Iz 3-6-5-6-4 chord progression usual?
-
- KVRer
- 16 posts since 29 Aug, 2015
Here, the chord progression is 3-6-5-6-4.
Is this chord progression usual? I know the chord progressions such as 2-5-1, or 4-3-2-1, but I've never seen this progression. Is this progression unique exclusively in this song?
-
- KVRAF
- 3220 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
This would not be exclusive to this song. It is a basic progression. You would need to get into borrowed chords, chord substitutions, chromatisms before you start to get outside of the the standard pop vocabulary even then you'd find mainstream hits with far more involved progressions than what you have noted above.
jushin wrote:
Here, the chord progression is 3-6-5-6-4.
Is this chord progression usual? I know the chord progressions such as 2-5-1, or 4-3-2-1, but I've never seen this progression. Is this progression unique exclusively in this song?
-
- KVRist
- 441 posts since 30 Apr, 2007
Something is wrong with the analysis. I assure you, this song does have chords built on the tonic.
-
- KVRist
- 149 posts since 28 Sep, 2006
Yes it sounds ordinary to me, I have heard songs like that progression
-
- KVRist
- 67 posts since 25 Nov, 2015
The progression in that song is 2-6-5-6-4.jushin wrote:
Here, the chord progression is 3-6-5-6-4.
Is this chord progression usual? I know the chord progressions such as 2-5-1, or 4-3-2-1, but I've never seen this progression. Is this progression unique exclusively in this song?
But nothing wrong with 2-6-5 progression, with the 2 chord substituting for the 1.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
It has to be pointed out, for general usefulness, that ii cannot really substitute for I, it's a different primary function. ii is subdominant type, I is of course tonic. Conceptually the simple substitute derives from the similarity, eg., vi for I where 2/3rds of tones agree. V-vi-IV is a main feature of this tune and typical of a type (most saliently a move to IV). Nothing unusual, I mean does it sound unusual?
-
- KVRist
- 67 posts since 25 Nov, 2015
I'm sorry, I meant that in a 3-6-5 progression, the 3 would substitute for the 1. So it wouldn't be unusual sounding.jancivil wrote:It has to be pointed out, for general usefulness, that ii cannot really substitute for I, it's a different primary function. ii is subdominant type, I is of course tonic. Conceptually the simple substitute derives from the similarity, eg., vi for I where 2/3rds of tones agree. V-vi-IV is a main feature of this tune and typical of a type (most saliently a move to IV). Nothing unusual, I mean does it sound unusual?
But that isn't what is in the song he posted. It starts with a ii chord.