A huge share of the world's hits reuse the same four chords. Not laziness — that particular set is very well built.
Search for chord progressions and you get "I-V-vi-IV", "vi-IV-I-V" and so on. Most of them use the same four chords — C, G, Am and F — started in a different place or put in a different order.
Rotate the same four
C, G, Am and F, changing only where the loop starts. You heard this comparison in chapter one; now it can be described in numerals.
- I-V-vi-IV (C, G, Am, F)
C | G | Am | F
- vi-IV-I-V (Am, F, C, G)
Am | F | C | G
- I-vi-IV-V (C, Am, F, G)
C | Am | F | G
The first sounds bright and forward, the second starts wistful and lifts, the third has been in use from 1950s pop to today. All three use the same four chords, but the first two are rotations while the third genuinely reorders them. And not every standard is built from these four: I-IV-V, the Pachelbel progression and the twelve-bar blues are separate families.
A progression that comes round in four or eight bars and can repeat without feeling wrong. Most pop and game music is built this way.
Why this particular four is so strong
- Home (I), tension (V) and opening-out (IV) are all present, so the cycle of jobs completes.
- Including vi (Am) mixes a little ache into the brightness.
- It works from any starting point, so changing the feeling means reordering, not rewriting.
- It stays inside seven notes, so melodies are unlikely to clash.
Generate over I-vi-IV-V. One progression yields completely different melodies every time.
Generate over I-vi-IV-VMost standards are combinations of a handful of chords. Change the starting point or the order and it counts as a different progression.
Quick review
Everything here is answerable from this chapter. Pick an option and the answer appears straight away.
Question 1
What do most standard progressions have in common?
Question 2
What happens if you use the same progression as a famous song?