Is chord progression necessary?

[fmr]

Literally, a "chord" is simply a group of notes (most would say it needs at least three, although some argue it could be two) sounding at the same time. In the West, we traditionally make chords from stacking thirds, but that is not the only way to build them. There is certainly a lot more to "chords" than just G7, C minor and so on. And there is a lot more to "harmony" than the conventions of Western functional tonality.

The way I was taught, a group of notes can be a chord IF:
1. You have three or more notes (if its just two, you have a harmonic interval, but not a chord);
2. You can superimpose all notes in triads from the root of the chord (of course, you can have inversions, but when you count from the root, you have to have 3, 5, 7, 9 and so on).
3. You can have notes that are not triads, but they are considered "foreign" to the chord, and have to be "explained" within the musical context.

There's also an interesting debate here about counterpoint vs. harmony, or the horizontal vs. the vertical. It varies with time and geography whether a culture values one over the other (and to what extent), but there is no objectively "right" and "wrong" way, and just because an approach is more recent does not make it "better". Just because a culture has no concept of "chords" and/or "harmony" does not necessarily mean those things are not there. In most cases, whenever there is more than one note sounding at the same time, both vertical and horizontal elements are going to be present to one degree or another, although one might only be a by-product of the other.

Exactly. And you have more examples of music with no awareness of chords than the opposite, both in time (history) as well as in space (worldwide).
And even when harmony was important (in the baroque era, for example), it was looked as a "dress" for more important things, like the melody and the expression of the singed words, for example.

[JumpingJackFlash]

The way I was taught, a group of notes can be a chord IF:
1. You have three or more notes (if its just two, you hane a harmonic interval, but not a chord);
2. You can superimpose all notes in triads from the root of the chord (of course, you can have inversions, but when you count from the root, you have to have 3, 5, 7, 9 and so on).

I generally agree with the first, though as I said, I have heard some people argue that two notes - a "dyad" - can be a type of chord in some contexts... There's also implied chords too.

But I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second point. Are you saying that all "chords" have to be constructed from thirds? Hindemith and others have constructed chords from fourths instead, and that's before you take into account relatively basic things such as added sixths and possibly other harmonic devices such as suspensions. Then there's set theory...

[fmr]

But I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second point. Are you saying that all "chords" have to be constructed from thirds? Hindemith and others have constructed chords from fourths instead, and that's before you take into account relatively basic things such as added sixths and possibly other harmonic devices such as suspensions. Then there's set theory...

The way I learned, if you have fourths, instead of thirds, it's no longer chords, but "aggregates". If I'm not mistaken, it was Schoenberg (one of the first to use fourth aggregates) that explicitly differentiate them.

Added sixths, suspensions, etc. fall into the "foreign" notes classification (notes that do NOT belong to the chord), and are intended to create tension (dissonance) that will resolve in the next chord (probably while another dissonance occurs - the Prelude to "Tristan und Isolde" is a classic example of this).

[JumpingJackFlash]

The way I learned, if you have fourths, instead of thirds, it's no longer chords, but "aggregates". If I'm not mistaken, it was Schoenberg (one of the first to use fourth aggregates) that explicitly differentiate them.

I would say stacking fourths instead of thirds still produces a "chord", but just a different kind of chord.

Added sixths, suspensions, etc. fall into the "foreign" notes classification (notes that do NOT belong to the chord), and are intended to create tension (dissonance) that will resolve in the next chord (probably while another dissonance occurs - the Prelude to "Tristan und Isolde" is a classic example of this).

So why can sevenths and ninths be "part of the chord", but sixths and fourths cannot be?

It can't be about "dissonance", since we could have a diminished seventh for example, normally considered quite dissonant, and yet it can be constructed entirely from thirds (if written correctly). And on the other hand we could have chords that aren't constructed from thirds but are entirely (or largely) consonant.

Also, let's take an example of F-A-C-D in C major. If we call it a minor seventh in first inversion, it can legitimately be classed as a "chord", but if we call it a major sixth (chord) on F it can't be?

It seems to be more a case of cultural "tradition" and what you're accustomed to as to where you draw the line.

[fmr]

So why can sevenths and ninths be "part of the chord", but sixths and fourths cannot be?

They can, if the chord is in an inverted position. EG: a 6-4 chord is the second inversion of a major/minor chord. But if you have a second, a third and a fourth (C-D-E-F), you certainly don't have a chord, do you? At least one note has to be considered as not belonging to the chord.

It can't be about "dissonance", since we could have a diminished seventh for example, normally considered quite dissonant, and yet it can be constructed entirely from thirds (if written correctly). And on the other hand we could have chords that aren't constructed from thirds but are entirely (or largely) consonant.

Consonance and dissonance are two concepts hard to define, since they are very subjective, and constantly changing, according the the cultural background. I used the word "tension", and was thinking of special sixths like the augmented sixth, as appears in the mentioned prelude to Tristan und Isolde. But even that, today, may sound not dissonant at all - yet, harmonically, it creates a great deal of tension, as I'm sure you'll agree

Also, let's take an example of F-A-C-D in C major. If we call it a minor seventh in first inversion, it can legitimately be classed as a "chord", but if we call it a major sixth (chord) on F it can't be?

To me, it is a seventh chord, no matter how you look at it. The sixth is a major sixth, so, no problem. The tension here is created by the presence of the C and the D simultaneously. To call it a "sixth" chord would imply to not consider the D as part of the chord, but then, how would you explain it - an added sixth? Seems too much for me, but then, it depends on the musical context.

It seems to be more a case of cultural "tradition" and what you're accustomed to as to where you draw the line.

To an extent, yes, it may be. We re not talking of an exact science here, rather about theories that were created to explain how things were done, and why.

BTW: I checked, and Schoenberg called the fourth aggregates chords too, in the "Harmonielehre" (at least in my spanish version of it they were quoted as chords). Not the way I was taught, though.

Anyway, he clearly talks about them as a different thing, that he proposes, but that also recognizes as a different system, that cannot be used inside the traditional context of harmony. This is in the XXI chapter of the book, after talking, in the XIX chapter, about "floating tonality" and "suspended tonality", the chromatic scale as the base to the tonality, and in the XX chapter about the whole tone scale. The book was first printed in 1911.

[Uncle E]

I generally agree with the first, though as I said, I have heard some people argue that two notes - a "dyad" - can be a type of chord in some contexts... There's also implied chords too.

Yes, this is what I was taught, as well. However, I get fmr's points and the OP is probably asking about a literal chord progression, anyway, and not what you and I are talking about. Even an arpeggiated Bach Sonata, though clearly a textbook case of harmonic progression, might not be a chord progression in the way the OP is thinking.

[jancivil]

You don't need any chord progression AT ALL. What you need a is a good melody, a good bass line, and perhaps a counter-melody.

That's still harmonic progression, which ultimately is the same thing as chord progression.

No, you can totally have all three of these components and no chord at all. And 'harmonic progression' might not be chord progression or something you can define as chords.

Literally, a "chord" is simply a group of notes (most would say it needs at least three, although some argue it could be two) sounding at the same time. In the West, we traditionally make chords from stacking thirds, but that is not the only way to build them.

I don't agree with this, it's absurd. You're actually saying that any vertical phenomenon becomes a chord through this "definition". I shouldn't have to say more, it ought to be clear this is absurd.
"Literally"? Good grief. So, you'll place the goalposts where they are convenient in order to justify an assertion..

There is certainly a lot more to "chords" than just G7, C minor and so on. And there is a lot more to "harmony" than the conventions of Western functional tonality.

Thank you Captain Obvious.
I have things in my music I would never try to define as a chord. Frankly I think my experience in music is something way past yours. I have NOTES I would be hard pressed to define (as the fabric, 'tonal center' is shifting, or even hard to name per se, eg., here is a 'quarter tone').

What is this:

There's also an interesting debate here about counterpoint vs. harmony, or the horizontal vs. the vertical. It varies with time and geography whether a culture values one over the other (and to what extent), but there is no objectively "right" and "wrong" way, and just because an approach is more recent does not make it "better".

As far as objective, though, and "right", you seem to present a belief that chords simply must be and you are making what are not intellectually rigorous (and skewing) statements seeking to make that true.

[Uncle E]

Woah! This got gnarly fast.

[jancivil]

You don't need any chord progression AT ALL. What you need a is a good melody, a good bass line, and perhaps a counter-melody.

That's still harmonic progression, which ultimately is the same thing as chord progression.

No, you can totally have all three of these components and no chord at all. And 'harmonic progression' might not be chord progression or something you can define as chords.

Just because a culture has no concept of "chords" and/or "harmony" does not necessarily mean those things are not there. In most cases, whenever there is more than one note sounding at the same time, both vertical and horizontal elements are going to be present to one degree or another, although one might only be a by-product of the other.

This was in furtherence of a definition, anything vertical *is* a chord. I vehemently disagree. Your thinking is not relevant to my own necessarily.
There are very definitely things, eg., in my Extents, 2012, that should not be limited to chord [name], reasonably. It isn't useful, it isn't the thought, the entire conception is irrelevant to the music. Are you really going to insist that a cloud of tight clusters has to be a chord? I'm sure I couldn't transcribe all sorts of things I want in music, let alone start sorting chords from it. "does not necessarily mean" chords are 'not there' but it totally can mean. You haven't thought this through or you just don't have enough to go on.

But let's make the most simple example:
Indian Classical Music, there is no thought of chord. You can analyze it after the fact, there are the two tones in the tamboura ringing, 1 & 5 and here the singer sings ^3 and VOILA, a major chord. But what you're doing now is justifying a belief through NAMING. This is, logically, confusing the name for the thing-in-itself. As per the topic, you'll want a next chord, and you'll find some way to justify that name, I suppose. But it's not relevant, that is antithetical to the musical thinking.
It's not useful to talk about it. It is argument qua argumentation now.

You're a very conservative musician, evidently and what you're doing is imposing definitions as universal (and in the abstract, as though to vacate real examples). This bugs me.

[fmr]

I generally agree with the first, though as I said, I have heard some people argue that two notes - a "dyad" - can be a type of chord in some contexts... There's also implied chords too.

Yes, this is what I was taught, as well. However, I get fmr's points and the OP is probably asking about a literal chord progression, anyway, and not what you and I are talking about. Even an arpeggiated Bach Sonata, though clearly a textbook case of harmonic progression, might not be a chord progression in the way the OP is thinking.

The solo cello suites, or the flute partita, also have clear harmonic progressions, and they were written for a melodic instrument (you can argue the cello can play two notes simultaneously, but the flute can play just one). These are great examples of how we can be harmonic without chords, as well as a motet from Josquin Des Prez is an example of how we can have several voices without having chord progressions.

Back on topic, and directed to the OP - my honest and humble suggestion: Concentrate on the melody and melodic development. Then try to create a bass that is coherent with the melody, and also sounds good. When you achieve this, you'll have more than half of the job done. The rest is more a task of filling the holes.

Bottom line: I never created a hit, so what do I know?

[JumpingJackFlash]

if you have a second, a third and a fourth (C-D-E-F), you certainly don't have a chord, do you? At least one note has to be considered as not belonging to the chord.

Why?
In C-E-G-B, is the B part of the chord or not? - If not, why not?
And then, in C-E-G-A, why is the A not part of the chord?

...but then, how would you explain it - an added sixth?

Possibly. In several early theory books that is what the chord was called.
See "chord of the added sixth".

Anyway, he clearly talks about them as a different thing, that he proposes, but that also recognizes as a different system, that cannot be used inside the traditional context of harmony.

I agree, of course they're "different", and not part of "traditional" harmony , but that doesn't mean they are not "chords".

"Literally"? Good grief. So, you'll place the goalposts where they are convenient in order to justify an assertion..

No, "literally" as in according to the basic definition:

chord 1 |kɔːd|
noun
a group of (typically three or more) notes sounded together, as a basis of harmony.

I agree that it may not always be helpful or appropriate to analyse music in terms of "chords", but that doesn't negate the definition.

Frankly I think my experience in music is something way past yours.

Just a little arrogance there.
Your experience is different, yes, but that doesn't make you better.

You seem to equate "chords" with "tonality", and that simply isn't - or doesn't have to be - the case.

[jancivil]

It seems to be more a case of cultural "tradition" and what you're accustomed to as to where you draw the line.

Who is this 'you' here? Is it a universal you? I don't need to draw the line, that's you I think.

I can make something up right now to pose the questions:
E F Bb D Eb G# B. What chord is this? I have intervallic things in mind. What if the idea is all about Sonority? What if the harmonic meaning of this is relative to the next stack? What if this just happens to be true at the moment in time we lassoed something in the fabric? What if the next move is affected by the spacing of this? What is the entire reasoning was horizontal and this is just an artifact? No, JJF we have to consider examples, we cannot reasonably draw lines in the sand just because.

Fortunately I had good teachers, so I can analyze a JS Bach piece for a monophonic instrument and sort the harmony; and so while someone may have stated 'a chord is three notes at once' it was never a determinant in my thought once I began to write.

I do recall 'master classes' where 20th c. vocabulary was discussed, and one key principal here was the consideration of the vertical as pure sonority. We can find this in Debussy nearly a century before I was apprised of it. I found this thought liberating. I find dogmatic statements the opposite.

[jancivil]

Frankly I think my experience in music is something way past yours.

Just a little arrogance there.
Your experience is different, yes, but that doesn't make you better.

Evidently my interest and experience exceeds yours or you would not have these statements. I have zero interest in being competitive with you, and 'better than'. You presented that as a straw man already, who has said 'better'? Pointless.
There is nothing arrogant about me noticing you're narrowing things artificially and forming specious definitions. If you had done the things I am talking about in example above, you would scarcely need to argue what you're arguing. To me, your presumptiousness is arrogant.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I can make something up right now to pose the questions:
E F Bb D Eb G# B. What chord is this?

Who says it has to have a name?

What if the harmonic meaning of this is relative to the next stack? What if this just happens to be true at the moment in time we lassoed something in the fabric? What if the next move is affected by the spacing of this? What is the entire reasoning was horizontal and this is just an artifact? ...

None of these things are necessarily inherent in the concept of a "chord".

There is nothing arrogant about me noticing you're narrowing things artificially and forming specious definitions.

Narrowing? Which one of us has the narrower definition of "chord"?

[jancivil]

I can make something up right now to pose the questions:
E F Bb D Eb G# B. What chord is this?

Who says it has to have a name?

What if the harmonic meaning of this is relative to the next stack? What if this just happens to be true at the moment in time we lassoed something in the fabric? What if the next move is affected by the spacing of this? What is the entire reasoning was horizontal and this is just an artifact? ...

None of these things are necessarily inherent in the concept of a "chord".

There is nothing arrogant about me noticing you're narrowing things artificially and forming specious definitions.

Narrowing? Which one of us has the narrower definition of "chord"?

This is SUCH SOPHISTRY. I didn't define 'chord', I said that there are things you can't define!!!
NOW you won't define, therefore no definition is a more liberal definition.

You want this word chord to be true for every vertical thing, or at least three or more notes? I grant you provided an out through various devices, 'not necessarily' but you seem to have posed a general definition that everything is pretty much a chord if vertical stuff happens. What chord is that? It could be a chord, but it's constructed in a way that naming it is probably going to be a problem.

And you didn't catch yourself illustrating exactly my point, did you? None of these things are necessarily inherent in the concept of a chord! Did I call it a chord? NO. Please note the question mark. If you read it, you would have seen that I showed several ways it isn't necessarily a chord; one of the things I am saying by it is that 'harmonic [progression]' is not necessarily 'chord [progression]'. What if the entire reasoning is vertical and it's a matter of isolating and lassoing a group in a complex fabric? And it's only that group incidentally and for not long enough for me to call it a chord. I reckon you're going to have to call it a chord no matter what?
I want you to call it a chord, define it & support your definition, and you're tossing.

If you can't name it, how is it a chord? Do you actually think you're vacating these questions by these gestures?