Chord Progressions

[Lazz]

Frank Zappa, who (as I understand it) was not well-loved in jazz circles

I dunno about that.

There are Zappa tunes in jazz Fake Books.

I thought we liked him ok.

.

[Lazz]

............For Example:

The standard II-V-I turnaround in C – being Dm7 – G7 – CMajor7:

Blah-blah-blah-blah.....

Actually, I quite like the way this guy Gianni Chiarello communicates and illustrates the same ii-v-I voice-leading deal (apart from the tri-tone/b5 substitution.).

His web-site seems to have a lot of other good stuff:

http://www.playgtr.net/

.

[Lazz]

More basic building blocks info:

.

[john]

good links Lazz

[Retrosaurus Rex]

I dunno about that.

There are Zappa tunes in jazz Fake Books.

I thought we liked him ok.

Cool. I wasn't there, so I wouldn't really know... it's just that all the jazz guys I've met were so _serious... and Frank's sense of humor knew no bounds, and was integral to his art, so there may have been some assuming in effect. Thanks for the links!

[Lazz]

all the jazz guys I've met were so _serious... and Frank's sense of humor knew no bounds,

Shame - maybe that's just Hollywierd.

Doesn't stop the necessity of being serious about their art, but jazz guys are the funniest people I know.

Larry Goldings is a great piano-player, studied with Keith Jarrett, for example, played with big names from Sarah Vaughan through Jim Hall up to Brecker and Metheny, has a mean organ trio with Peter Bernstein and Bill Stewart, in-demand sideman for session with De La Soul, Tracy Chapman, Walter Becker, Till Bronner, Jesse Harris, John Mayer.........., took over the late Don Grolnick's gig as MD for James Taylor...... I mean he is serious heavyweight pro league.

His alter ego, however, is the Austrian pianist Hans Groiner "from Braunau, also the birthplace of Hitler, but please don't hold that against me," who plays http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51bsCRv6kI0.

Hans also has his own dedicated MySpace.

.

[inovermyhead]

Are there any golden rules, guidelines or tips when it comes to creating a chordprogression?

I'm trying to write my first song at the moment, I've done lots of lyrics before, but I have never created a melody and music all on my own. Therefore I go by feeling only when I try to write a good chord progression, but it would be helpful to know some general guidelines

Boff

I think it was finn who said the feel is what's important and I agree keep it as simple as possible and let your ears guide you if it sounds good and feels good then it is good. Just fool around don't think about it just try and get chords that sound good and work together guide you.

How ever you will get to a point where you can't move forward and this is were you'll need help. When ever I get stuck I use this very simple formular, firstly pick a key that goes with your voice say the key of A.

Then write the first seven letters of the alphabet starting with the letter A I've written it out below then number them 1 to 7

Now find the first chord which is A and write the number one under it just like I've done in the diagram below.

Now find the 4th chord and do the same thing

Now find the 5th chord and do the same thing again

Ok now these are the 3 major chords in the key of A and thousands of songs have been written with these 3 chords try it Boff it's as simple as that.

To choose another key just start with a different letter but the formular is the same this is the basics of understanding keys which is vital to writing chord progressions.

Ok I've also written out the rest of the formular as well chords 3 and 6 go under the 1st chord. 2 goes under the 4th chord and 7 goes under the 5th chord.

Get your guitar out look at the diagram that I've written out you can go from left to right if you want the progression to go up

Or you can go from right to left if you want it to desend again it's up to you to say to yourself does it sound good does it feel good I hope this helps.

Michael

A B C D E F G

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A D E

1 4 5

CF B G

36 2 7

Edited March 16, 2010 by inovermyhead

[Lazz]

Hi Michael.

I don't know whether Boff is still checking these responses out - it all may have become just too much information in one loose bundle.

Your addition has confused me a bit though. I mean, I'm sure there is something useful in there and I'm just a complete failure in figuring it out properly.

It's my problem, I guess, not yours, but I crash and burn trying to make sense of your last paragraph in conjunction with the diagram.

Any chance you could take another bash at explanation ?

Two other significant bits I stumbled over is first the fact that in the key of A, unlike what you've written, the third sixth and seventh notes would need to be raised in order to make a major scale - so that those notes where you've put the numbers 3, 6, and 7 should be C#, F#, and G#, respectively.

Second thing is that the IV and V are NOT Major chords - they are dominant chords.**

(Sometimes I tend to think that when people say 'Major' what they really mean to say is 'not minor'.)

I'd like to be able to follow how your diagram works.

** Bugger !

The V is dominant; the IV is Major (with it's own special twist).

That's better.

.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Lazz
Shameless need to correct myself.

[Retrosaurus Rex]

I think it's important to make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Regarding the number system a couple of posts above, I think that's a good system for getting a handle on basic diatonic harmony, but it's problematic for the reason Lazz picked up, which is that it mostly disregards the quality of the chords, and fails to make a distinction between triads and 7th chords. I'll assume you already know the notes in all the Major keys, or at least the ones you actually use. I'm tempted to demonstrate in C, because it requires no funky hieroglyphics to name the notes, but since this was already started with A, which is a pretty guitar friendly key, I'll go with that... so, the notes are actually:

A B C# D E F# G# and A again, and so on...

the Major triads are:

A D and E

1 4 5

or I might say

I IV V

the other triads are the minor 2, 3, & 6 (I say: ii, iii, & vi) and the diminished 7 (vii-). The iii & the vi each have two notes in common with I, so they line up thus...

A

I

C#m F#m

iii vi

The ii & the vii- line up with IV & V for similar reasons, so you have...

A D E

I IV V

C#m F#m Bm G#dim

iii iv ii vii-

So, I think what Michael was getting at is that you can basically improvise chord progressions in any key using this number system by playing thru either line horizontally in either direction, and substituting or progressing vertically as well. Pretty cool. Of course, you can extend any chord to the 7th for a whole 'nother layer of coolness...

AMaj7 DMaj7 E7

IMaj7 IVMaj7 V7

C#m7 F#m7 Bm7 G#m7b5

iii7 iv7 ii7 vii7b5

Still incomplete, but I hope it's somewhat useful...

[Lazz]

That was way better than a sharp stick.

Way better.

Thanks for taking time to put work and attention into helping me out.

I'm now following Michael's diagram and intent ok.

Brilliant

I do hope Boff is still following this thread that he started.

.

[Alana]

I'm a huge theory geek, so I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant about counterpoint. Hopefully this will make sense to someone. Yes, I-IV-V-I works. But why does it work? Because it follow counterpoint! When writing a progression in a major key, this is how Mozart did it. And Mozart is pretty good, yeah?

iii goes to vi. iv can go to ii or IV. ii and IV can go to V or vii. V and vii can go to I. I can go anywhere.

iii - vi - [iV] - [V ] - I

[ ii ] - [vii]

EXCEPTIONS: V can go to vi, IV can go to ii.

Note: A complicated chart

In minor: VII goes to III. III goes to VI. VI goes to iv or ii. iv and ii goes to V or vii. V and vii go to i.

VII - III - VI - [iv] - [V] - i

[ ii] - [vii]

EXCEPTIONS: V can go to VI, iv can go to ii, i can go anywhere.

These charts are displayed much nicer in theory books. I recommend Tonal harmony. I couldn't find a picture of it anywhere...

I tend to stick with I-vi-IV-V, with slight variations, but if I was writing a chorale, this is how I'd do it: Say you're in G major (my favorite key to write in). G major is I. I would pick a chord at random (because I can go anywhere), say vi. From vi I could go to either IV or ii. I choose ii because I-vi-IV is over done. from ii I go to either V or vii. I choose vii because I'm cool like that. Then to I. Then anywhere I want!

I hope at least a little of that made sense to someone.

Honestly, everyone else has it exactly right. When writing popular music, you're best to listen to other people. Figure out what progressions you like. Borrow. But, if you want to write something completely unique (you never will), I recommend following counterpoint rules at first. They will help. But, they are just rules. And you know what they say about rules...

[Coises]

I'm a huge theory geek

The Cliff’s Notes on Alana’s post:

* If you don’t know what the Circle of Fifths is, try it out (clockwise and counter-clockwise, e.g., as a circle of fourths).

* You should also know what minor key/chord is related to each major key/chord (it’s easy: the relative minor is three half-steps down from the major), because the minors can frequently substitute for the majors.

* Go wherever you like, but when you get stuck, try moving to a chord adjacent (either clockwise or counter-clockwise) in the circle. The further you jump in the circle, the stranger the sound. If you’re going to jump more than two spots (e.g., C to Eb), you’ll probably need to give your listeners a lead-in (such as having the bass play C-D-Eb to help them adjust to the transition to Eb). (Try it; try C to Eb cold, then try it with the bass emphasizing C under the C chord, passing to D and then sounding Eb under the Eb chord.)

* When you add the 7th to a major chord, it pulls hard to go counter-clockwise; e.g., G7 resolves well to C, but G7 to D is jarring — not necessarily wrong, but difficult to make work. It can also skip two points clockwise to to the relative minor chord (e.g., G7 to Dm or Dm7 — G7 to F isn’t impossible, but it’s not so comfortable as G to F or G7 to Dm), but that in turn pulls hard to go right back to the same chord and eventually counter-clockwise (e.g., G7-Dm7-G7-Dm-G7... it has to go to C, or Am, sooner or later, or heads will explode).

* And finally, as all old musicians know... never play a maj7 chord in a bar that’s named after an animal or a firearm.

[thepopeofpop]

* When you add the 7th to a major chord, it pulls hard to go counter-clockwise; e.g., G7 resolves well to C, but G7 to D is jarring — not necessarily wrong, but difficult to make work.

That's also because the 3rd in a D chord is F# - this sounds jarring following the F in the G7 chord. Gmaj7 resolves much more nicely to D. G7 resolves much more nicely to Dm.

That doesn't mean that you can't do a more difficult chord progression - it just requires more care. The circle of fifths is just a convenient notion - you can use it or ignore it as you see fit. Or go "the wrong way" - backwards - around the circle of fifths (a circle of fourths if you go backwards, as you point out).

[Lazz]

* When you add the 7th to a major chord, it pulls hard to go counter-clockwise; e.g., G7 resolves well to C, but....

I find a contradiction clashing and begging resolution.

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.

I am simply not following how or why adding a 7th pulls counter-clockwise round the cycle.

Help me make sense of what you're saying, somebody, please.

The example you give - G7 to C - doesn't read as counter-clockwise to me at all.

Maybe it's a typo.

Maybe not.

Help.

Also...

G7 is not a Major chord.

There are five types of chord: Major, minor, dominant, diminished, half-diminished.

If G7 were a Major chord it would be spelled out as GMaj7 - but it isn't, is it.

G7 is a dominant chord which feels like it wants to resolve to CMaj7.

From V to I.

Clockwise.

Innit.

The circle of fifths is just a convenient notion - you can use it or ignore it as you see fit.

Yeah.

But first you have to understand what it's about and discover just how useful it is.

Then you can decide.

.

[Coises]

The example you give - G7 to C - doesn't read as counter-clockwise to me at all.

I was going by the diagram at the Wikipedia link I gave for the Circle of Fifths. In that diagram, chords/keys (the circle of fifths can be viewed either way, as chords or as key signatures) are positioned like these numbers on a clock face:

12 -> C / Am (no flats or sharps)

1 -> G / Em (1 sharp)

2 -> D / Bm (2 sharps)

3 -> A / F#m (3 sharps)

4 -> E / C#m (4 sharps)

5 -> B / G#m (5 sharps)

6 -> F#-Gb / D#m-Ebm (6 sharps or 6 flats)

7 -> Db / Bbm (5 flats)

8 -> Ab / Fm (4 flats)

9 -> Eb / Cm (3 flats)

10 -> Bb / Gm (2 flats)

11 -> F / Dm (1 flat)

So any form of G major to any form of C major is moving from 1 to 12 on the clock face: backwards, or counter-clockwise.

G7 is not a Major chord.

There are five types of chord: Major, minor, dominant, diminished, half-diminished.

Begging your pardon, but... you have this all mixed up.

There are many more than five types of chord, but the usual place to start is with the four types of triads: major, minor, augmented and diminished.

“Dominant” is not a type of chord; it’s a scale degree (the fifth).

You probably meant “dominant seventh,” which is a type of chord, and G7 is a dominant seventh... I’m being picky here only because the terminology gets hopelessly muddled if one is not picky. Once you get into sevenths, though, there are over half a dozen types. However, every seventh chord consists of a triad plus one more note. My comment was that when you add the seventh degree (minor seventh, though I didn’t state that explicitly), the resulting chord (which is a dominant seventh) has a strong pull to go counter-clockwise (that is, to the major chord built on the fourth degree of the root of dominant seventh).

If G7 were a Major chord it would be spelled out as GMaj7

G7 (G-B-D-F) and Gmaj7 (G-B-D-F#) are both seventh chords built by adding one note to a G major triad. In terms of the circle of fifths, chords build on a major or minor triad function mostly like the triad on which they are built, so G7 and Gmaj7 both function a lot like plain old G (major). Gm7 (G-Bb-D-F) functions like a G minor chord. I don’t find the circle of fifths to be much help in figuring out what to do with augmented and diminished chords.

I am simply not following how or why adding a 7th pulls counter-clockwise round the cycle.

The how you can hear by playing them (once we’re using the same definition of counter-clockwise). As for the why... probably partly tradition, and partly the fact that the only dominant seventh chord — which is what you get when you add the (minor) 7th to a major triad — that can be built from the notes in a major scale is the one built on — you guessed it! — the dominant degree of the scale, which is “resolved” by a return to the tonic (a perfect fourth up or perfect fifth down from the dominant, which means one step counter-clockwise in the circle of fifths).

Edited September 21, 2010 by Coises

[Lazz]

I was going by the diagram at the Wikipedia link I gave for the Circle of Fifths.

Coises !

Dammit!

You're right.

But I don't do Wikipedia (especially regarding music) so didn't look.

The circle wheel I have turns in the other direction.

So that mistaken confusion is sorted.

Thanks.

Begging your pardon, but... you have this all mixed up.

No, I don’t – what I have is obviously a different way of conceptualizing.

The usual way to start for a boy with a guitar learning some grips is to go the old simple route of basic triads, it’s true – but I tend to find that pretty restrictive and unhelpful in terms of developing any usefully cumulative understanding of guidelines for ways to build progressions – which is what Boff originally asked about in kicking off this thread.

For me, instead of triads, the better place to start is the Major scale – in terms of which, if you show me an ‘augmented’ chord, for example, I might be more likely to find a b13.

I’m being picky here only because the terminology gets hopelessly muddled if one is not picky.

Can’t disagree with that one bit.

Unambiguous clarity is our mutual goal – even though hard to achieve through this medium.

Probably near impossible

Nonetheless, that same ‘pickiness’ is what leads me to recognise that:

The I chord is I Maj7 – definitely a Major type chord

The II chord is II min7 – definitely a minor type chord

The III chord is III min7^(b9)(b13) - a type of minor chord with a couple of important scale tone differences

The IV chord is IV Maj7#11 – a type of Major carrying the Lydian #11th

The V chord is V7 – the quality of which prevents us from calling it Major because the scale tones don’t possess that significant identifying 7^th but rather a flattened 7^th instead – which is why, in my circles, we refer to it as a dominant chord (rather than the dominant) and not as a Major chord. As far as my working experience tells me, we definitely don’t equate ‘dominant’ with a particular scale degree – a scale degree is just a note like any other – as a chord, however, generated from the Major scale and built upon this 5th scale degree as root, it has motion towards finding resolution with the I Major7.

The VI chord is VI m7^(b13) – which is yet another type of minor chord but this time having an all important b13^th in its scale tones – often misrepresented as a raised 5^th

The VII chord is VII m7^b5 – another type of minor chord, I guess, but in this case it’s the one in which the scale tones present it as diminished – or, more specifically, half-diminished.

From this approach, one could, I suppose, insist that there are “many more than five types of chord” but for me it seems more practical and a lot simpler to think of these basic food groups being five in number.

Which particular analytical roman numeral is most appropriate at any given time, moreover, is a result of what job the chord is doing in terms of regular functional harmony – which may not have any relevance or bearing whatsoever in the context of the styles or genres of music most popular amongst folk here but, in the music which I myself misguidedly choose to perform, there is often more than just one single tonal key centre happening.

Some of the differences and confusions between our views appear to be conceptual. Others are more language issues, I think: nomenclature. Amongst the people I work with, for instance, if someone used the term “minor 7^th” in a working context, everyone would understand it to mean a chord in which both the 3^rd and the 7^th have been lowered by a half-step – whereas, what you called a “minor seventh” in terms of a scale degree is what we would call more unambiguously (hopefully) a “flattened 7^th”.

Now, this all looks to have become far too complicated and muddy to be useful to most, but at least in my view it’s a lot simpler than saying, for instance, that there is a strong pull to go to “the major chord built on the fourth degree of the root of the dominant seventh” – which forces me to count on my fingers rather than understand that the V chord wants to go to the I chord. So let’s consider this more a dialogue between Coises and Lazz held in public rather than anything which others should be paying much attention to. More likely, no-one is paying any attention anyway.

For me, as I grasp for better purchase on the core issue of “progressions”, the key seems to be voice-leading. And there are other parts of this thread where reference has been made to this concept. Maybe you could review those and see if together we can all make the principles a little clearer.

Just an idea – aimed at trying to spread a little more understanding rather than sowing more confusion.

once we’re using the same definition of counter-clockwise

Oh, I think we are both quite clear about what clockwise and counter-clockwise mean.

The problem lay in the different ways we orient our mental picture of the cycle of fifths.

I blame Wikipedia completely.

I should make it quite clear that I have absolutely no formal education or qualification in music.

All my understanding have come from over 30 years of on-the-job training in stage and studio settings in different parts of the world and the blessed privilege of working with a bunch of really slick and helpful pro musos who have all responded positively to my ignorance and curiosity. (For what it's worth, that is where my orientation of the cycle of fifths comes from - not that bloody bollox of a Wikipedia.)

With respect and warm regards,

Lazz

.

[Coises]

Nonetheless, that same ‘pickiness’ is what leads me to recognise that:

The I chord is I Maj7 – definitely a Major type chord

The II chord is II min7 – definitely a minor type chord

The III chord is III min7^(b9)(b13) - a type of minor chord with a couple of important scale tone differences

The IV chord is IV Maj7#11 – a type of Major carrying the Lydian #11th

The V chord is V7 – the quality of which prevents us from calling it Major because the scale tones don’t possess that significant identifying 7^th but rather a flattened 7^th instead – which is why, in my circles, we refer to it as a dominant chord (rather than the dominant) and not as a Major chord. As far as my working experience tells me, we definitely don’t equate ‘dominant’ with a particular scale degree – a scale degree is just a note like any other – as a chord, however, generated from the Major scale and built upon this 5th scale degree as root, it has motion towards finding resolution with the I Major7.

The VI chord is VI m7^(b13) – which is yet another type of minor chord but this time having an all important b13^th in its scale tones – often misrepresented as a raised 5^th

The VII chord is VII m7^b5 – another type of minor chord, I guess, but in this case it’s the one in which the scale tones present it as diminished – or, more specifically, half-diminished.

OK, I think I see what you’re doing. Am I correct that rather than starting with a triad and adding to it, you’re looking at chords in a major key as being derived from all seven notes of the major scale, stacked up in thirds? So the I chord in the key of C major is "C-E-G-B-D-F-A"; and since the only one of those notes that requires qualification to write it in standard guitar chord nomenclature is the B-natural, you call it Cmaj7. I believe that’s what you did with every chord above except the VII — wrote it as a 7th chord, but noted all the alterations that would be required to keep the notes of a 13th chord in the scale. I think the VII was an oversight: going by everything else you wrote, I presume you meant to say it was a VII m7^{(b5)(b9)(b13)}.

You then recognize a chord as major if has a major 3rd, a perfect 5th and a major 7th, and minor if it has a minor 3rd, a perfect 5th and a minor 7th. That leaves V (which has a major 3rd but a minor 7th) and VII (which lacks a perfect 5th) as neither fish nor fowl.

It makes sense — the 3rd and the 7th are the only notes in a chord we call major or minor, rather than flatted, sharped, diminished or augmented, so they must both be major to have a major and both be minor to have a minor. The dominant seventh fits neither, so you consider it a type of its own.

I tend to think of everything as beginning with a triad — the common ones, with a perfect 5th, have their character determined by the 3rd: major, minor or suspended (replacing the 3rd with a 4th), while the less common diminished and augmented are off by themselves. The (unqualified, hence minor) 7th note added to a major or minor chord seems to me not to change the character of the underlying triad so much as to lead... downward, by either a half step or a whole step. The major 7th affects a major triad quite differently; it softens and blurs it somehow, not unlike what the 6th and 9th do, but it doesn’t lead in either direction more than the other. (I’m guessing that you think of a 6th as a 13th with the 7th, 9th and 11th omitted?)

It’s not clear to me that either system is a more useful way of thinking than the other... nor that there would be any way to reconcile the two into a single explanation that wouldn’t be more confusing than either alone.

[john]

Moved MP3 issue discussion here:

[Roflcopter]

It’s not clear to me that either system is a more useful way of thinking than the other... nor that there would be any way to reconcile the two into a single explanation that wouldn’t be more confusing than either alone.

It does seem clear, however, that just about any book I've ever read on music theory uses triads as a starting point. I think it's therefore safe to say your approach is the more common one.

[Lazz]

It does seem clear, however, that just about any book I've ever read on music theory uses triads as a starting point. I think it's therefore safe to say your approach is the more common one.

Perhaps we might ask the question: "more common amongst whom?"

We've obviously been using different libraries and reading different books.

The system I use and would recommend, if anyone is interested, on grounds of its greater clarity and practical efficacy as well as its widespread international adoption as lingua franca amongst professionals, is not something I have invented all alone as an eccentric - of course not. It is nothing more than the standard conventions of modern harmony and theory for popular music which began to be codified by jazz & blues players in the '40s & '50s and by the '80 & '90s had become core curriculum for non-classical music education all around the world. It is pretty basic and fundamental shit and kinda hard to dismiss, I would suggest, just because there is a huge volume of home hobbyist guitar strummers for whom it has no perceived relevance and amongst whom another different approach might be considered more common.

The alleged incompatibility is just an illusion.

This is not to say that there aren't other subsequent innovations in systems and methods for organising notes but, in my experience, these are a lot easier to comprehend and handle once those basics are under the belt.

Those basics are an enormous help in figuring how to create progressions.

.