![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 23 September 2013 for a period of one week. |
--->ALSO A certain chord can be present in several different scales
example
C E G bB appears in the scales of CDEFGA Bb ( C mixolydian ) FGA Bb CDE ( F major ) GA Bb CDE F# ( G minor ) C Eb E F F# G Bb ( C blue scale ) etc ....
Therefore A chord is common to several tonalities
---> Especially modern jazz artists use these "characteristics " of chords by using chords progressions to create a constantly ongoing modulation ....
Theorists/ teachers (of this particular mode of playing ) include
Nathan Davis Hal Singer
> Performers of these styles even fabricated so called " synthetic " scales
on several ( simple three chord ) progressions ( and a different one on "bridges" in anatole -pieces / ballad and tin -pan -alley material )
Sonny Rollins is an outstanding " player " of these linear approaches to motivistic and rapid scale- changing modes of improvisation
I know a little music, but the opening of this article is more difficult for me to figure out than a Wikipedia article in, say French, on a very advanced mathematical concept. I know articles should be correct, but when the opening sentence is full of links to words that are very difficult for outsiders to grasp, an affective barrier is erected. The opening article about something so basic should be understandable to a literature adult not versed in the specialty. This is not by any means. I came here because I was having trouble understanding what 50s progressions are, but now I'm much deeper in the dark, with what I thought was a rough idea of what a chord progression totally washed away by the opening paragraph. 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 13:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
In the table, there under major IV, one of the progressions starts with a VI, I think this is a mistake, all the others start with the same as the title of the row but I don't feel as if I know enough to change it!
Under "Rewrite Rules," the link to "well-formed" doesn't go anywhere useful. I'm not sure what exactly it should link to. Maybe something should be added to the disambiguation page?
Foxmulder 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Same goes for "cyclic." Also changed the VI to a IV; I assume that was a typo. Foxmulder 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Does "(assuming 12ET)" mean "assuming 12 equal tones?" This seems very unclear, why would it be written like that? BunDonkey 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite rules are quite unclear in the examples.
What does this mean:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 bVi, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//
I'm not sure what the slashes represent? 203.219.137.66 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the italicized portion above as it is a reply and thus belongs on the talk page and the preceding material already reads "generally". Hyacinth 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above as its unexplained and there is no article on retrogression. Hyacinth 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what "phenomenological, tonally-coherent way" means. Hyacinth 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I find this page confusing. Granted though, I am a novice in music theory.
I understand the notation used for the most part, but I am confused by the notation "ii6°".
The "ii" should indicate a supertonic root with a note a minor third above this. This makes sense. However, the "6" indicates a note a sixth above the root, while the "°" should indicate a diminished quality.
Does this indicate:
In semitones, these possibilities would be:
In the key of A minor (harmonic), the notes for each possibility would be
If I were to name these, I would call these
So, what is the correct interpretation? -- 70.226.193.242 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it confusing, because it contains none of the information I am conversant with. Chord progressions are a series of whole numbers -- nothing else. They are not complicated with numeric names for chords. Rather, those progressions are 'given' names according to who discovered them or whatever culture uses them, but they are not complicated with the names we've given to the simplest ratios like three to two or four to three.
Let me give you an example. A series of four perfect fifths begins with the number eight. Why eight, because that's the lowest number that you can divide three times by two, so the whole series is 8,12,18,27. THAT is a chord progression: Nothing but a series of numbers. Give it a name, like one of the names given to a chord on the guitar if it plays big in someone's piece.
Let me show you how simple it can be to prove numeric names to be nonsense.
See the series? They're exactly an octave apart. The reference pitch is three, which is not practical, until I explain fundamental frequency to you.
But no relation is between the names for those ratios.
Number the names, not the other way around, then this article might become instructive. I also see the roman numerals in here, and that just extends my confusion. I grew up with Arabic numerals. Those are what i calculate with. So, perhaps I would be repeating myself if I asked you to define IV as (what?) 8:6:3:2 (a perfect third, a perfect eleventh, a three to one, a double octave, and an octave)? I don't even know how many notes are in this IV chord.
I don't hav a convenient tool for this analysis, but write a chord here, and I can probably figure it out. If you're not conversant with constructed languages, then you can fax me. BrewJay 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
but we are talking about the same thing: How to describe a polyphonic trend. BrewJay 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
you might be pressing C and G, simultaneously. So, again, I see a series in the dominant ratios, but I see no series in their names:
2/3 Perfect fifth. 4/3 Perfect fourth. 8/3 Perfect eleventh.
A chord is an interval (synonymous with ratio in music) with more than two notes in it. In Triad X, above, C and G are at the ratio 3/2, and according to whatever temperament MicroSoft used for QBasic in 1992, E is the mean. To check this I audited it. My default C is at 1050 Hertz. My default G is at 1575 Hz, and E is at 1312.5.
What lies between three and two is, in relative terms, a mean: 2.5. 1575 is to 3 (G) as 1312.5 is to 2.5 (E) as 1050 is to 2 (C), but the harmonic series is composed entirely of whole-numbered ratios, so the trick is a minimal increase of the ratio. Doubling them all eliminates that pesky fraction.
In practical terms, I could assume a basis (fundamental) frequency of 525 Hz and program with six, five, and four as notes if my work had only three notes in it.
C E G is equivalent to 4:5:6 (It doesn't reduce or simplify. Dividing four by five by six is meaningless in this context). So, with MusixTeX I mean to put yellow numbers on top of blue notes.
It should be possible to find a series of notes that represents that same three-numbered ratio, but is a transposition from one key to another. Perhaps this is what is meant by minor and major. A minor shift in chord would not change the ratios.
For triad Y, I'm assuming that you are rising in pitch. It is also 4:5:6.
The sheer number of notes in a full-length composition might force some of these notes upward to maintain the relation, much as considering a work with both chords in it would, but in practice, I see a typical limit to this upward drift, and I speculate that it's less than a hundred.
Maintaining the relation seems to be the sensible way to go. Then, later in the work, I will compare transpositions -- same chord in a different key, like this: 6 12 36 5 10 30 4 8 24
It can be done in a serial work, too. A basis frequency could be provided for an alternative method of rendition. It also forms a basis for analysis in combinatorics or non-linear dynamics. I've heard that some music has been condensed into nifty little loops that predict most of the notes. Mathematicians that didn't think they could write music could go: "Oh, so that's how this stuff works. I see this pattern."
Sometimes it seems like the obfuscation starts with letters and continues with names for ratios that bear no obvious relation to those ratios. OTOH, many musicians might travel down dead ends if they even wrote their music. BrewJay 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What about #vii° in harmonic scales? Would someone add or authorize me to add the chords in the other minor modes?
Natural minor: | i | ii° | III | iv | v | VI | VII |
Harmonic: | i | ii° | III+ | iv | V | VI | #vii° |
Melodic: | i | ii | III+ | IV | V | #vi° | #vii° |
Hangfromthefloor 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
BrewJay 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unclear to me where the chart of common transitions came from, does anybody know? I would like to find that source. I did not see it in the links, I'm in the process of hunting down the books now.
→The chart is extremely similar to the progression chart in Ottman's Elementary Harmony. It actually looks like a direct copy of the chart and the text wasn't credited.
I removed the unreferenced information from the section. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? While it may not have been linked to, that information was invaluable to me while it was up here. I verified through writing and listening that those chord progressions are what they said they were. 70.122.48.172 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The table on this page says "See the article chord (music) and chord symbol for an explanation of the notation used in this table." Obviously this was written before the two articles were merged together.
Somewhere along the way it seems that the description of this notation was lost, because I can't find any explanation of the difference between uppercase and lowercase Roman numerals (e.g., III and iii). Could someone explain what these mean, either here or in the Chord (music) page? -- Sakurambo 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
I welcome, on this page, the reference to my original work on the analysis of 20th century harmony as noted in www.harmony.org.uk
However, the section (as indicated below) is a direct quote from my copyright work (apart from a short incorrect insertion) and should be indicated as such. I am happy for you to quote this section but I would appreciate it if you would please amend this to indicate that it is a quote. i.e as follows:
According to Tom Sutcliffe (2006: www.harmony.org.uk )
“… during the 1960's some pop groups started to experiment with modal chord progressions as an alternative way of harmonising blues melodies. . . . This created a new system of harmony that has influenced subsequent popular music.”
“The use of modal harmonies to harmonise the blues came about because of the similarity of the blues scale to modal scales . . . by experimentation with the possible uses of major chords on the guitar. This phenomenon thus probably derives from the characteristics of the guitar and the way it is used in popular music. This is also linked to the rise in the use of power chords.”
If you want to mention modal chords correctly, and make the point clearer, then it would be a good idea to add something like:
Sutcliffe’s hypothesis is that major chord combinations such as: I , bIII , IV, V and bVII cannot be explained in pure modal terms as, in this combination, these don’t exist in the usual modes. They have to be explained as a new harmonic system combining elements from the blues and elements from modality.
Also, under “external links” please note: “it's origins” should be corrected to “its origins”
Regards,
Tom Sutcliffe.
August 2007
10 reasons why this section is a mess:
1. Some of these progressions only have one (obscure) example — so who on earth decided that they are 'common'? Surely the rule should be that if you can't think of at least 3 mainstream examples then it's not 'common' and shouldn't be on the list?
2. In contrast, some of the progressions have dozens of examples. I've nothing against this (as it helps people to find a song they recognise), but the stark contrast in number of examples seems ridiculous.
3. The examples seem very biased towards certain groups or styles of music. There's a "Green Day" example for almost every progression. More variety and balance would be nice.
4. The list only seems to feature slightly less common chord progressions that appear in a handful of songs; and doesn't seem to include the really common ones made out of the primary chords. For example (off the top of my head): I-IV-I-V ("American Pie"), I-IV-V-V ("Twist & Shout"), I-IV-V-IV ("Louie Louie", "Summer Nights") and so on. You could have a whole section dedicated to these alone.
5. The whole section is just silly — there are far too many "common progressions" to list in one short summary. Almost every short chord progression has inevitably been re-used over and over by someone somewhere. I don't think it's right that people just come along and add the one that belongs to their favourite song, which is what seems to be happening. The progressions on this page are not representative of the most common ones at all. And if all the often-used progressions are to be listed, they should probably be in some kind of order, not just random.
6. Some of the progressions are three chords long. That can't be right. Three bar sequences are extremely rare in pop music. More likely that one of the chords is repeated, but that really needs to be specified (as has been with certain ones)
7. There are no 8-chord sequences. I can think of at least one really famous 8-chord progression.
8. All the 'flat' chords show up as question marks on my computer. For the sake of making sure everyone can see it, wouldn't it be much easier just to use sharp symbols (#) instead? I believe this is the traditional method of writing notes using plain text on a computer.
9. The order of some of the chords is wrong. For example, with the one labeled "I - ♭VII-IV" — all the example songs given actually seem to use the sequence "bVII-IV-I-I". In other words, the tonic is not at the start of the sequence; it's at the end, and it's repeated. (The progression that was given is actually that of "Ghostbusters" and "Don't Leave Me This Way".)
10. Not all the examples listed use the exact basic chords specified. I think you'll probably find 7ths and suspended 4ths all over the place. For example, the last chord in "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" is (if I recall) a suspended 4th.
Grand Dizzy ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
But indeed, if they are so common, which most of them are, and notable it should be easy to cite a source saying so. Hyacinth ( talk) 10:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to go around making drastic changes to pages, but, in my experience, if you do that, someone usually comes along and undoes your changes and people get annoyed that you didn't discuss it first. Therefore, I am now in the habit of declaring what I think needs to change about a page before I make the changes (if I'm proposing something drastic). Then, if no one has voiced strong objections to my proposals after a few days or weeks, I will make the changes myself. This article is one I will be coming back to soon, however, I have been very busy changing other pages so it's not like I've nothing better to do right now. I have also spent the last several days having a very good think about common progressions, and better ways to organise the information in this article, which I shall be encorporating into the article, assuming no one has any objection. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I see someone deleted all the examples. Was there a reason for this? should they be brought back in? I don't mind leaving them out to be honest.
Also I specifically gave the progressions i wrote up only 1 or 2 examples (i made them as well-known as i could) as i thought this was sufficient. When other people started adding to the lists i didn't delete them.However, I think a huge long list is unneccesary (sp). and it clutters up the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylmesh ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. So it needs to be done.
I propose seperating them out into major, minor, blues-modal, mixed, and other.
possibly with major/ minor as the one category.
I'll need some help with this.
feedback welcome. Vinylmesh ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
by the way, that source is not valid for what WAS up there (as a lot was left pretty much as i had written it (with some extra songs added on)unless by pure co-incidence the list in the book is exactly how i wrote it. So i don't see a problem with editing the list. We could bring back in the whole give examples thing, and link each to a guitar chord site.But keep the examples to a minimum.
Another idea would be to provide audio-samples of each progression. I was thinking something very basic, just straight chords on a piano or something.I don't have the equipment + technical know-how, but I'm sure someone here does.
Vinylmesh ( talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there's a bit of talk about the I V vi iii IV I IV V progression in the Pachelbel's Canon article. The editors there have been trying to keep this section brief so that the article can focus on the piece itself and not all the pieces that share its chord progression. I've come here wondering if this progression is common enough to deserve mention in this article. Is the progression in a family of progressions that already has its own child article? Or perhaps is the progression itself so common that the "Pachelbel chord progression" deserves its own child article? I don't have any idea myself which is why I'm asking here. I'm just wondering if it would be possible to redirect the chord progression discussion to this area of music theory articles where the editors have more specific expertise. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus for move. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Chord progression → Harmonic progression — I'm just wondering why this article is titled "Chord Progression" rather than "Harmonic Progression". In all of the music theory books and articles I've read, the idea is always referred to as Harmonic Progression. The term has definitely been around for a lot longer, and I would argue that people only started referring to it as "Chord Progression" once the guitar became so prominent (just a theory). Any thoughts on the subject? Rheostatik ( talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how it happened, but there is a major flaw in this discussion page. Everything up until the section Reference to blues-modal harmony should be a direct quote. seems to have been duplicated, leading to eleven topics that appear twice. I am deleting the first instance. Rheostatik ( talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess, and am tagging it for a complete rewrite, with aid from the Music Theory WikiProject (hopefully). At the very least, it should contain a discussion of the functions of each chord, I through VII to give these roman numerals a bit more context to someone not familiar with the subject. Kostka & Payne's Tonal Harmony: With an Introduction to Twentieth-Century Music is the standard-issue textbook given to many Undergraduate music students and will be a great resource for this page. I will begin writing up something and post it here in a few days. Rheostatik ( talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
In Western music, diatonic scales such as the major and minor lend themselves particularly well to the construction of common chords such as triads
I do not think the article is perfect - for a start it has nothing to say about complex chords, modulation and chromaticism and it could do with more citations. Rheo's sources sound useful - there are very few discussions of chord sequences per se in classical treatises of harmony, since these historically begin with point-for-point harmonisation of melodies and basslines using ensembles of monophonic instruments or voices. The original source for the article seems to have been an academic treatment of popular music (which is fine by me).
I do think it is important to preserve a sequence of complexity and to avoid recapitulation of related articles where possible. For example, I would not find it clever to deal with modulation at the very top, before simple diatonic changes have been covered, and I do not see any need to explain and use the terms "tonic, supertonic" etc in the present context. However, things can be presented in a variety of ways and any decent new presentation is going to take any editor some days of hard work, so I'd suggest it would be better to discuss the principles of exposition here before anyone launches into a rewrite that is liable to be rewritten yet again by the next person with the next set of personal theories. If there's a caucus of consensus that we have a useful, comprehensible sequential introduction, not a display of an editor's great cleverness, then we can avoid endless re-invention of the wheel.
I'd like to focus on the article, Hyacinth, not the editors, except to say that your own volume of work on the subject commands considerable respect over here and that I'd see the audio resources you added as a useful addition. I hope you'll all forgive that recent drastic edit of mine but perceive that there is, after all, a form and sequence in the article as it now stands, and that it avoids unnecessary complexity. Rheo, I do think it is useful to include simple diagrams that increase the reader's musical literacy, and that pictures contribute to an attractive page. I think your plan is a good one - it's a big job when you get down to it! Redheylin ( talk) 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A chord progression (or harmonic progression) is a series of musical chords, or chord changes that "aims for a definite goal" [1] of establishing (or contradicting) a tonality founded on a key, root or tonic chord.
Chord progressions are used to create movement within a piece of music, offering a shift of level or simultaneity succession essential to harmony. Music is not a static art form like sculpture; it exists within a time frame and people respond to this psychologically by their need for a start and end with a central tonality. Music creates this expectation regardless whether it is a melody line or a chord progression. Chord changes generally occur on an accented beat and by doing so creates a sense of rhythm, meter and musical form for a piece of music, while also delineating bars, phrases and sections. [2]
In music theory, scale degrees are typically represented with Arabic numerals, often modified with a caret or circumflex ( would be the notes C, E and G in the key of C), whereas the triads that have these degrees as their roots are often identified by Roman numerals. Upper-case Roman numerals indicate major triads while lower-case Roman numerals indicate minor triads, as the following chart illustrates. Lower-case Roman numerals with a degree symbol indicate diminished triads. For example, in the major mode, the triad built on the seventh scale degree ( ) is diminished (vii°).
Roman numeral | I | ii | iii | IV | V | vi | vii° |
Scale degree (major mode) |
tonic | supertonic | mediant | subdominant | dominant | submediant | leading tone |
Roman numeral | i | ii° | III | iv | V | VI | (♭)VII | vii° |
Scale degree (minor mode) |
tonic | supertonic | mediant | subdominant | dominant | submediant | subtonic | leading tone |
Triads may be constructed using any degree of a scale as the root, and diatonic triads consist only of notes belonging to the scale. That is, if a passage is in G major, most of the chords contain only notes found in the G major scale. Subsequently, a chord's function changes according to the scale from which it is derived. A "D minor" chord will be the tonic chord ( i ) when built from the scale of D minor. It will be the super-tonic chord ( ii ) if it is derived from the scale of C major, or the sub-mediant ( vi ) chord if derived from the scale of F major.
This also means that a D minor chord does not appear at all in some keys, such as A Major, due to the presence of an F# in the key signature. This can be rectified by temporarily lowering the sixth scale degree ( ) from F# to F♮, resulting in a minor subdominant chord ( iv ) in a major scale, which, depending on the overall chord progression, can be considered aesthetically pleasing (see altered chord).
(I deleted a section of my paste as it remains in place at present Redheylin ( talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
Here are some of the current aims under which I am editing:
1) Logical progress from simple to complex.
2) Maximum wikilinking to music theory articles
3) Finding a place for and linking every progression notable enough to have its own entry.
4) Provision of the best-known examples of the best-known types of progression, with historical context.
5) Worldwide coverage.
I do not intend, though, to create a massive list of example pieces, find a place for everybody's favourite composer or cover every chord progression. The article is simply to explain what chord changes ARE, (and possibly, as Rheo says, how they work) by focussing on well-known, notable examples that mostly, as I said, have their own entries. All comments welcome.... Redheylin ( talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Chord progression#Harmonising the scale looks like an appropriate section for the content removed above under #Nomenclature. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Sorry, my edit summary got cut off, leaving it perhaps confusing. Widespread though it is, I think calling circle progressions "felicitous" implies a judgment call rooted in a particular (Western/Classical) approach to harmony. / ninly( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's my first time entering a conversation I hope i'm doing nothing the wrong way. I just want to point out the fact that Satie's first gymnopédie is qualified as a " I - IV", but my understanding is that it's a I - V(7M). In fact the chords goes that way : G7M / D 7M . D is the five of G, not the 4. Correct me if i'm wrong.
88.175.101.80 ( talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to find formal discussion of the following chord progression:
within stanza |
|||||
Examples include:
I'd appreciate any information about the following:
In addition to posting your response here, please post a copy on my talk page. Thanks!
Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The above text was removed with the assertion that it is not true. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the Chord progression for the classic maritime folk melody (aka "sea shanty") - "Drunken Sailor"?
Some say ii-I-ii-I-ii, others i-VII-i-VII-i....
However can it not be (or most often ) played as a "skiffle" - ii-I (repeated)??
Pete318 ( talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
To see that this article has been so damaged. The idea is to explain stuff, not to show how complicated you can talk. Redheylin ( talk) 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This is presumably some kind of philosophical concept that has no place in a straightforward article on basic chord sequences. Suggest it's deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.55.46 ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lede of this article includes extremely odd statements:
This version (the single contribution of an unindentified wikipedian) is from 3 January 2014; it simplified another version, mainly replacing "the music of Europe (at least since 1600), Oceania and South/West Africa" by "many musical traditions".
The article Simultaneity (music) explains that "simultaneity succession is a more general term than chord progression or harmonic progression: most chord progressions or harmonic progressions are then simultaneity successions, though not all simultaneity successions are harmonic progressions and not all simultaneities are chords." In view of this, "harmonic simultaneity succession" appears to mean "chord succession", and the mention of a "simultaneity succession" here merely makes things more complex than necessary.
The mention of "an ongoing shift of level" apparently results from some misunderstanding. The article Level (music) is rather unclear (to me at least, but I am only a professional music theorist), but it does not seem to describe chord progressions.
And the idea that chord progressions could be "essential to many musical traditions" is incredible! I would have thought that chord progressions were essential to musical traditions making use of chords, and that there weren't that many that do so...
(This statement was added by User:Redheylin in April 2009.)
So far as I know, there is no book by S. MacPherson under this title. What is meant may be his Form in Music, but Chapter 1 of that book never says that changes of chord "generally occur on an accented beat", which would be nonsense. So far as I can tell, the book never mentions the expression "accented beat", but my OCR may have failed.
I intend to merely delete this paragraph very soon, but I did not want to do so without letting those who know better give their opinion.
— Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chord progression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 23 September 2013 for a period of one week. |
--->ALSO A certain chord can be present in several different scales
example
C E G bB appears in the scales of CDEFGA Bb ( C mixolydian ) FGA Bb CDE ( F major ) GA Bb CDE F# ( G minor ) C Eb E F F# G Bb ( C blue scale ) etc ....
Therefore A chord is common to several tonalities
---> Especially modern jazz artists use these "characteristics " of chords by using chords progressions to create a constantly ongoing modulation ....
Theorists/ teachers (of this particular mode of playing ) include
Nathan Davis Hal Singer
> Performers of these styles even fabricated so called " synthetic " scales
on several ( simple three chord ) progressions ( and a different one on "bridges" in anatole -pieces / ballad and tin -pan -alley material )
Sonny Rollins is an outstanding " player " of these linear approaches to motivistic and rapid scale- changing modes of improvisation
I know a little music, but the opening of this article is more difficult for me to figure out than a Wikipedia article in, say French, on a very advanced mathematical concept. I know articles should be correct, but when the opening sentence is full of links to words that are very difficult for outsiders to grasp, an affective barrier is erected. The opening article about something so basic should be understandable to a literature adult not versed in the specialty. This is not by any means. I came here because I was having trouble understanding what 50s progressions are, but now I'm much deeper in the dark, with what I thought was a rough idea of what a chord progression totally washed away by the opening paragraph. 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 13:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
In the table, there under major IV, one of the progressions starts with a VI, I think this is a mistake, all the others start with the same as the title of the row but I don't feel as if I know enough to change it!
Under "Rewrite Rules," the link to "well-formed" doesn't go anywhere useful. I'm not sure what exactly it should link to. Maybe something should be added to the disambiguation page?
Foxmulder 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Same goes for "cyclic." Also changed the VI to a IV; I assume that was a typo. Foxmulder 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Does "(assuming 12ET)" mean "assuming 12 equal tones?" This seems very unclear, why would it be written like that? BunDonkey 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite rules are quite unclear in the examples.
What does this mean:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 bVi, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//bVI, bIII/bVII, IV/I/I//
I'm not sure what the slashes represent? 203.219.137.66 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the italicized portion above as it is a reply and thus belongs on the talk page and the preceding material already reads "generally". Hyacinth 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above as its unexplained and there is no article on retrogression. Hyacinth 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what "phenomenological, tonally-coherent way" means. Hyacinth 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I find this page confusing. Granted though, I am a novice in music theory.
I understand the notation used for the most part, but I am confused by the notation "ii6°".
The "ii" should indicate a supertonic root with a note a minor third above this. This makes sense. However, the "6" indicates a note a sixth above the root, while the "°" should indicate a diminished quality.
Does this indicate:
In semitones, these possibilities would be:
In the key of A minor (harmonic), the notes for each possibility would be
If I were to name these, I would call these
So, what is the correct interpretation? -- 70.226.193.242 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it confusing, because it contains none of the information I am conversant with. Chord progressions are a series of whole numbers -- nothing else. They are not complicated with numeric names for chords. Rather, those progressions are 'given' names according to who discovered them or whatever culture uses them, but they are not complicated with the names we've given to the simplest ratios like three to two or four to three.
Let me give you an example. A series of four perfect fifths begins with the number eight. Why eight, because that's the lowest number that you can divide three times by two, so the whole series is 8,12,18,27. THAT is a chord progression: Nothing but a series of numbers. Give it a name, like one of the names given to a chord on the guitar if it plays big in someone's piece.
Let me show you how simple it can be to prove numeric names to be nonsense.
See the series? They're exactly an octave apart. The reference pitch is three, which is not practical, until I explain fundamental frequency to you.
But no relation is between the names for those ratios.
Number the names, not the other way around, then this article might become instructive. I also see the roman numerals in here, and that just extends my confusion. I grew up with Arabic numerals. Those are what i calculate with. So, perhaps I would be repeating myself if I asked you to define IV as (what?) 8:6:3:2 (a perfect third, a perfect eleventh, a three to one, a double octave, and an octave)? I don't even know how many notes are in this IV chord.
I don't hav a convenient tool for this analysis, but write a chord here, and I can probably figure it out. If you're not conversant with constructed languages, then you can fax me. BrewJay 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
but we are talking about the same thing: How to describe a polyphonic trend. BrewJay 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
you might be pressing C and G, simultaneously. So, again, I see a series in the dominant ratios, but I see no series in their names:
2/3 Perfect fifth. 4/3 Perfect fourth. 8/3 Perfect eleventh.
A chord is an interval (synonymous with ratio in music) with more than two notes in it. In Triad X, above, C and G are at the ratio 3/2, and according to whatever temperament MicroSoft used for QBasic in 1992, E is the mean. To check this I audited it. My default C is at 1050 Hertz. My default G is at 1575 Hz, and E is at 1312.5.
What lies between three and two is, in relative terms, a mean: 2.5. 1575 is to 3 (G) as 1312.5 is to 2.5 (E) as 1050 is to 2 (C), but the harmonic series is composed entirely of whole-numbered ratios, so the trick is a minimal increase of the ratio. Doubling them all eliminates that pesky fraction.
In practical terms, I could assume a basis (fundamental) frequency of 525 Hz and program with six, five, and four as notes if my work had only three notes in it.
C E G is equivalent to 4:5:6 (It doesn't reduce or simplify. Dividing four by five by six is meaningless in this context). So, with MusixTeX I mean to put yellow numbers on top of blue notes.
It should be possible to find a series of notes that represents that same three-numbered ratio, but is a transposition from one key to another. Perhaps this is what is meant by minor and major. A minor shift in chord would not change the ratios.
For triad Y, I'm assuming that you are rising in pitch. It is also 4:5:6.
The sheer number of notes in a full-length composition might force some of these notes upward to maintain the relation, much as considering a work with both chords in it would, but in practice, I see a typical limit to this upward drift, and I speculate that it's less than a hundred.
Maintaining the relation seems to be the sensible way to go. Then, later in the work, I will compare transpositions -- same chord in a different key, like this: 6 12 36 5 10 30 4 8 24
It can be done in a serial work, too. A basis frequency could be provided for an alternative method of rendition. It also forms a basis for analysis in combinatorics or non-linear dynamics. I've heard that some music has been condensed into nifty little loops that predict most of the notes. Mathematicians that didn't think they could write music could go: "Oh, so that's how this stuff works. I see this pattern."
Sometimes it seems like the obfuscation starts with letters and continues with names for ratios that bear no obvious relation to those ratios. OTOH, many musicians might travel down dead ends if they even wrote their music. BrewJay 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What about #vii° in harmonic scales? Would someone add or authorize me to add the chords in the other minor modes?
Natural minor: | i | ii° | III | iv | v | VI | VII |
Harmonic: | i | ii° | III+ | iv | V | VI | #vii° |
Melodic: | i | ii | III+ | IV | V | #vi° | #vii° |
Hangfromthefloor 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
BrewJay 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unclear to me where the chart of common transitions came from, does anybody know? I would like to find that source. I did not see it in the links, I'm in the process of hunting down the books now.
→The chart is extremely similar to the progression chart in Ottman's Elementary Harmony. It actually looks like a direct copy of the chart and the text wasn't credited.
I removed the unreferenced information from the section. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? While it may not have been linked to, that information was invaluable to me while it was up here. I verified through writing and listening that those chord progressions are what they said they were. 70.122.48.172 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The table on this page says "See the article chord (music) and chord symbol for an explanation of the notation used in this table." Obviously this was written before the two articles were merged together.
Somewhere along the way it seems that the description of this notation was lost, because I can't find any explanation of the difference between uppercase and lowercase Roman numerals (e.g., III and iii). Could someone explain what these mean, either here or in the Chord (music) page? -- Sakurambo 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
I welcome, on this page, the reference to my original work on the analysis of 20th century harmony as noted in www.harmony.org.uk
However, the section (as indicated below) is a direct quote from my copyright work (apart from a short incorrect insertion) and should be indicated as such. I am happy for you to quote this section but I would appreciate it if you would please amend this to indicate that it is a quote. i.e as follows:
According to Tom Sutcliffe (2006: www.harmony.org.uk )
“… during the 1960's some pop groups started to experiment with modal chord progressions as an alternative way of harmonising blues melodies. . . . This created a new system of harmony that has influenced subsequent popular music.”
“The use of modal harmonies to harmonise the blues came about because of the similarity of the blues scale to modal scales . . . by experimentation with the possible uses of major chords on the guitar. This phenomenon thus probably derives from the characteristics of the guitar and the way it is used in popular music. This is also linked to the rise in the use of power chords.”
If you want to mention modal chords correctly, and make the point clearer, then it would be a good idea to add something like:
Sutcliffe’s hypothesis is that major chord combinations such as: I , bIII , IV, V and bVII cannot be explained in pure modal terms as, in this combination, these don’t exist in the usual modes. They have to be explained as a new harmonic system combining elements from the blues and elements from modality.
Also, under “external links” please note: “it's origins” should be corrected to “its origins”
Regards,
Tom Sutcliffe.
August 2007
10 reasons why this section is a mess:
1. Some of these progressions only have one (obscure) example — so who on earth decided that they are 'common'? Surely the rule should be that if you can't think of at least 3 mainstream examples then it's not 'common' and shouldn't be on the list?
2. In contrast, some of the progressions have dozens of examples. I've nothing against this (as it helps people to find a song they recognise), but the stark contrast in number of examples seems ridiculous.
3. The examples seem very biased towards certain groups or styles of music. There's a "Green Day" example for almost every progression. More variety and balance would be nice.
4. The list only seems to feature slightly less common chord progressions that appear in a handful of songs; and doesn't seem to include the really common ones made out of the primary chords. For example (off the top of my head): I-IV-I-V ("American Pie"), I-IV-V-V ("Twist & Shout"), I-IV-V-IV ("Louie Louie", "Summer Nights") and so on. You could have a whole section dedicated to these alone.
5. The whole section is just silly — there are far too many "common progressions" to list in one short summary. Almost every short chord progression has inevitably been re-used over and over by someone somewhere. I don't think it's right that people just come along and add the one that belongs to their favourite song, which is what seems to be happening. The progressions on this page are not representative of the most common ones at all. And if all the often-used progressions are to be listed, they should probably be in some kind of order, not just random.
6. Some of the progressions are three chords long. That can't be right. Three bar sequences are extremely rare in pop music. More likely that one of the chords is repeated, but that really needs to be specified (as has been with certain ones)
7. There are no 8-chord sequences. I can think of at least one really famous 8-chord progression.
8. All the 'flat' chords show up as question marks on my computer. For the sake of making sure everyone can see it, wouldn't it be much easier just to use sharp symbols (#) instead? I believe this is the traditional method of writing notes using plain text on a computer.
9. The order of some of the chords is wrong. For example, with the one labeled "I - ♭VII-IV" — all the example songs given actually seem to use the sequence "bVII-IV-I-I". In other words, the tonic is not at the start of the sequence; it's at the end, and it's repeated. (The progression that was given is actually that of "Ghostbusters" and "Don't Leave Me This Way".)
10. Not all the examples listed use the exact basic chords specified. I think you'll probably find 7ths and suspended 4ths all over the place. For example, the last chord in "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" is (if I recall) a suspended 4th.
Grand Dizzy ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
But indeed, if they are so common, which most of them are, and notable it should be easy to cite a source saying so. Hyacinth ( talk) 10:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to go around making drastic changes to pages, but, in my experience, if you do that, someone usually comes along and undoes your changes and people get annoyed that you didn't discuss it first. Therefore, I am now in the habit of declaring what I think needs to change about a page before I make the changes (if I'm proposing something drastic). Then, if no one has voiced strong objections to my proposals after a few days or weeks, I will make the changes myself. This article is one I will be coming back to soon, however, I have been very busy changing other pages so it's not like I've nothing better to do right now. I have also spent the last several days having a very good think about common progressions, and better ways to organise the information in this article, which I shall be encorporating into the article, assuming no one has any objection. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I see someone deleted all the examples. Was there a reason for this? should they be brought back in? I don't mind leaving them out to be honest.
Also I specifically gave the progressions i wrote up only 1 or 2 examples (i made them as well-known as i could) as i thought this was sufficient. When other people started adding to the lists i didn't delete them.However, I think a huge long list is unneccesary (sp). and it clutters up the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylmesh ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. So it needs to be done.
I propose seperating them out into major, minor, blues-modal, mixed, and other.
possibly with major/ minor as the one category.
I'll need some help with this.
feedback welcome. Vinylmesh ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
by the way, that source is not valid for what WAS up there (as a lot was left pretty much as i had written it (with some extra songs added on)unless by pure co-incidence the list in the book is exactly how i wrote it. So i don't see a problem with editing the list. We could bring back in the whole give examples thing, and link each to a guitar chord site.But keep the examples to a minimum.
Another idea would be to provide audio-samples of each progression. I was thinking something very basic, just straight chords on a piano or something.I don't have the equipment + technical know-how, but I'm sure someone here does.
Vinylmesh ( talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there's a bit of talk about the I V vi iii IV I IV V progression in the Pachelbel's Canon article. The editors there have been trying to keep this section brief so that the article can focus on the piece itself and not all the pieces that share its chord progression. I've come here wondering if this progression is common enough to deserve mention in this article. Is the progression in a family of progressions that already has its own child article? Or perhaps is the progression itself so common that the "Pachelbel chord progression" deserves its own child article? I don't have any idea myself which is why I'm asking here. I'm just wondering if it would be possible to redirect the chord progression discussion to this area of music theory articles where the editors have more specific expertise. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus for move. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Chord progression → Harmonic progression — I'm just wondering why this article is titled "Chord Progression" rather than "Harmonic Progression". In all of the music theory books and articles I've read, the idea is always referred to as Harmonic Progression. The term has definitely been around for a lot longer, and I would argue that people only started referring to it as "Chord Progression" once the guitar became so prominent (just a theory). Any thoughts on the subject? Rheostatik ( talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how it happened, but there is a major flaw in this discussion page. Everything up until the section Reference to blues-modal harmony should be a direct quote. seems to have been duplicated, leading to eleven topics that appear twice. I am deleting the first instance. Rheostatik ( talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess, and am tagging it for a complete rewrite, with aid from the Music Theory WikiProject (hopefully). At the very least, it should contain a discussion of the functions of each chord, I through VII to give these roman numerals a bit more context to someone not familiar with the subject. Kostka & Payne's Tonal Harmony: With an Introduction to Twentieth-Century Music is the standard-issue textbook given to many Undergraduate music students and will be a great resource for this page. I will begin writing up something and post it here in a few days. Rheostatik ( talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
In Western music, diatonic scales such as the major and minor lend themselves particularly well to the construction of common chords such as triads
I do not think the article is perfect - for a start it has nothing to say about complex chords, modulation and chromaticism and it could do with more citations. Rheo's sources sound useful - there are very few discussions of chord sequences per se in classical treatises of harmony, since these historically begin with point-for-point harmonisation of melodies and basslines using ensembles of monophonic instruments or voices. The original source for the article seems to have been an academic treatment of popular music (which is fine by me).
I do think it is important to preserve a sequence of complexity and to avoid recapitulation of related articles where possible. For example, I would not find it clever to deal with modulation at the very top, before simple diatonic changes have been covered, and I do not see any need to explain and use the terms "tonic, supertonic" etc in the present context. However, things can be presented in a variety of ways and any decent new presentation is going to take any editor some days of hard work, so I'd suggest it would be better to discuss the principles of exposition here before anyone launches into a rewrite that is liable to be rewritten yet again by the next person with the next set of personal theories. If there's a caucus of consensus that we have a useful, comprehensible sequential introduction, not a display of an editor's great cleverness, then we can avoid endless re-invention of the wheel.
I'd like to focus on the article, Hyacinth, not the editors, except to say that your own volume of work on the subject commands considerable respect over here and that I'd see the audio resources you added as a useful addition. I hope you'll all forgive that recent drastic edit of mine but perceive that there is, after all, a form and sequence in the article as it now stands, and that it avoids unnecessary complexity. Rheo, I do think it is useful to include simple diagrams that increase the reader's musical literacy, and that pictures contribute to an attractive page. I think your plan is a good one - it's a big job when you get down to it! Redheylin ( talk) 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A chord progression (or harmonic progression) is a series of musical chords, or chord changes that "aims for a definite goal" [1] of establishing (or contradicting) a tonality founded on a key, root or tonic chord.
Chord progressions are used to create movement within a piece of music, offering a shift of level or simultaneity succession essential to harmony. Music is not a static art form like sculpture; it exists within a time frame and people respond to this psychologically by their need for a start and end with a central tonality. Music creates this expectation regardless whether it is a melody line or a chord progression. Chord changes generally occur on an accented beat and by doing so creates a sense of rhythm, meter and musical form for a piece of music, while also delineating bars, phrases and sections. [2]
In music theory, scale degrees are typically represented with Arabic numerals, often modified with a caret or circumflex ( would be the notes C, E and G in the key of C), whereas the triads that have these degrees as their roots are often identified by Roman numerals. Upper-case Roman numerals indicate major triads while lower-case Roman numerals indicate minor triads, as the following chart illustrates. Lower-case Roman numerals with a degree symbol indicate diminished triads. For example, in the major mode, the triad built on the seventh scale degree ( ) is diminished (vii°).
Roman numeral | I | ii | iii | IV | V | vi | vii° |
Scale degree (major mode) |
tonic | supertonic | mediant | subdominant | dominant | submediant | leading tone |
Roman numeral | i | ii° | III | iv | V | VI | (♭)VII | vii° |
Scale degree (minor mode) |
tonic | supertonic | mediant | subdominant | dominant | submediant | subtonic | leading tone |
Triads may be constructed using any degree of a scale as the root, and diatonic triads consist only of notes belonging to the scale. That is, if a passage is in G major, most of the chords contain only notes found in the G major scale. Subsequently, a chord's function changes according to the scale from which it is derived. A "D minor" chord will be the tonic chord ( i ) when built from the scale of D minor. It will be the super-tonic chord ( ii ) if it is derived from the scale of C major, or the sub-mediant ( vi ) chord if derived from the scale of F major.
This also means that a D minor chord does not appear at all in some keys, such as A Major, due to the presence of an F# in the key signature. This can be rectified by temporarily lowering the sixth scale degree ( ) from F# to F♮, resulting in a minor subdominant chord ( iv ) in a major scale, which, depending on the overall chord progression, can be considered aesthetically pleasing (see altered chord).
(I deleted a section of my paste as it remains in place at present Redheylin ( talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
Here are some of the current aims under which I am editing:
1) Logical progress from simple to complex.
2) Maximum wikilinking to music theory articles
3) Finding a place for and linking every progression notable enough to have its own entry.
4) Provision of the best-known examples of the best-known types of progression, with historical context.
5) Worldwide coverage.
I do not intend, though, to create a massive list of example pieces, find a place for everybody's favourite composer or cover every chord progression. The article is simply to explain what chord changes ARE, (and possibly, as Rheo says, how they work) by focussing on well-known, notable examples that mostly, as I said, have their own entries. All comments welcome.... Redheylin ( talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Chord progression#Harmonising the scale looks like an appropriate section for the content removed above under #Nomenclature. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Sorry, my edit summary got cut off, leaving it perhaps confusing. Widespread though it is, I think calling circle progressions "felicitous" implies a judgment call rooted in a particular (Western/Classical) approach to harmony. / ninly( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's my first time entering a conversation I hope i'm doing nothing the wrong way. I just want to point out the fact that Satie's first gymnopédie is qualified as a " I - IV", but my understanding is that it's a I - V(7M). In fact the chords goes that way : G7M / D 7M . D is the five of G, not the 4. Correct me if i'm wrong.
88.175.101.80 ( talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to find formal discussion of the following chord progression:
within stanza |
|||||
Examples include:
I'd appreciate any information about the following:
In addition to posting your response here, please post a copy on my talk page. Thanks!
Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The above text was removed with the assertion that it is not true. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the Chord progression for the classic maritime folk melody (aka "sea shanty") - "Drunken Sailor"?
Some say ii-I-ii-I-ii, others i-VII-i-VII-i....
However can it not be (or most often ) played as a "skiffle" - ii-I (repeated)??
Pete318 ( talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
To see that this article has been so damaged. The idea is to explain stuff, not to show how complicated you can talk. Redheylin ( talk) 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This is presumably some kind of philosophical concept that has no place in a straightforward article on basic chord sequences. Suggest it's deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.55.46 ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lede of this article includes extremely odd statements:
This version (the single contribution of an unindentified wikipedian) is from 3 January 2014; it simplified another version, mainly replacing "the music of Europe (at least since 1600), Oceania and South/West Africa" by "many musical traditions".
The article Simultaneity (music) explains that "simultaneity succession is a more general term than chord progression or harmonic progression: most chord progressions or harmonic progressions are then simultaneity successions, though not all simultaneity successions are harmonic progressions and not all simultaneities are chords." In view of this, "harmonic simultaneity succession" appears to mean "chord succession", and the mention of a "simultaneity succession" here merely makes things more complex than necessary.
The mention of "an ongoing shift of level" apparently results from some misunderstanding. The article Level (music) is rather unclear (to me at least, but I am only a professional music theorist), but it does not seem to describe chord progressions.
And the idea that chord progressions could be "essential to many musical traditions" is incredible! I would have thought that chord progressions were essential to musical traditions making use of chords, and that there weren't that many that do so...
(This statement was added by User:Redheylin in April 2009.)
So far as I know, there is no book by S. MacPherson under this title. What is meant may be his Form in Music, but Chapter 1 of that book never says that changes of chord "generally occur on an accented beat", which would be nonsense. So far as I can tell, the book never mentions the expression "accented beat", but my OCR may have failed.
I intend to merely delete this paragraph very soon, but I did not want to do so without letting those who know better give their opinion.
— Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chord progression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)