I-V-vi-IV

Seven-Deuce · Jan 20, 2015

Is it just me, or is this the chord progression of every single song made since 2003? I can seriously point this progression out in about half of what I hear in supermarkets, drug stores, and radio stations.

Don't forget it's evil twin: i-VI-III-bVII, which is just I-V-vi-IV starting on the third chord to make it sound like it's in minor.

We're getting lazy!

Xelebes · Jan 21, 2015

The recommendation for most upbeat songs is to reduce the number of chord progressions to three or four. Most if not all upbeat songs that have much broader array of chord progressions tend to be not marketed as pop and as a consequence do not get radio airplay. Downbeat songs are permitted to have broader chord progressions.

Locke · Jan 21, 2015

It's been going on for a lot longer than that. If you think about it, Canon in D is just that same sequence with an inversion thrown into the middle of it so it can resolve itself naturally back to I.

benbradley · Jan 21, 2015

Yes, people have noticed this before. This musical act became an international Internet sensation by doing a series of cover songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

Seven-Deuce · Jan 22, 2015

Locke said:
It's been going on for a lot longer than that. If you think about it, Canon in D is just that same sequence with an inversion thrown into the middle of it so it can resolve itself naturally back to I.

But this exact progression, and it's evil twin, i-VI-III-bVII, which is just I-V-vi-IV starting on the third chord. Even Tacobell's Canon has more complexity than that.

Locke · Jan 22, 2015

I wouldn't call Canon in D complex at all. It's the piece you use in order to introduce people to music theory, because once you solve four bars of the thing you're good for the entire piece. If you go back to the classical and renaissance eras and music was all about demonstrating some very complicated progressions. Modern popular music? Not so much. There's only so much you can do with two guitars and a set of drums, and so long as I-V-vi-IV sells, they'll be glad to slap a new set of lyrics on it. I say go for it, because it just makes modern music with interesting progressions, transitions, and complicated time signatures that much more unique. Otherwise, songs like Outshined (7/4 time with 4/4 bridges) or Kashmir (vocals are in a major key while instrumentals are minor, modal tuning, global influences) don't stand out quite so much.

The bottom line lesson here is that if you want to be able to enjoy music, never study music theory.

kuwisdelu · Jan 22, 2015

Locke said:
The bottom line lesson here is that if you want to be able to enjoy music, never study music theory.

I still enjoy music just fine.

What I noticed was I stopped enjoying writing music. >_<

Before I knew any theory, I had a lot more fun experimenting with weird stuff.

onesecondglance · Jan 23, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
I still enjoy music just fine.

What I noticed was I stopped enjoying writing music. >_<

Before I knew any theory, I had a lot more fun experimenting with weird stuff.

I actually went through the opposite - deliberately trying to do weird stuff in order to avoid common cadences. Gave me the worst case of writer's block I've ever had.

I got over it when I realised that those common cadences are common because they work. And some cadences are common to the point of being genre features - e.g. VI-VII-i in metal. They're elements of the sound that drew me to the genre in the first place, so avoiding them voids my enjoyment, to an extent. I don't use 'em all the time, but I don't explicitly avoid them. If they work, they work. For me, at least, that's enough.

Xelebes · Jan 23, 2015

In my favourite genre, there is no cadence intervals.

Locke · Jan 23, 2015

True. It seems you operate in three modes: I, i, and cacophony. It'd make Wagner proud.

Billtrumpet25 · Jan 25, 2015

Seven-Deuce said:
Is it just me, or is this the chord progression of every single song made since 2003? I can seriously point this progression out in about half of what I hear in supermarkets, drug stores, and radio stations.

Don't forget it's evil twin: i-VI-III-bVII, which is just I-V-vi-IV starting on the third chord to make it sound like it's in minor.

We're getting lazy!

Don't get me started on over-used chords...I just ranted about that a couple days ago on Twitter, haha. xD

rugcat · Jan 25, 2015

There are certain progressions that due to the nature of scales and chords and the human ear just fall naturally into place.

But yes, after a while it gets old. That's why jazz musicians play many different voicings or re-harmonize or play substitute (yet related) chords all the time.

But that's also why Miles Davis got bored with the same old standard chord progressions and searched for different modalities and ways of playing music.

That's why a lot of jazz musicians went deep into modal playing rather than playing through chord changes.

Personally, trying to improvise through chord changes and playing something interesting on a solo while always keeping the actual melody in mind is just not that easy. I doubt that I'll ever really master the skill, much less get tired of it.

Xelebes · Jan 26, 2015

Locke said:
True. It seems you operate in three modes: I, i, and cacophony. It'd make Wagner proud.

Or reliance on harmonics and overtones on instruments that are not monotonous. Jaw harps for example.

Seven-Deuce · Jan 26, 2015

Locke said:
I wouldn't call Canon in D complex at all. It's the piece you use in order to introduce people to music theory, because once you solve four bars of the thing you're good for the entire piece. If you go back to the classical and renaissance eras and music was all about demonstrating some very complicated progressions. Modern popular music? Not so much. There's only so much you can do with two guitars and a set of drums, and so long as I-V-vi-IV sells, they'll be glad to slap a new set of lyrics on it. I say go for it, because it just makes modern music with interesting progressions, transitions, and complicated time signatures that much more unique. Otherwise, songs like Outshined (7/4 time with 4/4 bridges) or Kashmir (vocals are in a major key while instrumentals are minor, modal tuning, global influences) don't stand out quite so much.

The bottom line lesson here is that if you want to be able to enjoy music, never study music theory.

I studied music theory for about 3 years. I will say, there was a period of time where I couldn't listen to music, but after a while, you come out on the other end and really all it does is change your taste. What it's really done for me is help me break down why, exactly, I like a song, and then help me to incorporate it in my own music. You do kinda have to get over the "oh my god, everything I listen to is shit!" phase of it though.

And no, I'm not saying Canon in D is complex by any stretch of the imagination, but still better than I-V-vi-IV.

I'm a sucker a for complexity. Always have been. Theory just helped me make complexity that's coherent, which is why I now can't stand Dream Theater.

Tazlima · Jan 26, 2015

I'm amazed nobody's mentioned the Pachelbel Rant.

Seven-deuce, you have a kindred spirit.

I-V-vi-IV

Seven-Deuce

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

Seven-Deuce

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

onesecondglance

pretending to be awake

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

Billtrumpet25

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Seven-Deuce

Tazlima