Is it possible to explain why bad progressions are bad?

[Dr.Wu]

i disagree
the complex relationship between 2 or more chords is a very delicate thing and all about intentionally created release and tension.
You cannot just throw together random chordsequences and hope to get anything meaningful.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Hey, it's musical -- mixer.

SourDAW pancakes...eh, never mind...

[seacouch]

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

So, of course this is all subjective, personal, your-mileage-may-vary stuff.
But your definition of music is apparently more restrictive than mine. (IMO) a chord progression does qualify as music. Music sans melody perhaps, but music nonetheless. I mean, what do you call everything between the beginning and ending melodies of a song. Does it cease to be music as soon as the melody stops? What do you call that music-sounding stuff that instrumentalists solo over? I think anyone hearing a chord progression on it's own would identify it as music.

[standalone]

i disagree
the complex relationship between 2 or more chords is a very delicate thing and all about intentionally created release and tension.
You cannot just throw together random chordsequences and hope to get anything meaningful.

Even the best crafted modulations can be ruined by mediocre performances. One can learn more about harmony listening to Barenboim playing Beethoven than reading a textbook.

[jancivil]

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

So, of course this is all subjective, personal, your-mileage-may-vary stuff.
But your definition of music is apparently more restrictive than mine. (IMO) a chord progression does qualify as music. Music sans melody perhaps, but music nonetheless. I mean, what do you call everything between the beginning and ending melodies of a song. Does it cease to be music as soon as the melody stops? What do you call that music-sounding stuff that instrumentalists solo over? I think anyone hearing a chord progression on it's own would identify it as music.

I sure haven't pretended to proffer any "definition of music". & I'll be damned if I get that anal/careful about language in these pages.

By itself, a chord progression can be some music, but I'm making a point. TO WIT: "Chord progressions are neutral. The idea of 'bad chord progressions' per se is stupid".

Your aspiration here appears to impress as "I'm good at playing semantic gotcha" (rether than reading a thing in the context of a whole thread, which takes more consideration innit). And this is your contribution to this, somewhat conceptual and thoughtful thread. Congratulations! Good job.

[jancivil]

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

SNIP! What do you call that music-sounding stuff that instrumentalists solo over? I think anyone hearing a chord progression on it's own would identify it as music.

In the context of what I've said, I'd call it a skeleton.

Let me ask you this, since you bring 'anyone hearing' into it: do you go around humming chord progressions? Let's say you have a boyfriend or girlfriend who isn't a musician: do you describe a tune to him/her as "you know, that one that goes I bVI bII I"? Or do you hum the tune.

[dubbhism]

If you are into Hindemith kind of stuff you should maybe also check out Joseph Schillingers theories of Music. The books are a bit boring but the theories are very interesting, for any style of music.

[seacouch]

I sure haven't pretended to proffer any "definition of music". & I'll be damned if I get that anal/careful about language in these pages.

By itself, a chord progression can be some music, but I'm making a point. TO WIT: "Chord progressions are neutral. The idea of 'bad chord progressions' per se is stupid".

Your aspiration here appears to impress as "I'm good at playing semantic gotcha" (rether than reading a thing in the context of a whole thread, which takes more consideration innit). And this is your contribution to this, somewhat conceptual and thoughtful thread. Congratulations! Good job.

No, my touchy friend, I had no such aspiration. After reading your post, and finding a point that I felt like commenting on, I proceeded to do so. No "semantic gotcha"; I probably find that more annoying than you do. Lighten up Buddy.

[seacouch]

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

SNIP! What do you call that music-sounding stuff that instrumentalists solo over? I think anyone hearing a chord progression on it's own would identify it as music.

In the context of what I've said, I'd call it a skeleton.

Let me ask you this, since you bring 'anyone hearing' into it: do you go around humming chord progressions? Let's say you have a boyfriend or girlfriend who isn't a musician: do you describe a tune to him/her as "you know, that one that goes I bVI bII I"? Or do you hum the tune.

Yes, sometimes I hum chord progressions. Don't you? And no, I don't describe tunes to non-musicians by their chord progressions, using roman numeral notation or otherwise, do you? I might hum the melody (I assume that's what you mean by "tune"?). How are those points relevant? Are those your qualifiers for what gets called music, as opposed to a "skeleton"? Not trying to "gotcha", by the way. Ok?