Is there any way to know what chords usually falls after a specific chord?

[Tianzii]

I’ve started learning music theory on YouTube and from free resources on the internet.

Never understood how the Circle of Fifths can be used. I’m more like a DAW music theory learner and I would like to know how I can build custom chord progressions.

Learned about Chords and Inversions and I’ve read somewhere that some chords usually “requires” to be followed by a specific chord.

Can anyone help me learn this?

Thank you!

[Jafo]

This is just a game rule of Western Classical (i.e., a bunch of dead European men) music; you need the rules if you're in a theory class getting graded. Other options are possible, but let's start with what you learn in theory classes. See, it's all based on rising tension that builds then resolves.

Western Classical music of the Common Practice Period (i.e., "music theory") is all based on the V7-I relation. We call this a "Dominant-Tonic" relationship: for example, G7 is dominant (restless, needing to resolve) to C. This is the reason for the Circle of Fifths: sequences of chords that strongly resolve to other chords. C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db(C#)-Gb(F#)-B-E-A-D-G-C. Each of these chords is preceded by the chord based on the fifth note of its chord -- hence the circle of fifths. C is c-e-g, and it preceded by G. The reason for this is that the V-I relation (particularly when it's V7-I) is felt to be especially strong, because of the unstable tritone. Furthermore, voice leading is vital in this thinking: it's easier to sing notes that are close together, so you want to have chords preceded by chords whose notes are close to their destination. You're going to see ii7-V7-I all the time; IV-V7-I is also frequent, since the ii7 chord is the IV chord with an extra note.

Other progressions are possible. You will also see a IV-I relationship: F-C in the key of C, for example. Rock and blues music has these in abundance. "Hey Jude" and "Sympathy for the Devil" double dip into this (and both were unveiled at the same party): I-bVII-IV-I. The second half of "Hey Jude" is a cycle of F-Eb-Bb-F, and "Sympathy" is E-D-A-E, with forays into B-E.

You can also progress by seconds or thirds, always working to resolve to that I chord: C-Dm-Em, or C-E, for example. Moving by thirds is also good for variety; C is c-e-g, G is g-b-d, and you can generally use Em7 (e-g-b-d) to substitute for either.

Check out this video by the Axis of Awesome on common four-bar songs.

But keep in mind that this is just a game: recipes to achieve specific effects, recipes to curate musical experiences. If it sounds and feels good, it IS good. But it's best to know how things work first; you'll save a lot of time thereby.

[EatMe]

A next chord may have borrowed notes, transposed notes, one or more semitones, or similar notes, or added extending or changed notes, shifted notes, there are no rules of engagement, as long as it sounds as desired.

What can often help while composing is to sing, or think of singing in the mind with, the next tones in progress.

A natural tone progression in a scale from 1 4 5 is the most easy to sing, and sometimes the most easy resolution from the 5th to the 1st or 8th. Transposing notes only one semitone, chromatic changes, may enhance the "feel" or the tearjerking capabilities within a harmonic progression. Using different bass notes on chords, or using different chords on (around) the same bass note, may add to the tension.

The best way to harmonically transpose to a next chord is by using a scale at a certain time (for a while), so that all notes played fit within that scale. The most used scales in Western classical and pop are Major, natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor and blues scales, next to the full 12 semitone scale with chromatic changes of one semitone, there are 40 types of scales in (tool) ChordLord for Renoise, and even more existing.

For melodies, sometimes making a larger step on the scale, to tones further away, instead of only singing the next tones, done by beginning singers, may enhance the vivacity of the percieved melody.

But, it's okay if you just click the next button in ChordLord. You don't even need to know the chords.


https://renoise.com/tools/chordlord (EN)
https://renoise.com/tools/senhoracordes (PT/BRA)

[runagate]

I don't recall exactly how to navigate to it but I recall hooktheory.com having a way to enter a chord sequence and show the percent of songs in their giant database using a particular chord next. It was pretty cool but I was looking for songs that had used particular modes of Neopolitan scales so I wasn't paying attention to how I got to that function, but I think you'd really like it

[Jac459]

Chord Sequencer in Reason Studios (available as Reason Rack Plugin) shows you a few chords, the most obvious ones on brighter colours.
Quite handy.
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... sequencer/

https://youtu.be/QHfq1lUH0-g

[jancivil]

Doesn't it suffice to say the perfect fifth is the strongest root movement in the world - in itself - and certain musics made use of it. Yes, the circle of fifths does seem to follow the (newfangled) perceived need to modulate keys during the Baroque era.
But since then other *music theory* has come into being that takes the relationship elsewhere; Lydian Chromatic Concept is all about the P5 but it's going the other direction than our supposed primary paradigm, the Major Scale.

Musical relationships can be looked at objectively without being loaded with so much baggage, first.
Now, if you care enough about sussing what happened in this particular history you want to well grasp the ways and means of creating tension and release, or if you want transcendental chops and since that's part of our world you draw from it. But so many are bogged down in the taste of your long-dead men of Western Europe's ruling class, & of a relatively brief span of history (while musical thought kept moving forward and arguably may still).

(We could look at Coltrane Giant Steps and notice its movement reifies the major third as target in its movement (modulation).)

[jancivil]

IE: regarding "Other options are possible, but let's start with what you learn in theory classes" - I didn't. One can say my understanding suffers from a deficiency out of this, but I may not agree. I had tastes and opinions and a 20th century experience with sounds, harmonies and sonority and what-not.

[Nameerf]

As others have said, there aren't really any "rules" or "laws" - it's just what sounds good. However, when you try putting one random chord after another you find that some progressions just sound "better" than others.
I think the best way to learn (after some VERY basic theory) is to study "good" sounding songs - either work them out by ear or google a chord chart - and EVENTUALLY - you will start to build a vocabulary of changes that sound good to you - I don't mean be ripping off other people's songs! But by learning "this chord sounds like THIS when it follows that chord" and building up to chains of chords etc.
Like learning anything, don't be impatient with yourself and be prepared for it to take a long time... My advice!

[Scoops]

When I started my life as a musician, I played by ear exclusively.
I went to school to learn music (4 year degree)
That totally ruined my by ear approach.

Took me years to shed the musical training and go back to playing by ear.

But once I got back to playing by ear, I became a seasoned musician because I knew the theory behind it all

It's was a vicious circle

[jancivil]

My training was very nearly all writing four parts 'by the rules' to a melody or a bass line per a figured bass. It didn't hurt me at all, there's nothing to shed. I will say I was quite deliberate in eschewing Species (cf. Fux and Gradus ad Parnassus) which was absolutely the right choice for me since I was already writing parts freely in my own independent exercise; let alone that the principles obtained therein exist in the more or less JS Bach-derived part-writing rules.

A little later I worked closely with another composer who enjoyed the full magilla of conservatory training and I tend to doubt he felt there were things in it to seek to rid himself of. I mean we improvised daily in an 'absolutely free' avant-garde manner and his harmonic language in that or in more tonal atmospheres was recognizably his own, comparing with his fairly famous work prior to that experience. I felt sure Fux and that would chafe {on me}, though.

Besides the daily writing of the four part business we began each day with sight-singing, which sharpens one's ear no question.
I don't know why an education as it were should mean a stoppage of "playing by ear".

[zumbo]

In reference to runagate's earlier post, I've used https://www.hooktheory.com/trends#key=Rel&scale=major to get a decent idea of what chord follows another, given the key and scale type. Spent some time extracting information from the site to create a small app that generates chord progressions from that data too, based off the relative probabilities of the chords. There was a class I took back in college that gave some insight into chord transition probabilities using some linear algebra and markov chains, I'll see if I can find the textbook and post it here...

[zumbo]

The textbook I was mentioning is "Fundamentals of Music Processing: Audio, Analysis, Algorithms, Applications" by Meinard Müller. There's a Google preview of the book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fu ... frontcover. It's a very technical book as it was written as a reference for a music processing course, but I found it very interesting how it broke down the process of extracting frequency data from an audio source, classifying it, then analyzing that data to recognize patterns within the music.

[trewq]

I often hear chord changes that are the 'negative harmony' of the previous chord, so I made this tool that generates a parallel list of corresponding chords that are the negative harmony of each chord in the first list. For illustration, I used the C Major chords. Each chord was converted to N.H. using the method you can find described on several Y.T. videos about N.H.

It's just one of the many chord and scale features.

I am currently working on a DL for the Mac, but it is available for the PC at:

https://www.chordwarepa.com/ 

[jancivil]

In reference to runagate's earlier post, I've used //www.hooktheory dot com/trends//
to get a decent idea of what chord follows another, given the ... ... ...

I'd rather affirm a thing than negate, but the whole thing of click a chord according to its Roman numeral (NB: already implying context) and see "next chord" probabilities by percentage (according to whatever, it appears to be according to popular music hits, doesn't matter) isn't useful, because no thing in isolation extracted from its context means anything.
So, IV is significantly more likely to head to I or V [than the other 5 diatonic options in major] statistically? Seems truistic but what_is_your_idea? You can't form musical arguments from that, this is a form of sophistry.
Example, IV is @29% probability to head to "I" but 5% likelihood (according to trends in pop music? Is this really going to be our Bible?) to go to I6?
It's the same f**king harmony only with a voice-leading choice which will accord with a context, ie., to an idea. OR: 3% likelihood of iv. What if there's a compelling, obvious reason for Major IV to minor iv? Like the melody, the cliche we've all heard a gazillion times; we're talking more like 100% given a particular context. "n%" is pointless.
This is whack. Rather than teaching you how to think, it's giving you buttons to push as though one is an automaton.

I remarked above, whatever the probabilities are supposed to be based in, doesn't matter. If the learning about chords relating to other chords applies to the endeavor of composing music, this applied mathematics is out the window. Music is language; why should statistics determine what the next word in your sentence is? Music for some reason attracts maths-centric folk believing it gives the edge. It doesn't, not like that. This specific fallacy highlights how "theory" shouldn't be thought of as recipes for doing music.

[zumbo]

In reference to runagate's earlier post, I've used //www.hooktheory dot com/trends//
to get a decent idea of what chord follows another, given the ... ... ...

I'd rather affirm a thing than negate, but the whole thing of click a chord according to its Roman numeral (NB: already implying context) and see "next chord" probabilities by percentage (according to whatever, it appears to be according to popular music hits, doesn't matter) isn't useful, because no thing in isolation extracted from its context means anything.
So, IV is significantly more likely to head to I or V [than the other 5 diatonic options in major] statistically? Seems truistic but what_is_your_idea? You can't form musical arguments from that, this is a form of sophistry.
Example, IV is @29% probability to head to "I" but 5% likelihood (according to trends in pop music? Is this really going to be our Bible?) to go to I6?
It's the same f**king harmony only with a voice-leading choice which will accord with a context, ie., to an idea. OR: 3% likelihood of iv. What if there's a compelling, obvious reason for Major IV to minor iv? Like the melody, the cliche we've all heard a gazillion times; we're talking more like 100% given a particular context. "n%" is pointless.
This is whack. Rather than teaching you how to think, it's giving you buttons to push as though one is an automaton.

I remarked above, whatever the probabilities are supposed to be based in, doesn't matter. If the learning about chords relating to other chords applies to the endeavor of composing music, this applied mathematics is out the window. Music is language; why should statistics determine what the next word in your sentence is? Music for some reason attracts maths-centric folk believing it gives the edge. It doesn't, not like that. This specific fallacy highlights how "theory" shouldn't be thought of as recipes for doing music.

I actually don't disagree with any of your comments here -- context is very important and without understanding the history, meaning, genre and feel behind the music it's misleading at best and possibly incorrect at worse to suggest this tool should inform decisions made when creating a new piece. That said, I personally think it's interesting to look at the trends from a broad perspective and see how (over this selected database of 44k+ songs) patterns have arisen. I would have appreciated a breakdown of the chord progressions/probabilities based on specific genre as it would give a bit of a better view of musical tendencies, e.g. Jazz tunes use dominant chords more often than pop/EDM music (but even this has potential issues, after all from the data we're only looking at correlation not causation). The tool here shouldn't be a substitute for theory knowledge / education, but could give some insight when that knowledge already exists. To be fair, the course / textbook I referenced was not for production or creation, but for processing & analysis, so the motivations aren't exactly in line. Also to give credit to chord progression plugins that already exist, they're meant to be used as a supplement to give variation and/or inspiration. Whether or not a producer uses it for that purpose is up to them, and I don't really want to get into a discussion about AI/ML in music because it tends to make people upset for a variety of valid reasons.