Jump to content

Talk:I–V–vi–IV progression

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

I remember this article. But one Boston Globe article doesn't entail notability, at least under this ridiculous name. /ninly(talk) 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, unless there is referenceable evidence that this term is being used widely for the vi-IV-I-V progression outside of Hirsch's article, there's not much to support a WP article under this name. /ninly(talk) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major/minor nature of this progression

[edit]

The article says that the sequence occurs in major keys. But is the sequence always definitely in a major key? The sequence is vi-IV-I-V, but in some cases the minor chord is the one that's the tonal center (using a natural minor scale) rather than the third chord in the sequence. I'm wondering if this is true or not (and whether this should be noted in the article - I've been in a debate about the major/minor nature of a sequence not too different from this one.) Aurora Illumina 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed a bit at a blog by Mark Hirsch (the guy who coined the term), here. After some thought, I'm not sure how I feel about his casting the progression as major (or in C as opposed to Amin—Hyacinth's discussion below is essentially the same question put more generally), despite the way doing so fits it into conventional chordal organization. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so; assigning tonal centers is, to a degree, a matter of conventions—arbitrary and perceptual. I'm no expert in harmonic theory, and there may be a conventional way to discuss this particular organization. On the other hand, I'm still not convinced that this progression (to the exclusion of so many others) is notable beyond its treatment by a single (self-admittedly amateur) journalist and blogger. /ninly(talk) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The natural minor is a function of modal music and not Major-Minor tonality, and modal music is primarily centered around notes not chords. Therefore chord progressions like this one can't apply outside of Major-Minor tonality, as far as I'm aware.
Therefore the chord progression vi-IV-I-V wouldn't really work if the "vi" was the tonal centre - it would translate to i-VI-III-VII, the last chord being impossible as the seventh in a minor key is diminished, not major. Not sure if this helps. Mato (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key

[edit]

Perhaps the issue is not what quality the progression is, per above, but what key it is in, most likely to be in, or in in each song. If Am-F-C-G: Am, C, F? Hyacinth (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think that would be in G. 72.26.65.59 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Songs that use the sensitive female chord progression

[edit]

Removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to look up each song listed and found that they do indeed incorporate the vi-IV-I-V progression, with the exception of "Hammerhead" which uses the vi-IV-I-iii variation. I honestly doubt citing secondary sources would be required when one can refer to the compositions themselves as primary source. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should learn something about Wikipedia if you're going to contribute to it. Start with WP:V, since it pertains to this issue and is one of the "five pillars". Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should learn about Wikipedia yourself. ;) WP:V states the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Emphasis by me. The chord progression in a pop song does not fall into this category, as such information can easily be verified by listening to the song in question. It is not a matter of opinion. We usually don't add citations to obvious statements. In case you feel citations are in fact required for this type of information, please note that at least one of the currently cited references is not a reliable source according to WP:NEWSBLOG and one of them does not support the text. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add to this list? It would seem a shame not to contribute, and such a list could actually be legitimately useful to someone (for instance, someone making their own version of The Axis of Awesome's "Four Chords Song"). My additions are below: Pottersson (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have one to add too, this song definitely has this progression.

Two questions we should address and come to consensus on: One is how strictly do we need sources for the removed songs listed above? It would be nice to have a little more in the article (though not the entire list), and as 78.131.80.59 said, material "likely to be challenged" should be sourced, is this debatable or likely to be challenged? A good musician could listen to the songs and deduce relatively easily whether or not the song follows the progression. Remember that verifiability, not truth, applies, but this seems almost like trivia that many of us could easily agree on.

The second is whether or not this article should have this title, or if it instead should be the Sensitive Female one or something like "I-V-VI-IV progression". The usage of the name "pop-punk chord progression" is well-documented in the refs, I don't dispute that, but it seems like "Sensitive Female Chord Progression" is a more common name used by the media, evidenced by a Google search. Then again, the pop-punk one might be more common in everyday usage. I don't have a strong opinion on either issue, but both should be discussed. 71.113.40.244 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question "is this debatable or likely to be challenged?" is absurd because it already is challenged and you are taking part in the debate. Hyacinth (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have not challenged the actual statements; you only claimed that the statements were unsourced (which I fully agree with). There is an obvious distinction between the two. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IRS and WP:NOR. I could say there are a million people in New York City and cite "the city itself" as my source, but I would be wrong on both counts. Hyacinth (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether listening to a song and hearing the chord progression is seriously to be considered "research". By comparison, seeing letters in a book and understanding the meaning is obviously not considered original research, nor is observing and describing the events in a motion picture. You could argue that recognizing chord progressions requires a basic knowledge of music theory, then again, reading books requires the ability to read (and in the case of foreign-language sources, the ability to speak that particular language).
As a side note, I tend to agree with Ninly above in that the phrase and topic themselves are most likely not notable. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am 71.113.40.244, just using a different computer I never thought about the original research, that's a good point since we're alleging a fact (that the songs follow the progressions) that is not already sourced. While hearing the chord progression is more mechanical than opinion-based (more like a math problem than a political opinion), it is still an unsourced conclusion. But I disagree with Hyacinth's claim that the use of the progression in the songs is "already challenged". Nobody has actually said "I don't think this is true", only "I think this is unsourced and thus violates wiki guidelines" (maybe I misunderstand this). The debate I am "taking part in" is about how WP:RS is applied, not about the use of the progressions. 71.231.76.242 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this topic is old, but I have to agree with the unregistered IP user above. Not to attack you, Hyacinth, but if you actually knew anything about music theory, you would be able to tell the chord progressions of these songs by simply listening to them. I do agree that this page should not become a list of every single song under the sun that features this specific progression, as the list would go on forever, but your "citation" and "verifiability" arguments are not relevant to this topic. Nubzor (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately or unfortunately, our individual aural skills are not relevant, while citations and verifiability are, due to WP:CITE and WP:V.
Accusing me of knowing nothing about music theory is an attack, as you were aware of when you wrote "not to attack you". WP:PERSONAL: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Hyacinth (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP links--always an excellent way to defend or prove a point. Still stand by my original comment however. But yes, "WP" takes precedence. Nubzor (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to weigh in and point out that, obviously, the point of having citations is for verification of statements made in the article. Reliance on aural skills for verification makes assumptions about the reader. If the reader can't pick out a progression, then the recordings are not adequate sources. When you listen to a recording and pick out the progression, this is basically you conducting research. Then when you go and edit Wikipedia, you are reporting your own findings. In other words, you the source. In accordance with WP:NOR, the recordings themselves aren't adequate sources. Radiodef (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I seriously question the idea that this is original research. Foreign-language sources are allowed, which is ultimately no different; in both cases, it is information which is very obviously there to those who can decipher it. The songs in question don't belong in the article, but only because of Notability. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, I guess, but personally I don't actually agree with the WP:NONENG/WP:TRANSCRIPTION policy. I know my opinion on that is irrelevant, but I'm also not really sure the comparison of the rationale is consistent. The valid sources for progressions are generally sheet music, which also require a sort of "translation", but in that case, the information is published and pretty verifiable. Referring to the recordings still requires the WP editor to transcribe it themselves which is, in my opinion, one step less empirical. I can easily pick out a progression and have it right, but most people can't, and that fact still remains.
The overall theme that's been brought up here might actually be a worthy Village Pump discussion. There should probably be an actual policy for this, because it has implications for a lot of places beyond just this page and the handful of others like it. There are a lot of places that recordings could be used as sources, if it were allowed.
Not really sure about the notability point, since a lot of the removed examples are actually pretty notable (like Bob Marley's song), and yet some that are in the article and sourced are not notable (like the Nicki Minaj song). Radiodef (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a song is notable, that doesn't mean its usage of the chord progression is, I suppose (though that sentence feels quite silly). There should be policy though, this comes up all the time on music articles, whether or not time signatures and key signatures can be taken from the source.
Referring to the recordings doesn't actually require transcription btw, a musician with a few years' formal training can tell you the chord progression of a piece of music just be listening to it, and time signatures are even faster. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...few years' formal training can tell you the chord progression of a piece of music just be listening to it..." A lot of songs were on the list falsely. Not really compelling. Radiodef (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a lot of them come from The Axis of Awesome song, in which, rather then actually checking the songs used this progression, the band simply sang single lines of melody which over the chords. The result is that quite a few of the songs commonly believed to use this progression actually only used it for one line (or, in particularly extreme cases, never used it at all but can be arranged to it) 143.92.3.9 (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radiodef's point would only make sense if only "musician[s] with a few years' formal training" could edit the article. Which is so obviously not the case that I wonder what Radiodef's actual point was. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know who is doing the editing which is the point of NOR. Being able to pick out a progression is basically irrelevant. I don't see what formal training and whether or not some people can pick something out has to do with anything since there were incorrect examples. Evidently some people came by with progressions that, judging by the lack of references, we can presume they had picked out themselves and they were wrong. You can also expect that many if not most of the readers of the article can't pick out a progression at all so it's important to have some kind of reference beyond an editor's opinion. Radiodef (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that, but you seemed to argue that the fact that people kept adding wrong songs disproved the claim made (that experienced musicians are reliably able to pick the correct progressions out). I was being a little snarky and disregarded your deeper point (the expert identification problem, which leads to the OR ban) intentionally. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Expert" wasn't the claim. "A few years" is what the IP said. I didn't say anything about experts transcribing. In fact, the sources that we are talking about requiring are basically all transcriptions by experts too. They are just published so they aren't OR. And on that point, I find errors occasionally in some of the books that I personally own, mostly Hal Leonard and the "official" sheet music. If you just came by to be snarky before then forgive me for misunderstanding. I assumed you were here to talk about Wikipedia. Radiodef (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Expert" is not really defined, and (at least as far as I am concerned) only shorthand for "person with (at least) a few years of musical training" in this context. It would be patent nonsense to expect that someone have a PhD in musicology before they can authoritatively transcribe music. And of course, as you rightly point out, even this kind of expert can make mistakes. Which is a quite annoying problem for Wikipedia – are RS to be treated as gospel even when they are wrong on some relevant detail, but when this can only be determined through OR (even if the OR involved is trivial and the conclusion uncontroversial in that there is no disagreement that the RS is wrong)?
No, I did not come here only to be snarky, but to point out that your objection was illogical and failed to support your actual point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songs to add?

[edit]

Let it go - Frozen // Wishing Well - Blink 182 98.202.239.249 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Let It Go" is definitely a four-chords song, and should be added as soon as someone can find a reliable source to cite. I would prefer that the list be kept relatively short and limited to songs that virtually everyone would be familiar with (as if to say, "look how many songs use this just out of the ones you know"); I don't think it's presumptuous to say "Let It Go" fits that bill. Also, why is "Don't Stop Believing" not on the list? It's probably the most famous four-chords song of all time, and it's the topic of the very first cited page. Surely neither lack of notability nor lack of citation is to blame; is it OK to just put it on there? Octan (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit sloppy

[edit]

Anyone want to clean up this article a bit, it seems like half is just copied from the Axis of Awesome song.

(Just things like "possibly including", it should be more precise and informative, it's an encyclopedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.18.251 (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you, "anyone want to clean up this article a bit" since this is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Hyacinth (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

The article is called the "Pop-punk chord progression" - where is this from? Just the first source (Dan Bennett - The Total Rock Bassist)? This is one of the most commonly used chord progressions in popular music, but the title of the article reflects the name given to it by a random guy in 2008? Not sure if I've missed something here. Mato (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a merge with 50s progression? Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that we're some random individuals, while Bennett is a published source. Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the article's title, too. And a big majority of songs that feature that tired chord progression are bland, mainstream adult pop. It has infiltrated commercials, incidental music in TV shows, commercials, etc, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylindsay (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a suggestion for an alternative title? Hyacinth (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The Pop Four Chord Progression", or something similar? henry42 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think "I V vi IV" would be sufficient and much more appropriate. "The pop-punk chord progression" is just misleading. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone I know calls it "the Four Chords of Pop" or just refers to songs that use it as "four-chord songs", particularly in the wake of that Axis of Awesome routine. That said, that's a very vague name that could refer to a lot of different things if, you know, they didn't just happen to always refer to the same thing. Octan (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Uncited

[edit]

I removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited

[edit]
  1. ^ "The One That Got Away", MusicNotes.com.
  2. ^ "On the Floor", MusicNotes.com.
  3. ^ "California King Bed", MusicNotes.com.
  4. ^ "We Found Love", MusicNotes.com.

I removed the above as being different progressions. Hyacinth (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On guitar" section

[edit]

I doubt whether this section is even useful. Firstly, there are mistakes in the tab, because author confused empty string (0) with not played string (x). Secondly, it covers only the key of C and standard (EADGBE) tuning. Thirdly, I suppose that even a beginner knows how to play those chords.

46.134.241.139 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of key

[edit]

Anon edit has shifted them all down a tone. Is this someone with perfect pitch who's going by an artefact of YouTube? Tony (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the edit, as it was based on a later version of the song and not the original. 47.18.142.81 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a variation of I-vi-IV-V

[edit]

I've deleted the claim that I-V-vi-IV is a variation of I-vi-IV-V. Both obviously use the same chords, but in a different order, and when talking about chord progressions, the order really matters a lot. Play I-vi-IV-V repeatedly and you get a cadential resolution V to I, which never happens with I-V-vi-IV. The source cited for the claim was the Hirsch article, which does not actually say that I-V-vi-IV is a variation of I-vi-IV-V; what the article says is that I-vi-IV-V was used in "Earth Angel" and "Donna," and like I-V-vi-IV it has been used for a long time. True, but that doesn't make I-V-vi-IV a variation of I-vi-IV-V, and it doesn't appear Hirsch intended to claim one was a variation of the other. 188.182.238.181 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I-iv-IV-V is the 50s progression and has its own list. 209.181.248.181 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following may be considered variants of the same chord progression
   I-V-vi-IV
     V-vi-IV-I
       vi-IV-I-V
          IV-I-V-vi
They do not have different orders, merely different starting places. Play any of the above progressions more than once and one ends up with I-V-vi-IV (for example: vi-IV-I-V vi-IV-I-V). Meter is in many ways cyclic. Hyacinth (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Hyacinth (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I-vi-IV-V is not on that list; it's not just a different starting point, but a really different progression. That was the issue here, as mentioned in the section title. 130.226.142.243 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

That "this outside news source mentioned a Wikipedia article" is so, so wrong. "Creep" is very obviously a I-III-IV-iv progression, as is the song that allegedly copied it. Wow. Red Slash 12:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

[edit]

As you may know, a consensus has been reached regarding the deletion or merger of the article List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression. It has been decided to merge the contents of that article into this article. I do believe that the merger of List of songs containing the '50s progression into this particular page is in error, and may have to be transferred to '50s progression instead. This subject is for discussing the aforementioned merges. Caehlla (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am sorry if I may not be in a position to start this discussion, but I felt like it had to be started soon. Caehlla (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to suggest the list be split into a separate page... it is quite long, getting longer, and many of the songs on it are quite obscure. It seems to make more sense to keep it in a different page or set up a category for it rather than clutter up this page. 80.178.251.210 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

I was trying to add the link to the Roly Poly T-ARA song page, but it wasn’t working somehow. Can someone else add the link for me? 183.104.90.249 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reference? Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

WHAT THE FLIPPIN’ FLIP? I fixed the link for ‘Roly Poly’, added ‘U Me Us’ and ‘Step’ days ago and now I find they’re NOT EVEN THERE? Did someone DELETE them by any chance? 183.104.90.249 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

I just restored "I'm Really Hurt", "Step", "Roly-Poly", and "U Me Us" to the article in response to the removal of these. I hope they don't get taken off again. Not after what happened last time I added them. 183.104.90.249 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do K-Pop songs count?

[edit]

Just wondering if K-Pop songs count. I added several K-Pop songs to this (and references a bit later after re-adding) but on the first time of adding them, they were removed. I ended up re-adding them back and adding references later. I’m sure there are K-Pop fans here too, right? 183.104.90.249 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alva demir Maria

[edit]

My Stomach hurts is full with Birds

Mimimi ahahaah sum sum sum sum sum bananana anananas 193.214.153.246 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removing hooktheory.com as unreliable

[edit]

I took out hooktheory.com which has no listed author. I also removed some unreferenced stuff.

The big problem with the embedded list of pop songs is that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It doesn't explain anything to the reader about how or why a song has the chord progression. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a question. So much of the sources on this page are from ultimate-guitar, which is driven by user submissions. Not truly RS. What do we do with those? Palehose5 (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holdin' by Diamond Rio

[edit]

Shouldn't the song, Holdin', by Diamond Rio be added? I believe it has what sounds to be i-vi-v-iv. Maybe that website helps. --Esperfulmo (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bVII Variation?

[edit]

The article currently states "I–V–♭VII–IV may be viewed as a variation of I–V–vi–IV, replacing the submediant with the subtonic." By this logic, quite a few chord progressions could be considered variants of I-V-vi-IV (ex. I-V-vi-bVII). Is there any citable precedent for considering these progressions to be variants of one another? As a music theorist, I would consider vi and bVII to have quite different functions and effects (ex. vi is minor but bVII is major, I-V-vi resembles a deceptive cadence but I-V-bVII does not). 134.69.206.229 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one?

[edit]

The comment on the song list says that the progression must happen at least 4 times in a row for a song to be included. I found a song where it happens 8 times in a row but rotates during the sequence: it goes I-V-vi-IV twice, vi-IV-I-V twice, I-V-vi-IV twice, vi-IV-I-V twice. Does that qualify? Bonus points if you figure out what the song is. Hint: it's from 2007. Richferrara (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I–V–vi–IV_progression&oldid=1257053603"