# 1, 5, 6, 4 Way to overused?



## BROSEPH (Apr 15, 2011)

this chord progression is seriously overused
music needs help
whats do you think?


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 15, 2011)

Not really. Sounds good = is good. You can make good sounding stuff with a I V I just like you can make shit with some super creative never-before-used progression.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Apr 15, 2011)

Overused? I really fail to see where it is used to be honest. Examples?


----------



## RichIKE (Apr 15, 2011)

not as overused as 3 6 2 5 1


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 15, 2011)

I prefer 9 0 2 1 0,myself.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 15, 2011)

There is so much you can do with an individual chord progression that 'overused' is often from the perspective of someone not creative enough to find new depth within it, or use it for a new good idea.


----------



## glassmoon0fo (Apr 15, 2011)

i see where he's coming from. too damned many unoriginal itterations of that progression in pop and rock, but what you gonna do? apparently the general public doesnt even recognize it and havnt grown tired of it, and theyre the ones buying the albums, so it'll continue to be beaten into the ground. hell yes it's overused but not in the music i'd usually listen to anyway.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 15, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Overused? I really fail to see where it is used to be honest. Examples?


----------



## steve1 (Apr 15, 2011)

Nothing wrong with a chord progression being "overused". for example would you write off anything involving a 12 bar blues as being over-used tripe?


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 15, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Nothing wrong with a chord progression being "overused". for example would you write off anything involving a 12 bar blues as being over-used tripe?



A little bit, yeah. I personally like to hear new and innovative musical ideas. Rehashing the same thing over and over (even if the original few versions were really good) devalues the whole idea for me.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion, and others are entitled to their own.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 15, 2011)

I like 1010001.


----------



## TreWatson (Apr 15, 2011)

Personally most pop music is extremely innovative with the I V vi IV progression.

the video itself is proof of this since every melody is distinct and identifiable despite there only being four chords used.

after all, think about it, all music that exists, every song you have heard. all of them.

twelve notes.

...twelve.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 15, 2011)

TreWatson said:


> Personally most pop music is extremely innovative with the I V vi IV progression.
> 
> the video itself is proof of this since every melody is distinct and identifiable despite there only being four chords used.
> 
> ...





/Troll

I agree that many of the more successful pop songs have had new melodies over old chords, and they may very well be a major factor in their success. I also think that a lot of pop music is popular because it is very safe and familiar sounding. That seems to be what the free market wants, and basically has wanted in western culture since the Common Practice period, when many composers decided to stop writing music that shows off how clever they are and start writing music that the people will enjoy. I'm not saying that this is inherently wrong. As Troyguitar said, "Sounds good = is good." However, other people, such as BROSEPH and myself might have an opinion that follows more along the lines of the familiar sounding repetitive. In which case it doesn't sound good to me, therefore isn't good to me.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 15, 2011)

Writing music to show off how 'clever' you are is relatively self defeating. Sure you can go pat yourself on the back later, but you are exposing something to a world that doesn't understand. No point really, it is a medium to be shared, therefore it should at least be accessible.

As for it sounding repetitive, if you can't make the standards original, and breathe life into them to make them not repetitive I don't think you have any business trying to make something beyond that, as you don't have the concept. You need to come down from that ivory tower eventually and have some fun. I ignored the standards when I was younger and brash, now I've come back to them in a new light, with a new approach, and you will find they are hardly recognizable at all when you get there.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 15, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> I prefer 9 0 2 1 0,myself.



Or, in normal notation, vi I ii bII I. Hmm, let's see, that first I is non-functional, so we can get rid of that. ii is a substitute for IV. bII is the tritone sub for V. So, put that all together, and we get... vi IV V I. 

Anyway, I say let 'em have it. It's a progression that carries with it some connotations. But whatever, I listen to prog; I need never encounter that progression.


----------



## Prydogga (Apr 15, 2011)

II, V, I

Now THAT'S overused. Not really in pop though.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 16, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Writing music to show off how 'clever' you are is relatively self defeating. Sure you can go pat yourself on the back later, but you are exposing something to a world that doesn't understand. No point really, it is a medium to be shared, therefore it should at least be accessible.
> 
> As for it sounding repetitive, if you can't make the standards original, and breathe life into them to make them not repetitive I don't think you have any business trying to make something beyond that, as you don't have the concept. You need to come down from that ivory tower eventually and have some fun. I ignored the standards when I was younger and brash, now I've come back to them in a new light, with a new approach, and you will find they are hardly recognizable at all when you get there.



Did I say that I only write music to show off how clever I am, or in fact listen to that exclusively? I agree that music is an art, not a competition. I also think that that doesn't mean that 'clever' music is somehow less valuable because of it.

As far as the personal attack, don't bother. My ivory tower has a moat so full of piranas and laser sharks it doesn't even have room for water. But since you brought it up, I think eventually you're going to have to leave the confines of the 'standards', explore something else and have some fun. When I was young(er) I only listened to music that was easy to understand and dripping with the familiar. Then I started branching out my horizons into some very unique music, and looking back at the I IV V, I V vi IV, etc style of music, I see it with a new light, and I found that I could hardly recognise one from the other.


Disclaimer: some hyperbole is present.


----------



## glassmoon0fo (Apr 16, 2011)

^I didn't read his comments as personal attacks, just for the record. I think he used "you" in the all-inclusive form, not at you directly. either way, good points made all around.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 16, 2011)

glassmoon0fo said:


> ^I didn't read his comments as personal attacks, just for the record. I think he used "you" in the all-inclusive form, not at you directly. either way, good points made all around.



Oh good. For a second there I thought someone on the internet hated me.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 16, 2011)

There's a book I'm very fond of, "The Songwriting Sourcebook: How to Turn Chords into Great Songs," by Rikky Rooksby. It teaches songwriting from a chordal point of view, starting with one chord songs, then two chord, three chords, and so on. 

There is such a huge variation in timing and ordering available, even just using three chords, and then when you add melody on top of that, there is such a huge variety.

Perhaps I'm a little off here, but it sounds like saying that only 12 notes gets boring....


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 16, 2011)

glassmoon0fo said:


> ^I didn't read his comments as personal attacks, just for the record. I think he used "you" in the all-inclusive form, not at you directly. either way, good points made all around.




Yep, I just like contrary discourse. (I strive to be a master debater )


----------



## Cabinet (Apr 16, 2011)

Those chords seem already really commonly seen together but there are still so many different ways you can use them to make something sound very good.
Like the standard I V VI IV is pretty much used in every Blink-182 song ever written, but you can still change it up and end up with something really cool.
Take this song for example

Wait till about 1 minute in when the arpeggios come in, that's a VI IV I V in A Major (For the first 4 arpeggios) but it still sounds wonderful, at least to me.


----------



## TreWatson (Apr 17, 2011)

II7 V7 I

nuff sed.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Apr 18, 2011)

I V

nuff sed.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 18, 2011)

How many ppl do you think listen to a song and pick out all the chord progressions?


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Apr 18, 2011)

This thread is not about how many cares about the theoretical side, but the corruption that may be there-> Is music getting more and more simple all the time?

I'm not saying it is, or that using this or that chord progression is a bad thing. Just saying that your argument is not valid in this thread.

E: Presuming you, Konfyouzd, were using your comment as an argument.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 18, 2011)

You're whining about the same shit that gets rehashed here all the time. "This is too simple... Oh woe is me..."


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm not whining about that. To quote my own words:



> I'm not saying it is, or that using this or that chord progression is a bad thing.



I'm saying that your above argument was invalid and not in any way related to this topic.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 18, 2011)

BROSEPH said:


> this chord progression is seriously overused
> music needs help
> whats do you think?


 


My response to this is... Who cares?

If you think that music needs to use a different chord progression then how bout you just stop using this one? Simple.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Apr 18, 2011)

It's not about changing the world, but discussing and sharing thoughts.

BTW, I just noticed that Wither by Dream Theater actually has this chord progression in it.

1:00



And yea, I really like this progression. Has this melancholic, yet confident and hopeful feel to it.


----------



## C2Aye (Apr 18, 2011)

It's 'overused' because it's good and it works.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 18, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> How many ppl do you think listen to a song and pick out all the chord progressions?



I don't have to pick them out, they stick out like a sore thumb. The I vi IV V variants, in particular.  Once you can stick a name to a chord, then you don't need to grab an instrument or look at the leadsheet every time you hear the progression.

My favorite song to use this progression:


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Apr 18, 2011)

This chord progression, along with the 1, 6, 4, 5 or the 12 bar blues has been overused for donkey years now, and there is nothing wrong with that. They're tried and true solid musical templates. There are many great songs as well as many ghastly songs that use these progressions. This will not change throughout eternity. 

All you need is somebody or a few others that can use these templates and put their own unique spin to them and turn it into a real musical statement. Those are the ones to watch out for. 

In fact, all of us can use that progression(s) and with our own approach, we're able to turn this familiar musical passage into something profound.


----------



## darren (Apr 18, 2011)




----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 18, 2011)

Question... Does it sound good? Since when does a song have to have profound theoretical complexity to be good? It just doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 18, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Question... Does it sound good? Since when does a song have to have profound theoretical complexity to be good? It just doesn't seem to matter.



Does what sound good? I V vi IV? Well, in the right context, yeah. Is the progression profoundly complicated? Hells no. Then again, you can have extremely chromatic progressions that don't have an ounce of complexity in them. There are tons of Liszt pieces that have chromatic scales all over them, but they're all fluff. Does complexity make "good" music? No. Does simplicity make "good" music? No. The very term is relative and furthermore subjective. I could find something to complain about in every bit of music ever created, but I could simultaneously find virtues in each of the same.

I will say this, though: the more competent a composer, the more they can do with one idea. When they can do a shit-ton with a six note idea, then we historically label them as good composers and their output as good music.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 18, 2011)

My favourite song with I V vi IV is Pachabel's Cannon in D.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 18, 2011)

Just a few thoughts:

One assertion I find a little odd is the idea that great music can't arise and be accepted. JS Bach wrote amazing music which has never been surpassed, before or since, and it strikes most people with its beauty. 

When I was growing up, I was struck by the musicality and complexity of Steely Dan, the simple and mostly pentatonic traditional music from the Andes, and the polyrhythms and polymeters of '80s King Crimson. 

For all that people are talking about music being too simple, or suggesting that more interesting music needs to be written... what are you waiting for? If you can write music which is beautiful and amazing, then it won't matter if it follows a given formula or not. 

I feel like arguing that people should accept such a thing, without actually showing the thing in action, is pretty Randian to me. "Oh, why won't the common people accept this theoretical thing? I mean, I don't have such a thing to actually demonstrate, but the pathos! The drama! Oh, those plebians!" *laugh*

How does that song go? Oh, yeah! "If you wanna change, the world, shut your mouth and start this minute!" 

I have to tell you, I can't wait to hear what comes out of this!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 19, 2011)

It's punk versus shredder mentality, dude. One camp preaches simplicity and a defiance toward the establishment of intellectualism, while the other is high-brow and insists that everything must be as technical as possible. And I agree: walk the walk.

Also, I'd really like to stress that chord progressions do not dictate any degree of musical complexity. Check this out:

Natasha St. Pier - Plus simple que ça


1:23, Neapolitan chord alert. If you want to tell me that this song is complex because it delves into chromatic harmony, then... well, okay. I mean, keep in mind we're talking about a song that somebody saw fit to put to a slideshow of flowers and pets.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 20, 2011)

SchecterWhore said:


> One camp preaches simplicity and a defiance toward the establishment of intellectualism, while the other is high-brow and insists that everything must be as technical as possible.



I agree with most of your point but just want to add that I'm not saying that everything has to be crazy technical, but I think that by every man and his dog using the same chord progression, it makes it less special, for me at least. eg I liked the song Stairway to Heaven the first time I heard it. I got sick of it because I then listened to it way too much. So I don't listen to it very much any more, but every now and then I chuck it on, because it is still a great song. Originally, the I VI vi IV was probably great, but I've got sick of it. My problem with overusing an idea isn't that it is too simple, it's that it makes the original less special.

I'm sure everyone has had multiple experiences like mine with Stairway, and it's happened with other songs and albums for me many times.


----------



## Dead Undead (Apr 20, 2011)

I personally can't stand the way a I V vi IV progression sounds. Not saying it's not good or doesn't have its place, but I dislike the sound of it.

I could listen to 12 bar blues all damn day though.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 20, 2011)

one oneone oneone oneone one one oneone oneone oneone one four fourfour fourfour fourfour four one oneone oneone oneone one five fivefive five four fourfour four one oneone oneone one


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 21, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> My favourite song with I V vi IV is Pachabel's Cannon in D.



Pachelbel's Canon is D A Bm F#m G D G A: I V vi iii IV I IV V. Similar but different.


----------



## Vidge (Apr 21, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> I agree with most of your point but just want to add that I'm not saying that everything has to be crazy technical, but I think that by every man and his dog using the same chord progression, it makes it less special, for me at least. eg I liked the song Stairway to Heaven the first time I heard it. I got sick of it because I then listened to it way too much. So I don't listen to it very much any more, but every now and then I chuck it on, because it is still a great song. Originally, the I VI vi IV was probably great, but I've got sick of it. My problem with overusing an idea isn't that it is too simple, it's that it makes the original less special.
> 
> I'm sure everyone has had multiple experiences like mine with Stairway, and it's happened with other songs and albums for me many times.


Im with ya on this one.

If a band does something clever and unique with it, all the power to them. But Ive heard it so many damn times (I had a punk phase in my tweens), that no matter whos doing it, I get instantly shut down with boredom; and ill admit, a slight annoyance. Its like overdosing on some dinner item; I added a different spice and threw in an additional vegetable (different melodies if you will ), but it doesnt change the fact Im still eating meatloaf, etc.


----------



## thedrummerkid (Apr 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Yep, I just like contrary discourse. (I strive to be a master bater )


FIXED


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 21, 2011)

thedrummerkid said:


> FIXED


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

thedrummerkid said:


> FIXED



Was waiting to see how long that would take.


----------



## thedrummerkid (Apr 21, 2011)

..I had to.


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 21, 2011)

It's not even I V vi IV, it's just I V IV with a vi implied by the vocal melody, but it's beautiful music. That chorus piano part...


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 23, 2011)

Every songs starts with 1,2,1 2 3 4 ! anyway.


----------



## TheGraySlayer (Apr 29, 2011)

A lot of the time when I write, I'll notice the chord progression I'm using sounds a little familiar, so..... no big deal, I change it up and make it sound foreign. So why does it matter if people are using the same chord progression in the same way? It's THEIR inability to be creative, and the GENERAL LISTENER's inability to be tastefull that keeps OUR music from becoming popular. If it DID become popular, the same thing would happen, and people would constantly use something that was once considered inventive. The Solution = Random Wrist Movement


----------



## yingmin (Apr 29, 2011)

I've ruined music for a couple of my guitar students by showing them how many of the songs they like are essential the exact same song.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 29, 2011)

yingmin said:


> I've ruined music for a couple of my guitar students by showing them how many of the songs they like are essential the exact same song.



Yes, my minion, go forth...


----------



## WickedSymphony (Apr 30, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> It's not about changing the world, but discussing and sharing thoughts.
> 
> BTW, I just noticed that Wither by Dream Theater actually has this chord progression in it.
> 
> ...




Guess what else has this chord progression in it?

Here's a hint:


----------



## Dead Undead (May 1, 2011)

^


----------



## Bakerman (May 1, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Guess what else has this chord progression in it?
> 
> Here's a hint:



Not quite; NGGYU chorus is Ebm Ab Fm Bbm.


----------



## leandroab (May 1, 2011)

I don't even know what all that means!


----------



## getaway_fromme (May 18, 2011)

Yes, completely overused.


----------



## wintersun (May 18, 2011)

This all depends on how you compose really. You don't have to follow the rules all the time, and if you try to play around with chord progressions and especially modulations, you can surely come up with something new and inovative that also sounds great. This is what i've been doing for years, and you'd be surprised how many new great sounding progressions you can get out of "only 12 notes". 

The catch is that there is probably only 1 or 2 ways you can get those particular chord progressions to work and sound good, while those lame overused progressions can work no matter how you use them and what you do to them (like lenghts of each chord... stuff you put on top of em... etc)

Having excuses that theres only 12 notes is really not a good excuse. If you do some exploring, you'll see what I mean. Good (and in this case, original) things are very hard to find, and I'm incredibly glad it's like that.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (May 18, 2011)

It doesn't depend on anything. If it's used a lot (which is the case) then it's a good progression. You can't freaking blame people for using a chord progression.


----------



## wintersun (May 18, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> It doesn't depend on anything. If it's used a lot (which is the case) then it's a good progression. You can't freaking blame people for using a chord progression.



well then you can't also blame them for using some of already used riffs, or lyrics, or guitar licks. The real challenge is to come up with something original as well as pleasing, and thats what art is all about. IMO, the more you achieve that, the better artist you are.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (May 18, 2011)

wintersun said:


> well then you can't also blame them for using some of already used riffs, or lyrics, or guitar licks. The real challenge is to come up with something original as well as pleasing, and thats what art is all about. IMO, the more you achieve that, the better artist you are.



Since when using a chord progression is the same as plagiarizing a riff? The order of chords is not copyrighted, the wholeness is - rhythm, melody, instruments used, tempo, time signature... and a million other details you have in ONE riff. Yes, even one riff has a huge variety of details and chord progression is only one of them.

I don't get it. Why try to create something 'original' just for the sake of being original? Art is about pleasing yourself, if you can please yourself by creating something 'original', then so be it. But the value of original art is not greater than the value of art that's meant to please oneself.

You also came up with term "challenge". What's the problem of composing something easy, background music. Why do we have to have challenges? Is it because easy music is making big moneys and you happen to understand the 'harder music'?

And what about if I say that it's challenging for me to make this so-called 'easy music' (referring to the 1, 5, 6, 4) and vice-versa, find it really easy to make something new? What about if I find a new way to use that progression. I mean, you seriously can't think that music is all about chord progression, can you?

Make music that sounds good to you (be it creative or not), never push it if you don't find pushing it to please you. Aka. do it how you want and let people to make music with the same chord progression if they're up to it. If you argue with anyone in the topic of music, you'll only find yourself end up in the same spot where you were few comments ago.


----------



## wintersun (May 18, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Since when using a chord progression is the same as plagiarizing a riff? The order of chords is not copyrighted, the wholeness is - rhythm, melody, instruments used, tempo, time signature... and a million other details you have in ONE riff. Yes, even one riff has a huge variety of details and chord progression is only one of them.



Agreed. However, that same riff will always depend on this same chord progression and it cant go much fruther from there. On the other hand, tweaking that chord progression can take it into a completely new direction that is even more original.



> I don't get it. Why try to create something 'original' just for the sake of being original? Art is about pleasing yourself, if you can please yourself by creating something 'original', then so be it. But the value of original art is not greater than the value of art that's meant to please oneself.



Wow there, are talking about art or hedonism? I agree that for some it may be quite similar, but... in that case, why ever do anything original?? why not just use the same patterns over and over again, and maybe just change it a little bit. Or lets not change it even that much.

I agree that music based on super cheep progressions sounds good and pleasing, but as a composer, i could never let myself to do something that everyone does deliberately, even if I like it, and this is why I emphasize on originality. 

What i will do however, is tweak it and get what I also like and what is also my own only. And different chord progressions are maybe the most powerful tool in achieving that, because they are the CORE of any music. You keep the core the same, you instantly limit your composition, and thus limit the amount of potential originality. It can of course sound relatively original even with the same chord progression, but how much? Will it ever sound more original then when worked over an original chord progression? Maybe 1:1000.

But I guess everything I mentioned in previous paragraph makes no sense to you anyway since you obviously don't care about being original. That makes no sense to me. I can understand if someone just CAN'T get to sound original, but deliberately not wanting it? Even pop musicicans I know wish to be original, and even though they don't use any fancy chord progressions, they still would never even think about saying that originality is not needed.



> You also came up with term "challenge". What's the problem of composing something easy, background music. Why do we have to have challenges? Is it because easy music is making big moneys and you happen to understand the 'harder music'?



Maybe. But in my case, the "challenge" is only a byproduct. Of course it makes sense to do something simple, but again... ORIGINAL 



> And what about if I say that it's challenging for me to make this so-called 'easy music' (referring to the 1, 5, 6, 4) and vice-versa, find it really easy to make something new?



Yeah, I agree, that IS challenging, considering the fact that you aren't really left with so many options as with an original progression. In that sense I agree, it is hard. But again, you don't think artists should not be original, so, i cant see how it can be challenging at the same time.



> What about if I find a new way to use that progression. I mean, you seriously can't think that music is all about chord progression, can you?



I can't and that is not what I meant. All I say is that chord progressions are the core of the music. Have them original, better chances you end up original. Have them generic, the greater your chance you end up sounding generic. Again, only GREATER, doesnt mean its impossible to make something original out of them. I think the better term here would be "original ENOUGH" lol



> Make music that sounds good to you (be it creative or not), never push it if you don't find pushing it to please you. Aka. do it how you want and let people to make music with the same chord progression if they're up to it. If you argue with anyone in the topic of music, you'll only find yourself end up in the same spot where you were few comments ago.



Ah well, we need to talk about someting lol. Thats in our human nature 

We all have our different approches, and what I can tell you is that I used to hate any different chord progression that standard ones, because it didn't sound good to me. I also remember saying that I will just use those simple ones and just make great music out of them. 

But over time, i gave a shot to many different approaches, and realized that sticking to same chord progressions wont really take me much further then most of the artists.

So yeah, sorry if this sounded offensive, we're just discussing. i get your point tho, its just that we have a different approach. However, you might wanna try this approach as well some day, exploring chord progressions will really change you entire perspective on music. Then you'll realize how much it really matters, and that its not just "one of those things" when it comes to making music.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (May 18, 2011)

Wait a second, when did I say I didn't want to be original? I think we're not even talking of the same thing.

First of all, I'm clearing one thing. There is no core for music as changing any substance in a particular way can change the whole function of the song. Be it a chord progression or rhythm or anything. Even lyrics can make a bigger change in music than changing a chord progression if the lyrics are made in a way that moves a particular listener (we're talking about subjective after all).



> Wow there, are talking about art or hedonism? I agree that for some it may be quite similar, but... in that case, why ever do anything original?? why not just use the same patterns over and over again, and maybe just change it a little bit. Or lets not change it even that much.



Now we all do agree that copying is different than variating. You can have a really good piece of NEW and fresh music by just variating a little. On the other hand, you can have a really dull sounding project with all the fancy jazz chord progressions ans 31/32 time signatures. Damn I should know, my composing teacher is wild about avant garde. It all comes down to the word: Subjective.



> I agree that music based on super cheep progressions sounds good and pleasing, but as a composer, i could never let myself to do something that everyone does deliberately, even if I like it, and this is why I emphasize on originality.



So you don't like a song you like? I just don't get it.



> What i will do however, is tweak it and get what I also like and what is also my own only. And different chord progressions are maybe the most powerful tool in achieving that, because they are the CORE of any music. You keep the core the same, you instantly limit your composition, and thus limit the amount of potential originality. It can of course sound relatively original even with the same chord progression, but how much? Will it ever sound more original then when worked over an original chord progression? Maybe 1:1000.



Tweaking the chord progression is the way for you to make the biggest difference in music, but again - it all comes down to the word: Subjective. You can't make it a fact that chord progressions are "the thing" cause they are not. They might be "the thing" for you, but never lose the line between an opinion and a fact.



> But I guess everything I mentioned in previous paragraph makes no sense to you anyway since you obviously don't care about being original. That makes no sense to me. I can understand if someone just CAN'T get to sound original, but deliberately not wanting it? Even pop musicicans I know wish to be original, and even though they don't use any fancy chord progressions, they still would never even think about saying that originality is not needed.



Again, I don't care of being original for the sake of being original. What I do like, is to hear something fresh and new, which can be achieved by doing something original. (Be it a chord progression bla bla) And you said it your self. There's no need to make a fancy new chord progression to be original, not that I keep it as a value in itself anyway.



> Yeah, I agree, that IS challenging, considering the fact that you aren't really left with so many options as with an original progression. In that sense I agree, it is hard. But again, you don't think artists should not be original, so, i cant see how it can be challenging at the same time.



I don't think artist shouldn't be original. I think that they should be what they want to be and never try to argue with them if they aren't. That's my point.



> I can't and that is not what I meant. All I say is that chord progressions are the core of the music. Have them original, better chances you end up original. Have them generic, the greater your chance you end up sounding generic. Again, only GREATER, doesnt mean its impossible to make something original out of them. I think the better term here would be "original ENOUGH" lol



Read the above...


I'm not here to speak for the people that want to be unoriginal. I'm pretty far from mainstream and hardly even use a generic chord progression (though, you can find some as a rarity from my soundcloud page ). I've also met some very strange approaches on making music in my studies, but ironically they all depend on hedonism, as you put it. If you, or anyone else likes to be original, just because of the cool fact that you're original, so be it. You like it that way and it's totally cool. IMO there's no reason to push it, AND there's no reason to make others go for it.


----------



## JohnIce (May 18, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> How many ppl do you think listen to a song and pick out all the chord progressions?



I definately do. When I hear a song the first time I often pay more attention to the chord progression than the lyrics. Especially if it's this chord progression, which as SchecterWhore put it, sticks out like a sore thumb.

I think my main gripe with it is that there are so many different ways to make a hit song with 3 or 4 chords, yet more and more people tend to go for this one progression all the goddamn time. To me it's a bit like a "preset" for a compelling song, there's barely any challenge in writing a decently catchy song with this progression.

However, it's hard to talk about these things without making yourself a hypocrite. I personally don't like generic chord progressions, but have NO qualms about using generic song structures or generic chord voicings. I've heard other people say the exact opposite: I V Vi iV is no problem, as long as there's not another verse and a chorus after the first verse and a chorus...


----------



## SirMyghin (May 18, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> I think my main gripe with it is that there are so many different ways to make a hit song with 3 or 4 chords, yet more and more people tend to go for this one progression all the goddamn time. To me it's a bit like a "preset" for a compelling song, there's barely any challenge in writing a decently catchy song with this progression..



Then make the nastiest least catchy song you can with it and your job will be complete. I bet I can tackle that one


----------



## JohnIce (May 18, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Then make the nastiest least catchy song you can with it and your job will be complete. I bet I can tackle that one



I don't get your point... I'm all for catchy music, I play in a goddamn party-rock band  But to me it's way more rewarding to get people dancing to something that I actually challenged myself with while writing and which doesn't feel generic to me, rather than something that was basically just copying the norm.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (May 18, 2011)

What, exactly, is an original chord progression?


----------



## JohnIce (May 18, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> What, exactly, is an original chord progression?



There might not be any left. Is that a good excuse to just settle on the most popular one?

To me that's like saying "Fuck it, every word in the dictionary has already been used in litterature, so let's all just write teenage love stories with vampires from now on, we know the concept works so why try anything besides that".


----------



## wintersun (May 18, 2011)

@Kurkkuviipale: i think you're not getting what I'm trying to say here. I AGREE that you can make something original with standard chord progression. BUT, if you try to take that same piece of music, and try to change the progression a little, you make it even MORE original. Thats about all what I'm trying to say in a nutshell...

It is absolutely not the case that I'm only composing something just for the sake of originality lol. First it has to sound great, but then I try to take it to another level if i can even by tweaking chord progressions.

You can't tell me that something I initially had was more original then what I ended up with after further adjusting progressions. That just can not be, because, intialy I had something generic, and now I have something that's not generic.

EDIT: I forgot to mention this, I wasnt not trying to push anything, nor am I against the generic progressions. I only believe that we shouldn't just settle with generic if we don't have to, and if anyone wants to be truly original with his music (without of course, compromising the "good sounding factor"), why stop with chord progressions, since they obviously do make a big difference?


----------



## wintersun (May 18, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> There might not be any left. Is that a good excuse to just settle on the most popular one?
> 
> To me that's like saying "Fuck it, every word in the dictionary has already been used in litterature, so let's all just write teenage love stories with vampires from now on, we know the concept works so why try anything besides that".



My point exactly.

I also agree, I doubt there is any progression that hasn't been used yet lol, but there are less common ones that can be used and sound great. Experimenting with chord progressions can be no different then experimenting with different scales, or different techniques etc


----------



## Adam Of Angels (May 18, 2011)

I'm not saying that you should just stick with generic patterns... I actually didn't say anything even similar to that. I'm just saying that there's no such thing as an original chord pattern.

My guitarist and I were recently being very careful not to use gerneric, over-done chord patterns... I'm not a big fan of things being done to the point of exhaustion, but what it really comes down to is, if your personal expression is being supressed by your ego's need to stray away from frequently used patterns, then you're doing it wrong. We're the same breed, so we tend to do things similarly to eachother.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2011)

Two facts:

This thread is still going.

The OP disappeared after only two posts on SS.org, with this thread's starter being his second.

Who would have thought that a simple comment would have generated so many responses, and that the OP wouldn't have more to say? *laugh*


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 19, 2011)

I've taken to worrying about the music last when I write, lest I get caught up in these "But is this chord original?" arguments with myself. For me, music is about telling a story and stating a point; if I think a really common progression is what the story calls for, then damn right I'll use it. However, if I don't have anything to say, then writing out chords is like pissing in the wind.



Explorer said:


> Two facts:
> 
> This thread is still going.
> 
> ...



[Spoiler ahead.]


----------



## Waelstrum (May 19, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Two facts:
> 
> This thread is still going.
> 
> ...



If you're implying that this thread might have been started with the intension to troll, you may very well be right. However, I think that if we're going to have lively debates on this site, I'm happy that they're about music instead of politics.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2011)

@Waelstrum: I wasn't thinking trolling, but it does seem that he didn't really have a lot of thought behind the question... or, possibly, that he didn't really care much about his own opinion.

What I think is interesting is how the discussion has developed in the absence of the OP.


----------



## Waelstrum (May 19, 2011)

Fair enough.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (May 19, 2011)

Not everything Explorer says is said for the sake of being a dick.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2011)

To be honest, the only post I've made purely for taking the piss was in the Randy-fueled Rage thread. The rest of the time, I genuinely am just interested in how differently people perceive certain things, and pointing out where I see odd assertions/assumptions.

Some understand that. Some are just offended. I'm okay either way, as this is a public forum, and always remember to wear my big boy pants. I figure, if someone needs to only read opinions which correspond to one's own, it's time for that person to leave forums behind and take up blogging....


----------



## Adam Of Angels (May 19, 2011)

I'm just messing with you, bud.


----------



## JohnIce (May 19, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not saying that you should just stick with generic patterns... I actually didn't say anything even similar to that. I'm just saying that there's no such thing as an original chord pattern.
> 
> My guitarist and I were recently being very careful not to use gerneric, over-done chord patterns... I'm not a big fan of things being done to the point of exhaustion, but what it really comes down to is, if your personal expression is being supressed by your ego's need to stray away from frequently used patterns, then you're doing it wrong. We're the same breed, so we tend to do things similarly to eachother.



Sure man, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth  It was late and I didn't care to formulate it that extensively, but yeah I know what you meant.

To me the "ego" thing is more about the challenge, just like you might spend that extra hour coming up with a cool solo instead of just a little interlude, I like spending some extra time fleshing out my chord progressions and experimenting with the harmony, but only to that point where the song loses vitality, that's when I back off. I've never heard anyone refer to my music as "technical". I like to write music that to normal people sounds normal, but can make musicians go: "Hmm... I see what you did there, nice!"

I personally believe that other chord progressions can be every bit as potent in creating fantastic, compelling, catchy and mainstream music. That's why I'd rather avoid the most obvious one(s).

- edit - This also encompasses key changes that go in and out of eachother, which is something that can give me a raging boner when done with elegance and subtlety. Tons of old-school soul, funk and disco hits do these things and no-one got confused by that, and that gets me way more excited than someone who put the Vi iV I V into good use. But those things require some degree of music theory knowledge and experimentation, whereas the Vi iV I V doesn't really, hence why it is more popular these days.


----------



## wintersun (May 19, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> Sure man, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth  It was late and I didn't care to formulate it that extensively, but yeah I know what you meant.
> 
> To me the "ego" thing is more about the challenge, just like you might spend that extra hour coming up with a cool solo instead of just a little interlude, I like spending some extra time fleshing out my chord progressions and experimenting with the harmony, but only to that point where the song loses vitality, that's when I back off. I've never heard anyone refer to my music as "technical". I like to write music that to normal people sounds normal, but can make musicians go: "Hmm... I see what you did there, nice!"
> 
> ...



Man, i cant stop agreeing with you lol


----------



## Customisbetter (May 19, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Writing music to show off how 'clever' you are is relatively self defeating. Sure you can go pat yourself on the back later, but you are exposing something to a world that doesn't understand. No point really, it is a medium to be shared, therefore it should at least be accessible.
> 
> As for it sounding repetitive, if you can't make the standards original, and breathe life into them to make them not repetitive I don't think you have any business trying to make something beyond that, as you don't have the concept. You need to come down from that ivory tower eventually and have some fun. I ignored the standards when I was younger and brash, now I've come back to them in a new light, with a new approach, and you will find they are hardly recognizable at all when you get there.



I couldn't disagree more. Write music that YOU enjoy. Fuck the world.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 19, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Write music that YOU enjoy. Fuck the world.



When did I say write something you don't enjoy


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (May 20, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> Sure man, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth  It was late and I didn't care to formulate it that extensively, but yeah I know what you meant.
> 
> To me the "ego" thing is more about the challenge, just like you might spend that extra hour coming up with a cool solo instead of just a little interlude, I like spending some extra time fleshing out my chord progressions and experimenting with the harmony, but only to that point where the song loses vitality, that's when I back off. I've never heard anyone refer to my music as "technical". I like to write music that to normal people sounds normal, but can make musicians go: "Hmm... I see what you did there, nice!"
> 
> ...


 
...which goes back to my original statement on this thread. It's up to the artist and what his creativity can do with a tried and true template. Not all I, V, VI, IV or VI, IV, I V chord progression based songs are purely to please the masses. In fact, a lot of the songs demonstrated by Axis of Awesome and the Pachabel rant... some of them are actually very good songs to begin with. 

In fact, the key factor that's actually forgotten and what seperates a great song from a band one, even with the same chord progression = *THE MELODY*. There, I said it. 

The chord progressions can be the same or whatever variant, without a good melody, the song is just another pissweak effort to cash in the tried and true template. A great melody will transcend that. There's a reason why almost every memorable song being recalled from memory... the melody is always the first thing remembered. Also, a great melody can transcend all genres too. Nothing gathers the masses to a sing-along than a great melody. 

Also, with keen arranging skills, a great melody can sound over any chord progression, be it simple or complex. The melody will hit the sweet notes that will move the listener. 

The only exceptions to this is when the riffs become more memorable. Damn guitarists, we have to be the most finicky kind of musicians out there do we?  Smoke on the Water... a banal form of simplicity itself from a guy who's written some complex stuff like Stargazer and Gates of Babylon... yet will forever be remembered as the quintessential guitar-riff-that-everybody-and-their-dog-knows. And there's the kind of metal music where melody is eschewed in favour of dissonance, in which case, of course the riff will take over. But even there, the riff must be memorable for it to make an impact on the listener... but that's another story. 

Really, the reasons why a lot of simple songs work so well or not, is the melody carrying it. And that's what separates the good songs from the bad ones.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (May 20, 2011)

Just putting another thought in this thread...

Think about classical music. It all bases on the I V relation. It's the only funktion. (Or lets say, all the other funktions than V lead to V)

Still there's a great variety of classical music. This is easily comparative to the pop music scene which uses this I VI V IV relation a lot. It's good to keep similarities in music if you want to be satisfied. Unless you - okay this is provokative - are cheating yourself.

CC


----------



## JohnIce (May 20, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Just putting another thought in this thread...
> 
> Think about classical music. It all bases on the I V relation. It's the only funktion. (Or lets say, all the other funktions than V lead to V)
> 
> ...



Well... that doesn't mean that all classical music uses no other chords than the V and the I, in one key throughout the piece. You're talking about resolution which isn't really what we're discussing here, I'd say.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (May 20, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> Well... that doesn't mean that all classical music uses no other chords than the V and the I, in one key throughout the piece. You're talking about resolution which isn't really what we're discussing here, I'd say.



Half of the classical music I've analyzed could've been analyzed more or less to be simple I V. The rest could have been analyzed as passing tones or as topping the V. And if the key changes, it's most probably gonna be I V in that key.

And if you want me to expand the view, let's say there are only a couple (an enlightened guess would be from 10 to 20) of chord progressions (f.e. I IV V7) in classical music that cover 80% of the whole scenes progressions.

Take that in comparison with the pop culture today and you'll see that the future is not that dark afterall. Even though I V VI IV is a really common progression, it's certainly not covering 80% of the scene, not even 20. It's just that songs with that progression get easily to the top because there already are song in the top with that progressive, and they seem more familiar to an average music consumer. Professional composers have found it to be an effective progression and that's why it's HEARD a lot today.

What my point is, that the progression I V VI IV is not in any way taking control of the music culture today. People may hear that progression more due to the fact that it's advertised (that's not a good word in here, but hey, I'm not native ) more than other progressions in general.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (May 20, 2011)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Half of the classical music I've analyzed could've been analyzed more or less to be simple I V. The rest could have been analyzed as passing tones or as topping the V. And if the key changes, it's most probably gonna be I V in that key.
> 
> And if you want me to expand the view, let's say there are only a couple (an enlightened guess would be from 10 to 20) of chord progressions (f.e. I IV V7) in classical music that cover 80% of the whole scenes progressions.



That really depends where you're looking. Besides, that style is more concerned with key areas than actual chord progressions.


----------



## Customisbetter (May 20, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> When did I say write something you don't enjoy



You said its a medium to be shared. While it can and often is, I wouldn't say you must make music with the intention of sharing it.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 20, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> You said its a medium to be shared. While it can and often is, I wouldn't say you must make music with the intention of sharing it.



You are reading too much into this, you don't need to share anything but the arts in general, are subject to the interpretter, not the intention of the producer. Hence the shared medium. It doesn't matter what you meant by it, it is what people read from it. If you want to stuff a closet full of your music feel free, you will likely improve a lot more with external input however.


----------



## shanejohnson02 (Jun 14, 2011)

If I were in a "true" metal band, the only progression we'd use would be vi-vi-vi (which is really i-i-i, or ii-ii-ii, or iii-iii-iii, or whatever....depending on what mode you want to imply). 

All joking aside, traditional harmony has been done. Non-traditional....has also been done. Don't believe me? Go listen to some Debussy or Ravel, Stockhausen or Cage, Bartok or (gasp) Vai.

One thing hip hop and rap has proven is that the unwashed masses tend to pay attention to the rhythmic structure more than the chords. Ask any untrained musician why they like a song, and they'll 90% of the time say "It has a good beat" (without really knowing what they're saying, of course). Even the metal crowd LOVES syncopation. Just another form of rhythm. 

Harmonically speaking, the heaviest song ever written has already been written. Go listen to Little Fugue in Gm on a real pipe organ sometime. 

The point is, it has all been done already. Fight it if you want, but all you can really do is rearrange the same 12 notes in different ways than the last guy and put it to a rhythmic structure your audience likes and appreciates. Even microtonal stuff has been done, for centuries, in the middle and far east.


----------



## Stealthtastic (Jun 14, 2011)

think of some of the best songs by some bands (smells like teen spirit for one) alot of them are extremely simple and only use maybe 3 or 4 different chord progressions. (i also strive to be a master debator)


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 15, 2011)

guitar-rob89 said:


> think of some of the best songs by some bands (smells like teen spirit for one) alot of them are extremely simple and only use maybe 3 or 4 different chord progressions. (i also strive to be a master debator)



This is a moot point. Sure, a lot of really popular songs use simple progressions. Some of these songs are good, some are downright awful. But what, does every unsuccessful songwriter in the world modulate every two bars? I wish that were the case, but no: there are tons of unsuccessful songs that use the simple progressions discussed in this thread. Conversely, there are extremely memorable songs with crazy chord progressions. In fact, some of the indisputably great songs are very harmonically intricate. That's not to say that this is how to write good music, either, as I can point to a myriad of examples of terrible complex music. Simplicity and complexity is a false dichotomy here, quite frankly. 

I'd say that the things I hear people worrying about the most are the things that matter the least. The average music listener does not have the analytical knowledge to say, "Oh, there's that boring, safe chord progression that I love so much!", so why think along those lines? People remember lyrics, people remember stories, and people remember melodies. If you look at the "best songs", you'll usually find those elements. Forgetting all that technical crap, my personal opinion is that music, like any art, is about the exposition of ideas, and that you should do whatever you can to communicate those ideas. If you're just dicking around with a chord progression for no reason, why should anyone care?


----------



## failshredder (Jun 15, 2011)

Eh, fuck it, it's already all been said.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Jun 15, 2011)

SchecterWhore said:


> I'd say that the things I hear people worrying about the most are the things that matter the least. The average music listener does not have the analytical knowledge to say, "Oh, there's that boring, safe chord progression that I love so much!", so why think along those lines? People remember lyrics, people remember stories, and people remember melodies. If you look at the "best songs", you'll usually find those elements. Forgetting all that technical crap, my personal opinion is that music, like any art, is about the exposition of ideas, and that you should do whatever you can to communicate those ideas. If you're just dicking around with a chord progression for no reason, why should anyone care?



 +100000


----------

