Talk:List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2020. The result of the discussion was merge.

Lists Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Punk music (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Songs

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Seconding "Music Notes" deletionism

The Music Notes (Ultimate Guitar, etc) links are strangely not spam, since they seem to have grown organically from almost the first history of this page. But they are totally useless on Wikipedia. Yes, these should be deleted.

If I can figure out how to clean them up I will do it myself.

--Lucas gonze (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Citations are incorrect"

The citations to "Music Notes" should be deleted. Firstly they (Music Notes) don't state that the songs contain this progression. Secondly they are subscription only, so they were probably put there as a commercial thing to raise money, but if they cannot be accessed freely are useless for wikipedia.

If you really want to put a citation for these songs, you have to link to an article that states that a particular song has a particular progression, in which bars or part of the song this progression occurs (eg chorus, second verse, middle section).

I would also recommend deleting any that were not top 40 hits in a major country, or part of a top 40 album. Otherwise the article could have 100,000 songs in it.

61.94.243.86 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)sentinel[reply]

"The list does not include songs containing the progression for very short, irrelevant sections of the songs, nor does it include remade recordings of songs by other artists."

"Citation needed". How can you have a citation about what the chord progression of a song is? Just listen to the song and you can hear it. Referring to sheet music is basically the same as referring to an mp3 of the song itself. Neither helps you if you don't understand music theory. So "cittion needed" is a pretty brainless thing to be writing here.

Yes it does.

'Can You Feel the Love Tonight' uses the chord progression for exactly one line.

(talk) 01:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked thoroughly, but I'm willing to bet there are others in here which fail that criteria (due partially to Axis of Awesome's research failure) 122.105.129.181 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no minor chords anywhere in 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight'. It is I-IV-I-V, not vi-IV-I-V, so it doesn't belong on this list, does it? Jerry (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something interesting: The chorus of 'Walking on the Moon' by the Police is IV-I-V-vi. Same progression, just different phasing. Now I'm just looking for a song that features the same progression but the remaining phasing, which is V-vi-IV-I. Who will find it first? Jerry (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumped Up Kicks

I believe whoever added 'Foster The People - Pumped Up Kicks' to the list did so in error. Unless I'm mistaken the basic chord progression throughout is Fm G# D# A#. It is listed as vi-IV-I-V, but it in order for that to be the case the chord progression would need to be Fm C# G# D#. Anyone want to double check me on this? Akayus (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songs to add?

Let it go - Frozen // Wishing Well - Blink 182 98.202.239.249 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) C'est la vie – Khaled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.142.195 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Love Story - Taylor Swift[reply]

What about Let It Be (Beatles song)? --Manuel Funk (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

I have removed various references to songs that contain the progression for only very short, irrelevant sections of the songs. Why? So glad to answer.

The "source" given is Music Notes' sheet music, which is a website that produces and sells arrangements of songs and nowhere states to be a faithful record of the song as written.
The Music Notes snippet shown is not enough to show that the song generally uses (or does not use) this four-chord convention.
The Music Notes are basically just appended on with no proof whatsoever that they show that the song uses the four-chord progression. I could find the sheet music for any musical work you can think of--say, Beethoven's Ninth--and just tack on the Music Notes. Nobody's going to pay five bucks to read it (myself included) to verify.
Those very same Music Notes do not even uphold the article's assertion in cases like Don't Stop Believing. See measure 7? That's a G#m chord--a iii chord, which is not in the pop-punk progression. (G# in the bass, with G#, B and D# in the treble. Straight up G#m chord. Definitely a iii.)

I'll be restoring the removals presently, I guess. Red Slash 02:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonality

Is it an idea to add a column with the (original) tonality? --Rcsmit (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Rcsmit. Most of these progressions are mislabeled. For example, "Marilyn Monroe" by Nicki Minaj is labeled a vi-IV-I-V. But the song starts on the minor chord, which is very much the tonic (i). Hence this progression is really i-VI-III-VII. In much of popular music, VII acts like a dominant.

And there are some just plain mistakes. For example, "Mad World" by Tears for Fears is labeled a vi-IV-I-V. Again, it begins on the minor which is very much the tonic, so it should have started as a i. But even if you were to assume that it started on vi rather than i, the second chord is wrong - it goes up a third, not down a third. The correct progression is i-III-VII-IV.

Given the number of mistakes in this article, I don't think it has much value and will likely mislead a lot of people not that familiar with music theory. It should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soksopbai (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above suggestion to scrap. Reve (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article about the i-III-VII-IV progression?

I noticed a while ago that the i-III-VII-IV progression is also very common. Some examples:

Green Day - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams
Imagine Dragons - Radioactive
Gary Jules - Mad World
Halestorm - I Miss The Misery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.142.188.48 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some not so well-known ones:

Demon Hunter - The Heart of a Graveyard
Tankcsapda - Azt mondom állj (as a Hungarian I just couldn't stop myself from adding this)

Do you guys think it's a good idea to create a list about these songs too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.142.188.48 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "Love Song" by Tesla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.198.56 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verification requests

Would someone with a subscription verify that "Battlefield" by Jordin Sparks and "Dragostea din tei" by O-Zone are built around IV–I–V-vi? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They both do. Red Slash 12:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, a year after asking, I've added it Sholom (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise

Paradise does not have a vi-IV-I-V chord progression. It has a ii-IV-I-V chord progression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.111.130 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auld Lang Syne

While I'm sure you could reharmonise it to fit the pattern, traditional scores don't seem to support it being on this list. It starts I V I IV in the first line, and in the second line - if you include the momentary reharmonisation on -ance (in parentheses), goes I-(vi)-V-IV-I. The chorus starts with a pickup IV, then - using the parentheses similarly to mark fairly transient harmonisation changes after the start a bar - I (vi) V(vi V I) I IV, then second line I (vi) V(vi V I) [IV-V9] I

I don't see how you get a I-V-vi-IV out of that. 86.158.126.6 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few guitar chord sites. Some DO use it, but, given the "spirit" of the statement about re-recordings by other artists, that some modern arrangements fit it to a popular modern pattern doesn't seem very significant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you could argue a IV-I-V-vi. Are these really close enough to count as the same thing, though, given the vi is transient and the progression doesn't even make up a full line? That sort of folk song harmony leans so heavily around I, IV, V and vi that it feels like one could force a fit to most things if you include (or fail to include) transient harmonies that aren't structural, and, furthermore, allow any of four possibilities (I-vi-V-IV, vi-V-IV-I, V-IV-I-vi, IV-I-vi-V and don't insist on them looping back to the start of the cycle. Also, feels WP:OR-y. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus of a song solely made of vi-IV-I-V progression vs. rule that it "must appear 4 times in a row"

Hey people, I was wondering where It's My Life (Bon Jovi song) is in the list, wanted to add it, and did some page history research to find out whether it had already been included and was taken out again – which seems to be the case.

Now, this song prominently features the progression (vi-IV-I-V) and only this progression in its chorus, but it doesn't repeat the progression 4 times in a row. Who came up with the four-times-in-a-row rule? I'd agree in general, but I would argue that if the entire hook (i.e., the chorus) of a song featuring the progression, this should definitely be listed, no matter how often the chorus is repeated. What do you think? --Da flow (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I figured it out myself, it's not true that it's clean vi-IV-I-V progression. Sorry, nevermind! --Da flow (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]