"Musicality" & What Makes a Great Chord Progression?

[Boudoir Guitar]

I'm not all that great at theory. I'm probably "mid-level" in my understanding of it.

I know the steps one would take to determine which chords you could use to write a song in a certain key, but I don't "get" why certain chords still sound correct, even though they have notes within the chord that aren't from that particular key. And those chords are usually the ones that really make a chord progression sound amazing.

And I do understand that the "key" of a song can change within the song..., and that even though in music there are "rules" per se, there are many ways we can go about creating chord progressions that, on the surface may seem like they shouldn't work, but they do. And, they can also have certain effects on the listener.

Things like: Making you feel like the song is temporarily pausing, like you're briefly left hanging, or this thing I've heard in these types of discussions called 'voice-leading.' Which, in my limited understanding of theory is: Chords intentionally chosen in a certain manner to almost make you "feel" where the music is heading, before it gets there. Maybe not a perfect, "university definition", but good enough for what I want this thread to be about.

A simple example:

Play an Asus4, followed by an A, and let your ear focus on the note that changes between those 2 chords: the D and C#.​

What I hear, and even, feel, at that point, is that C# is "leading" my ear back to the D. Like it wants to resolve. But not simply back to the Asus4...​

Play a D chord, and you hear it. Sounds like it's finished.​

So the basics:
Starting on any note, you construct a major scale simply by playing that 1st note, then using this interval pattern: Whole Step, Whole Step, Half Step, then Whole, Whole, Whole, Half step. Then you end on your starting note, just 1 octave higher.

So in the key of C, if you were on a piano, using that pattern simply means you only play all the white keys. CDEFGABC. Basic theory of how to construct a major scale.

Start those same set of notes on the 6th note, and you have its Minor scale equivalent. (I won't go into modes, because I don't completely understand them, and for now it's outside my idea of this topic.)

Now, to get the chords that would work in that key, you again start on the C, and make a 1-3-5 chord, using only those notes from the scale, which would be: C, E, G. It's the 1st note of the scale, usually called the 'root', the 3rd note, and the 5th note.

To get the remaining chords that you could use in the key of C, just take that root/3rd/5th that you're playing on the piano or keyboard, and move it up 1 note at a time. 2-4-6, 3-5-7, 4-6-8, and so on. All those chords are either Major or Minor chords, and the last one is a Diminished chord. It's major, if the interval between the root and 3rd is 2 whole steps (called a 'major 3rd' interval); it's minor if it's 1-1/2 steps between them (minor 3rd). The interval between the root and the 5th is always the same, except in the Dim chord, in which the intervals between the root & 3rd, and between the 3rd & 5th are both a minor 3rd.

Ok, so getting all that basic stuff out of the way...., oh wait. We can add more flavor to all the chords we could choose to use in a certain key by creating seventh chords. Again, to illustrate, using all white keys if on a piano, C being #1, D #2, etc., you just make chords starting with 1-3-5-7, then 2-4-6-8, etc., and you'll have all the possible 7th chords. And of course there are more chords you could construct (Csus2, e.g.) that would also be in your home key.




Now I say all that, because I want to look at Rikki Don't Loose That Number, specifically the chords under the solo. I was watching Tim Pierce and thought it was really cool how they wrote a completely different progression for the solo, but there's a couple things in that progression that have me baffled as to how/why they work.

I'm always curious as to why there can be 2 of the same chords in a progression near each other, but one is a major, and the other is minor. It's not very common, but when it occurs in a song, it always leaves me thinking, what is actually going on, theory-wise, that makes that able to work like that?

Maybe it's some type of voice-leading, in preparation for a key change, or modulation of some sort.

So the chords go:

Dsus2​

Asus2​

E​

​

Dsus2​

A​

G (ok, right there, with that G, I can hear something happening, or about to happen!)​

​

FMaj7​

GMaj7​

FMaj7​

Em7 (there's that minor chord, not that far away from the E major. ​

​

D​

A​

E And we're back to playing E major!​

​

It all works. That Em7 sounds fine within that progression, but I have no idea why it does.​

​

If I had to take an educated guess, since the first 5 chords put you squarely in the key of A, but the next one, G, is not..., I'm thinking that G is weaving the progression into something different at that point, that the Maj7 chords and the Em7 chords all work in. And then the progression works its way back to the key of A.​

​

​

​

Thoughts?​

​

And regardless of what's going on, this is a big reason why this music is so timeless, imo! And I'm not even getting into where the song goes once it comes out of the solo progression! Or that very cool twist on the "Hendrix Chord!"​

​

​

The chord progression above has a couple of key changes. And honestly, without the guitar solo, I find it to feel a bit forced...its not like there's a long guitar line that's able to link a lot of these chords together. I feel like a lot of this was driven by "we want to get away from the key of the song, and maybe have some modulation in the solo to give some movement" more than anything.

To me, the key changes look like a combo of two things: (1) moving a whole step up/down always feels pretty easy even if its not diatonic; I don't know that there's a theory here except that we're okay moving a whole step? Think of all the songs that jump up a whole step towards the end. (2) if you hit a cool chord that takes you away from the home key to a point of suspension and you want to resolve it some place, pretend like that cool chord is the five chord of whatever new key you want to call home for the time being (look up "secondary dominant" if you wanna chapters and chapters of material on theory of this - the corollary if that if you want to modulate to a new key center, move first to the V chord of the destination key. Thus, modulating to a key whose V chord is in the key that you are currently in will be pretty easy).

The jump to G you know its going to go somewhere new, but not sure. And I'm not sure there was a lot more thought into it than that? "okay, let's move somewhere new. *hits chord...nope* *hits other chord, nope* *hits the big open G. YUP!*. It wasn't too hard to jump to G from the D - A movement because A to G is a whole step. Also, G is the IV chord of D so its not like it was COMPLETELY out of left field from what had come before it. And now you're up on this G with the tension of being in a place that definitely feels like it needs some resolution...and low and behold the G chord then drops down to F (i.e., G was sort of acting as the V chord of the key of C). Now we gotta get back to the original D-A-E movement to finish things off...and E minor is a good pivot because (1) We were already descending from G to F to E and then dropping down another whole step to D feels like a not terribly awkward way to to get to D major and (2) although it references E minor instead of major, its still E which is where we eventually want to end the solo on.

Maybe @Sascha Franck has some deeper level analysis, but that's what I see with it.

Other examples of "wait, I thought that was supposed to be a major chord?"

major/minor IV chord (a million Beatles songs): https://www.studybass.com/lessons/harmony/the-minor-iv-chord/

The Major VI chord:


Frequent use of major V chord in minor keys (Am-EM-FM-Dm is a great progression):

V Chords in Minor Keys | StudyBass

The v chord in a minor key is sometimes minor and other times major or dominant 7th. In this lesson I explain a common adjustment of the v chord in major keys with example songs and bass exercises.

www.studybass.com

Isn't she lovely -

 

[TSJMajesty]

The chord progression above has a couple of key changes. And honestly, without the guitar solo, I find it to feel a bit forced...its not like there's a long guitar line that's able to link a lot of these chords together. I feel like a lot of this was driven by "we want to get away from the key of the song, and maybe have some modulation in the solo to give some movement" more than anything.

To me, the key changes look like a combo of two things: (1) moving a whole step up/down always feels pretty easy even if its not diatonic; I don't know that there's a theory here except that we're okay moving a whole step? Think of all the songs that jump up a whole step towards the end. (2) if you hit a cool chord that takes you away from the home key to a point of suspension and you want to resolve it some place, pretend like that cool chord is the five chord of whatever new key you want to call home for the time being (look up "secondary dominant" if you wanna chapters and chapters of material on theory of this - the corollary if that if you want to modulate to a new key center, move first to the V chord of the destination key. Thus, modulating to a key whose V chord is in the key that you are currently in will be pretty easy).

The jump to G you know its going to go somewhere new, but not sure. And I'm not sure there was a lot more thought into it than that? "okay, let's move somewhere new. *hits chord...nope* *hits other chord, nope* *hits the big open G. YUP!*. It wasn't too hard to jump to G from the D - A movement because A to G is a whole step. Also, G is the IV chord of D so its not like it was COMPLETELY out of left field from what had come before it. And now you're up on this G with the tension of being in a place that definitely feels like it needs some resolution...and low and behold the G chord then drops down to F (i.e., G was sort of acting as the V chord of the key of C). Now we gotta get back to the original D-A-E movement to finish things off...and E minor is a good pivot because (1) We were already descending from G to F to E and then dropping down another whole step to D feels like a not terribly awkward way to to get to D major and (2) although it references E which is where we eventually want to end the solo on.

Maybe @Sascha Franck has some deeper level analysis, but that's what I see with it.

Other examples of "wait, I thought that was supposed to be a major chord?"

major/minor IV chord (a million Beatles songs): https://www.studybass.com/lessons/harmony/the-minor-iv-chord/

The Major VI chord:


Frequent use of major V chord in minor keys (Am-EM-FM-Dm is a great progression):

V Chords in Minor Keys | StudyBass

The v chord in a minor key is sometimes minor and other times major or dominant 7th. In this lesson I explain a common adjustment of the v chord in major keys with example songs and bass exercises.

www.studybass.com

Isn't she lovely -

Awesome! I'm pretty sure I understood most of that. Thanks. I'll reread it to let it sink in.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Maybe @Sascha Franck has some deeper level analysis, but that's what I see with it.

Thanks for the flowers - no idea whether I could add something worthy, especially as the solo progression isn't exactly following any typical "standards". It's rather a mix between pretty typical "sort-of-modal" things and "let's just try this out because we're still staying close to the original key". You may call some events "modal interchange", "use of mediants" (if you take that losely, any chord a third apart from whatever tonal center could be moved to) or whatever. But I think a lot of it is really just common movements with things spiced up by just trying chords out. And in the end it's up to the orchestration, arrangment, voice leading, etc., and - as in this case - the soloist, to make it all work and glue things together.

The start is pretty clearly E mixolydian. Which fits the general mood of the tune rather well, as it's the kinda "bluesy" mode living sort of between major and minor (the soloing enhances that quite a bit as it's using both the major and minor (or halfbent) third over this part).
The following G chord comes across as a sort of entirely new thing, but IMO that's just because Jeff Baxter (git) made it appear that way. He could as well have played some lines that'd make more use of the common notes between E(7) and G (of which there are plenty).
To be honest, I don't particularly like these two bars too much because, while introducing the G as the new temporary tonal center (which IMO is a good thing), they neither end the D-A-E, D-A-G progression too well, nor do they introduce what's coming next - the phrase over that G is sitting there pretty much isolated.
As far as the next progression (Fj7, Gj7, Fj7, Em) goes, I tend to perceive it as G mixolydian, the G treated as a maj7 chord being a kind of twist, same goes for the Em. Does that make any "logical sense"? No.
As said, these are all chords still pretty close to each other.
The G is close enough to E mixo (even closer when you treat E mixo rather bluesy), and once you start treating the G itself in a mixolydian fashion, the Fj7 comes kinda naturally, should you want to proceed. Doesn't explain the Gj7 chord, but you could look at it as a sort of "colour" without wasting too much time with possible theoretical explanations. Sure, it's making life harder for the soloist (no more G blues licks over that chord progression), but any possible explanation wouldn't make it easier.
We could as well think of the Gj7 bringing us almost back to our tonal center E already (as it's the parallel major chord), and while the final E might confirm that "theory", it'd be a too far stretch for me.

If you want to learn something about chord progressions from this (btw, personally, I don't particularly like this very solo progression too much...), IMO it'd be that you can twist modes around quite a bit and change the tone "gender" quite a bit while going along. Sometimes there might be half-decent explanations (such as strong voice movements going along with those changes, think a minor sub-dominant chord followed by a major tonic, there's more possible chromatic voice leading options than to poke a stick at...), but having followed quite some analysis attempts, I actually often prefer to just stick with "yeah well, that chord is close enough to work and we just stumbled across it while trial'n'erroring".
In the context of this tune, it'd be sort of "anything reminding us of an E tonic chord will possibly be fine to check out".

 

[Cirrus]

I am totally deficient in music theory, so I won't write informative stuff like above ^

But... there's two directions to approach it from, in my head. You can start from the point of view of a chord sequence, where you're thinking in terms of series of block chords, and then you find melodies that work with that. I find that can be quite stifling creatively because I hear notes that might be interesting tension as just *wrong*.

Or you can think of chord sequences as just a kind of... constellation of melodies, and the chords are just what the melodies are creating at a particular moment. The best chord sequences are made up of harmonies and internal melodies that move around each other and either directly create or imply a particular harmonic, chordal movement. When you think of it that way you can have harmonies that build and release tension, use accidentals, voice leading into the next chord... in my head that makes the harmonic structure a lot more fluid and interesting - that the chords are just what the melodies are making as they progress, a consequence of what the ensemble is doing rather than the rules it has to follow.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Or you can think of chord sequences as just a kind of... constellation of melodies, and the chords are just what the melodies are creating at a particular moment. The best chord sequences are made up of harmonies and internal melodies that move around each other and either directly create or imply a particular harmonic, chordal movement. When you think of it that way you can have harmonies that build and release tension, use accidentals, voice leading into the next chord... in my head that makes the harmonic structure a lot more fluid and interesting - that the chords are just what the melodies are making as they progress, a consequence of what the ensemble is doing rather than the rules it has to follow.

I'd pretty much agree with that to a very large extent.
To take that approach further (well, not really, rather to look at it from another POV), a good melodic line (or a bunch of them) can "justify" pretty much any weird chord progression.

However, as it was about the solo changes in particular, I don't think this is what happened here. It's really rather like some block chords (sometimes relating to each other a bit more, sometimes less so) slapped together (out of whatever intention) with the soloist being thrown into the murky "now let's hear what you can come up with to make it work" waters.

 

[DrewJD82]

I'm sure there are many that don't care for that Steely Dan song at all (they're crazy btw).

My buddy is a big Steely Dan fan, so when we were driving from Mass to Maine a couple weeks ago, I didn't say anything when a couple SD songs came on the stereo, as I'm not a big fan, despite my attempts over the years. After the 3rd or 4th song I couldn't do it anymore and described their music as "So vehemently fucking boring it makes me feel violent"

 

[duzie]

My buddy is a big Steely Dan fan, so when we were driving from Mass to Maine a couple weeks ago, I didn't say anything when a couple SD songs came on the stereo, as I'm not a big fan, despite my attempts over the years. After the 3rd or 4th song I couldn't do it anymore and described their music as "So vehemently fucking boring it makes me feel violent"

Just came back from Acadia a week ago
F’n traffic through Massachusetts

 

[Sascha Franck]

described their music as "So vehemently fucking boring it makes me feel violent"

To be honest: Considering the efforts those productions took, considering pretty much the entire top of their game studio players were invited (with their takes often deleted in favour of the next takes of the next guys possibly already queing up in front of the studio door...), considering how well thought out some of those tunes are (and IMO they absolutely are, even so much you could explain it more or less scientifically) - well, considering all that, the final "listening experience" can indeed become an unexpectedly unexciting thing.
I think some people call this a "nonchalant" interpretation of otherwise pretty complexed material, but I can perfectly understand it's sometimes rather suitable to make you fall asleep.

 

[FuzzyAce]

My buddy is a big Steely Dan fan, so when we were driving from Mass to Maine a couple weeks ago, I didn't say anything when a couple SD songs came on the stereo, as I'm not a big fan, despite my attempts over the years. After the 3rd or 4th song I couldn't do it anymore and described their music as "So vehemently fucking boring it makes me feel violent"

There's a time and place for those songs, definitely the kind where you have to be in the right mood for them.
Like chilling on a boat drinking a margarita and enjoying a sunset (makes everything better).

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, that solo chord progression, as easy listening as it might sound, isn't too trivial to improvise over. Just gave it some tries and there's some moments when you really have to get your act together ("die Kurve kriegen" in german - "to get the curve", which actually describes it sort of adequately).
I could post a stupid little backing (and also some of my attempts) later on, in case anyone's interested.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I think some people call this a "nonchalant" interpretation of otherwise pretty complexed material

I would say that's a fair description and even a compliment. A casual vibe, yet sophisticated approach that doesn't come across as pretentious.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I would say that's a fair description and even a compliment.

Sure...

A casual vibe, yet sophisticated approach that doesn't come across as pretentious.

Defenitely this.
But then, sometimes you really want some good old rock'n'roll. Even if it's just a little dash of it blended in.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Defenitely this.
But then, sometimes you really want some good old rock'n'roll. Even if it's just a little dash of it blended in.

Of course!

Props to Steely Dan though, to have a song like Rikki become a radio staple is impressive. It sounds like no other and to make it digestible (make it a pop song) under those chord sequences is an accomplishment -- and that's just one of many from them.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Of course!

Props to Steely Dan though, to have a song like Rikki become a radio staple is impressive. It sounds like no other and to make it digestible (make it a pop song) under those chord sequences is an accomplishment -- and that's just one of many from them.

Oh sure.
I think one of the reasons for their success might've been that they were telling mildly intellectually challenging musical stories for the early post-hippie westcoast boheme kinda folks.
Which isn't meant in any negative way.

 

[la szum]

Of course!

Props to Steely Dan though, to have a song like Rikki become a radio staple is impressive. It sounds like no other and to make it digestible (make it a pop song) under those chord sequences is an accomplishment -- and that's just one of many from them.

I think that is the only point that ultimately matters. It's also a fairly objective take
free of personal preference--whcih can often lead us in the weeds where we toss
turds at one another like anxious monkeys.

Honestly, I can't come up with any other artist/group that pulled something like that
off. If that's not impressive, then I don't know what is. You are highly complex and
complicated and people still love you. Wow! They were like the musical opposite of the
latest Marvel Movie.

And they will be timeless, because they are timeless.

Signed,
Not The hugest Steely Dan Ever

 

[la szum]

Oh sure.
I think one of the reasons for their success might've been that they were telling mildly intellectually challenging musical stories for the early post-hippie westcoast boheme kinda folks.
Which isn't meant in any negative way.

Even Average Jane or Joe knows who Steely Dan was/is.

Their version of Sourdough even appealed to the White Bread crowd.

Dumb luck? Happenstance? Tiny ass Venn Diagram never to be repeated?

 

[duzie]

Even Average Jane or Joe knows who Steely Dan was/is.

Their version of Sourdough even appealed to the White Bread crowd.

Dumb luck? Happenstance? Tiny ass Venn Diagram never to be repeated?

I couldn’t change the station fast enough when a Steely Dan song came on

 

[TSJMajesty]

I'm middle of the road when it comes to Steely Dan. Although I do remember anxiously waiting for FM to come on the radio as a kid. I really dug that song!

But a well-crafted chord progression, with a tasty-as-fuck guitar solo over top of it? Yeah, I'll take that any day over someone noodlessly shredding over 2 chords that just go back and forth. Yes, NOODLESSLY!

 

[la szum]

Regardless of personal preference......

It's absolutely insane that this song peaked at Number 4 on the Billboard
Top 100 Hot Singles. A single. Crazy! Weird ass composition with an out of
the box vocalist, and people dug it in droves.

Genius deserves its flowers.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

I'm not all that great at theory. I'm probably "mid-level" in my understanding of it.

I know the steps one would take to determine which chords you could use to write a song in a certain key, but I don't "get" why certain chords still sound correct, even though they have notes within the chord that aren't from that particular key. And those chords are usually the ones that really make a chord progression sound amazing.

And I do understand that the "key" of a song can change within the song..., and that even though in music there are "rules" per se, there are many ways we can go about creating chord progressions that, on the surface may seem like they shouldn't work, but they do. And, they can also have certain effects on the listener.

Things like: Making you feel like the song is temporarily pausing, like you're briefly left hanging, or this thing I've heard in these types of discussions called 'voice-leading.' Which, in my limited understanding of theory is: Chords intentionally chosen in a certain manner to almost make you "feel" where the music is heading, before it gets there. Maybe not a perfect, "university definition", but good enough for what I want this thread to be about.

A simple example:

Play an Asus4, followed by an A, and let your ear focus on the note that changes between those 2 chords: the D and C#.​

What I hear, and even, feel, at that point, is that C# is "leading" my ear back to the D. Like it wants to resolve. But not simply back to the Asus4...​

Play a D chord, and you hear it. Sounds like it's finished.​

So the basics:
Starting on any note, you construct a major scale simply by playing that 1st note, then using this interval pattern: Whole Step, Whole Step, Half Step, then Whole, Whole, Whole, Half step. Then you end on your starting note, just 1 octave higher.

So in the key of C, if you were on a piano, using that pattern simply means you only play all the white keys. CDEFGABC. Basic theory of how to construct a major scale.

Start those same set of notes on the 6th note, and you have its Minor scale equivalent. (I won't go into modes, because I don't completely understand them, and for now it's outside my idea of this topic.)

Now, to get the chords that would work in that key, you again start on the C, and make a 1-3-5 chord, using only those notes from the scale, which would be: C, E, G. It's the 1st note of the scale, usually called the 'root', the 3rd note, and the 5th note.

To get the remaining chords that you could use in the key of C, just take that root/3rd/5th that you're playing on the piano or keyboard, and move it up 1 note at a time. 2-4-6, 3-5-7, 4-6-8, and so on. All those chords are either Major or Minor chords, and the last one is a Diminished chord. It's major, if the interval between the root and 3rd is 2 whole steps (called a 'major 3rd' interval); it's minor if it's 1-1/2 steps between them (minor 3rd). The interval between the root and the 5th is always the same, except in the Dim chord, in which the intervals between the root & 3rd, and between the 3rd & 5th are both a minor 3rd.

Ok, so getting all that basic stuff out of the way...., oh wait. We can add more flavor to all the chords we could choose to use in a certain key by creating seventh chords. Again, to illustrate, using all white keys if on a piano, C being #1, D #2, etc., you just make chords starting with 1-3-5-7, then 2-4-6-8, etc., and you'll have all the possible 7th chords. And of course there are more chords you could construct (Csus2, e.g.) that would also be in your home key.




Now I say all that, because I want to look at Rikki Don't Loose That Number, specifically the chords under the solo. I was watching Tim Pierce and thought it was really cool how they wrote a completely different progression for the solo, but there's a couple things in that progression that have me baffled as to how/why they work.

I'm always curious as to why there can be 2 of the same chords in a progression near each other, but one is a major, and the other is minor. It's not very common, but when it occurs in a song, it always leaves me thinking, what is actually going on, theory-wise, that makes that able to work like that?

Maybe it's some type of voice-leading, in preparation for a key change, or modulation of some sort.

So the chords go:

Dsus2​

Asus2​

E​

​

Dsus2​

A​

G (ok, right there, with that G, I can hear something happening, or about to happen!)​

​

FMaj7​

GMaj7​

FMaj7​

Em7 (there's that minor chord, not that far away from the E major. ​

​

D​

A​

E And we're back to playing E major!​

​

It all works. That Em7 sounds fine within that progression, but I have no idea why it does.​

​

If I had to take an educated guess, since the first 5 chords put you squarely in the key of A, but the next one, G, is not..., I'm thinking that G is weaving the progression into something different at that point, that the Maj7 chords and the Em7 chords all work in. And then the progression works its way back to the key of A.​

​

​

​

Thoughts?​

​

And regardless of what's going on, this is a big reason why this music is so timeless, imo! And I'm not even getting into where the song goes once it comes out of the solo progression! Or that very cool twist on the "Hendrix Chord!"​

​

​

The F△7 to G△7…F♯ø/D9 is often replaced with F△7 since it’s F♯ø with the root down a half step.

Or you can simply call it planing where the concept is any chord can be followed with the same type chord any distance from it.