Chord Progression Rules

I know that certain chords "preferably" leads to certain chords and the certain "rules" apply such as the song should play with the root chord and end with V-I i.e. if it's C major starts with C major and ends with Gmajor and C major. I put the words in punctuation marks to indicate that it's not exactly a rule written on the stone but it's more like a general tendency and years of experience from classical ages to present days.

What I would like to ask is, does this chord progression rules apply when you're writing your music basing of chords or does it also apply when you already have the melody and you try to figure out which chords would suit best with it?

If latter the case -which I usually do and wonder whether I'm doing it right or wrong- I'd just go with the chords that would suit best harmonically with my melody line in the bar maybe adding few chromatic chords as well but usually staying in diatonic and not caring III should lead to IV or VI. I'd probably end with root chord though in order to preserve cadence.

I'd be very glad if somebody directed me in the right path.

Thank you.

Chances are, if your melody is at all along conventional lines--hum-able, divided neatly into phrases, etc... it will be based on a I-V or I-IV-V structure, with room for some other chords or elaborations (vi, 7ths, etc...).

There is nothing wrong with this. You might want to make changes to make the harmonic structure more unusual/interesting, but the I-V pattern exist because of the tendencies of the tones to lead to resting points.

Modern music largely abandoned the I-V diatonic form, giving it an often rootless, wandering, and enigmatic feel.

So, it really depends on what kind of music you are writing! But, for 99% of popular, folk, and classical music from the late 1600s to about 1875 (Baroque, Classical, Romantic), the diatonic pattern of I-V is a good starting point for crafting a melody. Your ear should do the rest!

Technically there are no chord movements that strictly CANT be done. The standard chord progression simply shows all possible movements that flow naturally and therefore should be seriously regarded when composing and arranging. The chordal series that I will explain shortly does not change between original chordal writing and arranging based off a pre written melody or anything else. It always remains the same.

So, heres the progression: -[iii]-[vi]-[iV/ii]-[V/vii*]-

I and V can move to anything. iii can move to IV or ii. vi can move to V or vii*. IV can move to I. IV and ii can move between each other freely while remaining a progression. V and vii* may move between each other freely as well.

So, in direct answer to your question, it never changes and should always be used whether you're writing your music based on chords or you already have the melody and are trying to figure out which chords would suit it best.

Technically there are no chord movements that strictly CANT be done. The standard chord progression simply shows all possible movements that flow naturally and therefore should be seriously regarded when composing and arranging. The chordal series that I will explain shortly does not change between original chordal writing and arranging based off a pre written melody or anything else. It always remains the same.

So, heres the progression: -[iii]-[vi]-[iV/ii]-[V/vii*]-

I and V can move to anything. iii can move to IV or ii. vi can move to V or vii*. IV can move to I. IV and ii can move between each other freely while remaining a progression. V and vii* may move between each other freely as well.

So, in direct answer to your question, it never changes and should always be used whether you're writing your music based on chords or you already have the melody and are trying to figure out which chords would suit it best.

IV also goes to iii well in my experience.

Actually any chord can go to any other chord. Depends what you want.

Pianoman - what the heck with the overly complicated progression - IV/ii = V, V/vii= IV.

And are you saying your chord progressions works with all melodies?? Very confused.

Finally, may I suggest getting Kenneth Simpson's Keyboard Harmony and Improv to start, then Morris' Figured Bass if you want to learn keyboard harmony and harmonization of melodies correctly.

If you have done so, then experiment.

Actually any chord can go to any other chord. Depends what you want.

Pianoman - what the heck with the overly complicated progression - IV/ii = V, V/vii= IV.

And are you saying your chord progressions works with all melodies?? Very confused.

Finally, may I suggest getting Kenneth Simpson's Keyboard Harmony and Improv to start, then Morris' Figured Bass if you want to learn keyboard harmony and harmonization of melodies correctly.

If you have done so, then experiment.

He wasn't saying IV/ii = V/vii. He was saying IV or ii can go to V or vii easily. This progression is taught in the textbooks, notably Tonal Harmony.

I'd play with a progression if I were you. There is no right or wrong progression but you must think of it as a tool to be explored. Take your I and V deal. Add something you are unfamiliar with and see what you can do with it. Maybe a vii6/5 of V ....Ooooh :) Then try some of the same patterns/progressions over different chords. Play around. Explore. Rules are made to be followed, smashed....then put back together again and laughed at.

IV also goes to iii well in my experience.

Its technically a retrogression, but can definately sound good.

Actually any chord can go to any other chord. Depends what you want.

Pianoman - what the heck with the overly complicated progression - IV/ii = V' date=' V/vii= IV.

And are you saying your chord progressions works with all melodies?? Very confused.

[/quote']

Yes, any chord CAN go to any chord (I mentioned that, in my very first sentance). And to answer your question: the slashes are NOT to indicate a secondary dominant (which I assume you were thinking?), but chords that are interchangable. What can move to IV can also move to ii and they can move freely between themselves (same for V and vii*). YES, this chord progression works with ALL melodies. If you notice it is not simply one strict series of chords, but has many combinations with which you can create hundreds of chord progressions if youre sticking strictly to it. Keep in mind as well that its usually not followed strictly, its merely a guidline the includes ALL the most common chord progressions and the ones that sound the best. Also note that this is NOT something I came up with. As MattZ2007 mentioned its found in many textbooks and IS considered the standard definition of what a progression actually is. If it moves forward on the chart its a progression, if it moves backward its a retrogression.

OK, I misunderstood the slash as indicating secondary dominant or IV of ii.

And yes pianoman I read your first statement but i wanted to reiterate that any chord can go to any chord. To me, this is very important to understand - it is one factor that separates basic composition from basic arranging.

With the slash indicating alternatives then you are correct.

OK, I misunderstood the slash as indicating secondary dominant or IV of ii.

And yes pianoman I read your first statement but i wanted to reiterate that any chord can go to any chord. To me, this is very important to understand - it is one factor that separates basic composition from basic arranging.

With the slash indicating alternatives then you are correct.

I figured that was what confused you. I should use that chord progression though. IV/ii to V/vii could be used in a major key. Or for dissonance, a minor key due to the ii and vii being diminished. :)

OK, I misunderstood the slash as indicating secondary dominant or IV of ii.

And yes pianoman I read your first statement but i wanted to reiterate that any chord can go to any chord. To me, this is very important to understand - it is one factor that separates basic composition from basic arranging.

With the slash indicating alternatives then you are correct.

Of course. I understand the miscommunication as slashes do commonly mean secondary dominant.

I did want to mention one thing though. Composing and arranging are essentially the same thing only arranging starts you with something, composing is from scratch. All the theory behind them (voice leading, chord progressions etc) is exactly the same. I would say experimenting with alternate chordal movements seperate basic composing and arranging from advanced, but not from each other.

Well, without getting into a long discussion about the differences between composing and arranging, I think that for the most part they are different to a degree but there is much gray areas. You may use similar skills/techniques for both (as well as improvisation, analysis and score reading). If you'd like to start a new thread on this topic I think you'd get a nice discussion as people's varying opinions could be illuminating.

Two example of arrangements - in Webern's arrangements of Schubert's piano pieces he maintains Schubert's style. Schuman's arrangement of Ive's Variations on America reflect Ives style and harmony, but Schuman's orchestration leads to some nice alterations of the original material. The latter could be considered "partially" composed as orchestration is a form of composition and Schuman orchestrates these Variation with great flair and novelty. Webern on the other hand keeps it very straightforward and safe (to the point of sounding like a sometimes dull style copy)

IN the case presented by the author of this thread you fall in the slightly greyer area - harmonization/arranging - if the melody is not his own and the composer seeks to stick with common practice, he or she thereby relents many more compositional choices and skills to be employed. In this case it is not PURELY composition. Of course if the melody is his own and harmonization is his own then it may be a good composition - if he follows a cookbook pattern thoughtlessly, it will be poor composition.

Therefore, I don't entirely disagree with you - there are quite a few cases where the intended arrangements are so freely handled as to be compositions.

In short I'd say composition and arrangement are different but this distinction isn't so black and white but rather a spectrum and needs to be viewed on a case by case basis.

Please don't ever say "Rules" in a music forum :O There are chords progressions that have certain effects and can direct the music in the way you want it to go, but there are no rules ANYWHERE in music.

:)

Please don't ever say "Rules" in a music forum :O There are chords progressions that have certain effects and can direct the music in the way you want it to go, but there are no rules ANYWHERE in music.

:)

Actually, the rules are as follows:

Actually, the rules are as follows:

? :cool:

Honestly though, don't worry about regression in your music or even nonfunctional chords. Good counterpoint will lead to good progressions at least 68.7% of the time. So just use that chart as a very vague suggestion to guide your harmony wherever you want.

yeah counterpoint. A nice thread showing you the "rules" of 2 voice counterpoint is this one

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/16th-century-counterpoint-2-voices-1st-species-primer-16626.html

Honestly though, don't worry about regression in your music or even nonfunctional chords. Good counterpoint will lead to good progressions at least 68.7% of the time. So just use that chart as a very vague suggestion to guide your harmony wherever you want.

Yeah, I really only use that chart when I get stuck. It provides some nice options that are guaranteed to work. I also find that I naturally stick to it because, once again, the movements shown in it tend to flow and sound the best. I definately agree with Matt though, DONT let it limit you. DONT think you cant do something if its not on there, cause thats entirely untrue.

thank you , for all these invaluable comments.

Basically, down by 5th/up by 4th, down by 3rd and up by 2nd are progressive root motions. The opposite are regressive.

I dont know why, but I just wanted to mention one more thing. A lot of us have been metioning "progressions", "regressions", and "non=functional chords". Dont worry about this too much, its more for analysis than composition. Its important to note that a "chord progression" can (and almost always does) consist of progessions, regressions and non-functional chords. So basically a "chord progression" is simply a series of chords. It doesnt matter what they are, how good they sound, if they're in the same key or even if the notes used dont even exist in western harmony. A string of chords is always technically a chord progression.

OK, I misunderstood the slash as indicating secondary dominant or IV of ii.

And yes pianoman I read your first statement but i wanted to reiterate that any chord can go to any chord. To me, this is very important to understand - it is one factor that separates basic composition from basic arranging.

With the slash indicating alternatives then you are correct.

That's a very interesting topic. But this field is still new to me. It will be grateful if you give me some

more information about it. Thanks in advance.

That's a very interesting topic. But this field is still new to me. It will be grateful if you give me some

more information about it. Thanks in advance.

What exactly are you wondering about?