Do all songs have chord proggressions?

[fat_fleet]

True. By definition, I guess it's a progression, it does prgress somehow.

The funny thing is, even though I used that song as an example because it supposedly only has one chord, I've always thought there were 2 chords in that song. It goes down a tone on "... this is BELIEVING". Even if only one of the instruments goes down those 2 semi-tones, it still changes the chord, whether it becomes a 7th or whatever. I never understood why they always said that was a one chord song.

Yeah, I would definitely call it 2 chords.

[grimtraveller]

The funny thing is, even though I used that song as an example because it supposedly only has one chord, I've always thought there were 2 chords in that song. It goes down a tone on "... this is BELIEVING". Even if only one of the instruments goes down those 2 semi-tones, it still changes the chord, whether it becomes a 7th or whatever. I never understood why they always said that was a one chord song.

I agree with you, it has 2 chords. I think though, initially when John played it for the rest of the band, it only had one chord, I think it was just C. At that point in '66, George was listening to Indian music and John, ever one to absorb whatever was going on around him, picked up on the one chord drone effect. Though the melody danced around more than one note, the music didn't. But when they recorded the first take, it was pretty boring and lethargic even though Mark Lewisohn described it as a "sensational, apocalyptic version". The second take was a breakdown and the final take was the one we know and love. The bass stays the same throughout, giving the appearance of a steady backing and the sound effects and tamboura drone do likewise but the music certainly seems to shift chord at some points. It was very much a band arrangement in the end and I think a few changes came after that first take because it wasn't working the way it was. In the anthology series, Paul states that when John first played it, it had only one chord and George Martin raised his eyebrows, somewhat.

[grimtraveller]

'Tomorrow never knows.

You know, that song still sounds utterly timeless to me.
I remember when I was 13, I had this poster that gave a kind of Beatle timeline and in one of the 1966 segments, it said "First hint of drug influences in 'Tomorrow never knows'". That was where I first heard of the song. When I eventually heard it a couple of months later, I listened out for the hints of drug influences but I couldn't find any because I had no idea what 'hints of drug influences' actually meant with regards to songs !

[VomitHatSteve]

I feel like no matter what a song is, unless it consists of a single note, you can assign a chord progression to it.

Asking if every song has a chord progression is like asking if every song has sheet music. There may not be extant written progressions or sheet music, and those components may not have been considered important while writing the song. However, the song can still accurately be described that way. As long as you have multiple notes forming chords in a song (even if those chords are obscure and esoteric), and as long as those chords follow some kind of progression (even if it never repeats), it has a chord progression.

Of course, IamNa music theorist. I'm just hypothesizing based on what the words generally mean.

[gecko zzed]

John Cage's 4'33"" doesn't have any chords

[mixsit]

"Boogie ..hang on the A"

[SEDstar]

Most songs have a chord progression, true.

Some heavy metal (and other genres) is known to kinda "sit in key".

being a 3-chord song... or even a 2-chord song, is not NECESSARILY a sign that its not complex, though... much classical work has been done on the basic I---V "2 chord" progression. As well as I---V---I (which i still think of as a 2-chord tune)

while naturallly there are numerous examples of classical (and all other genres too) that have more complex setups, done skillfully a classical (or other genre...) "2 chord song" based in the "simple" I---V---I setup can still sound "very complex" as all get out.

it is interesting to note that... you could write a tune in "C major", that goes thru...

I---IV---vii0---iii---vi---ii---V---I and you havent left Cmajor (though you would think of it as a 7-chord song at that point)

exhausting that, if you were to go to Gmajor (which is I---V) you could cycle thru it again. Its technically a "2-chord-song", even though you have gone thru something like 14 different chords, because each of the 7 has a distinct relationship to the tonic

throw in some inversions (slash chords) to keep it spiced up, and, you'd run out of a 3 minute song, and sound like you were changing "chords" faster than a chain smoker goes thru a pack of marlboros...

[Chili]

John Cage's 4'33"" doesn't have any chords

Yes, it does.... that continual ringing in my ears.


on topic (kind of), the Grateful Dead has a song called Space which is basically a drum solo, so no chords are harmed in the playing of that song.

[gecko zzed]

Yes, it does.... that continual ringing in my ears.

I'm not sure that Cage had tinnitus in mind when he wanted the audience to hear and appreciate the ambient noises. In any case, tinnitus is a part of the listener, and not a part of the composition.

[Chili]

In any case, tinnitus is a part of the listener, and not a part of the composition.

Well, we can disect semantics here and I can say all art is a part of the beholder; the listener, the viewer, etc; because art has to be interpretated by the beholder. But I agree, John Cage was probably not thinking of tinnitus, nor was he thinking of the air conditioning system that most people must hear when they experience 4'33" in an auditorium. None the less, it's there and it might have some chordal structure to it.

(Sorry, GZ, I'm a little bored and really stretching this one!! )