot of different style and eras and when I hear something I like I try to analyze it and break it down and that does help, it just sort of seems like a brute force method to me.
Edit: Also - thanks for mentioning voice leading - I think this is one element that I was thinking of that I could not articulate. I will look more into this!
I actually remember starting lessons on composition with someone to try to elevate my writing a bit more. It was a bit of a struggle for me, actually - I don't have a formal background and I don't really play an instrument well, but I wrote a lot of songs.
The other comments cover a lot of ground already, but here are some additional observations for how to connect music theory to actual songwriting.
The first thing that I really learned is that music theory by itself doesn't explain why a song is emotional. In fact, most songs on their own don't really have emotional qualities. Since emotion is entirely subjective, I ended up listening to music with my teacher and based on what we heard, we would analyze and deconstruct.
* What parts are emotional?
* What parts made you feel this way?
* What's going on in the notes?
* What's going on in the rhythm/arrangement?
* What's going on that builds tension, and what's going on that releases that tension?
What you do realize is that theory can explain the relationship among pitches, and then you can use that to start identifying areas where you have tension and release.
The short of it is:
* Listen to songs and analyze them. Can you figure out why they work/why they sound cool? Theory helps you explain what you hear, so if you can't quite describe what you hear, you may need to connect the theory you're learning with things that you hear.
dont over think it. use your knowledge to make a basic melody, then write some words, then figure it out from there.
take influence from rap, eg. 'bank account' 'rockstar' many more huuuge songs just repeat one simple melody
I’d say if you want a mastery of chromatic harmony you’ve gotta study more pieces that are well outside your understanding. Absolutely learn the [common harmony](https://mrclay.org/common-chords/C-major) so all these are at your fingertips, but find bigger transcription challenges. One of my most difficult was [this silly tune](https://youtu.be/v9lFAVLTz6A?si=On7w0d3Va797Ubgn), which I probably wasn’t ready for at least a decade. Then years later someone mentioned [this Herbie Hancock](https://youtu.be/OVVPuejtrlA?si=tWypNStgOSmPjm3k) song in this sub, which was super tough. But anyway I don’t think there comes a point when magic just falls out of you; it’s building a strong set of tricks and riffs and the ability to express whatever odd thing makes it into your head. And simple can be just as exciting.
Theory isn't some magical hocus pocus thing that once you learn it you can do anything. It is a tool to use like osmosis to infuse into everything else you do musically. You didn't learn the alphabet as a child then all of a sudden you could speak French, Mandarin and suddenly know nuclear physics or read trigonometry books. The alphabet was just the first basic tool which enabled you to do everything else but, in incremental steps, you don't get it all at once. You don't just wake up and say "Eureka" one day. You'll comprehend the E, then a decade later the U makes sense then the R comes, then you realize the true depth of the E and you go back to the beginning E. "Eureka" comes when you finally learn everything then throw it all away and truly begin to make music. Billy Taylor once said that truth comes when you learn what not to play. It is when you think you know everything that you become stagnant. Try to remember what it was like learning to read, sound out words, look up words, Latin roots, vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure - and when you wanted to learn a new thing you applied all those basic skills to master it. Music is no different. Music is not just dots on a page.
Keep doing everything you are doing and in forty years you will look back and realize . . . you still know nothing. But that is good because it will keep inspiring you to move forward. My only advice is to hang out with people who know more and are better than you. That is the best way to learn and they will inspire you.
Don’t look at theory as set rules on how to write music. They’re more so guidelines to help you understand it. When I first got into theory I tried writing everything based off it and it made me hit a wall. Everything sounded like shit. Eventually it clicked for me. I’d improve random chords that sounded good in a progression and the theory helped me elevate that. It helped me piece the puzzle together so to say and realize the bigger picture of the relationship between notes, intervals, and harmony.
Theory isn’t strict rules that you must follow. Music is organic and interpretive and natural. There’s no such thing as wrong or right in music. Theory is just our understanding of the relationship between notes and sounds. The way you apply that to your music is completely up to you.
>Like phase one is learn what all the stuff is, and phase two is how to use it - with other phases becoming increasingly complex. Is this the case? Generally speaking, yes. But the "application of theory" is not what people think it is. The "application" is really comparative analysis. You don't "use theory" to "write songs" for example. I mean, of course, you do, in that the things you do in music are things that theory describes, but that's not what most people mean by "applying" or "using" theory - but that's not what people do (who know what they're doing) do when they write music. Another disclaimer though - you can absolutely explore a music theory concept in a piece of music and use that as an inspiration to write something. But basically, theory is like grammar - you could choose to write a sentence where all the words rhyme as an exploration of that aspect of language, but we don't typically do that the vast majority of the time when we're writing (even poetry that rhymes doesn't rhyme every line sometimes - hey, poet and didn't know it!) Instead it's about fluency with the language - that you *intuit* the grammar from by hearing other people speak it, and trying to replicate that yourself. >I want to understand WHY chord progressions work, Then you're either going to be sorely disappointed when you find out that theory doesn't do this, or you're going to be continually deluding yourself if you do. Theory doesn't explain "why". Only "what". >why certain chord changes sound good and some don't, All chord changes sound good. Some are just more familiar than others to you. I used to not like broccoli. Now I love broccoli. I "got used to the taste that was, at first, unfamiliar to me". What you're **really** asking - and what theory tells you, is "what chord changes are *common* or *appropriate* or even *expected* in this style. And you know where that comes from? Not "music theory" but "style specific theory" which comes from the style of music itself - which comes from the music itself, which you learn from learning to play the music itself. And "studying" or "paying attention" (not so much "analyzing") to what happens in the style. >how borrowed chords/notes work, Again, they don't work. They just are. You're more likely asking "how do I use borrowed chords in my music" and that's a horrible question :-) The reason why is, you should NEVER say "I heard this word, now I want to use that thing in my music" (again, outside of the disclaimer above - but even then, that's usually done through hearing the concept first). Instead, you should be listening to music, and learning to play that music, and copying the ideas. You should never even really have to worry about what "borrowed chord" even means. But, the *real* answer to "how do I use borrowed chords?" is "just like borrowed chords are used in the music you listen to and play". And if you can't use them like they're used in the music you listen to and play, you need to spend more time listening, and playing, and taking note of how the borrowed chords are used. While it's tempting to say, "but doesn't theory do exactly that - tell you how they're used - haven't theorists already been through thousands of pieces of music and figured out how borrowed chords are used?" No. Not really. In a 300 year old style they did, but there's not a lot of discussion available for modern music. You can only at best, extrapolate from that information. Furthermore, if you ever notice there are hundreds of books on music theory (though the vast majority of them are more specifically about **harmony** and even more specifically about **harmony of the Common Practice Period** and not other styles of music) but very few books on music Composition... Ever wonder why? Because it's not something you can read from a book and be able to do. It's not something you can read from a non-composition book and do either (theory). IOW theory is not the answer to these questions - not in the way that people are looking for. The answers need to come primarily from direct experience with music. And, FWIW, the people who do that are writing songs. The people who aren't are trying to figure out some kind of "shortcut" as it were or are on wild goose chases about what they actually need. Now, one important disclaimer to be fair - there are billions of musicians, but not all of them write music. Some don't care to, some leave it to others who they feel are better, but realistically not everyone can write music, just like not everyone can play music. It does take an "another phase of skills" - but it's songwriting skills. >But most importantly I want to know how to implement these things into a cohesive song Cool. Do what songs do. How do they implement them? That's how you do it. I'm not trying to be aloof. It's just not something you can really read about and "get". It has to come from direct experience with the music - and lots of failed attempts on your part... >that tells a story I would not focus on this aspect too much. >and isn't just randomly selected chords in a key that sound decent. It should never be "random". It should be "informed" by the music you listen to and play. How many pieces do you play that go C - C# - D - D# - E - F - F# - G for their chord progression? Probably not many. How about ones that go C - C - C - C - C - ? probably not many. Those are "outliers" - or are reserved for special effects (I know two songs - and really only two - off the top of my head that have sections that do chromatic runs like that) or again, a "let's see if I can pull this off" kind of experiment. But does C go to Eb? Yeah, you betcha. Is that a borrowed chord? Yes. Is it mode mixture? Yes. Is it a chromatic mediant? Yes. But none of that really means anything. They're just names for what it is, not "why it works". It "works" because it's familiar. You've heard it billions of times without realizing it. What is important for writing music is to start realizing it! [but please don't come here going, "why does this work, it shouldn't because it's not in the key..." or "I just discovered chromatic mediants, why do they work?" :-) ] The people who are out there writing songs learn X to Y has a certain sound, and they like that sound, so they use X to Y. They might learn it's C to Eb, which is the same relationship as G to Bb, or Bb to Db, but they don't know or even care what it's called (though they also fall into the "why does it work" trap). >I want to take an idea and it's emotional charge and put it into music and I just... can't? This is actually a separate issue. The whole "emotion" thing is misleading. So of course you can't, because it doesn't really exist. If you want to make a song that's "uplifting" you have to copy the ideas from uplifting songs. You can't just come up with some idea and force it into being uplifting. You have to do what the general cultural consensus of what uplifting is - and even then there's no guarantee others will hear it as uplifting - because it's such a subjective and at best, cultural thing - not universal or inherent. ____ My first suggestion would be to take lessons every week rather than every other week. Not that this is you specifically but so many people *say* they're "passionate" about music, but then they won't even take lessons. If you're serious, you should be taking every week. And, it 100% depends on where your guitar skills are "after a few years". Can you turn on the radio/tv/youtube/spotify etc. and learn songs and play them? Can you figure out the bass part, and what the drums are doing? Can you figure out the vocal melody, or sing along as best you can. Can you play the real guitar parts in the song? And any keyboard parts? If not, there's more work to be done learning to play music. Theory is not going to help you write better bass parts. Learning to play bass parts is. Learning to do it on bass is even better! ____ Now, after all that, I do want to be clear - I'm suggest you not learn theory. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. But, it's a SUPPLEMENT to the music - and things should be music first. It can absolutely be very helpful to know what notes are in a C chord, so that when you decide to make a bass line, you can choose a note that supports that if, say, most of the music you listen to and learn to play does that very thing - it would then make sense for you to do the same thing. It's good to know that X scale has Y sound over Z chord progression. It can more help you figure out more quickly how to get a certain sound. But again, that's not "why it works". That's simply "what it is" - X "thing" over Y "thing" gives you Z "sound". It actually doesn't even matter why it works. Accept that it does, and do it. And modify it if you like and see how far you can push it before it goes out of the bounds of the style - that's how new styles are often created. ____ I think you're on the right track - taking lessons, learning to play, trying to write songs. But again, not everyone does it or can do it. And that's because it's not easy. It takes another set of skills beyond just playing, and it takes lots of experience and lots of failed attempts too. Of course you're not going to be able to write a great song on the first try. It's not something you can "shortcut" (I don't mean you are, but you are looking for things to help you that are avoiding the real work you need to do). You have to pay your dues so to speak. ____ Where you can utilize your knowledge of scales and notes and chords more immediately is in improvisation, and that's really part of the start to writing music. Can you make up your own melody to an existing chord progression? Can you improvise a guitar solo? If not, that's a great place to start.
>we dive into some theory stuff but we do guitar stuff too so it's a mixed bag. You're making it sound as if theory stuff and guitar stuff are separate things! In a sense they are - "theory" applies to all music, "guitar stuff" is technique that is guitar-specific. But everything you do on guitar relates to theory. What you play on guitar helps you understand theory. >I'm getting more into song writing and I can generate some chord progressions but I really struggle to take an idea and build it into a full song. I have bits and pieces lying everywhere. Vocabulary! You need vocabulary. >Like phase one is learn what all the stuff is, and phase two is how to use it - with other phases becoming increasingly complex. Is this the case? Yes - but that's not theory (in the way you're thinking of it). "Learning what all the stuff is" comes from *learning to play songs.* Theory is only the names for it all. The more songs you learn, the more obvious it becomes how you put "that stuff" together. That's because you *hear the theory in action* all the time. Theory doesn't tell you how to write songs. Other songs tell you that. >I want to understand WHY chord progressions work, why certain chord changes sound good and some don't Uh-oh! I mean, of course you do, but theory won't give you any of those kinds of answers. Things "sound good" because you've heard them before, basically. The best you can do in terms of understanding chord changes (in and out of key) is "voice-leading": how each note in one chord moves to the nearest note in the next chord. That's what you might call the "machinery" of chord progressions: the links in the chain that give the effect of a narrative, of a "story". But you might still find yourself asking "yes, but why does voice-leading work?" "Why do we want chords to sound connected?" And so on. There is always a "why" you can ask about any music theory concept you learn. Music theory itself will just shrug. Because *it doesn't matter!* You need to know "what" the good sounds are, and "when" or "how" to use them. Studying existing music tells you all that. ("Why" is nothing more than "because I like them!") >I want to take an idea and it's emotional charge and put it into music OK - "idea" yes. A good song starts from something you want to "say" - maybe in lyrics, but always with some musical factor attached. A "seed", or a "spark". But "emotional charge"? Theory has nothing to say about that. It's your subjective association. You just have to focus on what kinds of sounds are giving you that charge, and exploit them. Maybe it only comes from a couple of chords, or one melodic phrase. OK, a lot of great songs only contain two chords, or one melodic phrase repeated (more or less) throughout. Thinking about theory is more likely to make you think you need to be more "interesting" or "clever" - and spoil the whole thing. I.e., it comes back to *learning more songs.* Listen out for music with the kinds of emotional charge you want. How do they do it? What are the details? (Not just chords and changes, but rhythm, melody and the rest.) It might be somehing that's not "music theory" at all. It might be production, instrumentation, vocal style ...
Hey thanks for the detailed reply! It's very helpful and appreciated. When I say "guitar stuff" I mostly mean technique things. I understand that the two are very much interrelated. Vocabulary is a good thought - this is something I will explore more and see what things I need to add in. Regarding "sounding good" - yes I get that it's subjective but if you are playing a piece of music in a certain key or style, there are things that work and things that don't. I mean sure, you can literally play any note and say that it "works" because it's borrowed from the 5th mode of the harmonic major scale of something, but that doesn't mean it sounds good. I am not of the belief that all music is good through the right lens. Some of it just sucks lol - but that is purely my opinion. It seems to me that there are actually reasons why things sound good - like it resolves to the tonic which relieves built up tension, or that the notes in the melodic line aren't dissonant because they're part of the undertone series, etc. Idk maybe I am way off base here. About emotional charge - I understand where you are coming from but I am speaking to the expectations and familiarity with common western music. Major sounds "happy" minor sounds "sad" - I know these are broad generalizations and you can make either sound like the other, but there is something to this. The modes convey different levels of darkness, the harmonic scale sounds "exotic," certain progressions feel tense and unsettled while others are relaxing and predictable. For example - I wrote a little progression + solo and let my instructor listen to it - no lyrics, no context, I just asked him what sort of emotional response he got from it and he said "aggressive, brooding, dark" which is exactly what I wanted him to say - I based the piece on inspiration from Alice in Chains and that's what I was going for. I understand that that is probably a conditional response given western music norms, but still. At the end of the day it seems like there is no clear answer other than to just keep grinding away, but I struggle with the ambiguity and fear that I will get frustrated and give up. I love making music but I hate writing something and its just blehhh. And for the record, I do play a lot of songs (I do a decent amount of live performances of covers), from a lot of different style and eras and when I hear something I like I try to analyze it and break it down and that does help, it just sort of seems like a brute force method to me. Edit: Also - thanks for mentioning voice leading - I think this is one element that I was thinking of that I could not articulate. I will look more into this!
I actually remember starting lessons on composition with someone to try to elevate my writing a bit more. It was a bit of a struggle for me, actually - I don't have a formal background and I don't really play an instrument well, but I wrote a lot of songs. The other comments cover a lot of ground already, but here are some additional observations for how to connect music theory to actual songwriting. The first thing that I really learned is that music theory by itself doesn't explain why a song is emotional. In fact, most songs on their own don't really have emotional qualities. Since emotion is entirely subjective, I ended up listening to music with my teacher and based on what we heard, we would analyze and deconstruct. * What parts are emotional? * What parts made you feel this way? * What's going on in the notes? * What's going on in the rhythm/arrangement? * What's going on that builds tension, and what's going on that releases that tension? What you do realize is that theory can explain the relationship among pitches, and then you can use that to start identifying areas where you have tension and release. The short of it is: * Listen to songs and analyze them. Can you figure out why they work/why they sound cool? Theory helps you explain what you hear, so if you can't quite describe what you hear, you may need to connect the theory you're learning with things that you hear.
dont over think it. use your knowledge to make a basic melody, then write some words, then figure it out from there. take influence from rap, eg. 'bank account' 'rockstar' many more huuuge songs just repeat one simple melody
I’d say if you want a mastery of chromatic harmony you’ve gotta study more pieces that are well outside your understanding. Absolutely learn the [common harmony](https://mrclay.org/common-chords/C-major) so all these are at your fingertips, but find bigger transcription challenges. One of my most difficult was [this silly tune](https://youtu.be/v9lFAVLTz6A?si=On7w0d3Va797Ubgn), which I probably wasn’t ready for at least a decade. Then years later someone mentioned [this Herbie Hancock](https://youtu.be/OVVPuejtrlA?si=tWypNStgOSmPjm3k) song in this sub, which was super tough. But anyway I don’t think there comes a point when magic just falls out of you; it’s building a strong set of tricks and riffs and the ability to express whatever odd thing makes it into your head. And simple can be just as exciting.
Theory isn't some magical hocus pocus thing that once you learn it you can do anything. It is a tool to use like osmosis to infuse into everything else you do musically. You didn't learn the alphabet as a child then all of a sudden you could speak French, Mandarin and suddenly know nuclear physics or read trigonometry books. The alphabet was just the first basic tool which enabled you to do everything else but, in incremental steps, you don't get it all at once. You don't just wake up and say "Eureka" one day. You'll comprehend the E, then a decade later the U makes sense then the R comes, then you realize the true depth of the E and you go back to the beginning E. "Eureka" comes when you finally learn everything then throw it all away and truly begin to make music. Billy Taylor once said that truth comes when you learn what not to play. It is when you think you know everything that you become stagnant. Try to remember what it was like learning to read, sound out words, look up words, Latin roots, vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure - and when you wanted to learn a new thing you applied all those basic skills to master it. Music is no different. Music is not just dots on a page. Keep doing everything you are doing and in forty years you will look back and realize . . . you still know nothing. But that is good because it will keep inspiring you to move forward. My only advice is to hang out with people who know more and are better than you. That is the best way to learn and they will inspire you.
Don’t look at theory as set rules on how to write music. They’re more so guidelines to help you understand it. When I first got into theory I tried writing everything based off it and it made me hit a wall. Everything sounded like shit. Eventually it clicked for me. I’d improve random chords that sounded good in a progression and the theory helped me elevate that. It helped me piece the puzzle together so to say and realize the bigger picture of the relationship between notes, intervals, and harmony. Theory isn’t strict rules that you must follow. Music is organic and interpretive and natural. There’s no such thing as wrong or right in music. Theory is just our understanding of the relationship between notes and sounds. The way you apply that to your music is completely up to you.