Want to learn more about Chord progressions

[sjm]

Chord progressions are perhaps the least important element in ANY style.

I'd beg to differ. Some styles are pretty much defined by chord progressions. When someone says "Blues in E", you're gonna expect one of a limited number of chord progressions, all of which are essentially just variations on the same theme. The same chord progression also defines a lot of early rock 'n' roll etc. etc.

[fmr]

Chord progressions are perhaps the least important element in ANY style. Rhythm (or "the beat"), as you pointed, the "feel", the instrumentation used, the way the song is structured and the melody progresses, all that matters more...

Even in a Bach Chorale?

chord progressions are highly overrated, IMO.

I have the opposite opinion.
There are styles where the harmony is everything.
A boring melody (even with a boring rhythm) can sound great if it is harmonised well.

Well, we disagree, for a change

But bear in mind that Bach "chorales" are not from Bach, and they were already "chorales" with the, usually very simple, harmonies written by the original composers. Bach harmony does not change the chorale into something else, nor did it make something else a "chorale".

Actually, Bach also wrote "variations" where the same harmony is used but the music is completely transformed.

I had a teacher who used to say: "Music is all about repetition and variation".

Variations are the best example of what I said - harmony is overrated. Otherwise, those compositions would be unbearable - after all, what we hear is the same chord progressions, over and over again - Remember Pachelbel Canon? Or Bach, as I said, or Mozart (Sonata in A Major - I movement), or Brahms, or Rachmaninoff, etc, etc.

[fmr]

Chord progressions are perhaps the least important element in ANY style.

I'd beg to differ. Some styles are pretty much defined by chord progressions. When someone says "Blues in E", you're gonna expect one of a limited number of chord progressions, all of which are essentially just variations on the same theme. The same chord progression also defines a lot of early rock 'n' roll etc. etc.

It's OK, I don't pretend to own the absolute true. But, if I take that same chord progression and write a piece for piano solo, or for a big symphonic orchestra, will it still be a "Blues in E"?

[Hink]

What's the best free midi file resource for chord progressions?

please do not take offense but wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of writing a song? The best place to find free chord progressions is in your hands, heart, mind and soul...will some of them not work? Absolutely, some will suck big time and not work for you...here's some unsolicited advice from someone who has been around the block a few times...you learn very little from being right, but you learn a lot from being wrong and making mistakes and we all do that. Dont be afraid to try something that doesn't work, you'll learn a lot more from that than asking others what you should do...it's your piece, go with what feels right

[Musical Gym]

What's the best free midi file resource for chord progressions?

please do not take offense

None taken.

[JumpingJackFlash]

But bear in mind that Bach "chorales" are not from Bach, and they were already "chorales" with the, usually very simple, harmonies written by the original composers. Bach harmony does not change the chorale into something else, nor did it make something else a "chorale".

The melodies already existed yes, but Bach (and other Lutheran composers) harmonised them. Often he harmonised the same melody in several different ways.

The word "chorale" can apply to both the melody and the setting as a whole.

Actually, Bach also wrote "variations" where the same harmony is used but the music is completely transformed.

He also wrote "variations" where the same basic melody is used but the harmony (and tonality) differs and the music is completely transformed.

[fmr]

The melodies already existed yes, but Bach (and other Lutheran composers) harmonised them. Often he harmonised the same melody in several different ways.

And yet the chorale is still the same, and recognized as such So... there you are

My point is that, in the end, it's the music that matters, not the chords. Concentrating just on the chords would be like a photographer concentrate on the field depth, and not caring about the speed, aperture, light, exposure time and all the other details I cannot name in english but are what make a good photograph a good photograph.

Music is a multidimensional art, where there are a lot of variables that have to be taken into account. Chords are just one of them. That's what I am trying to point here. When I hear people talking about chords here, chords there, I go nuts.

[Tricky-Loops]

If Bach would live today, he'd need a lawyer, otherwise the chorale copyright owners would sue him...

[fmr]

If Bach would live today, he'd need a lawyer, otherwise the chorale copyright owners would sue him...

Unless he licensed them to use (paying, of course) Sad but true. But, of course, he wasn't making millions selling records, so, there was no incentive to sue him, anyway.
Even in the 20th century there were composers using other composers material to work with (but I think that material was already in public domain).

[Tricky-Loops]

If Bach would live today, he'd need a lawyer, otherwise the chorale copyright owners would sue him...

Unless he licensed them to use (paying, of course) Sad but true. But, of course, he wasn't making millions selling records, so, there was no incentive to sue him, anyway.
Even in the 20th century there were composers using other composers material to work with (but I think that material was already in public domain).

When chord progressions can be copyrighted, too, we can stop making music...

[Cyoon]

sure they can be copyrighted

[manducator]

sure they can be copyrighted

So I can copyright the I-V-iv-IV progression and start cashing in on all these songs?

[sjm]

[...]Some styles are pretty much defined by chord progressions. When someone says "Blues in E", you're gonna expect one of a limited number of chord progressions [...] The same chord progression also defines a lot of early rock 'n' roll etc. etc.

But, if I take that same chord progression and write a piece for piano solo, or for a big symphonic orchestra, will it still be a "Blues in E"?

Well that's a pretty strange example to me - I think there's a very different approach to writing an orchestral piece than to the standard singer/songwriter or band approach.

In the latter, I think the vast majority of people take the chord approach - at least everyone I know does, and a lot of music sounds that way. A lot of stuff is the result of sitting down and pounding out something on a guitar/keyboard and probably finding a (vocal) melody to go on top. The chords provide the rough skeleton of the song, so that you can tell other band members roughly what to play. It's still obviously up to them to take the skeleton and develop it to find their own part. The final result doesn't necessarily have to sound the same as the original singer/guitar version either. Yet it's still the same song and everyone refers to it in terms of chord - "the Am G bit"; "after the final C of the verse". (much like Paul Anka's version of "smells like teen spirit" is still the same song as Nirvana's version; it has the same basic skeleton structure, but it's played differently which makes it a different style.)

So essentially the question as to whether it will be blues has two possible answers. Yes, it's a blues because if I say "it's just a blues in E" and the song is alternative rock, everyone still knows what "blues in E" means in terms of song structure. But of course the song is no longer "the blues", it's "alternative rock".

As tapper mike say's there's a difference between styles that's more than just chord progressions - that there are other elements that also define the style. Most early rock 'n' roll is just a blues progression - but it's the boogie-woogie bassline, increased speed and different approach to the guitar/piano makes it a different style. But the skeleton still applies. If someone who's never played rock 'n' roll before wants to know how it's structured, "blues in X" is a pretty easy way to convey that info.


Also, especially in a band context, there are a lot of people who don't know much about the theory, but do now how to play what they hear in their head. They know how different styles sound because they've heard them, not because they've studied them. They can easily play appropriate parts, and all they want to know is the rough structure of the song in terms of chord progressions. Conversely, I've played with people who learnt music the classical way who can't work with just chord structures - they expect you to tell them what notes to play because they've been trained to work with sheet music. "Just jam something in C" then evokes nothing more than a blank stare Everyone has different approaches and different approaches work better in different situations.

[fmr]

As tapper mike say's there's a difference between styles that's more than just chord progressions - that there are other elements that also define the style. Most early rock 'n' roll is just a blues progression - but it's the boogie-woogie bassline, increased speed and different approach to the guitar/piano makes it a different style. But the skeleton still applies. If someone who's never played rock 'n' roll before wants to know how it's structured, "blues in X" is a pretty easy way to convey that info.

I think it was me who said that (or I did pretty much said that too). But the important thing is that we seem to reach to a point where we agree in that there is more to a style than just "chord progression" (and I would add that the relative weight of chord progression within a style varies with the style in question, and chord progression alone would be pretty much meaningless).

Also, especially in a band context, there are a lot of people who don't know much about the theory, but do now how to play what they hear in their head. They know how different styles sound because they've heard them, not because they've studied them. They can easily play appropriate parts, and all they want to know is the rough structure of the song in terms of chord progressions. Conversely, I've played with people who learnt music the classical way who can't work with just chord structures - they expect you to tell them what notes to play because they've been trained to work with sheet music. "Just jam something in C" then evokes nothing more than a blank stare Everyone has different approaches and different approaches work better in different situations.

There are different approaches, indeed. I will not evaluate, or say one is better than the other - they are different, and each should be respected.

[Cyoon]

sure they can be copyrighted

So I can copyright the I-V-iv-IV progression and start cashing in on all these songs?

no but think about famous company jingles and stuff, basically also just chord progressions..and you would not be allowed to cpy this and sell it as your own..thats what i mean.