ii V I versus I IV V Chord Progressions

[ksjazzguitar]

"Back in the 70's at college there was some discussion about progressions. Some players held to the idea that you could reduce everything down to V-I."

I have to laugh at this one John...when I was in college one of my professors held the idea that you could reduce everything down to just "I".


Sailor

That's very common in Schenkerian Analysis, which has had strong influence over classical theory in the US. In a nutshell, through a chain of reduction s of reductions nearly every chord progression can be reduced to either I-V-I or I-IV-I-V-I (the melodies over those always being 3-2-1 and 5-4-3-2-1, respectively.) It's an interesting way to analyze music. Of course, Schenker was very chauvinistic that the music of Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin (and their brethren) was the center of the universe and his theories apply really well to them. He also felt that any music to which these principles did not apply was not good music. There have been various attempts to apply it to other music - even jazz solos - with questionable results (IMHO.)

As an analysis tool, I find it a little Procrustean, but I think that it can reveal deeper structures of music for the kind of music around which it was designed. I think you have to take it with a grain of salt when trying to apply it to music that works on different structural principles.

But you have to be careful. There are some college campuses where if you aren't a Schenkerian, then you may have to eat alone in the cafeteria.

Peace,
Kevin


ADDITION: Just to clarify, Schenker isn't saying that the IV doesn't exist (or any other chord)in the I-V-I structural progression, just that it isn't part of the fundamental structural harmony. On surface layers it may exist, but as you reduce and reduce it reveals itself to not be part of the structure. Similarly, you may have an entire sonata that gets reduced to I-IV-I-V-I, even though it's modulated to other keys.

I'm not saying this is important for people to know, I'm just explaining so that people understand why some classical theorists say things like, "All songs are just V-I."

[Jazzyteach65]

One of the main purposes of the ii-V is to modulate smoothely. In music rather than traveling straight to the new tonal center by going directly to the "I" of the new key, tension is set up in the form of a V chord (V-I). Naturally through the cycle of fourths, which in relation to one tonal center is all about tension and gravity, the ii coes before the V, making a ii-V a very useful intro to a new key center. Even without an established key center, ii-V's became a great way to create planned or arbitrary movement and tension in the form of a temporary key center/tension.

It's like that theory that every measure of "I" can be turned into "I-vi-ii-V and even furthered by subbing (iii-vi-ii-V) ect

[docbop]

Plus to add some motion to static chord you can proceed any chord by it's own II-V so it has a lot of uses.

[ejwhite09]

Just my two cents:

vis a vis the I-V statement. To me, and this is my own formulation from my readings of theory just my own 'theory' i guess. But when its said all progressions are I-V, essentially that means to me, if you want to move from the tonic harmony(which is not necessary, but will make your melody very boring, and harmony exists merely to compliment melody). For very complex theoretical reasons, if you want to know a good book is Harmony by Walter Piston, the V defines the key even more so than the I, where merely implies it strongly with its root. So that is to say, as long as you stay in one key, I and V will harmonize all diatonic notes in the melody. It will harmonize some more than others, but generally melodies stay close to tonic or go away from it(duh)V will handle all goings away and I will handle all close. other harmonies(chords) will harmonize some diatonic notes more tightly than V or I and so they can be applied but very limitedly. IV and ii are used because they soften the jump from I to V, its just simply the difference between going one step at a time or two steps at a time(on stairs). Any song that doesn't stray from the key generally can be played with only the I and V and any song that only contains I and V can be extended to include ii's and IV's. ii's are perfered, in my opinion, by jazzers, I don't know much about classical but my intuition would say and composers who much more into melody and voicings, would perfer the ii because it shares a note with the V. I think the IV, personally, gives you much more room melodically as you move to the V, in other words the melodic movement need not be so precise, which is probably its favored by more 'folk' styles. The ii on the other hand, to get is full effect requires much more precision in use application and the melodic movement through it to the V. The ii is all about getting to V, the IV is more about moving from I.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, the who Schenkerian take on the "V-I" is of course on a very macro level. If you look at a more micro level, the "V-I" (or "V-i") is the strongest and most defining motion of Western harmony during the Common Practice Period. That's not to say that the other chords aren't as important, just that they aren't as "structural."

Of course Impressionism in classical music and Modal Jazz in jazz music challenged that notion.

I don't know much about classical but my intuition would say and composers who much more into melody and voicings, would perfer the ii because it shares a note with the V.

Perhaps. In my experience in classical composition, the movement from ii-V is a little more subtle and nuanced than the movement from IV-V and has more possibilities for interesting voice-leading. But also keep in mind that the chord progression in classical can be more complicated in classical than in jazz, few extensions but more complicated patterns and less predictable. (I'm not saying either is better.)

I think the IV, personally, gives you much more room melodically as you move to the V, in other words the melodic movement need not be so precise, which is probably its favored by more 'folk' styles.

But I think (IMHO) that it has more to do with less harmonic understanding and less interest in voice leading. I think that folk/pop players tended to be more interested in voice leading and more interested in a strong root movements. Additionally, they are not as interested in functional harmony - many of their chord changes are "wrong" (by classical standards) and often the melody doesn't reflect the chords or chord changes.

One of my theory professors referred to most pop progressions as "modal vamps" - the idea being that they were getting away from the chord/scale/voice-leading relationships of classical music. The melody is free to move as it will over this modal vamp of chords moving in non-functional ways. Of course, he's not saying that that's bad, just that that's a different set of "rules." And even he would admit that is a generalization - there are examples of folk/pop songs that do follow the traditional "rules."

The ii is all about getting to V, the IV is more about moving from I.

I don't know, I'll have to think about that. I can think about many chord progressions that follow that pattern but also many that contradict it. Hmmmm.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

Yeah, the who Schenkerian take on the "V-I" is of course on a very macro level. If you look at a more micro level, the "V-I" (or "V-i") is the strongest and most defining motion of Western harmony during the Common Practice Period. That's not to say that the other chords aren't as important, just that they aren't as "structural."

Of course Impressionism in classical music and Modal Jazz in jazz music challenged that notion.



Perhaps. In my experience in classical composition, the movement from ii-V is a little more subtle and nuanced than the movement from IV-V and has more possibilities for interesting voice-leading. But also keep in mind that the chord progression in classical can be more complicated in classical than in jazz, few extensions but more complicated patterns and less predictable. (I'm not saying either is better.)



But I think (IMHO) that it has more to do with less harmonic understanding and less interest in voice leading. I think that folk/pop players tended to be more interested in voice leading and more interested in a strong root movements. Additionally, they are not as interested in functional harmony - many of their chord changes are "wrong" (by classical standards) and often the melody doesn't reflect the chords or chord changes.

One of my theory professors referred to most pop progressions as "modal vamps" - the idea being that they were getting away from the chord/scale/voice-leading relationships of classical music. The melody is free to move as it will over this modal vamp of chords moving in non-functional ways. Of course, he's not saying that that's bad, just that that's a different set of "rules." And even he would admit that is a generalization - there are examples of folk/pop songs that do follow the traditional "rules."



I don't know, I'll have to think about that. I can think about many chord progressions that follow that pattern but also many that contradict it. Hmmmm.

Peace,
Kevin

Keep in mind this is my explanation of how I've come to personally understand it from study, it's not going to be 'classically correct.' Because I'm trying to explain how I think of it on a practical level having absorded some theory and harmony.
I think mostly we agreeing you're just using a more technical explanation. For instance when you say that ii-V has more interesting possibilities for voice leading this is what I mean by melody and note sharing.

As for the last thing what I mean to say, and generally speaking of course, that you're going to use the ii to prepare the V, almost exclusively, whereas the IV is more about moving from I, generally. You can go I IV I the amen cadence or something like that...I'm not familiar with a I ii I cadence. Which isn't to say it doesnt exist or even that it wouldn't sound good, but vis a vis why and how the ii is used in jazz and the IV in blues and why the IV didn't carry over. m7's also open many more extensions than maj7s.

[JohnW400]

@ejwhite09

Yes I think that the source. But you definatly have the concept as I remember it. Walter Piston. That was the guy. Thanks for reminding me.

Two books that were recommended that I read were 20th century Harmony by Persichetti and the William Piston Book. I only got to the Persichetti. A lot of stuff there to digest and apply to the guitar.

Now I'll have to look for the Piston book.

[ejwhite09]

@ejwhite09

Yes I think that the source. But you definatly have the concept as I remember it. Walter Piston. That was the guy. Thanks for reminding me.

Two books that were recommended that I read were 20th century Harmony by Persichetti and the William Piston Book. I only got to the Persichetti. A lot of stuff there to digest and apply to the guitar.

Now I'll have to look for the Piston book.

That Piston book was one of the greatest things I ever got, and it happened totally on a fluke. At the time I was just a glorified campfire strummer had a little college band three four chord garage stuff. But that is an age of great personal belief, so I definitely fancied myself a better player than I was. Anyway my university library gives away books every semester that are donated, dont get checked out i dont know the formula, anyway I just picked up a book on a harmony hey cool this will help me.
Anyway it sat on my bookshelf for like a year before I even opened it. When I finally did I got about three pages in and realized it was way over my head, the band had gon separate ways, was really only playin in the living room, so no harm no foul put it back. couple years later i got bit by this jazz bug and started really developing as a musician ear wise and technique wise, expanding my musical palette. So four years later I open Piston and now, while its still very very very thick hard reading and I'd recommend doing it with ATleast a keyboard if you don't have access to a piano. But now it's so helpful. I don't think it will translate to playing skills like an exercise book its much more a theoretical book. Like Composers like to do this, because of this, and here's an example. It's definitely a book to get if you want to get beyond 'this sounds good so i do it.'
I'm not even going to lie, I literally spent about a year reading the first six chapters over and over again, its almost criminal how much info he stuffs in that book.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah,

Piston is one of the standards, for sure. For a whole generation, it was the bible for classical theory.

As far as I-ii-I, i do see it some times, but usually moving between inversions, like C-Dm-C/E (I have to use pop chord symbols because I can't do the figured bass here.) Although C-Bdim/D-C/E or C-G/D-C/E to get that bass effect. And of course, many would argue that that chord in the middle isn't really a change in harmony but is just a passing chord.

I would have to do a lot more classical analysis to get any kind of statistical idea of how those chords tend to be used, but I know that I've seen both the ii and the IV used in both functions.

I've never gone through Piston's stuff cover to cover, but I have used it as a reference. Unfortunately, the schools I've attended never used it. I should pick up a copy for these cold wintry days.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

Yeah,

Piston is one of the standards, for sure. For a whole generation, it was the bible for classical theory.

As far as I-ii-I, i do see it some times, but usually moving between inversions, like C-Dm-C/E (I have to use pop chord symbols because I can't do the figured bass here.) Although C-Bdim/D-C/E or C-G/D-C/E to get that bass effect. And of course, many would argue that that chord in the middle isn't really a change in harmony but is just a passing chord.

I would have to do a lot more classical analysis to get any kind of statistical idea of how those chords tend to be used, but I know that I've seen both the ii and the IV used in both functions.

I've never gone through Piston's stuff cover to cover, but I have used it as a reference. Unfortunately, the schools I've attended never used it. I should pick up a copy for these cold wintry days.

Peace,
Kevin

wow, yeah I never realized it was such a fundamental work! to have gotten it on a fluke, I feel more determined to get through it now! thanks.

Yeah passing chords and inversions, with those you can always theoretically argue haromony all day. I guess its more like the constitution, we're analyzing more so to find the composer's own intent for the hamony. Functional harmony is definitely a necessary study. I guess its like dialect, nobody probably comprehends music the same and so theory just gives a common language to discuss functionality with. To me thats all theory is, I don't really, personally, use it much practically in real time, or maybe I do and don't even know it. Over the last year, I've really slowed down and started focusing on internalizing concepts, the wax on wax off approach. If I had taken lessons I'm sure I would have gotten this done earlier, but playing blues and rock was so natural to me, I never really felt I needed them, until I upped my musical peers and realized how complete they were as musicians. I mean I could play the major scale PATTERN, now i can play the major SCALE. And that has helped tremendously. Still working on getting my timing solid throughout, but harmonically and melodically I probably wouldn't even play with the player I was last January.

I checked your page out, great stuff too man! That's kind of what I go for, right now I'm doing some recordings with a trumpet player with him playing bass notes, its an interesting project. Next time I'm out in the Bay Area, I hope you're playing, I'd come check it out, I'm on the East Coast but San Fran IS my only west of the mississip destination.

As for Piston, it'll make for a good reading and a friend, and its thick and with a hardcover will probably burn well so either way a great winter book lol but I just remembered you're in the Bay Area, winter schminter

[ksjazzguitar]

...I guess its more like the constitution, we're analyzing more so to find the composer's own intent for the hamony....

But I think that it's even more squirelly than that. With interpreting The Constitution, there was originally an original, literal intent. I don't think that music creation works that way. Palestrina didn't think about the "rules" of 16th century modal counterpoint when writing music - he wrote great music and then after the fact they came up with the "rules" based on what he wrote. When Bach was writing music, he wasn't thinking about the "rules" of Baroque counterpoint, he was writing great music and the "rules" were written later. But their harmonic intent can only be inferred (if it even exists) from their music. One could argue that there was no real "intent" - other than what sounds good.

True, each generation is trained with the "rules" of the previous generation. That helps train them and to some extent informs what they think "sounds" good. But the guys that we remember are the guys who broke the "rules" and played something beautiful. Then others try to figure out some "rules" to explain what they did.

Always remember that theory and the "rules" are only tools. They can be great training tool, they can train your ears, they can give you ideas - but the should never pretend to tell you what sounds good. Unlike The Constitution, we can change the "rules" anytime we want, as long as it sounds good. It is theory's job to catch up.

Yeah, let me know when you're in the Bay Area, we'll grab a beer, jam a little. Maybe we'll go hear Reg play.

Peace
Kevin

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Comparison to constitutional analysis -- please don't go there!

[ksjazzguitar]

I was contrasting, thank you very much!

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

But I think that it's even more squirelly than that. With interpreting The Constitution, there was originally an original, literal intent. I don't think that music creation works that way. Palestrina didn't think about the "rules" of 16th century modal counterpoint when writing music - he wrote great music and then after the fact they came up with the "rules" based on what he wrote. When Bach was writing music, he wasn't thinking about the "rules" of Baroque counterpoint, he was writing great music and the "rules" were written later. But their harmonic intent can only be inferred (if it even exists) from their music. One could argue that there was no real "intent" - other than what sounds good.

True, each generation is trained with the "rules" of the previous generation. That helps train them and to some extent informs what they think "sounds" good. But the guys that we remember are the guys who broke the "rules" and played something beautiful. Then others try to figure out some "rules" to explain what they did.

Always remember that theory and the "rules" are only tools. They can be great training tool, they can train your ears, they can give you ideas - but the should never pretend to tell you what sounds good. Unlike The Constitution, we can change the "rules" anytime we want, as long as it sounds good. It is theory's job to catch up.

Yeah, let me know when you're in the Bay Area, we'll grab a beer, jam a little. Maybe we'll go hear Reg play.

Peace
Kevin

Indeed!

[Robertkoa]

Just my two cents:

vis a vis the I-V statement. To me, and this is my own formulation from my readings of theory just my own 'theory' i guess. But when its said all progressions are I-V, essentially that means to me, if you want to move from the tonic harmony(which is not necessary, but will make your melody very boring, and harmony exists merely to compliment melody). For very complex theoretical reasons, if you want to know a good book is Harmony by Walter Piston, the V defines the key even more so than the I, where merely implies it strongly with its root. So that is to say, as long as you stay in one key, I and V will harmonize all diatonic notes in the melody. It will harmonize some more than others, but generally melodies stay close to tonic or go away from it(duh)V will handle all goings away and I will handle all close. other harmonies(chords) will harmonize some diatonic notes more tightly than V or I and so they can be applied but very limitedly. IV and ii are used because they soften the jump from I to V, its just simply the difference between going one step at a time or two steps at a time(on stairs). Any song that doesn't stray from the key generally can be played with only the I and V and any song that only contains I and V can be extended to include ii's and IV's. ii's are perfered, in my opinion, by jazzers, I don't know much about classical but my intuition would say and composers who much more into melody and voicings, would perfer the ii because it shares a note with the V. I think the IV, personally, gives you much more room melodically as you move to the V, in other words the melodic movement need not be so precise, which is probably its favored by more 'folk' styles. The ii on the other hand, to get is full effect requires much more precision in use application and the melodic movement through it to the V. The ii is all about getting to V, the IV is more about moving from I.

I read and used to own that book , but the part I don't like is the "Pivot Chord " concept of key changes ( and how to get there in composition ) kind of implies that you're mostly going to modulate to closely related keys............ and I was trying to be able to modulate smoothly from any Key to Any key , then I gradually realized that a KEY is too vague a concept- that I was better off thinking of modulating to a " chordal" area or even a specific voicing , since a "Key " is a much larger concept.

But I should probably read it again, and I love the secondary dominant explanations and I came up with a ( ridiculous name ) tertiary Dominant principle for creating some progressions eventually from reading that book.

So ( per Walter Piston standard theory ) you could have a V of vi chord as a secondary dominant OR you could have a diminished or half diminished chord as VII of vi- in my little world you could have a VII chord of the 3rd of the Target Chord or the 5th of the Target Chord or the Seventh of the Target Chord so in the Key of C the VII of vi chord would or could resolve to the A NOTE( not just the A minor triad or chord ) which could be one of the notes in ANY chord , like it could be the 7th of B7, major 7th of Bflat Maj seventh etc etc and it actually WORKs if you voice properly.

[ksjazzguitar]

...but the part I don't like is the "Pivot Chord " concept of key changes ( and how to get there in composition ) kind of implies that you're mostly going to modulate to closely related keys...

But I think that the point is to start with simpler concepts and build from there. I think of "pivot chords" as the training wheels of modulation. There's also common-tone, by sequence, parallel, and I'm sure a few I'm forgetting. Of course you can also just modulate directly. I don't have a copy of Piston in front of me, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't discuss these.

I think that most books start you out with 4-part Bach chorales. Of course, in Baroque music, because of the non-equal-temperament, modulating more then one step around the circle of 5ths (or their relatives) could sound horrible. It may be that some music theory classes never get beyond this. But a brief look through 19th and 20th century music will show many modulations that go far beyond pivot chords.

Peace,
Kevin