Chords, do they matter?

[hugbot]

A stupid sounding question I know but bear with me.

 

I've heard it said before in many different ways that there are only 12 notes ect, so anything you can do has probably already been done in some form already. However when writing songs this seems really evident to me when it comes to chords. It seems that there are a certain number of chord progressions that keep coming back again and again, so I ask you guys.

 

Just how much mileage can you squeeze out of "the old standbys" as far as chord progressions go?

 

Do original chord progressions really matter in the big picture of songwriting?

 

Does anyone notice (and I dont want an answer like, "No Joe Sixpack doesent notice". do YOU notice) if a bands choice of chords and progressions arent as adventurous as they could be?

[HeartfeltDawn]

Sure, there's a lot of chords that come back. I was reading on Wikipedia about the 50's progression the other day...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50s_progression

 

You can get as much mileage out of chords as you want. The trick is making them sound like more than simple chords. You can easily say that the White Stripes don't add much new in terms of chord progressions or ntoes used but Jack's style of playing makes it sound exciting (to me anyway). Same from Nirvana in many ways. Kurt Cobain on Nevermind used a lot of very Pixie-ish chords but it doesn't sound like a shameless rip-off.

 

I htink with the music I've messed around with, it does fall into two camps. One camp is using simple chords that everyone's heard before but trying to do something over the top of them that links them that sounds different. Johnny Marr did this a lot with the Smiths in my opinion and Bernard Butler does it too. The other camp is the time when I'll hit on unusual chords that go great togerher and try to fashion something from that. Right now I'm loving the bit in Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah that goes from a D to an Emaj7/G or something similar. Brian Wilson did this loads with the Beach Boys, he'd have the chord but use a different note for the bass (no I am not technical with music, I know this has a name but I can't remember what).

 

Personally I do notice when someone's not being too adventurous. Many years ago, I went to my first girlfriend's first ever gig. She was and still is a very good acoustic singer-songwriter and she was first on that night. She was great. The main act was a lady who'd come all the way from the US. She was good but everything was D and G, just different capo positions. I remarked in the car home with the g/f and her brothers how she didn't seem to have too much of a grasp of chords and they laughed, as they were all well trained musicians and thought the same.

 

A good chord always counts for me. Wichita Lineman, some of the wonderful chords used on Pet Sounds... bliss. A good chord change is worth a million furious wanky solos.

[tamoore]

Chords - I've never written a song without them.

 

Yes, they matter!

[Chicken Monkey]

 

Does anyone notice if a bands choice of chords and progressions arent as adventurous as they could be?

 

 

I look for novelty in music, but chord progressions are one of last places to put it. I'd rather hear a quirky melody, lyric, or sound. Chords are to a song what the background is to a painting.

[Dubb]

Does anyone notice (and I dont want an answer like, "No Joe Sixpack doesent notice". do YOU notice) if a bands choice of chords and progressions arent as adventurous as they could be?

Sort of. I notice if a band's music as a whole isn't as adventurous as it could be, and chords/progressions are only one aspect of this - which kind of gets back to my first reply.

 

By the way HeartfeltDawn, I learned that version of Hallelujah just a few weeks ago, and I have to say that that chord change is one of my favorite parts of the song. It's D to B7/D# to Em (which I prefer to view as G6 minus the 5th), but since it's capoed at the 5th fret it's really G to E7/G# to C6. Very nice chromatic movement, makes for a powerful end of each verse . I doubt it would be as powerful without those chords, so obviously interesting chords make at least some kind of difference .

[blue2blue]

For me, having learned to write and, to some extent, sing on guitar, chords of some kind are kind of crucial... I have problems remembering series of things... like, oh, you know, notes in melodies (not to mention lyrics)... but for some reason I find it considerably easier to remember the handful of chords in repeating patterns that most pop/rock/folk songs break down to. I then apparently remember the melody in relation to the chord (I can parse music but nothing anywhere close to site reading... more like it takes me two or three minutes to figure out a bar or two)... so, without having a guitar in my hands (or hearing the music in some other fashion) it's hard for me to "keep my place" in a melody. In fact, there've been a more than a few times when I actually sat with a guitar in my lap while tracking. Sometimes that's enough. Sometimes I'll actually sort of lackadaisically finger the chord changes like Elvis in his old movies... not to keep up appearances but simply to cue my "muscle memory" (I'm thinkin' limbic system stuff, here, but I'm too burned out to look it up).

 

Anyhow, chords, yeah. Need 'em. Could barely live without 'em. Not a huge riff guy... though I appreciate a good one when I hear it... that's been a while.

[eddieboston2]

Funny thing about chords, they're really just notes, but more than one sounded at the same time. It's the notes that matter. That is, melody is the roast beef, and the accompanying chords are typically the gravy that goes on top.

[blue2blue]

OK, Eddie... here you are running down chords, Oh, chords, they're okay if you need a little gravy...

 

And then I see your little guitar chord generator link...

 

That is the coolest guitar software I've seen in a long time, if not forever. I'm delighted. It's like the old Chord Chemistry book -- only organized and searchable.

 

You are my new programming god. Python?

[eddieboston2]

Hey, I'm not saying we should all sing acapella, just that the first thing I remember when I think of a song is the melody. Of course, maybe the chords came first and then the melody figured out to sound good over that progression, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Glad you like the Chorderator. The stand-alone version is in C#, but yeah, the web version is in Python.

[kurdy]

I'm quite fond of chords, myself. While, I don't think they are the most important part of the song to the listener, I consider it a songwriter's secret weapon. They are like the gears inside a machine--you aren't supposed to see them working, but they are essential to the functioning of the machine.

 

Once you are familiar with how chords work, it's much easier to "contrive" a song. I think melody and lyrics by themselves require a certain degree of inspiration, or having to rely on trying to pull ideas out of thin air.

 

However, if you just sit down at an instrument and string a bunch of chords together, you can almost always come up with a good foundation for a potential song. Whatever chord progression you come up with will in turn will suggest melodic ideas. It's much easier than trying to come up with just a melody by itself. At least that's been my experience.

 

Even using chord progressions that have been done a million times can be a powerful technique. It causes the listener to develop a sense of familarity with the song more quickly. And unless one is a musician themselves, they probably won't notice what is causing this feeling, if the melody is different. They'll just think what a catchy song it is. A lot of hits have been written that way.

 

So I believe chords are the foundation--a great base to build upon. However, if you don't have an interesting melody and compelling lyrics to go on top of it, you still won't have much of a song.

[blue2blue]

 

I like that.

 

 

Your approach is very similar to my own, sounds like. I think of melodies in terms of their relationships with the underlying chords... it's how I come up with them in the first place and a big part of how I remember them (as much as I do remember them... anyhow. )

[kurdy]

I like that. Your approach is very similar to my own, sounds like. I think of melodies in terms of their relationships with the underlying chords... it's how I come up with them in the first place and a big part of how I remember them (as much as I do remember them... anyhow. )

 

Yeah, me too--for me it's more about the melody's relationship to the chords than just the melody itself. I'm not too concerned with trying to remember a melody exactly, because inevitably, the melody will have gone through so many little changes and alterations by the time I'm done. I almost never come up with a melody without making quite a few adjustments to it down the line. But if I've got the chords, the structure's already there--I can just casually tweak the melody as I go along, and know I'll eventually get it.

 

I've heard some songwriters and composers say they think of the melody first, chords later--they find the other way around too restricting. To each his own, I guess, but that process just sounds so laborious to me; I find the "chords first" method to be the easiest way of getting anything done.

[les_rokr]

Yes, there are only 12 notes in the musical alphabet, but those 12 notes can make a bajillion chords.

 

YES.

 

They do matter.

[the stranger]

I like that. Your approach is very similar to my own, sounds like. I think of melodies in terms of their relationships with the underlying chords... it's how I come up with them in the first place and a big part of how I remember them (as much as I do remember them... anyhow. )

 

 

Yeah, I like his post. Once I come up with a good chord progression, the melody (or choices thereof) usually manifest. I have built chord progressions under a melody, but it's usually the other way around. I bet that a lot of classic songs were melody first, though. Something they were singing in their head or whatever that needed a foundation.

[Dtob]

I used to write songs by composing chord progressions and riffs and then trying to find vocal melodies and then thinking of lyrics. I wrote that way for most of my songwriting "career."

 

Lately I write music and lyrics simultaneously and the songs are SO much better. Less riff-oriented, but more cohesive. More able to stand on their own. I'm also more prolific this way.

[the-good-way]

 

I bet that a lot of classic songs were melody first, though. Something they were singing in their head or whatever that needed a foundation.

 

 

It's a way classic method of writing, Western harmony, after all, grew from melodic roots (like plainchant into organum and then more advanced structures)

 

It's still the way you work in the first couple of semesters of music theory in uni (it's not that you abandon it later, it's just later you can work in a variety of ways).

You typically be tasked with "harmonize the Cantus Firmus" (that's the "firm chant"...the "melody")

 

One cool thing about that is that it isn't just "do I do melody or the chords" (that more homophonic harmony), but you can also work in more heterophonic ways, like counterpoint - where each voice plays a "melody" and that forms "chords" if you take a snapshot in time

 

It doesn't have to be either/or -- after a while you can shift back and forth...this implies that...and then like that...and then I can do...to this

[Dtob]

 

One cool thing about that is that it isn't just "do I do melody or the chords" (that more homophonic harmony), but you can also work in more heterophonic ways, like counterpoint - where each voice plays a "melody" and that forms "chords" if you take a snapshot in time

 

Or melody/countermelody structure.... A classic way to write harmony for big band is for the top line of the chord formations in the background to form a new countermelody. This pretty much forms the basis for rock writing, where the band as a unit plays such a strong, independent counterpoint to the singer. Walk This Way, I Can See for Miles, The Ocean, etc...

[blue2blue]

 

Yeah, I like his post. Once I come up with a good chord progression, the melody (or choices thereof) usually manifest. I have built chord progressions under a melody, but it's usually the other way around. I bet that a lot of classic songs were melody first, though. Something they were singing in their head or whatever that needed a foundation.

 

The interesting thing is that, probably like anyone else who has written a couple hundred songs (about 150 that are available to the public), I've used (often inadvertantly) the same chord progressions (perhaps in different keys but not always) several times in some cases... sometimes the time scale is different, almost always (with the exception of blues, of course) the chorus will be different than other songs with the same basic verse progression....

 

But usually the melodies come out fairly differently... even over the same chords.

[DevilRaysFan]

 

I like that. Your approach is very similar to my own, sounds like. I think of melodies in terms of their relationships with the underlying chords...

 

 

thats how i do it too

[KennethNishimot]

Honestly, the more I've gotten into songwriting, the simpler my chord progressions tend to be. Like, the past four songs I've written are playable with essentially no chords other than Em, G, C, and D. I know it sounds lazy, but if you listen to a lot of bands, most of them honestly don't stray that much from thier sound, Linkin Park for instance, literally thier first two albums came back to the same set of chords 80% of the time, not you could attribute this to laziness, or you could attribute it to them finding a sound that worked, and returning to it, but with different goals in mind, you know?

[Dtob]

I like writing ultra-simple progressions for the verse and then modulating by a third and doing something equally simple but different for the chorus. Giving away the store....

[the stranger]

I usually have no system, other than I'm just improvising and come up with something cool and run with it.

 

But, this almost always involves a two chord type vamp. Then I build the melody through experimentation on that. I usually don't follow typical song form/structure. So a chorus may or may not happen. I think most of my songs tend to just go from point a to point b, with a nice bridge.

 

And a lot my stuff is guitar instrumentals, so no real structure there. And the same two chord vamp thing is again, pretty much the rule. So I guess I do work out the chords and then build on that.

 

Honestly, I haven't written any "songs" in a long time. I'm not sure I'd call my audio slice and dice with a crazy rap on top "writing songs". What's interesting is I do pay attention to the chord/key changes that go on in my sampling/beatmash, though.

[blue2blue]

Honestly, the more I've gotten into songwriting, the simpler my chord progressions tend to be. Like, the past four songs I've written are playable with essentially no chords other than Em, G, C, and D. I know it sounds lazy, but if you listen to a lot of bands, most of them honestly don't stray that much from thier sound, Linkin Park for instance, literally thier first two albums came back to the same set of chords 80% of the time, not you could attribute this to laziness, or you could attribute it to them finding a sound that worked, and returning to it, but with different goals in mind, you know?

 

 

Oh yeah... maybe it was 'cause I had to learn on really simple, two chord songs (I've got musical learning disabilities, I swear) but the first "serious" song I wrote started in one place and then just meandered through a long series of mostly non-repeating chord changes, ending up in an entirely different key (through no mechanism I could understand at the time -- not that I even had any idea what key I was in... my earliest thinking on that was that it was usually the chord you started with )...

 

 

Anyhow, I fly by the seat of my pants, for the most part. But my knowledge base (greatly expanded over the years but still spotty) works under my intuition and informs my choices -- and actually often leads my hands to the "most likely" resolutions to various compositional dilemmas .

[nat whilk II]

There's nothing to say you can't just decide to use simple, stock chord progressions 90% of the time. That's all Dylan does.

 

But you can't interest anyone in tunes so composed unless the chord progressions are pretty deeply submerged under other more interesting stuff like vocal delivery, lyrics, sidemen taking off, percussion - you get the picture.

 

It's all background vs foreground concepts - one of my personal beefs with progrock is that so often all the elements feel like they're trying to push into the foreground at once. Not that it can't work if brilliantly handled, but IMHO most of the time it doesn't work as a general rule.

 

Can new life be breathed into old forms? Well, one of the reasons particular forms become stock is because they have proven to be almost inexhaustible resources if handled with some creativity.

 

nat whilk ii

[the stranger]

-- not that I even had any idea what key I was in... my earliest thinking on that was that it was usually the chord you started with

 

It's not?