# Chord Progressions - How do you approach it?



## Andrajas (Aug 10, 2014)

Hey guys!
I just have a question about chord progressions. Sometimes a very good chord progression can set a tone and create the perfect mood I think, just like a melody can, in my opinion. Since I'm very new to composing, I'm very curious about how you guys approach this. I know that there are good books that can help you think "outside the box" and bring a progression to new life. Playing chords outside a key, but still have a technique to kinda make it sound "natural" and make the score drive forward, make it more "creepy" etc. So my question is:

How do you approach chord progressions? You play a lot with modes? working a lot with V/V7 etc? What techniques do you use? :D 

Since I'm not the best at english, it can be a bit tricky to me to read the theory books out there since a lot of them are in english, so maybe your answers here will be clearer to me hehe. 

I hope you understand me and want to share your knowledge! 

cheers, Andreas


----------



## wst3 (Aug 10, 2014)

if I knew how I approach chord progressions I'd share, but I'm not sure... let me explain, or at least try!

At first, when I was thinking more in terms of song writing than composing, I would often (but not always) play around with different progressions.

Sometimes I'd just bang out chords to see which ones seemed to move naturally. Sometimes I would sit down and think about it analytically. Both approaches work, and in fact I now think they are simply two side of the same coin.

Later on I changed my focus to composition - partly because I find it more interesting, and partly because it turns out I'm not much of a song writer<G>!

These days I do not think so much in terms of progressions. I prefer to start with a melodic idea and then harmonize it. Not to say that it is not effective to think in terms of chords, but I think progressions can be somehow limiting in some music forms.

Certainly not all forms, and if I am writing in a pop or rock or jazz idiom I become once again very aware of the chords and how they progress.

Am I making any sense at all?

How about this - one of my favorite exercises, and one I assign to all my students:

Pick any scale or mode or even melody

Now - without listening - assign a chord to each note in the scale/mode/melody

Now listen... how'd you do?

Now go back and assign new chords, but this time create rules, e.g. the current note must be the lowest/highest note in the chord, or the chord must be an inversion, or it must include a 2nd or 9th step, and so on.

Do this often enough and you will start to develop an "ear" for what you can and can not do with various chords in various settings.

This is no substitute for actually studying harmony and theory, but it is a great way to apply some of the ideas.

The other thing, which I assume you already do but will mention anyway, is to play the chords from songs you like, or songs you are curious about.

For years I used to do the bit where you move from the root to the major 3 in the base of a tonic chord - stole it from "Layla" I think. At some point I started listening to gospel music, and noticed that I heard what I thought was the same thing, turns out it was. This is why ear training is just as important as, and usually included with, the study of theory and harmony.

Hope this helps.


----------



## ed buller (Aug 10, 2014)

Hi Andreas

i'll try to help. Apologies if i tell you things you already Know. In my opinion chord progressions chops are vital .

Basically there are two types. Diatonic and Chromatic . This is an area of enormous disagreement amongst music theorists.....which is why a steer clear of em !

Diatonic:

if you are in C maj all the white notes. So C,d,e,F,G,a,b (dim ) ..Big letters major ,small minor. 

Chromatic: Well whatever you want !....for instance "wrath of Khan" C,a,C,Ab,C,F#,C


Now over the years film music has used a variety of chord progressions to hint at various settings and emotions. Some are very old. Outer space for instance. Two major chords a tritone apart . C..Gb...

you will find experiment at the keyboard very helpful for this. The trick is to play chords that are NOT connected by either a fourth or fifth. As soon as you do this it grounds the progression in a key. Try moving by thirds ..C to E..or C to Eb....Then try by Semitones ..then tritones ..up or down .

try major first then minor.

for instance 

C F# A Ab or C Bb C# E C...( that's from BEN HUR )

minor is just as rewarding . Once you have a progression you like put a melody over it !


i hope this helps

e


----------



## tokatila (Aug 10, 2014)

I'm new to composing too but my method is stealing/copying from existing scores/sheet music. I particularly don't care if they are used in hundreds of scores/songs. There's a reason to it; they work. 

Why try to run before you can even crawl? 8)


----------



## Carbs (Aug 10, 2014)

Andrajas,

If you are new to writing music, I would suggest Mike Vertas "Composition 1" class that you can find by scrolling down on this web page. I think he's still doing the buy 2 classes get 1 free. So $60 can get you a total of around 10 to 15 HOURS worth of good info. 

http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category/podcastsandtutorials/tutorials/ (http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category ... tutorials/)

You can just sit back and watch, while taking notes in the language of your choice. :D


----------



## AC986 (Aug 10, 2014)

Andrajas @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> Hey guys!
> I just have a question about chord progressions.



What's your main instrument? Keyboards?


----------



## rgames (Aug 10, 2014)

I guess my chords come mainly from voice leading, probably because my main instrument is monophonic and I have spent a lot more time thinking melodically than harmonically.

However, they are, of course, related. They (should) support each other so sometimes a revelation in one leads to a change in the other.

It's like hitting a baseball: you have to know both the speed and direction of the ball in order to hit it. However, you don't figure out one and then the other, you do them both at the same time.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 10, 2014)

how about getting one of those common chord progressions? then after having a few nailed down, try going chromatic and changing tensions. adding 7th, 13ths, V of V etc.
for filmscore or melody progression chord scales are useful to keep the same melody but vary the harmony. so start with a good melody over a common chord progression, then have the same melody but change chords based on were the note of the melody can be another chord. so the note C can be in many chords, even outside of the orignal scale. 
so try note substitutions and see where it leads to.


----------



## wst3 (Aug 10, 2014)

gsilbers @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> how about getting one of those common chord progressions? then after having a few nailed down, try going chromatic and changing tensions. adding 7th, 13ths, V of V etc.



This raises a question for my teacher side - how many of you find it easy to think in terms of degree of degree, as opposed to just degree of scale?

When I am teaching basic theory my approach (very roughly) is to start with the chromatic scale, build the major scale from there, and then leap to the circle of fifths. Once the major scale is constructed we also branch off to chord construction - which is complicated, ever so slightly, by the fact that all my students are guitar players, and many have no other musical background.

Point being that we do build everything from the major scale. Which could, I suppose, be considered stingy on my part.

On that original branch, once the student has a good grasp of the circle of fifths we go through the rest of the scales and modes, including (since again they are guitar players) the dreaded pentatonics!

Only after we've build a certain comfort level with all of the above do we start thinking about scale degrees and building on them. Am I cheating my students? Making them work harder than they need to?

Thanks (probably from my students as well!)


----------



## Andrajas (Aug 10, 2014)

Thanks guys for the response! I have read all of your answers and its really helpful! I understand all what you are saying for those who wonders  
@adriancook - My main instrument is the drums, but I call piano main instrument as well.

@Carbs - Sounds like a very good thing for me! Is that lesson a "offline" lesson which I can save on my computer or is it a live lesson? 

Keep the tips and tricks coming! :D


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 10, 2014)

wst3 @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> gsilbers @ Sun Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > how about getting one of those common chord progressions? then after having a few nailed down, try going chromatic and changing tensions. adding 7th, 13ths, V of V etc.
> ...


yes for learning scales and chords that works. in terms of how to approach chord progressions tips im guessing the op is somehwere in the middle between circle of fith and wrath of khan territory. thus, a common cord progression book can help kick start ideas and then develop with "chord scales" substitutions.


----------



## AC986 (Aug 10, 2014)

Chords and their relativity to each other is obviously helpful when it comes to writing any music.

Jazz players are particularly well suited to understanding just about every chord ever invented.

My main instrument is the oboe but I was also grade 8 on piano when I got to music college which helps today in some kind of fluidity and seeing chords on a keyboard. I had to virtually start over again to get back to that level much later when I started writing some library music.

In other words, I would recommend playing a lot of classical and more modern works as this will help with improvising later on. Any good piano or harpsichord works are recommended. 

Playing and improvising I believe, should be separate from each other and given their own appropriate time and space for practice IMO.


----------



## wst3 (Aug 10, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> Chords and their relativity to each other is obviously helpful when it comes to writing any music.



Not just chords, but the relationships between chords and scales, scales and other scales, all that stuff is very important to a composer. It's figuring out how to teach it, and specifically how to teach it to teen-aged guitar students, that still has me scratching my head<G>!



adriancook @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> Jazz players are particularly well suited to understanding just about every chord ever invented.



Well, that is what they do!



adriancook @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> Playing and improvising I believe, should be separate from each other and given their own appropriate time and space for practice IMO.



Excuse me putting my teaching hat on again, but I think the division is a tad more involved. And so important I wanted to underscore the point...

1) practice - we've likely all been told that practice makes perfect, but in fact only perfect practice makes perfect. So one of the things I start day one with is the concept of practicing correctly, which requires one to recognize mistakes, and stop when one happens. Not easy, but essential.

2) playing - which you have to practice, how's that for confusing? Playing means blowing past any mistake. It is a skill all unto itself, and I think it is important enough that I encourage my students to play as well as practice... even if they are the audience too.

3) rehearsing - rehearsing vs practicing, this is one of my pet peeves. Rehearsal time is no time to be practicing, you need to be playing (correctly<G>) with the rest of the ensemble. Rehearsing by yourself, I think, is the same as playing... it's that time when the piece becomes music.

4) improvising - you have to practice improvisation, and you have to improvise (play), and you might have to rehearse, but I think rehearsing an improvised section is still playing.

That's what my students have to put up with<G>!


----------



## trumpoz (Aug 11, 2014)

> Playing and improvising I believe, should be separate from each other and given their own appropriate time and space for practice IMO.



Improvisation is an inherent part of any performance and preparation for any performance. Notes are not the only thing that are made up on the spot, elements of dynamics, phrasing, rubato etc are all done in the moment of performance. Sure they may have been rehearsed before, but are they played exactly the same way as being rehearsed? There was also a common phrase when I went through uni that "improvisation is just composition sped up"

Anyways - chord progressions. I have a jazz background so chords and extensions etc come naturally to me now. I don't know how I could write without that knowledge of the sound and colour of chords...... I admit that I may have an unhealthy fascination with harmonies and chords and the colours that can be created through experimenting with different progressions.


----------



## AC986 (Aug 11, 2014)

wst3 @ Sun Aug 10 said:


> x
> 4) improvising - you have to practice improvisation, and you have to improvise (play), and you might have to rehearse, but I think rehearsing an improvised section is still playing.



I see. :D 

To me, I try to simplify it a little more than that. 

The last thing I believe anyone needs to think about when improvising is the notes, especially if you are playing fast. Not thinking about the notes comes with practice. Practice is about fluidity and muscle memory. With the ability to move around your main instrument freely, through actually being able to move your fingers correctly, is always going to be advantageous when it comes to improvising.

Think of it another way. You have learnt to play a fast piece of classical music on the piano. Through a good acquired technique (that could come through years of formal training and exams etc), eventually you no longer need the music in front of you and you are no longer thinking about the notes. Indeed, you do not have the time to think about the notes. It's all too fast. It needs to be subliminal. That's the playing side of things.

The actual writing of that work may have been an entirely different story. Much slower to evolve and dependant on the composer, much slower in the original playing (if playing actually existed in the first place), usually on a section by section basis.

This is why I envy good jazz players. No idea what their doing half the time.


----------



## AC986 (Aug 11, 2014)

trumpoz @ Mon Aug 11 said:


> > Sure they may have been rehearsed before, but are they played exactly the same way as being rehearsed?



Nothing is ever played exactly the same way twice thankfully. If it was, you would only need one copy of anything and only watch the show once.


----------



## wst3 (Aug 11, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Aug 11 said:


> wst3 @ Sun Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > x
> ...



Interesting point, and valid. BUT... you have to start somewhere, and you have to develop both the physical technique and that deep knowledge of music that let's you know what note you want to play next without having to actually think it through. And you have to experiment.

I think that the great players, whether they are improvising or interpreting, reach that point through practice and listening and studying. I am simply trying to place my students on a path where they can begin to teach themselves (maybe not the best business plan, but really cool to witness when it happens!)



adriancook @ Mon Aug 11 said:


> This is why I envy good jazz players. No idea what their doing half the time.



Or at least they make it look that way.

My hands still can't play everything I hear in my head, but I get closer as time goes by. And my head can't even hear everything it might... yet another path to wander?


----------



## karelpsota (Aug 11, 2014)

I notice that my chords tend to be very similar due to mechanical habits or simply because of my taste. 

To overcome this I would usually change instrument, or sometimes plagiarize a chord progression from an opposite style (so that no one would possibly imagine the connection)

In the worst cases (or for fun)... This might sound like the least musical way to find new chords progression but *Cthulu* is great to kickstart the process.

http://youtu.be/3t2yD1kX2_w?t=50s

Its a VST designed by Steve Duda. It plays random chords from Bach pieces.


----------



## The Darris (Aug 11, 2014)

I try to think of a very simple song that is well known whether it be a nursery rhyme or pop song. If I am going for a more dramatic style, I think of darker/sad song, and vice versa. Once I figure out the simple song, I just start improvising it on the keyboard while utilizing different chord voiceings and alternate melodies. Once I fill in those gaps I start to improvise new melodies and themes and go from there. 

Chord progressions are so common that you really can't be original with just the chords. You need to expand out into the unknown voices like 6ths and 13ths over the tonic. I play with different modes in those progressions to. They that add a completely different texture and mood to the piece. I find that the simplest songs that fit the 'tone' I am looking for are the most inspiring because it forces me to add more to make it more interesting and that is the key for my creativity.


----------



## waveheavy (Aug 27, 2014)

I'll be honest and just say I'm overwhelmed right now, because I'm just now trying to get serious about writing for orchestra. Lot of time staring at a blank canvas. I'm a guitar player which might be one of the hang ups.

I can sit down and write series of chord progressions all day long of Jazz substitutions, back-cycling, tritone subs, Coltrane cycles, etc., simple Pop, Blues, Country, Rock progressions, modulate carefree between key centers, chord voice leading, and all that. But when it comes to the orchestra, I'm just hitting a blank.

I've found out how wonderful writing in the Major Modes can sound using Fux's counterpoint principles, using the recommended endings for each mode like Baroque and Classical composers did, but that style doesn't appear to be too big in today's music industry.

When I start off with just a melody, and then harmonize from there using Fux's principles, I then lose focus on voice leading chords because of thinking more horizontally than vertically. Is that something I need to correct now, or is that normal with composition?


*wst3*

Guitar players I've taught in the past, I required them to set a goal, to commit from the very start, which I began them with spelling the Major Scales cycling in 5ths, noting the degree numbers and where the half/whole steps fall. Then on to interval names of the degrees and then onto the 4 types of chord triads, and then harmonizing the Major scale in triads. Then onto adding the 7th with harmonizing the scale's chords. Then the 3 families of chords showing common tone relationships and substitutions. From day one I gave them the C Major scale pattern for the III and VIII positions to be practicing legato, which helped them prepare their fingers for fretting chords and learning lead.

Then I progressed to chord embellishment and simple common tone chord subs and inversions, then song form and recognizing that in songs they listen to. Then a light study of the Major modes and intervals again.

I've found in that order that well lays the foundation for what most of them want to do, excepting lead guitar. After reaching this point most of them don't care to progress to lead solo instruction.


----------



## waveheavy (Aug 27, 2014)

Andrajas @ 10/8/2014 said:


> Hey guys!
> ....
> 
> How do you approach chord progressions? You play a lot with modes? working a lot with V/V7 etc? What techniques do you use? :D
> ...




Hi Andreas,
 
Disregard the following if you already know this. If not, I'm sure it will help.

4 voice Bach choral harmony, basically a chord on each melody note, is a study that helps you progress towards thinking of note intervals horizontally more instead of just vertically with chords. It's not only about chord progressions from beat to beat or bar to bar, but also interval movement between notes when going from one chord to the next chord.

If you consider different chord inversions of a single chord, there's something like 24 ways to play a single chord triad with one note doubled, even more with the 7th added. That translates to more options on how you voice lead the notes between two chords, forcing you to think about intervals horizontally and not just vertically. Some of those options might become your personal trademark, while others you may not like the sound, which is why it's important to do that study at some point in your journey.

Here's a recommended way to voice lead notes between chords:
1. Voice your first chord
2. Determine what inversion you want for the next chord, set the bass note whatever it's going to be.
3. Then connect any and all common tones between the two chords
4. Then fill in the rest of the chord tones using the principle of the nearest chord tone. Like this...

CMAJ - Dm7
C C 
G A
E F
C D

or 

CMAJ - EMaj7
C D#
E E
C B
G G#


The idea is to hold over the common tones of the first chord into the next chord. This produces smooth voice leading.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm glad someone finally mentioned Bach. It's not that Bach is the whole story (not at this point in music history), but at least it indicates that there's some depth to this question.

A "progression of chords" is a uniquely modern - and quite limited - way to look at music. We all consider harmony and harmonic progression, but only as one of a number of balls that we are juggling, hopefully without thinking about it all too hard.

To take one example of what I am talking about, and just to be mischievous, consider "Johnny B. Goode," a rock tune of my (very young) childhood. What are the chords? I IV and V. But Johnny B. Goode doesn't sound like the music that it is unless the guitar player employs the moving voices that make the accompanying material so distinctive. Then there is the (sung) melody. That is a vital part of the song. Then there is the bass line, which does more than reiterate the tonic of each chord. It moves. So we have at least three musical elements, excluding the drum part. Johnny B. Goode is, in other words, contrapuntal.

The song in question didn't come about because Chuck Berry was pondering what chords he might use to stitch together something. It happened because he was familiar with an idiom (R & B) and because he had a melody and a lyric in mind that coasted along in a natural way over a harmonic framework called (in this style of music) a guitar riff.

If you look at Wagner, or Debussy, or Tchaikovsky, or Sibelius (John Williams is a fan of those guys, so we should give them a listen) there is similarly a musical language, an idiom. The tonic is not always in the bass, and the percussion comes and goes, and the instrumentation is quite different. The "tunes" go on longer. The progression of harmonies is sometimes as simple as in Chuck Berry, and sometimes more complex, with modulation, chromatic movement & so on. But those fellows wrote music quite well, and it came naturally too them, as they were familiar with a musical style, and they were pretty good with the way multiple voices could speak, and go on their way, and start and stop, in the conversation among instruments that is music.

Listen to the trailer to Iron Man 3. It's well-illustrated here. You can talk about a progression of chords in the opening theme, but, really, it's contrapuntal. It's beautiful. It's, in fact, a lot like Bach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYUbLkULtkk


----------



## mt108 (Aug 27, 2014)

Fantastic post, clarkus. Couldn't possibly put it better myself.

When it comes to getting rid of the tendency to think narrowly about "chord progressions" as the foundation of all music, the sooner the better!


----------



## re-peat (Aug 27, 2014)

Going from Bach, via Chuck Berry to Iron Man 3 is quite a leap, *Clarkus*. A leap Iron Man himself, grashopper extraordinaire, might well envy you, I think.
I have to disagree with you on all points though, I’m afraid. "Johnny B Goode" is good, trousersoilingly so even, but it isn’t contrapuntal. And neither is the awful, pseudo-profound heap of clichés and uninspired formulas which makes up that Iron Man 3 trailer music.

"Johnny B Goode" is very much homophonic music: melody on top of a chord progression. It’s not because the rhythm section in that song contains different melodic material than the lead melody, that it is counterpoint. The main function of the guitar and the bass here is not to provide contrasting melodic interest, but simply to establish harmony and rhythm. As it is in most rock ’n roll.
Basslines in rock ’n roll and blues can be compared to Alberti-basses: arpeggiated definitions of chords. As such they are, even though strictly speaking melodic, not real melodies and certainly not melodies in the sense of independently moving voices, which is what’s needed to create true counterpoint.

As for that trailer music: no counterpoint either, sorry. Sure, you’ve got that descending bass, and that two-note figure in the strings, on top of which various other non-ideas get piled, but there’s never even a hint of any of these elements beginning to create a tapestry of independently moving musical voices. Hence, no counterpoint. And it is MOST CERTAINLY not like Bach. I’m prepared to leave the beautifulness which you hear and which I don’t, open for discussion, but one has to draw a firm line at comparing this garbage with Bach I feel.

_


----------



## mt108 (Aug 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Wed Aug 27 said:


> Going from Bach, via Chuck Berry to Iron Man 3 is quite a leap, *Clarkus*. A leap Iron Man himself, grashopper extraordinaire, might well envy you, I think.
> I have to disagree with you on all points though, I’m afraid. "Johnny B Goode" is good, trousersoilingly so even, but it isn’t contrapuntal. And neither is the awful, pseudo-profound heap of clichés and uninspired formulas which makes up that Iron Man 3 trailer music.
> 
> "Johnny B Goode" is very much homophonic music: melody on top of a chord progression. It’s not because the rhythm section in that song contains different melodic material than the lead melody, that it is counterpoint. The main function of the guitar and the bass here is not to provide contrasting melodic interest, but simply to establish harmony and rhythm. As it is in most rock ’n roll.
> ...



Taking such a pedantic standpoint on what constitutes counterpoint just distracts from the very well made point that there is more to music, namely, discrete parts of _whatever_ level of independence/complexity, than just chords, and that it's pretty vital to approach composition with that in mind.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Wed Aug 27 said:


> Going from Bach, via Chuck Berry to Iron Man 3 is quite a leap, *Clarkus*. A leap Iron Man himself, grashopper extraordinaire, might well envy you, I think.
> I have to disagree with you on all points though, I’m afraid. "Johnny B Goode" is good, trousersoilingly so even, but it isn’t contrapuntal. And neither is the awful, pseudo-profound heap of clichés and uninspired formulas which makes up that Iron Man 3 trailer music.
> 
> "Johnny B Goode" is very much homophonic music: melody on top of a chord progression. It’s not because the rhythm section in that song contains different melodic material than the lead melody, that it is counterpoint. The main function of the guitar and the bass here is not to provide contrasting melodic interest, but simply to establish harmony and rhythm. As it is in most rock ’n roll.
> ...



+1 to all of this!


----------



## Simplesly (Aug 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Wed Aug 27 said:


> As for that trailer music: no counterpoint either, sorry. Sure, you’ve got that descending bass, and that two-note figure in the strings, on top of which various other non-ideas get piled, but there’s never even a hint of any of these elements beginning to create a tapestry of independently moving musical voices. Hence, no counterpoint. And it is MOST CERTAINLY not like Bach. I’m prepared to leave the beautifulness which you hear and which I don’t, open for discussion, but one has to draw a firm line at comparing this garbage with Bach I feel.



Yeah, I agree, not counterpoint. i was gonna say something snarky but I changed my mind....


----------



## clarkus (Aug 27, 2014)

From the OED:

counterpoint
Syllabification: coun·ter·point
Pronunciation: /ˈkoun(t)ərˌpoint /
NOUN

1 Music The art or technique of setting, writing, or playing a melody or melodies in conjunction with another, according to fixed rules.

1.1A melody played in conjunction with another.

I like comparing the gtr. line on Johnny B. Goode to an Alberti bass, though it isn't in a literal sense. It is figuration, though.

And it is contrapuntal. It is "A melody played in conjunction with another." There are, after all, some rather timeless melodies that don't do very much at all (One Note Samba, Dear Prudence, Satin Doll). And in any given measure of Mozart or Bach some rather simple things are going on so as not to crowd out the other material. Simple can be good. We always try to remember that, all of us composers, don't we. 

Of course a chord, or a series of chords, can be a lovely thing. Bach's Prelude #1 for piano is a great melody comprised almost exclusively of arpeggiated chords.

But the point is that you couldn't arrive at the middleground of Johnny B. Goode by simply asking "What progression should I use to write a good rock tune?" There is music in there, however simple, and it is distinctive and there are lines moving against lines. That's what makes it what it is. 

If one moves to Motown (and the excellent James Jameson on bass) you get more melodic material. It's not as florid as Bach, but if it was it would be bad Motown. 

Move on to the Beatles (as many people have used to make similar illustrations) and you have all kinds of "point against point," musically speaking, and, often, really fresh and interesting harmonic movement.

Andrajas question was: "How do you approach chord progressions?" I was doing my best to answer that. It's not especially useful to say "Write contrapuntally!" if one means adhering to definition #1 in the OED (though the Iron Man theme does do that, meaning it plays by the rules). 

If we can avoid the "What is great" argument for a minute, I was & am trying to be helpful with the rather simple question that was asked. I think simple examples are called for. In the examples cited, the musical minds at work did not sound a chord on the piano as a whole note, and then another, and then set about making music sounding over the top of said chords. 

If you've worked with a lot of young composers (and I have) this "Write some chords / now write a melody" is a standard recipe they gravitate to, and I am always trying to subvert it with the best of intentions. I've found it's useful to point out that all kinds of memorable music is written contrapuntally. I would even say that to insist if it's not "In the style of Fux and Bach" it isn't counterpoint is not helpful. The definition becomes so narrow one would need a new word to describe what composers after the Baroque period were doing all the time. 

As an example (and this is getting a bit long, I'll shut up in a minute and yield the floor) Sibelius is constantly spinning out material in his symphonies that is simple and almost obsessively repetitive. Other musical gestures and melodies (both) are sounding at the same time. This describes page after page of what he's doing. It's not baroque counterpoint, and it can't be described as "a progression of chords" (much too reductive). 

What it is is good music, and "The art or technique of setting, writing, or playing a melody or melodies in conjunction with another."

That's a good way to come at this thing we're all doing.


----------



## Simplesly (Aug 27, 2014)

PS Clarkus, my quickly redacted comment wasn't about you, it was about the tune. But anyway, I think the point Re-Peat was trying to make that none of the examples you gave are actually examples of species counterpoint in the style of Bach, Fux etc. and should not be compared as such. We could get into a semantical argument about the definition of the word, but it hardly seems worth the time...


----------



## clarkus (Aug 27, 2014)

Hi, Simplesly - 

I think it's worth the time! I do. See above.

No offense taken by any of the foregoing feedback or howls of protest, by the way. I don't feel a need to defend the music from the Iron Man III trailer as timeless. I was just casting around for some examples to suit my purposes.

I hope the young man might get something from all this, but who knows. 

And now I'm going to work!

Peace out.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 27, 2014)

By the way, MT108, thanks for spelling out my point that ...

"there is more to music, namely, discrete parts of whatever level of independence/complexity, than just chords, and that it's pretty vital to approach composition with that in mind."

Exactly right.


----------



## DocMidi657 (Aug 27, 2014)

I believe any chord can go to any other chord. In a jazz very artsy context Kenny Werner demonstrates and proves this really well in his Effortless Master Melody Harmony Rhythm Video over at JazzHeaven.com
You can purchase his course here if interested. 
http://jazzheaven.com/how-to-play-jazz- ... ny-rhythm/

If you are wanting a certain sound that evokes a certain expected emotion from the progression you simply have to know what that progression or progressions are and have it in your musical vocabulary. Acquire this ability by transcribing lots of chord progressions and keep a notebook of them with a description of what it evokes....Imitate Assimilate Innovate

It's also really important that you know your chord theory well and know how to voice chords in a good sounding way.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 27, 2014)

I like what I've heard from Kenny Warner as a teacher. In the short video introduction linked to here he doesn't actually touch the piano / play any music. You need to shell out for his course.

Voice-leading does allow to move smoothly from one chord to another, and a lot of unexpected harmonic movement can be "sold" in this way.

Yup.


----------



## Lassi Tani (Aug 28, 2014)

Usually this is what i do:

1. Write a melody.
2. Harmonize it.
3. Realize that I don't know enough of harmonizing.
4. Study.
5. Write a new melody.
6. Harmonize it.
7. It sounds bad, so I study some more.

Eventually I end up using this:
http://mdecks.com/mapharmony.html


----------



## clarkus (Aug 28, 2014)

So, um, not to beat on this too mercilessly, but

1. Write a melody. 
2. Harmonize it. 

... is not good advice.

This is why I brought up counterpoint.

It's another way of looking at the game, and reflects more accurately the way music works. A "progression of chords" explains a small swath of music, and a pretty static one.

If you write a melody without any sense of the harmonic basis and THEN set about thinking about harmony, you are playing a limited game. The way to go is to imagine several musical ideas (not necessarily "chords"), and how those ideas fit together. Harmony results from this. The question of "What next," incidentally, is usually (and naturally) solved, as when something has a harmonic basis, it also has a direction.

The contrapuntal view of the world was extant all throughout the period when the great composers were working, composers that are now widely imitated in Hollywood. 

Where are we now? Music is still more contrapuntal than not, it's just that it doesn't get talked about as much.

What it is: musical material that is in conversation. Several melodies (even simple ones) sounding at once.

The definition of "Melody" gets argued about, but don't let that distract you. If your musical ideas (the bass line, the accompanying material, whatever) are moving, then you are writing melodically, and you are in the world of counterpoint. What happens then gets really interesting. You can deal with it intuitively or through study of various kinds and intensity. But this is the world we are operating in.

It's hard to sum this up in a post. In fact, I believe the chord-generated view of the world is so common in part because it's easier to explain things, even if they are being explained badly.

A lead-sheet and a melody (as one finds in a jazz "Fake Book") is an approximation of something that it infinitely more interesting and complex (and contrapuntal) when actual players are rendering a jazz tune. This post is essentially asking "What are the chords on the lead sheet?" It's not a pointless question, but it ignores what the chords are doing there. They're providing a drastically reduced portrait of what makes the music sound, in the end, like music. And when the COMPOSER (or songwriter) wrote the tune - trust me - he or she was not thinking "Let me come up with a good chord progression. The I can write myself a great melody." Or vice-versa. 

Yes, composers will pull out of their hat harmony that they know and like. But they / we are generally using that ALONG WITH the writing of a melody & / or other parts of the arrangement they are imagining.

Walter Piston's "Counterpoint" is a pretty good source. Even the first chapter or two could be a great aid, if this is all new to you. And there are many, many musical examples in it.

Counterpoint isn't just "Bach." It's how music mostly works.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 28, 2014)

It's taken a few days for me to click on this thread after seeing it all the time. The problem is with the question.

I mean, yeah, chords move from tonic to subdominant to dominant. But this is sort of like asking how you bend your knees instead of how you ride a bicycle!

I don't think answers like tonal centers, root movement, melody and voice movement, voice leading...those don't seem like appropriate answers to the way the question is phrased.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 28, 2014)

Hey, Nick. I'm actually glad it was asked this way. I can answer "How do you approach it" much better than (say) "What chords do you like?"

And I should probably hang up my hat at this point. I have a feeling I'm not making progress. Everybody wants a recipe.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 28, 2014)

clarkus @ Thu Aug 28 said:


> (...) Counterpoint isn't just "Bach." It's how music mostly works.


Clarkus,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier on. And even if it may appear pedantic to some, getting this distinction clarified, is not without interest. 

I was certainly not suggesting that music has to adhere strictly to the baroque idiom of counterpoint (in other words: the 17th century version of it) to qualify as true counterpoint. No-no-no-no-no. I was merely saying that counterpoint ― in whatever style, shape or form, from whichever age, and no matter its level of complexity ― requires the simultaneous occuring of independently moving horizontal lines. And not just any horizontal lines ― and now comes the important bit ― but horizontal lines _each with a distinct melodic purpose of its own, far beyond their mere vertical functionality_.

And it is this last element which makes me disagree with you when you say that “Johnny B Goode” is contrapuntal. It isn’t. Because none of the instruments of the rhythmsection do anything beyond defining harmony and rhythm. (The opening guitar riff excluded of course, but since there is no other melodic activity at that point either, the intro of that song is also not contrapuntal.) And I also strongly disagree when you say that ‘contrapuntal’ is “how most music works”.

Your definition of “contrapuntal” seems to include just about anything that isn’t monophonic, isn’t it? Me, I like to think that counterpoint’s territory is a bit smaller than that, and only music with the above described horizontal and interlocking multi-linearity belongs there. Most rock ’n roll doesn’t. Come to think of it, most music doesn’t.

(Please note that I’m not saying or suggesting that “contrapuntal” is a musical quality label of sorts.)

_


----------



## Andrajas (Aug 28, 2014)

Thank you guys for the comments! 
Well I do know some music theory so I am aware of voice leading, counterpoint etc. 
But I guess I just have to keep experimenting and study this topic more.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 28, 2014)

Hi, re-peat

Re: "Your definition of “contrapuntal” seems to include just about anything that isn’t monophonic."

I'm actually going with the the 2nd (subsidiary) definition that OED provides ...

1.1A melody played in conjunction with another. 

... which concurs with what one of my more persuasive teachers (Ken Durling) taught me. Ken went to Eastman, he knew things by the book & otherwise. I think he would agree there's room for lively conversation about all this. But I would like to champion this POV (his and mine) as a useful as a way of looking at, and of composing, music. 

I understand that some musical material barely qualifies as melodic, but that doesn't mean it's not. Previously I mentioned - as an example - all the measures of Bach, Mozart, Haydn et al wherein the musical material is quite minimal: sometimes just two notes alternating. In that instance (as in many of Bach's 2-Part Inventions) the material is actually simpler than the Johnny B. Goode riff.

In examples from the common-practice period (such as the Inventions by Bach), the material is (usually) a development of a melody that is stated more fully at other points. But that doesn't change the fact that it is operating, for many long minutes of musical interest, as material that is in motion, and may be doing very little for those moments to qualify it as the kind of "full-fledged" melody that you & Jay & others think is necessary to raise it to the level that qualifies it as contrapuntal.

Whereas when the young man says "Chord Progression," I believe he is taking about sounding out a set of notes so they are heard in time in the manner of tolling bells. "Footballs" string players call them, when they show up in parts. There's no motion, until the next bell tolls, or the next football gets thrown.

So I make this distinction. Two categories. Voices in motion that have a melodic quality. Or voices that have no melodic quality or initiative, but are only there to sound with other voices, and make together the sound of a harmony ("chord").

The alternative (and I know this is often taught) is to say there is some special category of musical material (such as the Alberti bass, or such as a guitar riff) that needs its own category. It doesn't. Voices are either in motion and have some melodic interest, or they don't. If there is repetition (as in the Chuck Berry tune) and you have what is essentially an ostinato in the middle voices, it is still melodic. And, incidentally, it can't be described with a chord symbol. Something was composed which gives that piece of music its distinctive flavor, and it lives next to other bits of music: voices which move, that have a musical shape and can be sung, i.e. are melodic. 

This is, I think we can agree, what most people are hearing when they listen to music, are these ideas next to each other. And whatever harmonic content results, and whatever rhythmic qualities are built in. That's what we're hearing. We can talk about the distinction between one thing and another, but it's what we are actually hearing (or composing) that interests me & that is useful.

Several people have pointed out what rock tunes do, that there's a drummer & so on. This is interesting to consider. I think the drums in a lot of modern music push things forward in a way that Bach arrived at by having more notes. Another way to say that is that if you gave all the players in a rock band something as intricate as the voices in a Bach Fugue, you would not only be giving them a tough assignment, you would have some very congested musical space. So rock players (and songwriters) are actually exercising good musical instincts generally by stripping down the melodic content, though from another standpoint they are overwriting for the percussion.

You could say this is operative in a lot of the "Epic" music for action movies, too. Certain things often give way to make room for those primal drums.

I'm staying away from the "What is good" part of all this. Obviously (or it's obvious to me) there's a sublime quality to Bach's Mass in B minor. Chuck Berry is achieving something else, and John Debney / Tom Morello (of Iron Man fame) are after something else again. 

The question was about chord progressions ( "How Do You Approach It?") This is how I approach it.


----------



## AC986 (Aug 28, 2014)

Highly recommend Bachs Two Part Inventions as part of freeing up some keyboard fluidity.

Did Bach write the 2 part inventions to make people understand what Baroque and Counterpoint stood for? Very unlikely. It's about keyboard training then and as it turned out, now. He also wrote 6 little Preludes which have the same effect and so on. Clavierubung etc.

Incidentally Baroque simply means movement. As Bach and Handel et al wrote very vibrant music that swirled and 'moved' so did Baroque architects and wood carvers, such as Grinling Gibbons, do their particular thing.


----------



## muk (Aug 28, 2014)

Using the notion clarkus favours, the term 'counterpoint' is so broad that it applies to almost all music, and is therefore quite useless in my opinion. Whether a voice is in motion or not is not an important factor. But most of all, in no valid definition of the term 'counterpoint' it should ever include an Alberti-bass, as that's kind of the opposite of it. I don't understand why many people seem so keen on attributing counterpoint to much pop songs or trailer music. It's not that music is bad if it hasn't it, or good if it has. It's just a musical technique. One that's more complex than the ones employed in much of what you hear today in rock/pop/tv/cinema. But there are many situations where less complexity is called for, and where counterpoint thus would not be suitable.

A bit more on topic: I found that for me a good way to come up with interesting chords and chord-progressions is to actually work more on the inner voices. Write a melody, and instead of immediately harmonizing it, try to make a canon. Or inverse some material of the first melody. Or simply write a second melody that goes with the first (and one that doesn't only move in thirds or sixs with it). Endless options there, but make it something that can stand on it's own. Something that is recognizable and individual (not like an Alberti-bass).
A slightly lighter version of that is to give the middle voices some suspensions and other figurae where it makes for a more interesting vertical line. This often leads to more interesting (and sometimes quite dissonant) chords than just jumping from one chord-note to the next in a predefined chord-progression.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 28, 2014)

I am sorry, Clarkus, I still can’t agree with most of what you’re saying.

(1)
It may be true that musical voices are either in motion or not, but I fail that see what’s the usefulness of this observation, and besides, it’s not because voices are in motion that you have counterpoint. Polyphony, in other words, isn’t necessarily counterpoint.
(In the example linked to down below ― the opening minutes of the 3rd movement of Bach's sixth Brandenburg Concerto ― there is, in my opinion, no counterpoint until the 9th bar, even though in the first eight bars, the bass has an entirely different line than the upper strings have. But that bassline is mainly a supportive harmonic presence, not a melodic one and certainly not a contrapuntal one.)

(2)
Calling the alternating fifth-sixth motion (often plus seventh as well) of the archetypical rock’n roll riff ― the http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Added6thShuffle.mp3 (&quot;added6th shuffle&quot;) it is sometimes called ― an ‘ostinato in the middle voices’ is stretching it a bit, I find. Because that figure is basically a simple embellishment of a standard major chord (and it can, as such, be very well described by a chord symbol: if you say that, for example, the first bars of (the verse of) “Roll Over Beethoven” are in D, you’ve said all that needs saying. No need to mention that it rotates quarternote-wise between D, D6, D7, D6 and back to D. And certainly not attribute that rotating figure with ‘melodic interest’, let alone ‘contrapuntal meaning’.
The only purpose of this type of musical movement (though, personally, I’m very reluctant to even call it that) ― and it’s the same with the Alberti-bass and the familiar ‘broken chord’ basslines of rock ’n roll (‘Rock Around The Clock”) and blues ― is to (1) generate rhythm and (2) establish harmony and outline a chord (with or without embellishments), but never to manifest itself as counter-voice to the lead melody.
Furthermore, that figure (the guitar riff) wasn’t ‘composed’ for this particular song ("Johnny B Goode"). It’s part of rock ’n roll’s _generic grammar_ (you can hear it in thousands of songs), inherited from the blues, gospel and from boogie-woogie pianostyles. Whoever first introduced it, it certainly wasn’t Chuck Berry.

(3)
I also have to disagree quite strongly with “Bach using ‘more notes’ to push things forward, not unlike drummers do in rock”. That’s a sort of way of looking at music whereby one tries to unravel things that simply can’t and shouldn’t be unravelled. In much of Bach’s music, and not just in his of course, you simply can’t seperate the rhythmical element from the melodic one, very often they are one (as they are in most of Western classical music, up until the 20th century). For example, I’d like to hear you isolate the rhythmical notes from the melodic ones in *this fragment*.

_


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 28, 2014)

You approach it methodically to build your musical vocabulary. The least expensive way to learn plus allowing 1 year to go through the book is Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony available on Amazon which has you creating chord progressions right away. 

For counterpoint Google Tonal Counterpoint in the Style of the 18th Century by Ernst Krenek who Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams studied with. It's free.

In a UCLA film comp class, John Williams told the students he went through the Percy Goetschius counterpoint books which we re-edited and republished. 

http://alexanderpublishing.com/Departments/Harmony-and-Counterpoint/Percy-Goetschius-Series/Percy-Goetschius-PDF-Books.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Departme ... Books.aspx)

You'll find many JW techniques in the first volume in the series.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 29, 2014)

Hi, re-peat ... Hi, muk ...

You needn't see things as I do. No hard feelings. It is just possible, though, that there's something to be gained by tagging along with me. Let' s see.

A tidy synopsis of the argument we're having, which can perhaps also put it to bed:

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di ... _Polyphony.

Wikipedia also has a neat definition of POLYPHONY:

"In music, polyphony is a texture consisting of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to music with just one voice (monophony) or music with one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords (homophony)."

And a definition of COUNTERPOINT from the same source:

"In music, counterpoint is the relationship between voices that are interdependent harmonically (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour."

"Independent in rhythm and contour" sounds a lot like "two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody."

The useful distinction I see is to contrast both polyphony and counterpoint (presuming there's a difference) with "one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords (homophony)." Writing in this way is the default strategy for a lot of composers who don't know anything else. It's not exactly a dead-end street. Let's just say it's got real limitations. The young man who started this post (is he still in the building?) seemed to be looking for homophony. I'm here to tell him if you want cool chords and cool music, don't start with chords at all. Start with melodies.

I'm teaching a course here at the Jazz School in Berkeley in the Fall, and one segment is called "What Counterpoint Teaches Us." This would be my answer (though I can't give it in full here. It's late) to the question you ask, ergo "what is the point" of making the distinction between moving lines and everything else.

When we compose we often think contrapuntally (or polyphonically, if you like). It is a big part of what we do, or need to learn to do. I may not be telling you anything you don't know. But we write / sing / play / compose a line. It has a direction, a destiny. it is sounding against something else we are imagining or playing. All this is underpinned by choices informed by our musical background, what we like, what kind of piece we are trying to write, and so on. There is often a harmonic basis (not the same thing as a "chord progression," but a web of possibilities tied to directionality). 

When we let these lines play out without insisting that the pitches fall into permitted boxes, we get (or can get) suspensions, anticipations, appogiaturas, pedal tones ... all manner of harmonic action that sounds - or can sound - perfectly natural and inevitable, and, at other times, wildly strange and beautiful.

But we don't get there if we treat the voices as components of chords, if those voices don't have direction and intention of their own.

That's why there's a point to making the distinction between lines that have melodic impetus ("moving lines") and lines that are only there because they are necessary to fill in the chord that the composer thought needed to be sounded.


----------



## AC986 (Aug 29, 2014)

clarkus @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> And a definition of COUNTERPOINT from the same source:
> 
> "In music, counterpoint is the relationship between voices that are interdependent harmonically (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour."



Not so sure about that.


Counterpoint and contrapuntal writing here. Interdependent, yes. Independent in rhythm and contour, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwH_Gw-PHPE

Or if you prefer a slower tempo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOP7z54BXYo

Why is she standing? Harpsichordists traditional stood to play the instrument.

Some really serious counterpoint and apart from that, I love the painting by Velasquez. All I can say about Bach hearing this again, is he must have been a joyful soul.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZAn069dWQw


----------



## muk (Aug 29, 2014)

Clarkus, I think we have a similar opinion about the uses of counterpoint, and it's influence on chord progression. The difference is that you'd define 'independent melodic line' much wider than I do. But overall I think we were trying to make a similar point, which would be: when trying to come up with interesting chord progressions it can help to focus more on melodic lines rather than the vertical.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 29, 2014)

Hi, Adrian -- How great is that? Love that guy. Thanks for the link.

The parts seem pretty gosh-darned independent to me. If I wanted to start (or continue) an argument (and I don't! I don't!), I might have chosen this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmA7K3bCAp8&list=PL81F6CFF5713616B9 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmA7K3b ... F5713616B9)

... where you see examples in the first pages of voices moving along in lockstep, and arriving at chords as points of repose, and in another place a long pedal tone in the bass. For those measures, things would seem rather UNcontrapuntal, if one was looking for the parts to churn along in ceaseless conversation.

But, of course, sometimes a given line sings a single note, or pauses, or sings along with another part.

Great music does all sorts of things.


----------

