All Pop Songs Use The Same Four Chords

[gradual]

So there's this comedy band called Axis of Awesome...and I'm sure most people have seen their "4-chord song" routine by now...there are quite a few versions of it floating around YouTube. If you haven't yet, here it is:

Basically, the argument that is the basis for their routine is that all the hit songs from the past 40 years use the same four chords...I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration (I believe it's more like ten years, and there are always exceptions), but nonetheless it seems more than ever that this is becoming increasingly true.

I'm aware a lot of early rock 'n roll used the same three or four chords, so of course this is nothing new...but then Beatles, Beach Boys and others came along and introduced a lot of different possibilities into pop music about what could be done with harmonies and chord progressions. Take "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as a good example. But now it seems in recent years, we've actually gone backwards, where nearly every popular song uses the same four-chord progression...specifically I, V, vi, IV.

The implication is for me that this has almost become a rule, where a song has a very small chance of being successful anymore unless it uses those same four chords. If you listen to almost anything on the radio these days, that certainly seems to be the case. And if you are a songwriter with ambitions for your songs to get recorded by other artists, or reach a mass audience, that can put some serious restrictions on how creative you are allowed to be.

So I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are about this? I'm actually split on this...I'm a little bothered by the lack of variety these days...on the other hand, I'm a believer in keeping things simple in songwriting, and it really doesn't get much more simple than that. Also, I sort of believe music trends are sort of like a pendulum...once people get sick of hearing too much of one thing, it starts to swing in the other direction. Then it swings back. So we may be near the end of this particular cycle already. But who knows?

[Gijs]

I think there will always be kind of a split in the market. The biggest part want easy to listen to music. They don't care how it's made as long as it's catchy. The other part is interested in music in a more involved sence. They hear it when a song uses only four chords the entire song and the seek for music that does more than that.

This distinction has always been there. In the 1800's the majority liked the easy 'sitcom'like opera's better the the 'difficult' mozart opera's. There was a majority of easy listening music in the 60's as much as in all other decades and centuries.

Once in a whiule a band breaks thru the barrier and manages to be interesting to both types of public. If the Beatles hadn't written such a catchy.tunes they wouldn't have made it to the mainstream.

I think thta instead of focusing on changing the mainstream public and music we should focus on making the 'art'-scene more in the open/organized.

[gradual]

I don't want to this come off as a "mainstream music sucks" diatribe, because I actually like a lot of pop music, and I think it often gets an unfairly bad rap. There's some good stuff out there, but it tends to get lumped together with the crap, just because it's popular, and I don't think that makes sense. I also don't necessarily dislike a song or think it isn't any good just because it uses the same four chords. A good song is a good song.

Mainly what I'm trying to get at is what the implication is for songwriters...how pervasive is the idea, either in the industry or the culture at large, that the only way your song can be successful or reach people is if you use that one chord progression. I just feel like it can severely limit the musical palette that we have to work with.

[Gijs]

Generally speaking, I think that we knowledgable musicians & writers suffer from an uncontrollable urge to over-analyze things-LOL

• A thorough knowledge of all things musical
  
• a complete understanding of what we hear
  
• and the personal desire to put it all to good use
  

....are extremely valuable tools for a writer to posess. But, too often, writers allow those tools to guide their creative process. I'm not exempting myself either...I fall into this trap too. But I can't help thinking that we'd all be much better off if more consideration was given to "who" the songs are being written for.

Are we writing strictly for ourselves? Most of us aren't! Most of us would like to think that other, non-musical folks, might also enjoy some of what we produce. So why does it seems as if the bulk of our efforts go into components of the song that matter to no one except another musician?

Honest to GOD...it wasn't until I became a songwriter that I began to realize what the regular, everyday, non-musician listener focuses on. For the most part, they hear the vocal and the melody. Not only do they not realize the song has 4 chords, they wouldn't five a sh** if they did. They tend to focus on the elements which they're capable of understanding.....the voice, basic melody sung by the voice & the overall rhythmic feel of the song. They get that stuff! So why would we spend any significant amount of time considering how many chords it contains? They won't!

Seriously guys, I know it's fun to kick this stuff around. But I really do feel as if we writers chose to miss the point sometimes. In the end I guess all these things should be given due consideration. Just not top priority.

Sorry if I got a bit preachy-LOL Just so happens I did a pretty extensive blog about this topic last year.

http://forums.songst...ian-priorities/

Tom

I agree to some extend. Writing difficult music for the sake of writing difficult music is nonsence. Noone cares if you wrote a napolitan sixt instead of a second when it doesn't make the music more expressive/beautifull/powerfull what have you.

But I do feel the use of a napolitan sixt can be extremely powerfull when use in a specific context. Almost no pop-song uses this sixt when it could be used to get a great effect. And that's where keeping the same four chords all the time (exaggerating) is a waste. The music is kept simpel because there is little need to do more. If the song is catchy and the singer famous the song will bring in the money with or without that fancy chord (I hope it's obvious the napolitan sixt is just an example). However the music would be far more interesting if the sixt was used. And that is something the 'everyday' listener would have heard aswell.

I think the close harmonies in some/a lot of Beatles songs are spine shifferingly beautiful. Would the song be a hit without it? I think it would. But those 'extra's' make the song far more beautifull. And the 'everyday' can also appreciate it, be it on a subconcious level.

[Steve]

You'll notice however that all those songs have different melodies? Makes all the difference!

[gradual]

Generally speaking, I think that we knowledgable musicians & writers suffer from an uncontrollable urge to over-analyze things-LOL

• A thorough knowledge of all things musical
  
• a complete understanding of what we hear
  
• and the personal desire to put it all to good use
  

....are extremely valuable tools for a writer to posess. But, too often, writers allow those tools to guide their creative process. I'm not exempting myself either...I fall into this trap too. But I can't help thinking that we'd all be much better off if more consideration was given to "who" the songs are being written for.

Are we writing strictly for ourselves? Most of us aren't! Most of us would like to think that other, non-musical folks, might also enjoy some of what we produce. So why does it seems as if the bulk of our efforts go into components of the song that matter to no one except another musician?

Honest to GOD...it wasn't until I became a songwriter that I began to realize what the regular, everyday, non-musician listener focuses on. For the most part, they hear the vocal and the melody. Not only do they not realize the song has 4 chords, they wouldn't five a sh** if they did. They tend to focus on the elements which they're capable of understanding.....the voice, basic melody sung by the voice & the overall rhythmic feel of the song. They get that stuff! So why would we spend any significant amount of time considering how many chords it contains? They won't!

Seriously guys, I know it's fun to kick this stuff around. But I really do feel as if we writers chose to miss the point sometimes. In the end I guess all these things should be given due consideration. Just not top priority.

Sorry if I got a bit preachy-LOL Just so happens I did a pretty extensive blog about this topic last year.

http://forums.songst...ian-priorities/

Tom

I know there are a lot of musicians with the attitude that if it is too simple, or if it isn't clever enough, or doesn't break new ground, it isn't worthy of their time. So I suppose it is easy to assume this is the attitude I hold. However, I thought I'd made it clear enough in the OP that this is not how I feel. I like a lot of songs that use those four chords. I'm also a big believer in the pop song format...verse-chorus, under 4 minues, catchy singable melody, relatable to the average audience. Those are the kinds of songs I'm interested in writing. I'm not a big fan of jazz or metal, or anything "progressive", really.

So why should I care about the parts of the song that a listening audience does not? Well, I'm a "musician", for lack of a better term. Music is how I exercise my creativity. It's like saying to a painter that they must only paint using red and blue, or that they can only use straight lines, no curves, otherwise the public will not like it. It isn't necessarily about "chords", any more than about instrumentation, or beats per minute....what I'm really talking about is creative restriction...like being used to having a full toolbox to work with, only to have half of them taken away. It sometimes appears as though the rules and regulations for what's acceptable in a pop song are tightening and becoming more strict. Which I imagine would be a little alarming to any creative person.

And if chords didn't matter to the audience at all, then writers should be free to experiment a little more, knowing that people wouldn't notice it anyway, right? The fact that so many songs follow such strict guidelines would suggest to me the opposite...that to someone out there--be it people in the industry, or the public at large--chords matter a lot, if not consciously, then on a subliminal level. So much so, that writers feel they can't take the risk of merely substituting the vi with a iii (or even leaving out the fourth chord), for fear that the public may reject it.

[TapperMike]

One thing I'd like to mention. I've seen this video a few times. Some of the songs they cover are not the actual chord progressions just close enough so the less discerning ear can't tell the difference.

For many years I used to host a blues jam. There are actually close to 70 variations on the standard 12 bar blues. Not keys but actual chord progressions. I used to keep 40 of these variations printed out using roman numerals and lamenated. That way if someone wanted to jam and couldn't read roman numerals I'd grease pencil the chords per key. When you're hosting a blues jam about half to three quarters of the audience are musicians (usually guitarists) who stare at your hands. Many are blues devotee's who know every song note for note and by different artists. So if you say to a Devotee "Stormy Monday" they'll reply which version, T-Bone , Bobbie Blue Bland, Buddy Guy, The Allman Brothers each one of them did the song with the same progression however different keys and approaches.

As for songs and progressions. The hardest fall comes to those who know just enough theory to be dangerous and yet don't have a lot of experience playing covers. Especially Jazz. Music is constantly evolving. One can't take pythagoras too seriously.

[TapperMike]

That's a hard sell with me. While I agree a lot of music today is not up to the standards of yesteryear There are always the excecptions to the rules. There are no more Carole Kings unless you count Alicia Keys or Norah Jones. And if you've ever listened to Lady Gaga before when she was little Stephani whatever you'll hear the sophisticated changes and smart lyrics as well.

I don't listen to radio for music. I listen to my collection or youtube. Granted it's a lot of filtering to get to the good stuff. Terra Naomi and Julia Nunes are perfect examples of singer songwriters from this generation who carry the traditions of performance/recording with them. Now, I'm by no means rich. but when an artist comes along that I like I buy thier mp3's and help out with kickstarter contributions. Why? Because if you want the music you like to be popular it starts with you. By your support of a given artist. If no one ever bought a 45, album, CD, mp3 of the artists you enjoy. The ones you drew inspiration from chances are you'd have never heard of them and never been inspired to write or perform. The buying public is the one who ultimately decides if something is popular. Not the hype machine and not the artist. If you are not supporting the type of music you like then you are part of the problem not the solution.

[MikeRobinson]

The most hilarious take on this is Pachelbel's Rant:

by Rob Paravonian. Classic)(al).

But, y'know, maybe that's the hidden point: using the same twelve notes, the same well-understood notions of harmony and so forth, creativity is endless ... and, endlessly entertaining.

We don't have to apologize to one another for using the same alphabet. "Write on! I look forward to hearing it! (And BTW: I've got money in my pocket.)"

[Ray888]

On 2012-5-9 at 9:55 PM, tunesmithth said:

Generally speaking, I think that we knowledgable musicians & writers suffer from an uncontrollable urge to over-analyze things-LOL

• A thorough knowledge of all things musical
• a complete understanding of what we hear
• and the personal desire to put it all to good use

 

....are extremely valuable tools for a writer to posess. But, too often, writers allow those tools to guide their creative process. I'm not exempting myself either...I fall into this trap too. But I can't help thinking that we'd all be much better off if more consideration was given to "who" the songs are being written for.

 

Are we writing strictly for ourselves? Most of us aren't! Most of us would like to think that other, non-musical folks, might also enjoy some of what we produce. So why does it seems as if the bulk of our efforts go into components of the song that matter to no one except another musician?

 

Honest to GOD...it wasn't until I became a songwriter that I began to realize what the regular, everyday, non-musician listener focuses on. For the most part, they hear the vocal and the melody. Not only do they not realize the song has 4 chords, they wouldn't five a sh** if they did. They tend to focus on the elements which they're capable of understanding.....the voice, basic melody sung by the voice & the overall rhythmic feel of the song. They get that stuff! So why would we spend any significant amount of time considering how many chords it contains? They won't!

 

Seriously guys, I know it's fun to kick this stuff around. But I really do feel as if we writers chose to miss the point sometimes. In the end I guess all these things should be given due consideration. Just not top priority.

 

Sorry if I got a bit preachy-LOL Just so happens I did a pretty extensive blog about this topic last year.

http://forums.songstuff.com/blog/75/entry-952-songwriter-musician-priorities/

 

Tom

I'm not a musician myself and don't play any instrument except my voice but I totally agree with you that many musicians over analyze songs.

I grew up around musicians in the early sixties who were all about creating new music and breaking boundaries. Many songwriters today seem to be more interested in writing a hit song than breaking into new territory. What really hurts is that major labels and radio stations have steered the markets towards known formula's which they know will make them the most money. Where are the Richard Bransons who took a chance on "Tubular bells"?. Where are the innovators like Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and many others who stretched the boundaries of music and the labels that backed them? YES they are out there but small labels don't have the backing of mainstream radio because they are in the pockets of the majors. This is nothing new because I can remember this happening with mainstream stations way back and it was a breath of fresh air when pirate stations like Radio Caroline started to play songs that mainstream wouldn't play. The truth is that we don't live in a free society where equal opportunity exists for all because the music industry is manipulated by the Moguls. I know this because I spent 9 years on that side of the fence during the 1980s. We had the punk years, which although I was never crazy about it personally, it was refreshing to hear something new and different. Rap was a new inspiration although that has not evolved as I would have liked to have seen. My personal view is to create something from your soul without worrying what will be acceptable to the market or not. If something works, it works. That's my little rant for the day lol, and if any major labels are looking in you know what I am talking about, so get yourself some balls and put some money into signing something new.

[MikeRobinson]

Actually, Ray, I'm not persuaded that "the Moguls" that you speak of have nearly the power and the influence that they once did – because, today, you can hear what you like.  Streaming services, "Internet Radio," and many other avenues now exist for getting your music directly into the hands of your audience.

 

The problem that "the Moguls" always had was ... vinyl.  And CDs, and all the other physical things that stood in the way of getting "my" song into "your" ears.  They hedged their bets by creating "genres," currying audience expectations to fall predictably into one-or-more of those genres, and creating "stars."  Nonetheless, only a few "stars" ever made it.  And, for those Moguls, the economics haven't really changed much.  Don't ever expect to see much diversity on your XM Radio.

 

Today, performers can reach audiences directly – and, audiences can (and do!) reach back!  Performances are counted.  Royalties are paid.  Furthermore, the "cost of goods sold" is virtually zero so that even a small profit becomes a big deal.  If you pay $1 per unit for something that essentially cost me $0 per unit to produce (after certain fixed costs are amortized, obviously), then nearly all of that dollar is mine.  And, it takes a whole lot less dollars coming in to equal the same net profit that a much apparently-bigger and more-glamorous-sounding conventional deal would have earned.  I can afford to experiment, because I don't have to "print plastic and put it into a truck, then a warehouse, then a store" to find out if my experiment worked.