Chords, do they matter?

[King Conga]

As a drummer (OK, no wise cracks like "What do drummers know about chords or melody?") who despite struggling with college theory classes because I never had the dexterity to play really cool chords fast enough to hear them in the real context I wanted to, I've always been facinated with the unique power and impact chords give songs. I think it's critical to hear them in the context of the rhythm because where rhythm is the linear, or time-based factor, chords are the vertical snapshot of any point, or transitional point in the ultimate pursuit of creating that tension and release that makes songs great songs.

I've only written a handful of originals, and rearranged dozens of covers in my project studio because at first I wanted to study and study the real masters like Sir Paul McArtney, Stevie Wonder, Jimmy Webb, Carole King, Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil, Laura Nyro, and...Oh Yes! The Gershwins, Cole Porter. I think a particular challenge that most of these writers had was that so much of their material was love songs based on a LOT of Maj7 and m7 chords, but being able to still create a unique intensity with everything else. Listen to some of the Righteous Bros. blue-eyed soul. As much genius as Phil Spector added, those songs would have been great hits with any other producer.

Then you look at writers like Donald Fagen and Walter Becker, or my all-time fav...Pat Metheny (no lyrics...but who cares!?) Aside from their very early days of writing for Jay and the Americans, I don't think they've ever written a love song in their life. The closest I can think of is Fagen's "Walk Between the Raindrops".

To sum it up...even as a drummer of 40 yrs., I can only sit for so long listening to Neal Pert, Dave Weckle, or some of the early fusion drummers like Billy Cobham before I just say "SHUT UP! and give me some groove!" Like Steve Gadd, or Jeff Porcaro, Jim Keltner, and yes, even Ringo Starr. These are drummers that are what I call songwriter's drummers because they are incredible time-keepers, not just chops exhibitionists.

So, I dunno if I even actually contributed to this thread, but it sure was fun while I was sitting here waiting for my shift to end...which it will in about 3 min.

SeeYa@daCoda,
KC

[Tedster]

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?

Writing "adventurous chord changes" for the sheer sake of writing "adventurous chord changes" is wrong. Anything done should be for the sake of serving the song.

Unless of course, you're writing jazz arrangements.

[rslowr]

EddieBoston2; I love your chorderator -- best part is how it names the notes on the graphic.

On chords: yep; you find the same ones, and the same progressions, over and over; think blues of course, but I've had the experience covering rock & pop and having a moment when I realize I'm playing a sequence from something else.

but, add tempo, melody, and arrangement, and they become different animals.

the thread made me think of two song writers that use chords completely differently
1 -- the Beatles: lotsa cool chords and interesting changes
2 -- M Ward: dozens of 3 or four chord songs; even similar melodies, but lots of variation.

both work -- go figure

[Jesse G]

Oh yeah. If you think about it, every band that ever made it huge and made history (Led Zeppelin, Metallica, The stones, The beetles, etc.) had totally unique(usually mixing two or more styles of music that hadn't been real popular in a while) chord progressions, or combinations of different voicings that were completely different than their peers.

[Dubb]

Oh yeah. If you think about it, every band that ever made it huge and made history ... had totally unique ... chord progressions, or combinations of different voicings that were completely different than their peers.

Well... I don't think that's really true... it's certainly true for some bands, but bands like Metallica whom you mentioned never placed much emphasis on unique chords or progressions. Even their classically-influenced stuff was a big nod towards Rhandy Rhoads a decade prior. And other rock bands like AC/DC and ZZ Top, while massively popular, weren't exactly breaking new ground, especially with their chords. And to change gears, Bob Dylan is another legendary artist who didn't have much use for crazy or unique chords.

[mohr87]

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.

 

 

good comparison, but what would a painting be like without a background? pretty boring heh.

[mmmiddle]

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?

 

 

Sure it's important but to me it's like saying a cake recipe can't be good or original if it doesn't use something other than flour as its base. The total song is what's important--rhythm, melody, instrumentation--and that makes the chord progression only a basic ingredient, not the whole thing.

[Lee Flier]

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.

I don't find it "laborious" at all - in fact I usually find it a lot easier to write when I'm not worried about what the chords are. I think of the melody and then the chords suggest themselves. And sometimes a more interesting progression suggests itself in response to the melody, or the melody gets improved because I end up experimenting with different chords and one will really throw a unique twist in.

That said, I do write the other way sometimes too - like coming up with a riff or some signature guitar hook and the melody will evolve out of that. Whatever works. But I do enjoy writing entirely in my head and not picking up a guitar until I can almost hear a finished "production" in my head - then figuring out how to play that on the guitar.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Ha! Interesting how you all compose a song!

a) I write the lyrics first, then put them to melody, and then bolster the chords, or

b) Make a full arrangement, and give it to the lyricist, maybe with a short remark what the lyrics could be about

.

[blue2blue]

Hey, Lee... we were having a discussion about spy songs in the SW forum the other day and I was just thinking you must surely have written some spy-type instrumentals, being a riff-master extraordinaire. Got any catchy spy tunes up that stylish sleeve of yours?

[kurdy]

I don't find it "laborious" at all - in fact I usually find it a lot easier to write when I'm not worried about what the chords are. I think of the melody and then the chords suggest themselves. And sometimes a more interesting progression suggests itself in response to the melody, or the melody gets improved because I end up experimenting with different chords and one will really throw a unique twist in. That said, I do write the other way sometimes too - like coming up with a riff or some signature guitar hook and the melody will evolve out of that. Whatever works. But I do enjoy writing entirely in my head and not picking up a guitar until I can almost hear a finished "production" in my head - then figuring out how to play that on the guitar.

Yeah, I think that can be a great method too. As someone else said in here, that's probably how Gershwin, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and most songwriters of that era did it. As a kid, I actually remember doing it that way too--experimenting with different sequences of notes, or trying to flip the melody of a song backwards and see if I could come up with anything new that way. I suppose I've since come to prefer doing chords first, because I'm always a little paranoid about unintentionally copying the melody of someone else's song. If I've got the chords underneath, they sort of determine the structure, so it provides a kind of safety net for me (and even then, I'm never completely convinced).

Right now, this method still hasn't lost it's intrigue for me, but one day, if I ever tire of it, I just may try it the other way. In the past, I've even found building a song up from a bass line or instrumental riff has brought forth interesting results. I certainly don't want to be tied to any one method. I just do what works.

[6StringSling]

To begin with, there are a lot more notes than the 12 used in the standard Chromatic Scale.

 

Since chords are built from scales, I suppose you could argue that a scale is more important than chords but I find it impossible to write without a chord progression. However, Joe Satriani seems to have no trouble at all writing songs without chords.

 

Although I have seen over and over in all walks of life that "there's nothing new under the sun" I still tend to disagree with that saying. A pentatonic scale has only five notes and you can still come up with original-sounding patterns.

 

Overall, I think original chord progressions matter a great deal in the "big picture of songwriting".

[Chicken Monkey]

good comparison, but what would a painting be like without a background? pretty boring heh.

 

 

I didn't say don't use chords, just that they don't need to draw attention to themselves.

[blue2blue]

OK... from here on out, I'm writing everything in counterpoint.

 

 

 

PS... I have to say that strict pentatonic scale works drive me nuts within about 3 minutes. I despise "blues players" who only use penta moves... repetive, soulless... boring. When I play blues (which is a lot) I try to use every freakin' note I can. I paid for a guitar with all them notes on it and, by golly, I'm gonna use as many of 'em as I can in any one song.

 

[Nah... actually, in my old age, I've really moved to simplify my playing... and while I remember the horror I felt when I saw a book a long time ago that reduced all blues playing to pentatonic scales, I will have to say that I've noted that there is a power in those relationships. I could never get through more than a bar or two without getting out of the penta grid but it is at the core of the music... it's just that it shouldn't, I don't think, be seen as the limits but rather the starting place...]

[robfosters]

This thread is actually quite inspiring for newcomers.

I wonder how many learners (So to speak, although I think everyone is a learner to some degree) have been put off of writing songs because they only know 12 chords and are finding it too hard to hit others on the guitar or something?

At least this might show them that they still have the necessary tools to write good songs, it's just a case of them putting it into practice, and it's that skill that seperates the good from the great.

[guitaristhelp]

I think the instrument you play has a huge bearing on your approach to chords. i.e. If you play a monophonic instrument you'll probably think in terms of melody first and harmony second, whereas if you play a polyphonic instrument you're more likely to think harmony first, melody second...