My Rock chord use rating

I saw Pearl Jam on SNL. They actually used 6 chords in the song they
did. (A minor: i, III, iv, V, VI, VII) So that gives them a rating of
+2.

The average is 4 chords, usually I, IV, V and vi (if you consider the
major I as tonic - or i, III, VI, VII if you count from the minor).
That has a rating of 0.

I am giving 3-chord rock a -1 rating and two chord Rock/Reggae a -2.
I've only heard one chord rock once, it was really a kind of funk, so
that would be -3. I guess rap would be anything from -4 and up.

Paul

Paul,

What is your point?

Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> What is your point?
>
> Jon

I don't know. Just trying to start a thread I guess. And to pose
the question as to why so much rock and pop is based on primary
diatonic triads. Is there a reason? One of my goals is to classify
all the different popular chord progressions - and from there, do
an analysis based on tuning measurements.

A lot of rock would be in the 5-limit. Some would be in the 7-limit,
especially blues and related genres. I posted something about this,
stating blues was 7-limit, and someone replied reminding me that
blues thirds are actually between minor and major, therefore, not 7-
limit, which would be 7/6 as opposed to between 6/5 and 5/4. And
that's just one possible subject for discussion.
>

Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@...>
wrote:
> One of my goals is to classify
> all the different popular chord progressions - and from there, do
> an analysis based on tuning measurements.

I see. It was so out of the blue, and especially since you were using
"ratings", with some stuff in the negative, it was not clear if this
was actually tuning related or taking a slam at rock music in general
that didn't have some arbitrary number of chords.

You'd have to trace this back to all the musics that were the roots of
the blues and rock to get an idea of the use of these chords, I would
imagine.

One last little tidbit: the guy playing drums with Pearl Jam, Matt, is
a former drum student of mine. I'd say he's done quite well... :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@>
> wrote:
> > One of my goals is to classify
> > all the different popular chord progressions - and from there, do
> > an analysis based on tuning measurements.
>
> I see. It was so out of the blue, and especially since you were
using
> "ratings", with some stuff in the negative, it was not clear if this
> was actually tuning related or taking a slam at rock music in
general
> that didn't have some arbitrary number of chords.
>
> You'd have to trace this back to all the musics that were the roots
of
> the blues and rock to get an idea of the use of these chords, I
would
> imagine.
>
> One last little tidbit: the guy playing drums with Pearl Jam, Matt,
is
> a former drum student of mine. I'd say he's done quite well... :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Yes, they are very good. I think one of the reasons for the simplicity
of rock harmony is the fact that guitar dominates, as opposed to say,
keyboards, and with the distortion that is (sometimes) added,
there is no need for seventh, ninth and thirteenth chords. (The sound
is full enough already). I just wish I wasn't so aware that
I am listening to I-vi-IV-V over and over (for example), or maybe I'm
just getting old. Of course, there are other progressions that are
used, such as IV-I-iii-vi etc and occasionally there is primary
and secondary mode mixture, but not that often.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@>
> > wrote:
> > > One of my goals is to classify
> > > all the different popular chord progressions - and from there, do
> > > an analysis based on tuning measurements.
> >
> > I see. It was so out of the blue, and especially since you were
> using
> > "ratings", with some stuff in the negative, it was not clear if this
> > was actually tuning related or taking a slam at rock music in
> general
> > that didn't have some arbitrary number of chords.
> >
> > You'd have to trace this back to all the musics that were the roots
> of
> > the blues and rock to get an idea of the use of these chords, I
> would
> > imagine.
> >
> > One last little tidbit: the guy playing drums with Pearl Jam, Matt,
> is
> > a former drum student of mine. I'd say he's done quite well... :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> Yes, they are very good. I think one of the reasons for the simplicity
> of rock harmony is the fact that guitar dominates, as opposed to say,
> keyboards, and with the distortion that is (sometimes) added,
> there is no need for seventh, ninth and thirteenth chords. (The sound
> is full enough already). I just wish I wasn't so aware that
> I am listening to I-vi-IV-V over and over (for example), or maybe I'm
> just getting old. Of course, there are other progressions that are
> used, such as IV-I-iii-vi etc and occasionally there is primary
> and secondary mode mixture, but not that often.
>

I'd say the real point is that not all music focuses on HARMONY as being
the interesting factor. If you worked for years on a meaningful lyric and
developing a artistic, amazing vocal delivery, would you really want to
add complex harmonic content that brings the listener's attention to
the harmony? No, you'd want everythign to be subservient to the lyric,
which is the point.

I'm not saying most rock/pop is good music or lyrics or anything, but I
am saying that bashing I-vi-IV-V progressions (or i-VII-VI-VII or whatever)
is unfounded. You might as well rate everyone on their use of 4 bar phrases
or 4/4 time. Really. Just answer me this: how is it that different to sit
through a rock song thinking "here we go: I-vi-V-IV again..." than it is
to sit through the whole song thinking "here we go again: 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4
same old 4 beats per measure over and over?"

I, for one, don't like everything being the same and the same 4 chords and
the same 4/4 all the time. I'm not saying it's good. But I certainly am saying
that anyone who sits through an expressive rock song, with their attention on
the 4/4 beats is a fool. Try listening to the vocal quality, or the specific groove
of the rhythm section, or the lyric, or the dynamics. You might still be bored
and annoyed because some bands are just lousy. But just remember that,
in the case of a truly dedicated artistic band, every additional moment and
bit of energy they could have put into more interesting chords would have been
less they could have put into working on the groove or the lyric or whatever.
It's just a question of priority.

Would you look at an interesting building and say: "oh, it's the same old stuff:
bricks, cement, paint..." or would you look at the design of what was build with
those materials? Which of course may be anywhere from terrible to astounding.

-Aaron

Aaron Wolf wrote:

> I'd say the real point is that not all music focuses on HARMONY as being
> the interesting factor. If you worked for years on a meaningful lyric and
> developing a artistic, amazing vocal delivery, would you really want to
> add complex harmonic content that brings the listener's attention to
> the harmony? No, you'd want everythign to be subservient to the lyric,
> which is the point.

So far do I agree. And one more thing should be added to this: There were
also many forces (especially in the 70ths, AFAIK) promoting complex harmonic
or even contrapuntal phrases in Rock music together with powerful lyrics and
they did very successfully, I think. I'm thinking of those like Genesis,
King Crimson, Yes, or even my favorite Queen whose pieces I still often
play.

Petr