Talk:Harmonic progression

Untitled
I've removed the sentence which was above the table "In other words, only the progressions below will affirm the tonic, any other progressions indicate a different tonic." I don't think it's true. It's difficult to "affirm" anything with just two chords, and certainly the progression III-VI, say, doesn't in itself "affirm the tonic" any more or less than the progression VI-III, say.

I have problems with the table itself, too, but I'll leave that for now. --Camembert


 * If the table is not either an old list of rules which are now taken as recommendations or a list of progressions which do something similar to each, then we should just cut it.Hyacinth 15:54, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think this page should be merged into and then redirect to chord progression.Hyacinth 16:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You're right, a merge is in order. (And the table isn't either of those things, and I wouldn't at all mind it being cut.) --Camembert

Done.Hyacinth 16:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * doesnot make any sense

To do is to teach by example.
I hav a few things to say about how hard it is to read these roman numerals when this stuff can be written on a staff. When I've figured out who or what piece I'll use as an example, then I'll write numbers on the score and compare equivalent ratios like this: 3:2 is 12:8 or 15:10

in an example of microtonal musicology (or mechanical rendition). The work is harder than I expected. Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers with harmony, then I notice that sometimes harmony is like an echo from the immediate past -- a note is held on one line, but the harmony it makes changes.

I don't typically hold notes in my own works. I'm sure that I've done it, but it's something that I avoid to the point where I've chucked a lot of work with repetition. And, of course, I think such work otta hav a big name behind the orijinal score without the numbers.

Any sujjestions would be welcome. It should be a short piece, because my ear for music will come into play. If someone says that it sounds inferior to the orijinal, then I hav to revise my work.

In any case, when this work is done (and I hav confidence that other people are more capable of it than I am), I think this page should begin as being quite distinct from "chord progression". Potentially, I just don't know where to look.BrewJay (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) BrewJay (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal name and origin of progression I - I - I - V / V - V - V - I / I - I - I7 - IV / IV - I - V - I ?
I've been trying to find formal discussion of the following chord progression: 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!
 * "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" from Mary Poppins
 * "The Cover of the Rolling Stone" (verses)
 * "Let's Talk Dirty In Hawaiian"
 * "I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman" (uses substitute chord vi in measure 4 of line 2)
 * Whether this progression has a specific name, either technical (cf. "pazzamezzo antico/moderno", "romanesca") or popular (cf. "Gregory Walker", "sensitive female", "Rhythm changes", " '50s progression")
 * The identity, time, and geographic origin of its earliest attested uses: Although its simplicity and popularity suggest that it originated long before it was written down, I'd still be interested to know what incarnation was the first that someone thought important enough to set down in writing.


 * -- Antediluvian67 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Cc.: Talk:Chord_progression)