How many potential chord sequences are there?

[LiveMusic]

I'll bet somebody knows how to figure this. Then again, I'm not even sure of the question. Anyway...

 

I recall from Statistics 101... actually, I don't recall, that's why I'm asking... how to figure the number of possible combinations of whatever it is you're counting. Like, in paramutuel gambling, if there are 10 horses in a race and you want to "wheel" three of them for the 1-2 finish, so that each of the three is paired with each of the other ones finishing first and then second, there are x-number of combinations. In this case, there are six, right? As you add horses, it gets larger real quick. If you were to wheel eight horses with each other, for instance, it would cost you a bundle. But I forget the formula. Permutation? Combination? Those are two terms I recall.

 

So, point of all this... I have wondered before... how in the world do song writers keep coming up with new chord progressions? Haven't they all been done a thousand times?

 

And then there is music theory... which I don't know zip about... that, I guess, dictates (or suggests?) that certain chords need to follow other ones. So, that would limit what could come next.

 

Anyway, just for fun... consider notes instead of chords. Take the 12 note scale. How many different combinations of those notes are there? Uh... well... that isn't the end of it. That would assume that all music has 12 note measures and each note is used only once in that 12-note measure. Of course, that isn't the case. Each note may be used numerous times in any measure. This isn't making much sense. Oh well.

 

I heard a song today and I thought to myself how unique the chord progression is... that's the point of all this. How many different progressions can song writers use? Are there dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? I mean, heck, each note in the chromatic scale has umpteen variations as a chord. Major, minor, 7th, augmented, dimished, etc. and then combining those together. Like Gm7-5 or whatever. Sheesh.

 

Then you have the same chord progression would you put an entirely different bass line behind it and it's a totally new song. Or a different rhythm.

 

------------------

Duke

[KHAN]

Topic:   How many potential chord sequences are there?

 

13,861,give or take 4,682

 

------------------

 

 

KHAN (Always hopeful, yet discontent)

 

www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com

[surfjunkie]

infinity, or maybe 47

 

This message has been edited by wager47 on 10-08-2001 at 07:12 PM

[KHAN]

Originally posted by wager47:

infinity, or maybe 47

 

I'm not a betting man. But if I were, I would wager47... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

 

 

------------------

 

 

KHAN (Always hopeful, yet discontent)

 

www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com

[fantasticsound]

Live... cool it! Your head's gonna blow up any second now! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Seriously, you have me ROTFL!

 

As you point out (eventually! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ), the combinations are extremely complex when you realize the intangible nature of the rules, ie. Theory, and how we individuals perceive music differently from one another.

 

The most important point, IMO, is that slight changes in chord voicing can fool most of us into thinking we're hearing something new, when it's simply a slight variation. I've been surprised several times at how interesting and seemingly odd chord progressions turned out to be fragmented simple chord progressions, incognito! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif I'm not well read in music theory, but I'm intrigued by the relationship between chord progressions and our perceptions of them.

 

Keep pushing forward, Live! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

------------------

Neil

 

Reality: A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.

[LiveMusic]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Live... cool it! Your head's gonna blow up any second now!

 

Heehee... hopefully, you realize that I am HALF serious. I have zillions of weird ideas that pop into my head and I post a few of them. Hey, if you guys didn't have me to dream up all these stupid questions, you would have a real boring forum. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

I mean, there are some smart people on this forum. And I wish I could recall how to figure a permutation. Statistics is a very hard curicullum but I don't recall that formula (for a permutation) as being real complex. It would be interesting to know how many combinations of 12 notes there are, for instance. I think it's surprising... how high the number is... like... a VERY large number. It would actually give another perspective into music that you probably haven't considered. It's a goofy post but it's half serious. But hey, I'm glad you are laughing. Beats alternatives. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Of course, I laugh, too when I post some of these goofy questions.

 

P.S. I truly have wondered how song writers keep coming up with stuff that sounds unique. Very interesting. It's something I'd like to get into some day.

 

 

------------------

Duke

[LiveMusic]

Neil... I can't recall if I have posted anything about this... but recently, I heard the national anthem on radio. And it was BEAUTIFUL. I couldn't figure out who it was. I thought it might be Celine Dion. I called the station. Faith Hill. Man, it's killer. As far as SSB goes. But it's not only her singing, which is really good. The arrangement is awesome. Whoever did that knows what the hell they are doing. I find that very interesting... arranging. The DJ was bragging on Whitney Houston's version. I told him the Faith Hill one beats it bad.

 

It's also something that I have come to appreciate about... of all people... GEORGE JONES. He has some old stuff that has BEAUTIFUL progressions. I guarantee you he has a real pro doing his arranging. As an example, "I Always Get Lucky With You."

 

------------------

Duke

[strat0124]

Hey....you mean they can cypher that far in Shreveport????? : )

[DC]

How about how many songs use: D A G A. over and over?

[velvetoceansound]

The answer to your twelve note question is infinity...unless you limit the number of times you can play any of these twelve notes. If you have twelve notes to choose from, and you can only a series of eight notes, the answer would be 429981696. (twelve to the eighth power) same concept applies to your cord arrangement question...you can always add one more cord at the end of the passage and thus, you have created a unique passage.

[velvetoceansound]

The answer to your twelve note question is infinity...unless you limit the number of times you can play any of these twelve notes. If you have twelve notes to choose from, and you can only play a series of eight notes, the answer would be 429981696. (twelve to the eighth power) same concept applies to your cord arrangement question...you can always add one more cord at the end of the passage and thus, you have created a unique passage.

[dansouth]

Live,

 

I can suggest a simple rule that you can use to narrow things down. But first, take a look at this two octave G major scale.

 

G A B C D E F# G A B C D E F# G

 

By using notes in this scale, you can build a chord on any of these notes.

 

G Am Bm C D Em F#dim G (the pattern starts all over again).

 

And of course, you can alter the chords by introducing notes that don't naturally occur in the key of G. Instead of an Am, you could play an A. Instead of C, you could play a Cm. You get the idea.

 

Okay, here's the rule. A chord naturally leads to another chord that starts five notes lower on the scale. Think about it. If the song is in G, the last chord is probably a G chord. And the chord before that is almost always a D chord. Why? Because D is five notes higher than G.

 

Count up five scale tones from G (including the G). G A B C D

 

What note would naturally lead to a D. Count up five scale tones from D.

 

D E F# G A

 

So the Am (or just an A if you want a different sound) leads to the D, which in turn leads to a G. This leads to a very familiar chord progression.

 

Am D G

 

I'm sure that you've seen things like that before.

 

Let's use this progression to make a song. We'll play this progression twice (leading to G both times). Then we'll come up with a similar progression that leads to C, instead of G for variety. Then we'll play the original progression one last time.

 

The first part is easy. Just repeat our original chords twice.

 

Am D G____ Am D G_____

 

Next we want to lead to C. What chord is five notes above C? C D E F# G

 

To G will lead naturally into the C chord. What leads into a G? G A B C D

 

So the "middle" progression is going to be D G C. But let's use a Dm so we keep the minor, major, major pattern going that we started above.

 

Now our song looks like this.

 

Am D G____

Am D G____

Dm G C____

Am D G____

 

How does that sound? This is fine, but let's alter the chords a little bit to add a different flavor.

 

Am D G____

Am D7 G____

Dm7 G7 C____

Am7 D7 G____

 

Okay, one more trick. Let's substitute some new chords. The Am chord contains the notes A, C, and E. Let's substitute a C chord for the second Am chord. C has the notes C, E, and G, so it's not that different from Am.

 

Also, let's find a way for the C in the middle progression to lead more forcefully back to the Am7. What chord leads to Am? Count up five scale tones from A. A B C D E. So we can use an E or an Em chord. Either is fine, but let's use an E this time. It would also sound cool if we change that C to a CMAJ7, but the C will work just fine if you'd rather leave it that way. Here we go with version 3...

 

Am D G____

C D7 G____

Dm7 G7 CMAJ7 E

Am7 D7 G____

 

When you build chord progressions around chords that are separated by five scale tones, it's called the cycle of fifths. An interval of five scale tones is called a fifth in music theory, and every note in the scale has some other unique note that's five notes above it. The latter note leads into the former. This approach is very popular in jazz and "standards" (like Sinatra songs). It's not as widespread in rock, but it's still used in almost every song to a some degree. There are lots of other approaches, but many of those are variations on the cycle of fifths, so it's good to be aware of it. This works in every key, major or minor. Hope this helps. Have fun!

[dansouth]

One more thought. It might be good to extend our song into a longer verse by repeating it twice with one small modification between the two sets of chords.

 

Am D G____

C D7 G____

Dm7 G7 CMAJ7 E

Am7____ D7_____

 

Am D G____

C D7 G____

Dm7 G7 CMAJ7 E

Am7 D7 G____

 

If you can come up with a bridge (an alternate "B" section played once between verses or "A" sections) you'll have a complete song. Of course, you could make countless variations from this simple idea. I just wanted to give you an example of how the cycle of fifths is used in popular music. Have fun!

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Live,

 

I can suggest a simple rule that you can use to narrow things down. But first, take a look at this two octave G major scale.

 

G A B C D E F# G A B C D E F# G

 

By using notes in this scale, you can build a chord on any of these notes.

 

G Am Bm C D Em F#dim G (the pattern starts all over again).

 

And of course, you can alter the chords by introducing notes that don't naturally occur in the key of G. Instead of an Am, you could play an A. Instead of C, you could play a Cm. You get the idea.

 

Okay, here's the rule. A chord naturally leads to another chord that starts five notes lower on the scale. Think about it. If the song is in G, the last chord is probably a G chord. And the chord before that is almost always a D chord. Why? Because D is five notes higher than G.

 

Count up five scale tones from G (including the G). G A B C D

 

What note would naturally lead to a D. Count up five scale tones from D.

 

D E F# G A

 

So the Am (or just an A if you want a different sound) leads to the D, which in turn leads to a G. This leads to a very familiar chord progression.

 

Am D G

 

I'm sure that you've seen things like that before.

 

Let's use this progression to make a song. We'll play this progression twice (leading to G both times). Then we'll come up with a similar progression that leads to C, instead of G for variety. Then we'll play the original progression one last time.

 

The first part is easy. Just repeat our original chords twice.

 

Am D G____ Am D G_____

 

Next we want to lead to C. What chord is five notes above C? C D E F# G

 

To G will lead naturally into the C chord. What leads into a G? G A B C D

 

So the "middle" progression is going to be D G C. But let's use a Dm so we keep the minor, major, major pattern going that we started above.

 

Now our song looks like this.

 

Am D G____

Am D G____

Dm G C____

Am D G____

 

How does that sound? This is fine, but let's alter the chords a little bit to add a different flavor.

 

Am D G____

Am D7 G____

Dm7 G7 C____

Am7 D7 G____

 

Okay, one more trick. Let's substitute some new chords. The Am chord contains the notes A, C, and E. Let's substitute a C chord for the second Am chord. C has the notes C, E, and G, so it's not that different from Am.

 

Also, let's find a way for the C in the middle progression to lead more forcefully back to the Am7. What chord leads to Am? Count up five scale tones from A. A B C D E. So we can use an E or an Em chord. Either is fine, but let's use an E this time. It would also sound cool if we change that C to a CMAJ7, but the C will work just fine if you'd rather leave it that way. Here we go with version 3...

 

Am D G____

C D7 G____

Dm7 G7 CMAJ7 E

Am7 D7 G____

 

When you build chord progressions around chords that are separated by five scale tones, it's called the cycle of fifths. An interval of five scale tones is called a fifth in music theory, and every note in the scale has some other unique note that's five notes above it. The latter note leads into the former. This approach is very popular in jazz and "standards" (like Sinatra songs). It's not as widespread in rock, but it's still used in almost every song to a some degree. There are lots of other approaches, but many of those are variations on the cycle of fifths, so it's good to be aware of it. This works in every key, major or minor. Hope this helps. Have fun!

 

With your permission, Dansouth, I believe I'll copy this verbatim for future reference. I've studied a bit of theory, but I believe this is the best description of the use of the Circle of 5ths I've ever heard/read! Very nice! Now give me a C!!! A B-O-U-N-C-Y C!!!

 

(bouncy Broadway show music)"I was reading a silly forum.. ..when what.. do you think I found?..

The perfect description of writing.. ..that Circle of 5th's.. sound..

dat dat dat.. dum dum dum-and-whatever-the-hell-else......"

 

LiveMusic.. Faith Hill can sing. I just hate hearing her try to sing from the gut. Her version of "Piece of My Heart," must have Janis Joplin rolling in her grave. Maybe she OD'd in response to a premonition of Faith Hill redoing that song? (Sorry, I guess that was a bit tasteless. I like Janis, but that's no excuse... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif )

 

Faith Hill's voice was made for belting clear notes. She's a very nice woman, as well.

 

(My baby girl's first time on a big stage was for a Faith Hill concert.. well.. ok.. we'd finished load in when my wife arrived with Lilly, and Faith was hours from showing up.. but my, then 6 month old, child WAS onstage, none-the-less. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif )

 

Darn! I was going to point out the 12 to the 8th power model! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif That's a lot of notes! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

 

 

------------------

Neil

 

Reality: A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.

[dansouth]

Neil,

 

Cycle away, my friend! There's a lot more to say on the subject. Maybe I'll add more to the thread at a later date. For instance, centering the "middle progression" on C was completely arbitrary. You could use ANY other note...

 

Here's a possible bridge for the song.

 

Dm7 G7 C____

Dm7 G7 C____

Cm7 F7 Bb___

Am7___ D7____

 

Lots of fifths in there. (Austin Powers voice) Yeah, baby!

[Bill V]

I remember many years ago having a discussion with some musician friends about music. One of the guys' girlfriend over heard us and blurted out "well if their are only 12 notes, then why haven't all of the songs been written yet?" We thought it was the funniest thing we ever heard and it was a running joke for many years.

 

Of course all these years later it doesn't seem quite as funny to me as it did then because I now realize that in some ways probably most of the songs have all been written.

 

Western musical theory is based on a musical system devised by man. There are only eight notes and eight basic chords in a diatonic scale. These chords and basic melodic phrases have been used in almost every concievable possible combination at one time or another.

 

Of course there will always be new ways to package these elements into new and different arrangements so this is why people continue to be able to keep coming up with fresh new songs. New rhythms, interesting timbres and modern recording techniques can also help standard chord progressions sound exciting and new.

 

100% diatonic music only goes so far though before it can begin to sound predictable and sometimes bland, so that's where breaking the rules comes into play. Accidentals is the technical term for notes and chords that don't belong in a diatonic scale. For example playing an E major chord in the key of C major is technically incorrect but it might be just what makes a particular song have that certain special vibe.

 

The cool thing is that you don't have to know the rules in order to break them. Many of the best songs ever written were written by people who didn't know a thing about music theory or what chords are supposed to go with what other chords.

 

The blues musicians of the forties and fifties were apparently not aware that you're not supposed to play dominant sevenths on the one chord or that you don't play minor thirds on top of major chords, but the music that they created was some of the most aurally appealing ever recorded and the musical vocabulary that they created greatly influenced most of the pop music of the last fifty years.

 

When I was a kid I once had an old lady piano teacher come in and tell me something I was playing on the piano was wrong. I told her that it couldn't be wrong because I was the one who wrote it, but that didn't sway very well with her. I knew nothing about music theory and I'm sure she didn't listen to the same records I listened to so we were coming from completely different reference points. Not everyone hears certain music the same way. What might sound like noise to one person might send chills down the spine of someone else.

 

I used to like this band that used to play these real quirky songs. They changed keys every other measure and none of the chords in the songs had any relationship to each other what so ever. Most people who heard them thought they made just a big cacophony of obnoxious noise. They did, but they played with such a passion and the music had a really good beat that you could dance to.

[Fingerstyle_Jim]

And then you've got timing to add to the mix, the same chord progression could be altered a myriad of ways by changing how many bars you play each chord for. I hope this clears up none of the confusion.

I have also observed something, the same song played by two different people can sound like two different songs, I recently heard a female singer/pianist do a solo version of Ozzie's "Crazy Train" in a slow loungy style. I didn't recognize it at first and then I started to wonder why I knew what she was going to say next until the chorus came up and it hit me.

 

Jim in Canada

[LiveMusic]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

I just wanted to give you an example of how the cycle of fifths is used in popular music. Have fun!

 

Hey, great explanation! I don't know theory, just enough to know it exists and I know I need to know the 5ths thingy but your explanation is great!

 

I don't understand something though. Okay, you have these musical "rules" that say that this chord should follow that chord to make it sound good. And then you have people that break the rules and it sounds good. So, is there a need for any rules? Why not just let people get after it and dink around until they build something that sounds good instead of having a rule? I realize it's not cast in stone but it's kinda confusing. If you can break the rules and it still sounds good, is there a need for the rule, that's the point.

 

EDIT: Bill_V explained it a bit above.

 

------------------

Duke

 

This message has been edited by LiveMusic on 10-12-2001 at 10:23 AM

[LiveMusic]

Originally posted by Bill V:

The cool thing is that you don't have to know the rules in order to break them. Many of the best songs ever written were written by people who didn't know a thing about music theory or what chords are supposed to go with what other chords.

 

Did you just describe The Beatles' music? Their music seems quite complex sometimes... beautifully complex. I'll put it this way... it is far from boring. Sometimes I realize that take a path that I don't expect... with the chord progression. But it sounds good.

 

BTW, can you tell me if "Yesterday" fits the rules or not? The most recorded song in history... an incredible tune, no doubt... I'd like to know. Especially since Paul dreamed it virtually intact.

 

This thread is getting more interesting as we go along!

 

 

 

------------------

Duke

[D. Gauss]

<

 

if you are james brown, the answer is ONE. (but it's a good one!)

 

-d. guass

[Jeff Leites]

You mean there is something besides E A E B A E?

[Bill V]

"I don't understand something though. Okay, you have these musical "rules" that say that this chord should follow that chord to make it sound good. And then you have people that break the rules and it sounds good. So, is there a need for any rules? Why not just let people get after it and dink around until they build something that sounds good instead of having a rule?"

 

 

Well, the rules can basically be considered as just a starting point for creating music or better yet a reference tool that you pull out when you get stuck. But it really depends on the type of music and what you're trying to say musically.

 

Some kinds of pop music stick strictly to the rule book. For example country music for the most part is pretty much major key diatonic music. Most of the chord progressions and melodies all fit within the boundaries. They rarely draw outside the lines. Same goes for most pop music and standards that were written before the nineteen fifties. Songs like "Happy Birthday" or "God Bless America" or the Irving Berlin stuff ("There's no Business Like Show Business") all were mostly written in major diatonic keys.

 

Of course their were composers like Gershwin who borrowed liberally from the blues, and delta and later Chicago blues artists that weren't using the same book that most Europeans and white Americans were using, but most music from the early part of the twentieth century including jazz was based on the western diatonic musical system.

 

In the fifties things started to change a little. White musicians started picking up on the things that they heard in jazz (which was starting to get into modal music) and blues music. Pop musicians started to experiment and stretch out a bit. The blues scale has three half steps in a row. This is unlike any scale in the western system and the blues scale cannot be harmonized correctly in strictly diatonic music.

 

It's unclear just how much music theory the Beatles actually knew, but they were definitely music lovers and they were open to listening to all types of music. Therefore their influences both conscientiously and un conscientiously were probably pretty broad. They loved skiffle music and Pauls' father was a musician so they were certainly exposed to European based music but they also loved to listen to American blues records which is probably where they got all those dominant seventh chords and the blues based stuff like the guitar riff in daytripper. The chromatically descending line in "Eleanor Rigby" shows that they were not afraid to color outside the lines of western diatonic music, but it is doubtful due to their lack of formal music education and their varied musical influences that they knew that they were technically breaking any rules. Throughout their careers they continued their interest in different musical styles and later even got into non-western musical styles (especially George).

 

Having a lot of knowledge about music theory doesn't necessarily make someone a great musician. You can't really teach someone to be talented and some would argue that too much theory may even hinder someone's creative potential. If musicians were constantly looking at a rule book, then the rules would never get broken and if the rules never get broken then pop music would stagnate and get bland.

 

The so called rules are really just suggestions and what sounds good to the general public is constantly changing because what may have sounded odd to a previous generation may sound perfectly normal to later generations. Of course not everyone has the same educated ear or sophisticated tastes either. Some really harmonically complex avant-garde fusion music for example might sound like noise to some people while it may be sheer ecstasy to others.

 

Many pop musicians today like Peter Gabriel and Eddie Vedder are showing interests in world music. Some may feel that they have taken the western system as far as they can and would like to experiment with other musical languages. Supposedly the record company didn't want to release Stings' big hit single last year with the non-western vocal accompaniment. They wanted to erase it because they felt western ears would not find it musically appealing, but Sting insisted that it was a integral part of the song and they released it as is. It became a huge hit for him and many people feel that the eastern tinged vocal part is what made it so unique. It stood out from the rest of the stuff that was on the radio and ultimately made it become the big hit it was.

[Bill V]

Originally posted by LiveMusic:

 

BTW, can you tell me if "Yesterday" fits the rules or not? The most recorded song in history... an incredible tune, no doubt... I'd like to know. Especially since Paul dreamed it virtually intact.

 

Duke,

 

I don't have the sheet music or the CD, but by just playing around with the melody on my keyboard I can determine that "Yesterday" is not strictly diatonic. So I guess in sense you could say that it breaks the rules.

 

Lets say you start the melody on G with an F major chord. The next chord would be A major. When the melody gets to the first syllable of the word "trouble" you are playing a C# but when it gets to the word "Looks", you are playing a C natural, also the word "as" is a B flat whereas previously the word "my" was a B natural.

 

I assume that this song (as I'm playing it) is probably in the in the key of F major. I don't know, the Beatles version may be in a different key. So if you had the sheet music you could look at the key signature and see that their is only one flat in the key of F major and that is a B flat. All the rest of the notes should be naturals. So when you are playing the C# or the B natural you are playing "accidentals" and in the sheet music these would be indicated. Other wise it is assumed that all B notes would be played as B flat and all C notes would be played as C naturals.

 

It is interesting that they call music theory a "theory" and don't call it music fact. The people who devised our western music system did so based on certain physical properties that exist naturally and and had to make certain decisions that we all take for granted today.

 

Rhythm is the only element of music that is totally natural and exists as is in all the musical systems of the world. But rules concerning pitch and harmony are all man made and differ depending on how you divide the octave. In some parts of the world like the middle east and India, non-western Persian and eastern musical systems are still the dominant forms, but in places like Japan and the far east, western music has pretty much taken over. Some have suggested that maybe one of the reasons that there are so many Asian kids that become musical prodigies on violin and piano is because the western system that they are learning today is relatively easy compared to the harmonically complex eastern systems that dominated their culture in the past.

 

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Bill V on 10-13-2001 at 04:44 PM

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Bill V:

I don't have the sheet music or the CD, but by just playing around with the melody on my keyboard I can determine that "Yesterday" is not strictly diatonic. So I guess in sense you could say that it breaks the rules.

 

The thing that is important is to realize you judge everything against the tonality of the diatonic scale. If it seems like something has left the diatonic scale, that doesn't mean it's altered neccessarily but is most likely a modulation - temporary and quick as it may seem. Everything will make sense if viewed in this context. As long as you ask "what 7 notes in this moment of time fits what I'm playing over" it will make sense.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[dansouth]

Originally posted by LiveMusic:

I don't understand something though. Okay, you have these musical "rules" that say that this chord should follow that chord to make it sound good. And then you have people that break the rules and it sounds good. So, is there a need for any rules? Why not just let people get after it and dink around until they build something that sounds good instead of having a rule? I realize it's not cast in stone but it's kinda confusing. If you can break the rules and it still sounds good, is there a need for the rule, that's the point.

 

Imagine a chef working in his kitchen. If he wants to make some baked goods, he'll reach for some typical baking ingredients (flour, baking powder). If he wants to make pasta sauce, he'll reach for tomatoes, garlic, etc. Maybe one day he'll want to create some experimental dish that combines all of these ingredients, but in most instances he'll do better to rely on one or another subset of ingredients that typifies pasta sauces, cakes, etc.

 

Those subsets are like music theory rules. You can put any chord in any song, but bebop chords might not sound right in a country song, and vise versa, so you limit your choices by following a set of guidelines that defines an idiom. It's better to add "spice" sparingly, rather than having to pick from every ingredient in the kitchen every time you want to cook something.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by LiveMusic:

Did you just describe The Beatles' music? Their music seems quite complex sometimes... beautifully complex. I'll put it this way... it is far from boring. Sometimes I realize that take a path that I don't expect... with the chord progression. But it sounds good.

 

BTW, can you tell me if "Yesterday" fits the rules or not? The most recorded song in history... an incredible tune, no doubt... I'd like to know. Especially since Paul dreamed it virtually intact.

 

This thread is getting more interesting as we go along!

 

 

 

But the Beatles DID follow the rules. They didn't learn these rules in school; they picked them up by listening to the music of people they admired. They added some variations here and there, but by and large, their music follows Western harmonic rules. Here are some examples of the Beatles applying the cycle of fifths rule that I discussed earlier.

 

YESTERDAY: (Em7b5) all my (A7) troubles seemed so (Dm) far away

 

This is the minor version of the ii-V-I progression I used in my example song. Consider the F major scale:

 

F G A Bb C D E F G A Bb C D E F

 

E leads down a fifth to A, which leads down a fifth to D. The chords that Paul used occur naturally in the F scale, and F is the key of the song.

 

 

HEY JUDE: "then you can © start to make it (F) better."

 

C leads down a fifth to F in the F major scale. Even more interesting:

 

"then you © begin to make it (F) better. (F7) And any time you feel the (Bb) pain..."

 

C leads down a fifth to F, and F, with added "pressure" from the seventh, leads down to Bb, temporarily changing the song's key center.

 

 

ALL MY LOVING: "And then (F#m) while I'm a- (B) -way, I'll write (E) home every..." You can verify that this is a ii-V-I cycle of fifths progression in the key of E.

 

 

I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND: "(Dm) and when I (G) touch you I feel © happy in-(Am)-side. (Dm) It's such a (G) feeling that my © love I can't (D) hide"

 

Dm -> G - down a fifth

G -> C - down a fifth

C -> Am - down a third (another common interval in western theory)

Am -> Dm - down a fifth

Dm -> G - down a fifth

G -> C - down a fifth

C -> D - up a second. This jump (Subdominant to Dominant in technical terms) is a common way to lead back to G, the key of the verse (the bridge is in C). D leads back to G, because it's a fifth interval.

 

The Beatles used these rules extensively. They fact that they learned the rules intuitively by listening to the music of others is a testament to the fundamental power of the rules themselves. Fifth intervals are emotionally compelling and satisfying. Listen to these examples and see if you agree.

 

This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 10-17-2001 at 07:04 PM

[G. Ratte]

Wow, this is fantastic. I've never seen anyone analyze Beatles progressions so well.

 

I read this really good book a while back, _Lies My Music Teacher Taught Me_ which has an explanation of the diatonic chord system vs. tempered tuning and all that. This stuff is all math & psychology, it's not just western cultural baggage. Chords "work" because the frequencies of the notes within them divide up evenly and people like that, just like people like rhythmic patterns in everything else. A chord is a pattern of frequencies interacting, just like a 1-measure drum beat is a pattern of hats, kick & snare, or whatever. Or the balance of elements in a painting. Or symetrical features on a face. People dig patterns in everything, that's just how brains work.

 

You can go outside the diatonic system with _1_ thing at a time (ie: a blue note) and it sounds bad-ass 'cuz it's standing out, it screams for you to notice it.

"Pay attention to my killer note here which I'm bending and making my bending-note face in extreme pain! Yeah baby!"

 

Too many things outside and you're Japanese noise art rock and only grad students will give you money. So dress accordingly.

 

The big alterna-post-punk band Jawbox used to do this trick where they'd take a simple open chord, say a Cmaj, and scoot it up the neck a fret and let it jangle there, building up tension before they got into the big pop part. So you've got all your bases covered... you got the hit tune buried in amongst your street cred. Same w/Fugazi, At The Drive In, et. all. Too clever...

 

G. Ratte'

[Chip McDonald]

It's transcendental, a continuum.

 

Is E D A the same chord progression played on piano by John Tesh as it is played by Angus Young through a cranked Marshall? Literally it is, but in a human sense it isn't. Since it is a human concept one must measure it in human terms: in this way it is pointless to contemplate.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

It's transcendental, a continuum.

 

Is E D A the same chord progression played on piano by John Tesh as it is played by Angus Young through a cranked Marshall? Literally it is, but in a human sense it isn't. Since it is a human concept one must measure it in human terms: in this way it is pointless to contemplate.

 

It's the same chord progression, because harmony is timbre and instrument independent. But your post brings up a good point. Music is much more than harmony. It's rhythm, sound quality, feel, groove, melody, inflection, emotion, swing, sex, fun, humor, attitude, style, showmanship and a whole bunch of other qualities mixed into one glorious final product. Only a few of these qualities can be notated on staff paper or analyzed in terms of intervalic relationships. The rest is the "magic" of music that we can learn only by listening to the masters in action, by copping their licks and their feel until it becomes a part of us.