Is it possible to explain why bad progressions are bad?

[camlv]

there are chord progression that don't work.

I disagree - I think all combinations of chords are possible and they all work. It's just that some sound more conventional than others.

I'm with robojam, its about context and purpose of the chords. If want something to be really beautiful then you would use different chords then if you want something that gives tension. I think its more important to be able to identify the feelings of chords then know the theory behind them.

[bpgeez]

Have any good suggestions

[jsaras]

Any chord can go to any other chord provided that you have the skill to voicelead the structures correctly. Not every progression is suitable for every song or every style, but that's where YOU make the decisions as a composer. The only course that I am aware of that teaches linear voiceleading as the underlying basis of theory is the Equal Interval System, www.equalinterval.com

[jancivil]

Is it possible to explain why some chord progressions don't work??

It's quite simple. the person handling them wasn't any good at it. Period. "Theory" won't get you around that either direction. There is no 'bad progression' you can isolate and just say, never do this, and you're golden. There is bad, unwieldy, awkward, incompetent voice leading, bad part writing. It's a matter of craft at this level.

"Chord progressions" are neutral, numerical concepts. Most of the usual ones are quite banal by themselves. They aren't music yet.

There is one thing in common with any good treatment of a chord progression: good voice leading/part writing.
Sound principles of part-writing are taught all over, tried and true. It doesn't mean that's going to make you golden either. This requires 'care'.

[kongwee]

All the chord progression serve no purpose without any harmony to the melody. Of cos, you can get away just play chords but only for 4-8 bar. For me, every chord has certain feel(as mention earlier), but importantly you must get it smooth through progression.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I can't believe I am defending "chord progressions," but here goes...

There is such a thing as functional harmonic movement. The role of the dominant (in most cases) is to resolve to the tonic and thereby reinforce the tonality. You can say that in a traditional cadence, "the dominant harmony prepares the tonic."

Functional harmony works in recursive preparations, so that the cadential dominant is itself prepared in a variety of ways.

I6/4 -> V -> (7) -> I

or

IV -> V -> (7) -> I

or

ii6 -> V -> (7) -> I

or

V7/V -> V -> (7) -> I

or

viio/V -> V -> (7) -> I

etc.

And of course, there are harmonies that prepare the preparation of the dominant. All this preparation is to provide a full cadence, and again, establish the tonality (either the original tonality or a temporary tonality).

The guidelines for what best prepare the next harmony is stepwise root movement, up a fourth root movement (which sets up nice voiceleading to resolve into the next harmony by setting up ITS dissonance which must then resolve) or down a third (considered weaker).

So from a functional cadence point-of-view, you can say that progressions which set up (by sequential resolutions) a firm establishment of the tonality work the best. Those progressions which do not set up any sequential resolutions (either by virtue of voiceleading or root movement or both) could be described as "bad" or "weak" or whatever.

But sometimes, "weak" is just what you need, so all this is very textbook and petri dish kind of stuff...

Bottom line: Ask "does this progression sequentially set up a resolution toward establishing the (new or old) tonality?"

Ugh, I learned all this stuff and have spent years trying to forget it... Rameau... I feel like I just kissed a boy.

[psenior]

Excellent post, Oggie!

[Ogg Vorbis]

Excellent post, Oggie!

Thanks psenior. What's the "p" stand for?

[jancivil]

I can't believe I am defending "chord progressions," but here goes...

There is such a thing as functional harmonic movement. The role of the dominant...

Functional harmony works in recursive preparations, so that the cadential dominant is itself prepared in a variety of ways.

...

And of course, there are harmonies that prepare the preparation of the dominant. All this preparation is to ...

Bottom line: Ask "does this progression sequentially set up a resolution toward establishing the (new or old) tonality?"

Ugh, I learned all this stuff and have spent years trying to forget it... Rameau... I feel like I just kissed a boy.

Sounds just like voice-leading to me. Maybe I'm simple.

So, I'm now anticipating your gender-reversal cover of that song Katy Perry covered to such success.


I never forget it, but it sure seems now like nothin to do. To me, it's just better to think in terms of musical lines which go together and happily coincide in time rather than, IMO something which puts the cart before the horse, numbered chords in progression. They are a skeleton at best which you're going to have to flesh out with 'content', so why not start with that, like... a melody. Your part-writing class is your best bet here, I'm not steering you wrong. You'll take tunes and learn about handling harmonies according to that. That's what specifically happens.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I never forget it, but it sure seems now like nothin to do. To me, it's just better to think in terms of musical lines which go together and happily coincide in time rather than, IMO something which puts the cart before the horse, numbered chords in progression. They are a skeleton at best which you're going to have to flesh out with 'content', so why not start with that, like... a melody.

Jan, you are preaching to the choir. I think it's called "counterpoint" or at least it was until the term was hi-jacked to mean the same thing as polyphony.

I was speaking from a perspective (vertical harmonies) that I was steeped in, but that I've rejected since I stopped drinking cheap beer back in 1990. It's a weird feeling to speak that language again...kind of tastes like burping up warm, flat Keystone Lite.

[jancivil]

Yeah, I hear that big time.

I work purely contrapuntally (or just melodically if less 'dense'). Deliberately. I just won't think in terms of chords. To me it's like building a house to go with the drapes to do it.

[jancivil]

[
I was speaking from a perspective (vertical harmonies) that I was steeped in, but that I've rejected since I stopped drinking cheap beer back in 1990. It's a weird feeling to speak that language again...kind of tastes like burping up warm, flat Keystone Lite.

I liked having someone else write out a figured bass and working it out in 4-part. But I was ALWAYS seeking four lines out of it (and as many cute 'non-harmonic' colors as possible).

[EggyToast]

"So What" goes from D Dorian to Eb Dorian and then back to D Dorian. Seems like it would be a bad progression, but like the title of the song, so what?

[Ogg Vorbis]

"So What" goes from D Dorian to Eb Dorian and then back to D Dorian. Seems like it would be a bad progression, but like the title of the song, so what?

Modal shifts like that are a different animal. I interpreted the OP's post a having to do with functional harmony.

I like your screen name! It makes me hungry for French Toast...

[Meffy]

It makes me hungry for French Toast...

If you make some, try adding a little flour with the egg and milk, a little like extra-rich pancake batter.

Hey, it's musical -- mixer.