[jonel]

I understand the theory of chord progressions and how these can be chosen to suit a song, especially the fact that the song will begin and end on the tonic.

I have analysed many existing songs and I have observed that this rule tends to work for the verses but not for the chorus of the song. For example, the verse in the 'Streets of London' will begin on the tonic (C for example) and will end on the tonic. The chorus, however, begins on D7 and ends on the tonic.

So, for the chorus, does the D7 represent a continuation of the chord progression from the end of the previous verse? Or, does it represent in some way a change of key as happens in some songs. Or, am I getting hung up to much on the theory?

[MartynRich]

I would say you´re getting too hung up on the theory.

There are basic rules to chord progressions in songwriting e.g. the 3-chord trick, but rules also get broken all the time. There´s nothing that says you have to start here and end here. Just do what sounds good.

[Boydie]

Or, am I getting hung up to much on the theory?

The short answer is yes  

A chord progression does not need to start or end on the tonic - in fact it does not need to have the tonic in it at all!

The key of the song is sometimes referred to as the "tonal centre" so the tonic chord would give an immediate sense of tonal centre if used at the beginning of a section and a definite sense of resolution at the end of a section

However, good music contains a mix of "tension and release"

The resolution to the tonic provides the release - but songs with no "tension" can be a bit bland so the other chords are used to add some tension

Interestingly, In the key of C Major the ii chord should theoretically be a D Minor

Country and folk genres sometimes use a major chord for the ii chords as a substitution- hence the D7 rather than a D minor 7 chord

[jonel]

Thanks MartynRich and Boydie for your very helpful and reassuring replies. I come to the table from a mathematics background and in fact it was the mathematical relationship to music that I discovered that attracted me into it in the first place. So now I can be much more free to experiment with my chord progressions.


Regards

John Lundrigan

[adamfarr]

It's good to know why certain things work - but equally if you do them all the time you can get similar sounding songs.

I read somewhere that some soul songs use only major chords and no minor chords. Try it. Or try replacing at least some of them. It's totally outside of the rules but gives a different sound. Or maybe there are rules that explain this. The point is that it doesn't really matter, if it sounds good...

[tboswell]

You are getting a little hung on on theory. It's not a set of rules. Theory is derived from what people have tended to do (with their ears) over time. The theory never proceeded the music (unless you want to get all 2nd Viennese School on us!).

You should only use it to help you understand why something works or to get you out of hole you are in compositionally. It can help then.
But don't try and use it as the basis of what you create.

[Sing4me88]

I can identify with you as I come from a similar perspective. I'm primarily a lyricist with no vocal talent, no musical ability and no formal theory. After a few early disastrous co-writes with people on a completely different wave length than me I wanted to help communicate the vibe and feel of lyrics a little more to co-writers. In order to do this I swotted up on a bit of theory. It helped loads but it also had the unhelpful side effect of making me stick ery rigidly to it with the result that songs lost their feel when I'd try to translate what was in my head to a topline melody or bass line. I'd make sure every beat was on the bar, every note was a perfect length andall the bass notes and melody notes would coincide perfectly with where I envisaged chord changes to be. It wasn't until I'd more of a play around with Mixcraft that I realised it's more important to get it sounding the way you want rather than getting caught up in the pedantry.

I've now realised the importance of 'swing' and 'groove' and just try to go with my creative instincts rather than seeking a 'textbook' answer to it all - if it sounds good it sounds good whether for reasons in the textbook or not. No harm knowing a bit of theory and it can be very helpful when in a rut or facing writers or creative block but don't let it dictate to you. In fact a lot of the time I was already doing what the theory said but because it sounded good to me rather than because I knew theory said to do it.

[GuyBarry]

Well I know a bit about harmony, so I'm going to attempt to answer the question in the original post.  

I understand the theory of chord progressions and how these can be chosen to suit a song, especially the fact that the song will begin and end on the tonic.

I think it's safe to say that nearly all songs end on the tonic unless the composer has deliberately gone for an "unfinished" effect.  However I wouldn't say that all songs begin on the tonic.  A lot of them do, but (especially if there's an upbeat) it's common for songs to begin on the dominant or another chord.  You need look no further than "Happy Birthday to You" for an example.

I have analysed many existing songs and I have observed that this rule tends to work for the verses but not for the chorus of the song. For example, the verse in the 'Streets of London' will begin on the tonic (C for example) and will end on the tonic. The chorus, however, begins on D7 and ends on the tonic.

Actually the chorus of "Streets of London" begins on the subdominant (F in the key of C).  The D7 comes at the start of the second line.  It's quite common for the chorus to start this way - "Oh Susannah" is the first example that springs to mind.

So, for the chorus, does the D7 represent a continuation of the chord progression from the end of the previous verse?

I wouldn't say so.  The verse ends with a perfect cadence (G7-C).  The chorus could start with almost any other chord after that, depending on the way the writer wanted to go.

Or, does it represent in some way a change of key as happens in some songs.

It's not a key change at the start of the chorus.  Although the chorus starts in F, we haven't gone into F major because there's still a B natural in the harmony.  At the start of the second line where the D7 comes in, you could say that we've temporarily gone into G major  for that line, which ends with a G major chord.  But then we're straight back into C major for the next line.  So I'd say that the second line of the chorus is a change in tonality but not an actual key change.

Or, am I getting hung up to much on the theory?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

[jonel]

Thanking both GuyBarry and Sing4me88 for your detailed and thoughtful answers. It helps a whole lot. As sing4me88 says, knowing the theory is great but it puts up unnecessar barriers to writing.

Swing was something I was happy with as it seems natural to adjust timing to a particular feel, but the 'groove' can't really be written on a lead sheet. For me it was use of the tonic and the dominant throughout the song and I now feel that I am more comfortable with it.

I can see that if one section of the song cadences to the tonic then I am free to choose any other chord in the progression to move forward into the next section.


Thanks again

John Lundrigan

[GuyBarry]

As sing4me88 says, knowing the theory is great but it puts up unnecessar barriers to writing.

I completely disagree.  Knowing the theory has helped me become a much better songwriter.

Maybe it's just that some people know a little bit of theory, but not enough to inform them properly.

[Martinswede]

Hi John and all the contributors of this fine thread!

At first I need to say that I'm a bit troubled with the reoccurring 'thesis'
that music theory teaches you rules about music and shapes your mind in
concepts of right and wrong. Music theory is not the grammatical rules
to which music must be written. It translates, not dictates, music into
a 'universal' language. Keys are for example not so important when analyzing
chords. Instead their relations between them are a major point.

Good work GuyBarry at explaining the basics of the subject. Also Boydie.

Understanding traditional music is not a thing reserved for mathematical and
musical geniuses. It is very simple. The D7 is followed by G7. The explanation
of this needs some insight into the concept of intervals (sorry). In short, some notes
in a scale are more drawn to the tonic chord (C in C major). E.g. the tension of
the note B in the G chord(the dominant) is drawn to the C in the C chord.
Adding a 7(F) to the G chord adds another tone which is also a half step
away from the note E in the C chord. See the pattern?
The dominant is drawn to the tonic. The dominant of the dominant (D) is drawn to the
dominant (G) chord. Using dominants before another chord e.g. E before Am is
a simple way of adding tension to a kind of boring chord progression.

Then there are songs that are simple to play but quiet advanced to theorize.
Why then? Well for the fun of learning. Some leave the technical stuff to the
technicians others love to learn and to do-it-them-selves.

Back to you John.
Patterns are easy to find in popular music because the genre all about expression/interpretation.
Bruce Springsteen hasn't made revolutionary chord progressions but he's a hell
of a musician. Understanding theory gives you an understanding of what it is you like about
a melody or chord progression. I like the chords F Dsus2/F# G and I know why. Its an upward
chromatic bass line. A release of tension from F to E. It uses a double dominant as a 'transportation'
chord etc.

At last, don't get hooked up on chords. Its melody that has a potential of being original.
That said chords are the colors of your melody. Tension and release is what adds that something
to your tune.

Don't hesitate to correct, ask for more detail or just quote.

Cheers,
- Martin

[Boydie]

@Martin

I could not agree more with what you have said and how you have said it!

Well put

[GuyBarry]

Hi John and all the contributors of this fine thread!

At first I need to say that I'm a bit troubled with the reoccurring 'thesis'
that music theory teaches you rules about music and shapes your mind in
concepts of right and wrong. Music theory is not the grammatical rules
to which music must be written. It translates, not dictates, music into
a 'universal' language.

I couldn't agree with you more and I seem to have had a great deal of difficulty getting my point across on this issue, to the extent that I've been on the verge of leaving the forum several times.  Music theory isn't a set of rules to tell you how to write harmonies or melodies.  It informs, rather than pre-empts, the creation of music.  I think many of the people who have been saying "theory inhibits creativity" (or words to that effect) simply don't understand what music theory is about.  From my perspective, it's a way of gaining a deeper understanding of the creative process.  It's about saying not just "that sounds good", but "that sounds good because...".  

And I believe that if you understand why something sounds good, it'll lead you on to create something better the next time.  You'll be more imaginative.  You'll say to yourself "hey, I tried that last time, why don't I try this?"  Instead of sticking to the same "safe" set of chords or variations on them, you'll try out something new.

I've just written a swing number.  I've never written one before in my life.  I enjoy listening to swing and big band music, so I thought I'd give it a go.   I didn't sit down and read books on "how to write swing".  Instead, I listened to a lot of swing tunes that I enjoy, analysed the way the harmonies and rhythms and lyrics were put together, and had a go myself.  And I think it's pretty good, but I'll see tomorrow night after I've performed it.  If it goes down OK, I'll record a version and post it here for review.

That's the way I like to work - perform the stuff first, record it afterwards.  I get the impression that many people here are so obsessed with getting their recordings to sound perfect that they forget about the actual song.  From my perspective it's the lyrics, melodies and harmonies that are of crucial importance.  I leave all the instrumentation and production stuff to other people.

Anyway, I've waffled on enough.  I don't think I'm ever going to see eye to eye with the majority of people here.  I'm not leaving, but I'm going to scale down my involvement since I get far more support from Bath Songwriters' Group and the fantastic folk at the Rec House, where I chiefly perform.

Good work GuyBarry at explaining the basics of the subject.

Thanks - and thanks also for your very lucid contribution!

[CaliaMoko]

I remember, many years ago, reading about Neil Sedaka trying to break into the music business and not doing too well until he sat down and analyzed the music that was popular at the time. As a result he started writing hits like "Oh! Carol", "Happy Birthday, Sweet Sixteen", and "Breaking up Is Hard to Do".

I've thought about that from time to time, wishing I knew how to analyze music and use what I learn to write something similar but different.

[Sing4me88]

Maybe it's just that some people know a little bit of theory, but not enough to inform them properly.

Plenty of hit songs have been written by people with little or no music theory... having an ear and a natural feel for what works/doesn't work is more important that knowing particular names for certain things or sticking too rigidly to any 'rules'. Anyway all theories exist to be challenged and tested - few are proven beyond challenge.....