[dead]
I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
71–80 of 160 posts
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain the Roman numerals part?
The number "I" means the chord from the first note of the scale (e.g. C E G in C major, or F A C in F major), and uppercase means major and lowercase means minor. Other numbers will then be e.g. "V" will be G B D in C major. You may then add digits as well in which case they indicate intervals above the bass, e.g. "V6" is a first inversion chord (e.g. B D G in C major) and "V7" adds the seventh (e.g. G B D F in C maj…
You're talking about figured bass, which is its own type of notation.
"V6" to a jazz player would not indicate first inversion, it would be a major triad (built from the 5th of the tonic scale) with the addition of its own 6th scale degree. "V7" would include the dominant 7th (as opposed to the major 7th), "V13" would have the dominant 7th and also the 6th. Inversions aren't specified, the voicings are left up to the player.
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#73Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…
Wouldn't using relative chords simply show that 99% of songs use the I chord? :)
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#74Oh just when this morning I was wondering how I might find which sequence of chords would cover all songs ever published.
That led me to remember of the famous combinatory proof that was published in Redhit to answer which sequence of some television series one should watch to achieve a minimal chain of something.
But I was also concerned that finding chord progression for all songs would be the hardest part, compared to any chord progression which can be just generated by anyone.
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#75Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…
Wouldn't using relative chords simply show that 99% of songs use the I chord? :)
It's like analyzing music by looking at the amplitude of the sound wave instead of the frequency. Music is all about the changes.
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#76Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…
I think most musicians know that I-IV-V-I is the zero thought default for in key chord progression, it's so overused you don't need fancy analysis to figure it out. For me, I'm more interested in the intervals and voicing pairs, because those tell you something deeper about the music that you don't get from the chord progression.
I-IV-V-I, II-V-I and maybe I-VII-VI-V and you can consider yourself "advanced" ;)
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#77I find the analysis interesting in terms of a hobby project, but I'd be careful extrapolating too much out of this. 680k is quite the sample size, but my issue lies within the myopic selection of one instrument and the issues that arise from the platform of Ultimate Guitar. 1. I am curious, how many of the 680k songs are unique? It is rather uncommon for massively successful songs to only have one version of tabs out…
> Pachelbel's Canon in D is by no means a complex song and has stood the test of time It was actually mostly forgotten until the 1960's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel%27s_Canon#Rediscover... Can anyone find a version without Paillard's changes? Knowing the history, I suspect they have more to do with the song's popularity than the original composition.
Oasis anyone?
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#78Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…
Agreed on chord numbers and progression being the analysis that should have been done. For example, blues is mostly defined by a 1-4-5 progression and the ol 2-5-1 is pretty ubiquitous across time and genre.
Also, I think disappearance of 7th chords - major, minor, or dominant - is vastly overstated. Keep in mind that these are from guitar tabs so likely ignoring chord inversion / voicing / substitution taking placw to simplify notation. For example a B minor triad can be substituted for a Gmaj7.
Bm triad = B,D,F#
Gmaj7 = G,B,D,F#
Or if you want to be fancy a Bb/Gm can work as either Bbmaj7 or C7 depending on where you put it in a progression.
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most musicians know that I-IV-V-I is the zero thought default for in key chord progression, it's so overused you don't need fancy analysis to figure it out. For me, I'm more interested in the intervals and voicing pairs, because those tell you something deeper about the music that you don't get from the chord progression.
I-IV-V-I, II-V-I and maybe I-VII-VI-V and you can consider yourself "advanced" ;)
There's bandleaders who have geared their entire performance so if you can pick this kind of thing up by ear, follow their timing, and put effort into making them sound better, you're more valuable than some alternatives having truly advanced formal musical training.
Especially with equal or better chops, lots of players like this can go into a studio and make recordable music, in one take, without actually rehearsing together in advance.
And play in any key, since it's just Roman numerals.
Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally everyone? Have you got a source for that claim? I don’t disagree that music performance was a pastime for many people before recorded music, but let’s be real here.
There was no recorded or productionized music back then. And yet people liked music as much as we do now. So the only way to enjoy music was to do it yourself. Singing and playing an instrument was just a basic life skill that everyone had back then. (Say, like driving a car or using a computer is today. Not everyone is a professional driver or computer programmer, but not being able to use a computer at all today wo…
little kids,(feeling safe and secure) will try and grab your guitar out of your hands,they KNOW they can do this, and just go for it, guitars bigger than they are, or watch a little, out somewhere, smitten by a street mucician, dont want to leave..,..yanked away....scolded...
in Halifax, NS, there was a ukelele program, and ALL children partisipated
and second page into a search, it comes up
https://www.ukuleleintheclassroom.org/