Talk:Chord progression

message: --->ALSO 
A certain chord can be present in several different scales 
example  
       C E G bB  appears in the scales of   
                CDEFGA Bb ( C mixolydian )
                FGA Bb CDE ( F major ) 
                GA Bb CDE F#  ( G minor )    
                C Eb E F F# G Bb ( C blue scale ) 
                                        etc .... 
Therefore A chord  is common to several tonalities 
:What you listed are scales. They consist of tones, not chords! And of course a certain tone can be present in several different scales, after all there are only 12 tones.
---> Especially modern jazz artists  use these  "characteristics  " of chords  
by using  chords progressions to create  a constantly  ongoing modulation .... 
Theorists/ teachers (of this particular mode of playing ) include 
             Nathan Davis 
             Hal Singer 
----> Performers of these styles even  fabricated so called  " synthetic " scales 
on several ( simple three chord ) progressions ( and a different one on 
"bridges" in  anatole -pieces / ballad and tin -pan -alley material  ) 
             
Sonny Rollins  
is an outstanding " player  " of these  linear approaches to motivistic   
and rapid scale- changing  modes  of improvisation
:Not only that, but some of these scales just don't seem to be correct. For instance, the G natural minor scale doesn't have an F# in it. Perhaps you meant the jazz melodic minor scale (or just an ascending melodic minor scale)? Also, it isn't clear which blues scale you're using–major or minor. The major one is C, D, Eb, E, G, A. The minor one is C, Eb, F, F#, G, Bb. NeutralWikipedia (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Common chord

message: I know a little music, but the opening of this article is more difficult for me to figure out than a Wikipedia article in, say French, on a very advanced mathematical concept.  I know articles should be correct, but when the opening sentence is full of links to words that are very difficult for outsiders to grasp, an affective barrier is erected.  The opening article about something so basic should be understandable to a literature adult not versed in the specialty.  This is not by any means.  I came here  because I was having trouble understanding what 50s progressions are, but now I'm much deeper in the dark, with what I thought was a rough idea of what a chord progression totally washed away by the opening paragraph.211.225.33.104 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede is impossible

message: In the table, there under major IV, one of the progressions starts with a VI, I think this is a mistake, all the others start with the same as the title of the row but I don't feel as if I know enough to change it!
Under "Rewrite Rules," the link to "well-formed" doesn't go anywhere useful.  I'm not sure what exactly it should link to.  Maybe something should be added to the disambiguation page? Foxmulder 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: The rewrite rules are quite unclear in the examples.
What does this mean: 
 1        2        3 4  5          6       7 8   9         10      11 12
 bVi, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//
I'm not sure what the slashes represent? 203.219.137.66 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an explination. How's it look now? Hyacinth 07:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks really good. I'm a beginner and it makes sense to me now. Initially I guessed the '/' were representing 'play chord again' or 'or play this chord' Thanks! 203.213.7.132 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite rules

message: *"In music of the common practice period, generally only certain chord progressions are used. Many of the other unused progressions are not traditionally considered tonal. It should be noted, however, that in most styles of music, chord progressions are resultant from voice leading patterns; thus the preceding observations are merely generalizations."
I removed the italicized portion above as it is a reply and thus belongs on the talk page and the preceding material already reads "generally". Hyacinth 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: *A chord progression in its most basic definition, stands as an antonym for retrogression.
I removed the above as its unexplained and there is no article on retrogression. Hyacinth 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrogression

message: ::Tables are good, I think. I'd like some of those chords spelt out on a staff, but I don't know that I wouldn't be asking for a scale commonly known to music students. I hav no *good* works in parallel harmony of my own to illustrate how yellow Arabic numbers printed on blue quarter notes are easier to understand, so I will (Eventually. I hav many pots on my stove.) apply what I know to someone else's work. It seems like this would be drowned! If I were a music teacher, I'd be doing a few examples, handing this out as assignment along with tables of just intonation (perhaps even different works to each student for the sake of security) and hiding the fully-specified answers.
:::I see that more art is in this than some people might want, and that no table lists all of the ratios one might want to use. I touched up an old tune with notes that are on the harmonic series, but not on western scales and instruments. The harmony doesn't work, anymore, so I want to giv the whole thing an arrangment that isn't written -- not an exercise with a short time limit. I should start from scratch and resist tweaking the piece, but fun is in tweaking the piece. It's not how much you write. It's how much you chuck.
BrewJay 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More about understandable musicology

message: It is unclear to me where the chart of common transitions came from, does anybody know? I would like to find that source. I did not see it in the links, I'm in the process of hunting down the books now.
→The chart is extremely similar to the progression chart in Ottman's Elementary Harmony.  It actually looks like a direct copy of the chart and the text wasn't credited.
:Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unattributed "quotes" are Wikipedia:Copyvio. However, I probably should have tagged the section as in need of referencing. Hyacinth (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for common progressions 

message: The table on this page says "See the article chord (music) and chord symbol for an explanation of the notation used in this table." Obviously this was written before the two articles were merged together.
Somewhere along the way it seems that the description of this notation was lost, because I can't find any explanation of the difference between uppercase and lowercase Roman numerals (e.g., III and iii). Could someone explain what these mean, either here or in the Chord (music) page? -- Sakurambo 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uppercase would be major, lowercase would be minor. Hyacinth 10:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yes. I should have read the Chord article a bit more closely. Thanks :-) -- Sakurambo 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see any explanation of what the flats are, though.  -- TimNelson 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An explaination of the flat signs can be seen on the "Borrowed chord" article,there should be a link to it on the chord article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylmesh (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of notation 

message: Dear Wikipedia,
I welcome, on this page, the reference to my original work on the analysis of 20th century harmony as noted in www.harmony.org.uk
However, the section (as indicated below) is a direct quote from my copyright work (apart from a short incorrect insertion) and should be indicated as such. I am happy for you to quote this section but I would appreciate it if you would please amend this to indicate that it is a quote. i.e as follows:
According to Tom Sutcliffe (2006: www.harmony.org.uk )
“… during the 1960's some pop groups started to experiment with modal chord progressions as an alternative way of harmonising blues melodies. . . . This created a new system of harmony that has influenced subsequent popular music.”
“The use of modal harmonies to harmonise the blues came about because of the similarity of the blues scale to modal scales . . . by experimentation with the possible uses of major chords on the guitar. This phenomenon thus probably derives from the characteristics of the guitar and the way it is used in popular music. This is also linked to the rise in the use of power chords.”
If you want to mention modal chords correctly, and make the point clearer, then it would be a good idea to add something like: 
Sutcliffe’s hypothesis is that major chord combinations such as: I , bIII , IV, V and bVII cannot be explained in pure modal terms as, in this combination, these don’t exist in the usual modes. They have to be explained as a new harmonic system combining elements from the blues and elements from modality. 
Also, under “external links” please note: “it's origins” should be corrected to “its origins”
Regards, 
Tom Sutcliffe. 
August 2007
: Many thanks for this.  The passage was a) useful, and b) inserted by an anonymous user who has no Wikipedia account.  I've turned the section we were still using into a quote, with some credits.  Many thanks for your understanding in this, and your willingness for us to quote you.  
: -- TimNelson 10:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to blues-modal harmony should be a direct quote. 

message: 10 reasons why this section is a mess:
1. Some of these progressions only have one (obscure) example — so who on earth decided that they are 'common'? Surely the rule should be that if you can't think of at least 3 mainstream examples then it's not 'common' and shouldn't be on the list?
2. In contrast, some of the progressions have dozens of examples. I've nothing against this (as it helps people to find a song they recognise), but the stark contrast in number of examples seems ridiculous.
3. The examples seem very biased towards certain groups or styles of music. There's a "Green Day" example for almost every progression. More variety and balance would be nice.
4. The list only seems to feature slightly less common chord progressions that appear in a handful of songs; and doesn't seem to include the really common ones made out of the primary chords. For example (off the top of my head): I-IV-I-V ("American Pie"), I-IV-V-V ("Twist & Shout"), I-IV-V-IV ("Louie Louie", "Summer Nights") and so on. You could have a whole section dedicated to these alone.
5. The whole section is just silly — there are far too many "common progressions" to list in one short summary. Almost every short chord progression has inevitably been re-used over and over by someone somewhere. I don't think it's right that people just come along and add the one that belongs to their favourite song, which is what seems to be happening. The progressions on this page are not representative of the most common ones at all. And if all the often-used progressions are to be listed, they should probably be in some kind of order, not just random.
6. Some of the progressions are three chords long. That can't be right. Three bar sequences are extremely rare in pop music. More likely that one of the chords is repeated, but that really needs to be specified (as has been with certain ones)
7. There are no 8-chord sequences. I can think of at least one really famous 8-chord progression.
8. All the 'flat' chords show up as question marks on my computer. For the sake of making sure everyone can see it, wouldn't it be much easier just to use sharp symbols (#) instead? I believe this is the traditional method of writing notes using plain text on a computer.
9. The order of some of the chords is wrong. For example, with the one labeled "I - ♭VII-IV" — all the example songs given actually seem to use the sequence "bVII-IV-I-I". In other words, the tonic is not at the start of the sequence; it's at the end, and it's repeated. (The progression that was given is actually that of "Ghostbusters" and "Don't Leave Me This Way".)
10. Not all the examples listed use the exact basic chords specified. I think you'll probably find 7ths and suspended 4ths all over the place. For example, the last chord in "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" is (if I recall) a suspended 4th.
Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:Be bold.  Hyacinth (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also Wikipedia:When people complain rather than edit. Hyacinth (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common Progressions" section is a complete and utter mess 

message: Hello, there's a bit of talk about the I V vi iii IV I IV V progression in the Pachelbel's Canon article.  The editors there have been trying to keep this section brief so that the article can focus on the piece itself and not all the pieces that share its chord progression.  I've come here wondering if this progression is common enough to deserve mention in this article.  Is the progression in a family of progressions that already has its own child article?  Or perhaps is the progression itself so common that the "Pachelbel chord progression" deserves its own child article?  I don't have any idea myself which is why I'm asking here.  I'm just wondering if it would be possible to redirect the chord progression discussion to this area of music theory articles where the editors have more specific expertise.  Thanks.  DavidRF (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pachelbel progression" 

message: I don't know how it happened, but there is a major flaw in this discussion page.  Everything up until the section Reference to blues-modal harmony should be a direct quote. seems to have been duplicated, leading to eleven topics that appear twice.  I am deleting the first instance. Rheostatik (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting half of the Talk page 

message: ----
===Intro===
A chord progression (or harmonic progression) is  a series of musical chords, or chord changes that "aims for a definite goal"Arnold Schoenberg, Structural Functions of Harmony, Faber and Faber, 1983, p.1-2. of establishing (or contradicting) a tonality founded on a key, root or tonic chord.
Chord progressions are used to create movement within a piece of music, offering a shift of level or simultaneity succession essential to harmony. Music is not a static art form like sculpture; it exists within a time frame and people respond to this psychologically by their need for a start and end with a central tonality. Music creates this expectation regardless whether it is a melody line or a chord progression. Chord changes generally occur on an accented beat and by doing so creates a sense of rhythm, meter and musical form for a piece of music, while also delineating bars, phrases and sections.Stewart MacPherson, Musical Form, Chapter 1, Joseph Williams, London, 1930.
===Nomenclature===
In music theory, scale degrees are typically represented with Arabic numerals, often modified with a caret or circumflex ( \hat 1, \hat 3, \hat 5 would be the notes C, E and G in the key of C), whereas the triads that have these degrees as their roots are often identified by Roman numerals. Upper-case Roman numerals indicate major triads while lower-case Roman numerals indicate minor triads, as the following chart illustrates. Lower-case Roman numerals with a degree symbol indicate diminished triads. For example, in the major mode, the triad built on the seventh scale degree ( \hat 7) is diminished (vii°).
Roman numeral            	I    	ii        	iii    	IV         	V       	vi        	vii°
Scale degree (major mode)	tonic	supertonic	mediant	subdominant	dominant	submediant	leading tone
Roman numeral            	i    	ii°       	III    	iv         	V       	VI        	()VII   	vii°
Scale degree (minor mode)	tonic	supertonic	mediant	subdominant	dominant	submediant	subtonic	leading tone
Triads may be constructed using any degree of a scale as the root, and diatonic triads consist only of notes belonging to the scale. That is, if a passage is in G major, most of the chords contain only notes found in the G major scale. Subsequently, a chord's function changes according to the scale from which it is derived. A "D minor" chord will be the tonic chord ( i ) when built from the scale of D minor. It will be the super-tonic chord ( ii ) if it is derived from the scale of C major, or the sub-mediant ( vi ) chord if derived from the scale of F major.  
This also means that a D minor chord does not appear at all in some keys, such as A Major, due to the presence of an F# in the key signature.  This can be rectified by temporarily lowering the sixth scale degree ( \hat 6) from F# to F, resulting in a minor subdominant chord ( iv ) in a major scale, which, depending on the overall chord progression, can be considered aesthetically pleasing (see altered chord).
----
(I deleted a section of my paste as it remains in place at present Redheylin (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD is your friend here.  I agree with your aims, and if anyone doesn't, they will simply edit the page to fix any perceived shortcomings.  I do want to know why the expert-subject template is in the talk section.  If you really need an expert, please place that at the top of the main article, not on the talk page. Cheers! Joshua Scott (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed for discussion & rationale for removal

message: In music theory, scale degrees are typically represented with Arabic numerals, often modified with a caret or circumflex ( \hat 1, \hat 3, \hat 5 would be the notes C, E and G in the key of C), whereas the triads that have these degrees as their roots are often identified by Roman numerals. Upper-case Roman numerals indicate major triads while lower-case Roman numerals indicate minor triads, as the following chart illustrates. Lower-case Roman numerals with a degree symbol indicate diminished triads. For example, in the major mode, the triad built on the seventh scale degree ( \hat 7) is diminished (vii°).
Roman numeral            	I    	ii        	iii    	IV         	V       	vi        	vii°
Scale degree (major mode)	tonic	supertonic	mediant	subdominant	dominant	submediant	leading tone
Roman numeral            	i    	ii°       	III    	iv         	V       	VI        	()VII   	vii°
Scale degree (minor mode)	tonic	supertonic	mediant	subdominant	dominant	submediant	subtonic	leading tone
Triads may be constructed using any degree of a scale as the root, and diatonic triads consist only of notes belonging to the scale. That is, if a passage is in G major, most of the chords contain only notes found in the G major scale. Subsequently, a chord's function changes according to the scale from which it is derived. A "D minor" chord will be the tonic chord ( i ) when built from the scale of D minor. It will be the super-tonic chord ( ii ) if it is derived from the scale of C major, or the sub-mediant ( vi ) chord if derived from the scale of F major.  
This also means that a D minor chord does not appear at all in some keys, such as A Major, due to the presence of an F# in the key signature.  This can be rectified by temporarily lowering the sixth scale degree ( \hat 6) from F# to F, resulting in a minor subdominant chord ( iv ) in a major scale, which, depending on the overall chord progression, can be considered aesthetically pleasing (see altered chord).
----
(I deleted a section of my paste as it remains in place at present Redheylin (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD is your friend here.  I agree with your aims, and if anyone doesn't, they will simply edit the page to fix any perceived shortcomings.  I do want to know why the expert-subject template is in the talk section.  If you really need an expert, please place that at the top of the main article, not on the talk page. Cheers! Joshua Scott (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: Hi,
it's my first time entering a conversation I hope i'm doing nothing the wrong way.
I just want to point out the fact that Satie's first gymnopédie is qualified as a " I - IV", but my understanding is that it's a I - V(7M).
In fact the chords goes that way : G7M / D 7M . D is the five of G, not the 4.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
88.175.101.80 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a really good (but slightly old) question, seeing as both chords are major 7ths! You see, Gymnopédie is not in the key of G, but in the key of D, seeing as there's a C# that's not present in the key of G. The D major scale has C# and F#, whilst the key of G only has F#. Because there is a C# present (and definitely an F#), we can infer that the key is D major. Thus, seeing as G is the IV of D, it seems the progression was written as "I-IV". It should have been written as IV-I, as a result of the chord progression being Gmaj7 to Dmaj7. Perhaps it was a simple mistake? NeutralWikipedia (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satie's First Gymnopédie in I - IV? 

message: Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where to begin, I'm a musician with knowledge in this and this article makes almost no sense. Seems to be just a general smashup of facts and opinions without any organization. I would almost say scrap it and start over but that'd be even more work. DavidHamlin Talk|Contribs 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "{original research|date=November 2012} and {example farm|date=February 2013}" maintenance template messages have been at the top of this article for several years. Are they ready to come down or does the article need more editing first?  --Gerntrash (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there are no further comments, I will go ahead and remove the maintenance templates. Gerntrash (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: *Chord tablature for chord-playing instruments such as keyboard and guitar by and by gave way to fully notated parts.
The above text was removed with the assertion that it is not true. Hyacinth (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: tablature

message: To see that this article has been so damaged. The idea is to explain stuff, not to show how complicated you can talk. Redheylin (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims without explanation amount to empty criticism. This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not bashing it without justifying your comments or suggesting improvements. Hyacinth (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, Hyacinth! But the improvements I'd suggest would amount to a roll-back. I think removal of examples has been ill-advised in this case, since it may take several examples for a novice to identify simple progressions regardless of key and rhythm. And I think there's been a tendency to abandon progress from simplicity to complexity at the expense of clarity, and graphics are breaking style guidelines - too many of them!. Redheylin (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry

message: This is presumably some kind of philosophical concept that has no place in a straightforward article on basic chord sequences. Suggest it's deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.55.46 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spatio-temporal Harmony"? 

message: The second paragraph of the lede of this article includes extremely odd statements:
:• "A chord progression can be thought of as an harmonic simultaneity succession: it offers an ongoing shift of level that is essential to many musical traditions."
This version (the single contribution of an unindentified wikipedian) is from 3 January 2014; it simplified another version, mainly replacing "the music of Europe (at least since 1600), Oceania and South/West Africa" by "many musical traditions".
The article Simultaneity (music) explains that "simultaneity succession is a more general term than chord progression or harmonic progression: most chord progressions or harmonic progressions are then simultaneity successions, though not all simultaneity successions are harmonic progressions and not all simultaneities are chords." In view of this, "harmonic simultaneity succession" appears to mean "chord succession", and the mention of a "simultaneity succession" here merely makes things more complex than necessary.
The mention of "an ongoing shift of level" apparently results from some misunderstanding. The article Level (music) is rather unclear (to me at least, but I am only a professional music theorist), but it does not seem to describe chord progressions.
And the idea that chord progressions could be "essential to many musical traditions" is incredible! I would have thought that chord progressions were essential to musical traditions making use of chords, and that there weren't that many that do so...
:• "A change of chord, or "chord change", generally occurs on an accented beat, so that chord progressions may contribute significantly to the rhythm, meter and musical form of a piece, delineating bars, phrases and sections." [This is followed by a reference to Stewart MacPherson, Musical Form, Chapter 1, Joseph Williams, London, 1930.]
(This statement was added by User:Redheylin in April 2009.)
So far as I know, there is no book by S. MacPherson under this title. What is meant may be his Form in Music, but Chapter 1 of that book never says that changes of chord "generally occur on an accented beat", which would be nonsense. So far as I can tell, the book never mentions the expression "accented beat", but my OCR may have failed.
I intend to merely delete this paragraph very soon, but I did not want to do so without letting those who know better give their opinion. 
— Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd statements in the lede 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chord progression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719204120/http://www.yosemiteuhsd.com/finearts/rock/15_funk_disco.pdf to http://www.yosemiteuhsd.com/finearts/rock/15_funk_disco.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified