Practical Music Theory in 5 1-Minute Lessons

Practical Music Theory in 5 1-Minute Lessons

These lessons will teach you the “numbering system” for chords, and the most common chords for western music. Mastering this knowledge will allow you to quickly play almost any song in any key with a group of other musicians.

Lesson 1. A major scale is the famous notes: DO re me FA SO la ti DO (remember this from “The Sound of Music”?). Number these notes with roman numerals from 1 to 7 (I to VII). The last (8th) note is another "DO"; it is the same note as note 1, but an octave higher.

If you are in "the key of C", then your scale starts on C (DO = C); so the notes of the scale are: C D E F G A B C. If you are in "the key of E", then your scale starts on E (DO = E); so the notes of the scale are: E F# G# A B C# D# E.

Exercise: Try playing all 12 major scales on your instrument.

Lesson 2. Basic chords are "triads", or three notes in the scale, with a starting note, then 2 notes higher, then 2 notes higher. E.g. if you are playing the "I" (one) chord, you'd play a triad that starts on the first note of the scale: the "DO me SO" notes. If you are doing the "IV" (four) chord, you'd play a triad that starts on the fourth note of the scale: the "FA la DO" notes. If you are playing the “V” (five) chord, you’d play a triad that starts on the fifth note of the scale: the “SO ti re” notes (add “re” and other notes above the top “DO” as necessary to get the triad you need, e.g. DO re me FA SO la ti DO re me FA SO la ti …).

As you can see, the chord "number" just means which note of the scale (first, fourth, fifth, etc.) you start the triad on.

In the key of C the IV chord would be the notes: F A C; this is called an F Major chord.

In the key of E the IV chord would be the notes: A C# E. This is called an A major chord.

Note that the bass guitar usually (but not always) plays the “root” (lowest) note of the triad.

Exercise: Try playing a I chord and a IV chord in at least 3 different keys on your instrument (e.g. keys of C, E, G)

Lesson 3. The most popular 3 chords in modern music are the I, IV and V chords (one, four, and five). These are major chords (they sound "happy"). Major chords are written in upper-case roman numerals.

In the key of C, the I, IV, V chords are:
I = C
IV = F
V = G

In the key of E, the I, IV, V chords are:
I = E
IV = A
V = B

Exercise: Figure out and memorize the I, IV, V chords in common keys such as the keys of C, D, E, G, A.

Lesson 4. The next most popular are the "vi" and "ii" chords (six and then two). These are minor chords (they sound "sad"). Minor chords are written in lower-case roman numerals.

In the key of C, the vi and ii chords are:
vi = Am
ii = Dm

In the key of E, the vi and ii chords are :
vi = C#m
ii = F#m

Exercise: Figure out and memorize the vi and ii chords in common keys such as the keys of C, D, E, G, A.

Lesson 5. Chord progressions can be written using roman numeral notation instead of note letters. This allows the chord progression to be independent of the key of the song, making the song easy to transpose into different keys on the fly. A dash indicates a change of measure (a.k.a. bar, e.g. in 4/4 time there are 4 counts/beats per measure). Thus I - IV - V - I means play one bar of the I chord, one bar of the IV chord, one bar of the V chord, and one
bar of the I chord again. In the key of C, this would be C - F - G - C. In the key of E this would be E - A - B - E.

As an example, the common 12-bar blues progression is this: I - I - I - I - IV - IV - I - I - V - IV - I - I.

U2's famous "With or Without You" progression is this: I - V - vi - IV. In the key of C this would be: C - G - Am - F.

Exercise: Try the U2 or blues progression in the following different musical keys: C, E, G, D.

Marriage throughout history = man and woman

I just read a very interesting article regarding same-sex marriage. Here's the quick summary:

Will the government allow me to marry my canary? No. How about my computer? No. Why?

Marriage isn't for men and machines. Marriage isn't for men and animals. That's not what marriage is.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan defines marriage like this: "Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary."

Black's Law Dictionary says this: "Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

Webster's Dictionary says this: "Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The point: As a category, by definition, culturally and linguistically and legally, marriage involves not a man and a pet, not a woman and a machine, but a man and a woman. Restricting it as such is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word "discrimination" doesn't even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman.

While society could reconstruct the cultural institution, the legal definition, and the meaning of the word (as it currently is), it's not fair to point fingers at a person who simply holds the legal, social, and linguistic meaning of a word that the word has always had.

The full article is by Greg Koukl, and is here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5727.

Abortion is the new Slavery

I think Abortion is the new Slavery. By that I mean that abortion today is similar to what slavery was in the USA about 160 years ago: a moral evil that was permitted by law and accepted by much of the culture. Being legal didn't make it morally right. Those who properly perceived it as evil had to speak up and challenge the existing law and culture.

For a long time I wasn't sure where to stand on the issue. But then someone pointed out to me the one key question that it all hinges upon. Since then, the moral evil of abortion has been clear to me. My hope is that more and more of us will come to this understanding so we can do what those before us did with slavery: challenge and change our laws and culture to eliminate abortion.

The Key Question

The key question in the abortion debate is this: what is the unborn? It's not about choice, it's not about privacy, it's not about a woman's body, and it's not even about rape or incest, as we'll see later. If the unborn is just "tissue" rather than a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary (does a woman need to justify an appendectomy?). On the other hand, if the unborn is a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

So what is the unborn? (What does science tell us?)

Is it alive? Yes. The cells of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, grow and metabolize. By all the normal biological definitions of something being "alive", the unborn child fits the description.

Is it human? Yes. The DNA of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is human DNA. Some might say "well, it doesn't look human". Actually the unborn, at any stage of its development, looks exactly like all humans do at that stage of development. It may not look like an adult human, but neither does a newborn, or a toddler, or a child, or an amputee. But they are all human, and if not killed, that same DNA will guide their development and form throughout their entire life: from an embryo to a newborn, to a toddler, to a child, to an adult, and to an elderly adult.

Is it a separate being than its mother? Yes. The DNA of an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is uniquely different from its mother's. Always. Period. And DNA is such a definitive way to determine one human being from another that we rely on it to solve crimes: if different DNA, then different persons. So why would we not apply this test to the unborn as well?
In addition to DNA differences, an unborn child may have a different blood type than its mother. (The same being does not have two blood types.) It may also have a different gender than its mother. Mother and unborn child are clearly different (separate) beings. Yes, one is temporarily living inside the other, but they are different human beings nonetheless.

So the unborn is: a separate, living, human being.

The Clear Moral Implications

Given this, the moral evil of abortion becomes clear. Just substitute a toddler for the unborn in any given scenario for abortion and you will see it. (Both the unborn and the toddler are living human beings, separate from, but dependent on, their mothers. They are simply at different levels of development.)

For example, if a young woman who is pregnant will be "unable to take care of a child", should abortion be legal? Well, what if a young woman is unable to take care of her toddler? Can we kill the toddler? No. Why? Because it is a human being and we can't just kill a human being just because its mother can't take care of it.

What about rape and incest? Well, what if a child from rape or incest is now a toddler? Can we kill the toddler? No. Why? Because it is a human being and we can't kill a human being just because it reminds its mother of a horrible experience, or was the result of a horribly immoral act. In fact, consider this: in the case of rape, we can't even legally kill the rapist until he's had the chance to a fair trial. Why should we be allowed to kill the unborn human being who is unable to plead its case when we can't even kill the rapist until he's plead his case?

As you may now begin to see, other arguments for abortion such as "choice" or "privacy" fail this test as well. Should a woman have the right to "choose" whether or not to kill her toddler? Clearly not. How about this: Should a woman be allowed to make a "private decision" between her and her doctor to kill her toddler? Again, clearly this is morally unacceptable.
The moral implications are clear: because the unborn is a separate, living, human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Not a Preference

Let's get back to the slavery comparison. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says this?

"Don't like abortion? Don't have one."

If abortion were like ice cream, a personal preference rather than a moral evil, then this statement would be fine. It would be similar to saying:

"Don't like chocolate ice cream? Don't eat it."

But what if you saw a bumper sticker that said this?

"Don't like slavery? Don't own one."

You might say "Wait a minute?! That doesn't make sense! Slavery is morally wrong! It's not okay for those who like owning slaves to do so! It's morally wrong for everyone! No one should be allowed to own slaves!"

There is a difference between moral vs. preferences claims. We allow people to choose their preferences only when we are not talking about something that is morally wrong.

In Summary

The point is this: If the unborn were just "tissue" and not a separate, living, human being, then no justification for abortion would even be necessary. But since the unborn is a separate, living, human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Be careful with Liberal Christianity

I recently ran across this article on Liberal Christianity: http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/2961/liberal.htm

I used to share this view. More on that, later.

The Danger of Liberal Christianity

Here is the danger with Liberal Christianity: If you start to remove from Christianity things you "don't agree with" about it, then you are really worshiping… you.

This may seem harsh at first, but consider an example. Suppose Libby calls herself a liberal Christian. And suppose we ask Libby about some basic Christian doctrines:

	What the Christian scriptures (the bible) say	What Libby thinks "makes sense"	What Libby would say "Liberal Christianity" believes
Is there a Hell?	Yes	No	No
Universal Salvation (everyone goes to heaven)?	No	Yes	Yes
Sex only within one-man-one-woman-for-life marriage?	Yes	No	No
Jesus' Bodily Resurrection?	Yes	No	No
The Deity of Christ?	Yes	No	No

Notice that the last two columns will always be the same. Exactly the same. What does this reveal?

If we're honest, it reveals that Libby's Christianity is completely determined by what she thinks "seems right", and completely unaffected by the actual teachings of Christianity. What she thinks is all that matters.

If you are like Libby, then your opinion is all that matters. Whatever seems right to you, that's what you'll call "truth". You become the ultimate authority. Your picture of Christianity is a 100% picture of you.

Is this Christianity? Clearly not. This is 100% "me" religion.

If this is the case, why even call it "Christianity"? Couldn't we just as easily call it "liberal Buddhism" or "liberal Islam"? If the name of the religion has 0% effect on what I will believe, I could pick any religion's name we want and be just as (in-)accurate. In reality, "Liberal Christianity" is just a less offensive way of saying "me" religion.

My Story

The liberal Christian story was my own story. Up to the time I was 30, I was a "liberal Christian" by the very definition I use here. I read the bible and went to church and even served in it. But I filtered everything through what "seemed right to me", even if it contradicted the Bible.

And guess what. Eventually, my life became a mess. I had been fooling myself for years, and the cracks in the foundation eventually showed... and widened... and then the house fell.

Since that time, I have become a Biblical Christian. Jesus is Lord now, and I'm living a "traditional" Christian life.

And guess what. My life has been blessed beyond my imagining since I made that change. I don't need to rely on "me" and "what I know", but on God and what he knows, and has revealed to me about himself and myself. He's the authority on how I should live now, and not me.

I hope this post is helpful to someone who is caught in the trap of "liberal Christianity" as I was. I hope this is a wakeup call to "come follow" Jesus, and to "know the truth (HIS truth, not mine), and the truth will make you free". And to avoid hearing "I never knew you" from our LORD.

Proverbs 14:34

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." Pr. 14:34

(A sobering truth for the USA - and all other nations - from today's proverb.)

Christians and Tolerance

As Christians, we are often accused of being intolerant. E.g. if we say sex outside of marriage or homosexuality is "wrong", we are called intolerant. We are called intolerant because we do not agree with those who view these behaviors as OK.

But what is tolerance? Tolerance is the act of allowing something we don't agree with. Note that last part: "that we don't agree with". The very word tolerance implies disagreement.

If we agree with an idea or behavior, there is no need to "tolerate" it at all. The word "tolerance" only makes sense if there is first something we don't agree with.

So as Christians, we DO tolerate others. We DO "allow" others to behave in ways we don't agree with -- i.e. we do not forcibly oppress them, arrest them, etc. In fact, as Christians we are called to love our neighbors, even our "pagan" ones. So, by definition, the Christian position is one of tolerance.