Circle of Fifths -- a "recipe book" for chord progressions?

[trewq]

If not, is there any other method of knowing which chords sit well together?
I know that I could try to just experiment and work it out by ear (although I know no theory, I can usually work out when something sounds wrong), but I'd like to be able to compose a bit more methodically...so any advice much apprciated!

No recipe book as Jancivil said. Its mostly experimenting and working out by ear even with the many techniques for selecting the next chord in your progression. Some good ones were already mentioned, another to consider are the possibilities for modulation. A simple example: Knowing what chords in key of C will not clash with a chord having a B flat in key of F for example. Lots can be taken into account, but simple basics of knowing (or having a quick way of finding) chords in C that are also in F is one way - assuming any chord will not clash with another of the same scale (given decent voice leading). But, to avoid restricting ourselves, some chords in C with a B note(not in F major) ought to be played next to chords with a B flat(in F major). So find a scale, or scales, that have both B and B flat notes, with the rest common to C and F major, and then get the chords out of it. (Some things don't have to come out of a theory book, they just make sense). But I know it sounds like a lot of work(integrating chords and scales). That's what computers are for.

[BITWORD]

You might be interested in this application:

http://www.cognitone.com/products/nav/intro/page.stml

[jancivil]

I remember as a kid, when I realized that there were formulae for chord progressions, 'I vi ii V I' et cetera. I was pretty non-plussed, 'ah so that's why so much shit sounds exactly the same!' I am still a bit nonplussed by the idea, albeit useful when you are using the fact of a standard as a form when it makes a point.

Your ear should be informed by knowledge of what works and WHY it works. But we don't want to be referring to it like there is a paint-by-numbers chart.


(The literary formula mentioned have to do with form; circle of fifths or a technical conception as a recipe asks for it as though it's to be content.)

[lingyai]

I would look at it more as a menu or a list of members of a food group rather than a recipe book. Music theory is an explanation of phenomena so you can have a conception of why something worked, not a handbook for writing. Is there a recipe book for literature writing?

Well, actually much literature is formulaic -- exposition, conflict, resolution, denoument... but anyway...

So, to replace creativity we can just input data into a machine and it will all be sorted?


I'm trying to help your understanding with that.

You seem to be taking quite your own spin on what I think, and in doing so, you seem to be making big assumptions, and wholly ignoring other parts of the post from which you excerpted. Is the man in the clip who I cite as an example just inputting data in a machine? Is wanting a good basis for experimentation the same as a programmed mechanical appraoch? I think not.

[lingyai]

You might be interested in this application:

http://www.cognitone.com/products/nav/intro/page.stml

Thanks for sharing that. From the intro video it looks fairly complex; also it seems like it kind of takes over and does it all for you, sort of like Band in a Box or something. In the end I'm not looking for fully automated song creation; rather I'd like something to serve as a guide for building progressions, which I can then perform and / or program in Midi.

For example, I stole a few sequential chords from a piano version of Palchelbel's Canon in D -- so I knew they were "right" together -- changed the order, got cheeky and changed a note in one of the chords, and played them, very slowly as simple arpeggios at a different time signature. Played back the recorded midi file at a faster tempo, and sounded pretty musical to me. For this simpleton, admittedly aiming low, it was extremely gratifying!

Something like the circle of fifths, I believe, would provide me with the basic framework, so I don't have to go out plundering others' works, or if I do, I can then expand on them by using a chord which they didn't use, but which will fit. Is it everything I need to know to be a maestro? Heavens no, never thought or said that. But as a start, it would be a giant leap from where I am now, which is a monkey at the keyboard.

Still, though, at least the Lite version of that software might be worth demoing. Have you used the product yourself? If so, what are your impressions? Can compositions be exported as indivdual midi instument tracks?

[fmr]

Risking appearing really stupid, I simply cannot understand this almost obsession about chord progression so many people express around here. IMO, music starts as a melody, and the chords (as well as instrumentation, which people seems to completely neglect, but is very much connected with the chords, or harmony as I prefer to say) are next in my priority.

Melodies (or themes, or motifs) are what I have to say, and if I have nothing to say, what use will the alphabet and grammar have to me?

So, instead of trying to devise which chords come after which chords, and which ones should follow, why don't you create a melody, and see where that leads you?

What would happen if you create a "chord progression" and suddenly a melody rises in your head that simply leads you in some other way? Will you respect the melody, or simplyt throw it away because it doesn't "fit" in your chord progression?

[WOK]

no one mentioned this yet?
http://www.kvraudio.com/db/3102
http://www.kvraudio.com/db/2402

And then there is this:
http://harmonybuilder.com/manuals/manua ... glish.html
http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/File ... Deluxe.pdf
http://www.mixedinkey.com/HowTo.aspx
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/mikesmusic/m ... CHORD_PROG

[lingyai]

Risking appearing really stupid, I simply cannot understand this almost obsession about chord progression so many people express around here. IMO, music starts as a melody, and the chords (as well as instrumentation, which people seems to completely neglect, but is very much connected with the chords, or harmony as I prefer to say) are next in my priority.

Melodies (or themes, or motifs) are what I have to say, and if I have nothing to say, what use will the alphabet and grammar have to me?

So, instead of trying to devise which chords come after which chords, and which ones should follow, why don't you create a melody, and see where that leads you?

What would happen if you create a "chord progression" and suddenly a melody rises in your head that simply leads you in some other way? Will you respect the melody, or simplyt throw it away because it doesn't "fit" in your chord progression?

Nothing at all stupid in what you say, or wrong in your suggested approach. But you gotta start somewhere, and I find that melodies more naturally occur to me once chords are in place. I think it just depends on the person, which is the better starting point.

[sjm]

Risking appearing really stupid, I simply cannot understand this almost obsession about chord progression so many people express around here. IMO, music starts as a melody, and the chords (as well as instrumentation, which people seems to completely neglect, but is very much connected with the chords, or harmony as I prefer to say) are next in my priority.

It very much depends on your instrument, musical direction etc. People who sit down and jam away on a guitar and keyboard are quite likely to organize the song in their head in terms of chords. Even if you're singing the melody, your actual aim is to find the harmonic and rhythmic content that goes along with it. Chords are a great way of noting down the overall structure of a song without worrying about the intricacies. They say nothing about the melody - they give you a construct within which to work, and a quick way of writing down your song.

If you play in a band, they'll almost always expect you to give a rough layout of your songs in terms of chords. You'll might sing the melody along with it to give them a rough idea of it and so the singer has a clue what's going on. But the chords define the overall harmonic structure of the song, which is what the musicians needs to know. A melody is just a melody, not a harmony. Everyone in the band might hear a different chord progression for the same melody. If they all play their own thing, you get a cacophany.

If you're a classical composer, a singer, or someone who generally hears a melody in their head first of all, you might take a different approach to writing. The same applies if you sit down at the computer and program a hook to get you started. But the moment you have to share your ideas, chords are a much more succinct way of getting everyone to understand what's going on very quickly. You save yourself a lot of time this way.

+ loads of people can't read sheet music (because you really don't need to for popular music), so that's not an option.

[lingyai]

no one mentioned this yet?
http://www.kvraudio.com/db/3102
http://www.kvraudio.com/db/2402

And then there is this:
http://harmonybuilder.com/manuals/manua ... glish.html

Thanks very much for posting these. Have only had a quick look (I'm supposed to be working) but may I ask, have you tried any of these three? If so, which would seem to you be most intuitive and -- dare I say it -- fun to use?

[fmr]

Risking appearing really stupid, I simply cannot understand this almost obsession about chord progression so many people express around here. IMO, music starts as a melody, and the chords (as well as instrumentation, which people seems to completely neglect, but is very much connected with the chords, or harmony as I prefer to say) are next in my priority.

It very much depends on your instrument, musical direction etc. People who sit down and jam away on a guitar and keyboard are quite likely to organize the song in their head in terms of chords. Even if you're singing the melody, your actual aim is to find the harmonic and rhythmic content that goes along with it. Chords are a great way of noting down the overall structure of a song without worrying about the intricacies. They say nothing about the melody - they give you a construct within which to work, and a quick way of writing down your song.

If you play in a band, they'll almost always expect you to give a rough layout of your songs in terms of chords. You'll might sing the melody along with it to give them a rough idea of it and so the singer has a clue what's going on. But the chords define the overall harmonic structure of the song, which is what the musicians needs to know. A melody is just a melody, not a harmony. Everyone in the band might hear a different chord progression for the same melody. If they all play their own thing, you get a cacophany.

If you're a classical composer, a singer, or someone who generally hears a melody in their head first of all, you might take a different approach to writing. The same applies if you sit down at the computer and program a hook to get you started. But the moment you have to share your ideas, chords are a much more succinct way of getting everyone to understand what's going on very quickly. You save yourself a lot of time this way.

+ loads of people can't read sheet music (because you really don't need to for popular music), so that's not an option.

A-ha, now I think I understand why chords bother so many people. I was always taught that the melody contains in itself everything else, and always led my ideas that way, but I accept that if people are jamming without any lead, then a previous stated chord structure is necessary to help them stay together.
However, in terms of composition, I still think that starting with the motifs, themes or even complete melodies or a general concept is a better approach and one that helps preserving originality.
And you said it yourself: "A melody is just a melody, not a harmony. Everyone in the band might hear a different chord progression for the same melody." That's because it is so, it's in the natural order of things. And also, you can choose several accompaniment styles, which also interferes with the chords that are going to be chosen - that's why I find the "chord" approach to composition a poorer one - but it's just me, and I very much agree that each one should choose the way the better fits, as long as the result is satisfactory.

[sjm]

That's because it is so, it's in the natural order of things. And also, you can choose several accompaniment styles, which also interferes with the chords that are going to be chosen - that's why I find the "chord" approach to composition a poorer one - but it's just me, and I very much agree that each one should choose the way the better fits, as long as the result is satisfactory.

Just to clear a point up (which I didn't make clear) - the composition process itself doesn't necessarily revolve around chords (although it can of course). The chords are used to communicate and document. Many/most songs can be communicated in terms of chords, whether or not the composer took a "chord" approach to composition. Chords to me are not a composition choice, but a means of summing up a song. Don't confuse chords with the act of composing, it's more a substitute for sheet music (which as I mentioned an awful lot of people can't read), and obviously lacks a lot of details.

I generally jam around writing a piece and when I'm done, I then spend some time distilling the chords from the composition so that I can write it down. The chords come from the composition - not the other way around. When playing an instrument you are competent at - and composing on the fly - your fingers behave intuitively. Experience has taught you what works and how to put what you hear in your head into practice; not thinking in terms of chord progressions. But afterwards I often need to spend some time figuring out what some of the more esoteric harmonies represent in terms of chords. Sometimes I've fingered a chord on my guitar that I've never come across before. Sometimes it's a question of considering your harmonic intentions - are you playing a diminished chord, or is it actually a 7th missing the root note (which you may want voiced on another instrument); 9th or an add9? etc.

So essentially chords allow us to communicate (and without needing sheet music) You need SOME MEANS of sharing (and documenting) your ideas with others!

[jancivil]

I would look at it more as a menu or a list of members of a food group rather than a recipe book. Music theory is an explanation of phenomena so you can have a conception of why something worked, not a handbook for writing. Is there a recipe book for literature writing?

Well, actually much literature is formulaic -- exposition, conflict, resolution, denoument... but anyway...

So, to replace creativity we can just input data into a machine and it will all be sorted?


I'm trying to help your understanding with that.

You seem to be taking quite your own spin on what I think, and in doing so, you seem to be making big assumptions, and wholly ignoring other parts of the post from which you excerpted. Is the man in the clip who I cite as an example just inputting data in a machine? Is wanting a good basis for experimentation the same as a programmed mechanical appraoch? I think not.

You seem to be interested in being more argumentative than I am on the metaphors. But since you are, let me straighten you out: formal devices in literature is a bogus analogy for my comment per using a chart of fifths as a recipe book, which asks for content. My analogy of inputting data with no thought is apt enough; AND it applies particularly to your 'work' grabbing things out of Pachelbel and reordering them and speeding them up. You're looking for shortcuts; and your argumentative - and in private disrespectful in the extreme - approach to people that have given time to you asking nothing in return is obnoxious. You may feel in this internet environment that we who have the information you are soliciting are somehow your peers, but that's not true. Your lack of humility and curiosity is not going to serve you well.

That you have decided I think something negative about obtaining the understanding of some theory suggests you are talking more about yourself with that 'spin' bi'ness. Your actual mental process doesn't fascinate me TBH.

Music theory is no handbook, or road map, or recipe. That's all I'm saying. I think this is a valuable thing to understand. It occurred to me that you may not get this so there is my perspective.

[lingyai]

I see.

[lingyai]

Looks pretty handy to me