Some additional thoughts/corrections: 1) My point with Giant Steps isn't that this is the exact same thing. It's not: If nothing else, in Giant Steps we're in one key at a time, whereas in Patricia's model the keys overlap. My point was just to provide an analogy for the idea of quick-shifting tonality to help demonstrate that going "Hey what if this couple seconds of music is better read in a completely different key?" has precedent. Plus I wanted to reference Giant Steps in a video about pop music 'cause that's funny to me. 2) Couple things on the examples. a) In her video, Patricia said the Doo-Wop Changes can't really be explained by her model, because everything is setting up one big, final resolution. And the latter half is absolutely true, but I feel like we can still apply her ideas to explain _why_ they behave that way. b) On the Andalusian cadence, calling Eb-D a departure from I to V/IIImi is kind of a stretch, I know. bII-I is the more obvious choice, but given that we just heard two other instances of descending stepwise motion that both felt like departures, I think we're more primed to hear this as one too, and V/IIImi's the best I can do in labeling that. 3) To add some more detail to the Sweet Dreams analysis, the biggest reason it feels like a resolution isn't really the chords at all, it's the bass walk-down at the end of the bar. You're feeling a melodic resolution in the bass that creates the sensation of a harmonic resolution. That said, even without it you can still feel the resolution if you just play G#mi7/B going to D#mi, so the harmony point stands as well. 4) In case it was in any way unclear: I really like Patricia's model! I think it's very cool, and I'm glad she shared it. Any criticisms offered here are in the spirit of scholarly discourse. Overall she did a really cool thing, I'm just kicking the tires.
@@jktolford8272 Well, the real answer is that the upload was scheduled, and before it went out he has access to it to put up his clarification, which can then be edited as he sees fit. Makes sure everyone who watches it can see his extra thoughts.
Music theory typically refers to augmenting harmonic progressions with chords outside the established key as "intermodal interchange" or less academically, "chord borrowing", and it's general purpose is to add harmonic tension and interest specifically so the return to the key has emotional resonance. I get the notion in a loop that taking cadences individually is a good way to look at the way the harmony (and therefore any possible melody) moves, but just like intervals quickly become chords, cadences become progressions, and it is typical of popular music to resolve to consonant sounds (say in the chorus) after dabbling with more tension-filled or dissonant harmonies. The notion of ranking the cadences as "leaving" or "returning" is fascinatingly emotional language, but pretty accurate, and the idea of ranking their effectiveness is standard, in my experience, although many times, just like choosing a mode, there is subjective emotional impact at play, which of course is how music works on our brains. So we call one mode, or cadence, "majestic" and one "sad" and one "just a bit sad, but more like melancholy.." you get the idea. So, your progression that you compared to the doo-wop progression, one could just look at it as a reharmonization of the same progression (almost?) and yes, it has some of the same movement, but "resolves" much more subtly from cadence to cadence (this could be made to sound more natural with proper arrangement, instrumentation and chord voicings). Anyway here's a challenge for you: incorporate chromatic mediants into loop theory! Also: iib5>I and iv6>I ;)
An adage from statistics seems appropriate here: “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. Also, regarding the Andalusian cadence, a series of three departures in a row seems very apt for Hit The Road Jack.
@@leokastenberg800 I don't know, they're both educational, there's always been a close link between maths and music plus I think they're also both aimed at the 'recreational' mathemetician/musician.
To me, the "Creep" progression seems very functional, and very rooted in G. The B seems to function as V/vi, which resolves to IV, and the Eb in the C- chord is a chromatic note that pulls very strongly to the D in the tonic chord. Edit: While I agree with the notion that classical harmonic theory isn't always the most useful lens to analyze modern pop music through, I don't think "Creep" is a very good example of why that is. I, V/vi, IV, iv is a very straightforward turnaround progression with an unambiguous tonal center and functional chromaticism.
Yeah that C- is simply a iv from the parallel minor, IV to iv is super common. The B to C is a deceptive cadence since C is the VI from the E minor scale
Thanks for saying what was thinking exactly at that point. It's also a really interesting progression in that it uses a functional #5 and b6 in such close proximity. In just intonation, these two notes would be tuned very differently (the D# about 40 cents lower than Eb), and even in equal temperament I think some of that feeling comes through. At the very least, it's a great example of how the same pitch can be heard as two different notes depending on context.
The fact that the division between resolutions and departures is so subjective is essentially my only gripe with Patricia’s analysis, but then again, subjectivity isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, I feel like music youtube is on a roll with all this quality content coming out, and it makes me exceedingly happy : )
For as excellent as it is, I think that the most important thing that Patricia points out in her video is actually a droll observation made in passing: All music theory is ultimately just applied voice leading. Consider her contention that a minor or minor sixth chord on the fourth degree of the scale moving to the tonic major-or, alternately, a half-diminished chord on the second, as typically occurs in old-timey modal interchange-is of comparable force to the authentic cadence. I personally think she's absolutely correct, with the vamp in the back half of Swans' "The Sound" being a particularly elegant demonstration of the concept, but why? Because the internal motion of the different lines is similarly strong and close, with one note stable between the anticipatory chord and its destination, each in a strong position within the final triad. It's all about levels of gravity in that way, I think.
Love the comment, love the username (stunning early industrial song), love that you just gave me a new way to appreciate The Sound, and love the gravity analogy. This is how I conceptualize it as well. I've only been learning _the harmonic style of 18th century European musicians_ and guitar for 11 months, but it's people like Patricia Taxxon (and 12tone) who are convincing me to dive even deeper.
Still need to go check out her video firsthand, but at least the way you describe it, Patricia's model, and even your model to some extent, seem fairly rhythm-agnostic. Which is funny, because I think that metric placement is the entire distinction in many of these cases. C to G is I to V if you're going from a strongly positioned chord to a weakly positioned one, but a IV to a I if you're going from a weak position to a strong position. And where that isn't the case, it's usually due to intentionally defying metric expectations. To be fair, hypermeter is underdiscussed in music theory in general, but I think it's extra-applicable here because we're dealing with chord relationships that are, in my opinion, guided as much by their placement as by their identity.
It's entirely on purpose that Sweet Dreams doesn't have what feels to be a proper resolution in the melody: the whole song is intended to have a certain franticness. What release and resolution it has is almost entirely in the bassline. It's actually a clever combination of the two.
5:29 I'd say it's in the key of G major, it just uses the major version of the III chord and the minor iv wich is a fairly common borrowed chord in major keys
I think you are right, and that this song wasn't necessarily the greatest example to use for his explanation. But you being right doesn't necessarily make him wrong. I definitely can hear each chord in relation to a G home base, maybe with a few borrowed chords from parallel modes, or whatever jazz explanation you want to use. But this theory better explains the relationship between each chord change.
Your videos will forever live rent free in my head while i'm trying to fall asleep at night. I'm a middle school music teacher and the lack of deep music theory driven conversations I get to have is crippling. Thank you for a breath of fresh air 😊Great perspectives!
My hot take on Creep's Progression: I -> V/vi -> Deceptive cadence in Em (let's say VI/vi) -> iv (modal mixture). "Borrowing" the deceptive cadence from another key as a pivot is a really fun way to modulate. It's pretty dramatic, since you normally end up having to borrowed chords in a row but you can end up in some pretty remote keys!
To me, “Creep” leads out into space, suggesting a resolution momentarily to E minor (V/vi), but then reversing its polarity such that the note D# becomes the Eb in the C minor chord, resolving back down as the negative of a V chord (iv) to G. The #5/b6 note in a major key is to me equally melancholic in contrasting ways. By the way, “Creep” has a chord progression that is the negative of this: Gm - Ebm - Dm - D, which strongly tonicizes Bb major for a moment through the minor plagal cadence only to pull back up very strongly to G minor (through the chord mediant or submediant to the tonicized chord). From what I can tell the main ethos of the progression is that of tonicizing the relative key, then never resolving, only to pull strongly in melancholic severity back to the tonic.
It's funny. Whenever I hear the Axis progression within a song I hear the start of it as I-V but when I just listen to it on a piano on it's own I hear it as a VI-I resolution. I don't know, maybe my ears are just strange that way.
After watching both yours and Patricia's videos I kinda realised that I've formed my own theories of these kind of loops just by listening, writing and playing a ton of music, without really being conscious that I have. It's also fascinating how subjective all of this is as I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points both of you make as well as disagreeing with some... Anyway, for some reason it made me think of Little Wing by Jimi Hendrix and how it feels ambiguous to me in the same way the Axis loop does, even though it isn't really a loop. Would be interesting to see your take on it for one of your "understanding ..." videos :)
i am currently reading Schoenbergs theory of harmony and he brings up a lot of these points about strong movements, weak movements, departures and resolutions. however, it is in Schoenbergs terse, dense writing style so it is not easily digestible lol
@@waltz251 It does from a harmony point of view. Strictly speaking the D is only sharp on the V chord (B) but is natural in other chords such as the III chord (G). Of course you can use it however you want though. C minor, G augmented, etc.
I think part of the disagreement over ♭II-I comes down to the fact that it really matters whether or not you have a seventh. ♭II⁷ contains a leading tone so you get a nice solid resolution to the tonic. But modern pop tends to eschew seventh chords, and the triadic ♭II-I lacks the leading tone motion so it doesn't have the same effect...personally I struggle to hear it as a resolution at all, which is pretty consistent with how traditional functional theory treats ♭II as a predominant, the Neapolitan.
Now, how's about some 5 chord loops? In 7/4? Or loops in Prime Numbers? Maybe there is an analytic continuation that could extend the domains of these loops? PS I like that Patty's pretty monumental "Axis" is really an 8 chord loop.
I’m sure there is! I think “4 chord loops” are a product of 4/4, so I think the same would extend to other time signatures 15 step by Radiohead is a pop/alt rock song that has a very clear repeating 5 chord loop in 5/4. It’d be interesting to hear about how that would work under this model, considering it doesn’t split up into groups of 2!
Lovely video and i really enjoy learning about the research everyone is doing and putting out! Also love how you see theory as a toolbelt with models as tools. I'm a student and this is one of the first things i learn. Models always reduce the real world into something more comprehensible, but you have to acknowledge what you loose! And that's where different models can help to create a bigger picture! Keep up the amazing work and i'm looking forward to the next one!
Models in engineering and natural scientific models (aside from particle physics) are the same as the different loop models. The analogy I use is one of how to represent a tree: The basic model is a 5 year old's portrayal of a straight, thick, brown, grey, or beige trunk coming out of the ground with a green collection of leaves at the top. The next level model is one a practised amateur could make. It may have tapering at the bottom for roots, branches maybe, some distinction on the leaves, or something where you recognize what kind of tree the person is familiar with. The last one is done by a professional artist with a specific kind of tree, with a hint of seeds and fruits, textures, etc. In real life, the only one where we can do something with the equations being tractable and broadly applicable is the 5 year old's. Maybe we can do simulations for specific types for a talented 10 year old. All these loop analyses are at the 5 year old's level. Given that we predict everything from the spread of COVID-19 to economic growth to how to make cars safer at the sophistication of a talented 10 year old, this is not a bad thing.
8:11 an excellent example of the bVI - i cadence in the pre-chorus of Don't Start Now by Dua Lipa. ignoring the passing chords, the progression is Bmin - D - Emin - G. it seems to me that you've got a chord shuttle between Bmin and Emin, and getting between them by moving up to the relative major, then a bVI - i to resolve. but I get this feeling that this progression is constantly rising, maybe because, as you pointed out, that resolution is kinda weak. makes it perfect for a pre-chorus!
Now that you mention it, I just realized that this is yet another chord loop with a shiftable starting point. Starting at Em (Em G Bm D) gives us the ascending diatonic thirds progression of What Is Love (transposed).
I enjoy watching your videos. I haven't heard you talk about voice leading. The chord progressions you talk about have very smooth voice leading. For example, Creep might not have chords from the same key, but the voice leading is mainly based on chromatic oscillation. The axis progression oscillates between whole steps and half steps, with some voices being stationary. The axis progression can't settle on the D chord because 3 other chords have a G, so the F# in the D chord acts as a leading tone. 16th century counterpoint can really enhance what you are talking about. Just my 2 cents.
What key is "Chloe Dancer" by Mother Love Bone in, F-sharp or C-sharp? The progression cycles around to an F#6sus2 kind of chord, but that doesn't feel like home. Help!
Do you think it would be possible to have a 4 resolution chords loop? You can certainly have a 4 departure chord loop via the diminished chord, but to have a R-R-R-R loop you would need a strong resolution from 2 identical chord separated by a minor 3rd. If not you would need to figure out a way with the V-I, IV-I and bII-I to make and loop... What do you think? I'm trying to compose a short peace based on that theory and the one you explore in that video for an contemporary classical ensemble. Great vid btw!
I always appreciate your take on how theory is. Music theory was always my favorite class in school although I was never the best at picking up the transitions I always put my best foot forward. Inversions were always my weak point although I love the way you explain everything and thank you for actually having the audio when doing the transitions. The audio visual cues help out tremendously.
Ooh! Ooh! What about this one that I just came up with the other day? Do this one! 🤣 Am/E E+ Fm E7 (or Am G#+ Fm E7) Seriously, that was really interesting. Thanks for the great video. Keep up the great work!
The Plagal Cascade as described by Patricia's model actually makes sense for "Boulevard of Broken Dreams." A departure and three arrivals. The main character doesn't stay on the Boulevard, but he moved away from it. However, everywhere he goes the issues present on the Boulevard follow him. He moves; his situation gets better. But, he constantly sees the Boulevard because broken dreams are everywhere.
4:30 - 6:00 - but you don’t need to take all seven notes with you when resolving to one. “Creep” can be in G and even G major even though its progression is non-diatonic and not specific solely to major or minor. “Giant Steps” can be polytonal in such a way that the keys are not vertically juxtaposed (on the same instant), but horizontally juxtaposed (on the same line of harmony over time).
"Ce qui est simple est toujours faux. Ce qui ne l’est pas est inutilisable". ("A simple statement is bound to be untrue. One that is not simple cannot be utilized.") It's called Bonini's Paradox. Essentially, "As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable. Alternatively, as a model grows more realistic, it also becomes just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents" This is the exact reason we have multiple small, simple models for everything.
Theory noob here. Regarding the Axis progression: why is G the I chord and not C? C is both the lowest note and also the final chord in the phrase. It feels like it has the most weight and sense of finality. Is V-ii-IIIm-I just...not a thing people talk about?
Hi friend this is not on the topic of four cord loops but I figured your most recent video might be the best way to catch your eye. I was watching your videos on writing and poetry specifically the sonnet video and I have began to analyze some of my favorite lyrics with a poetic eye. I'm writing out the lyrics in stanzas as best I can group them and I am analyzing the number of syllables and the patterns of rhyming. Ultimately I will try to pin down what style(s) of poetry my favorite songs would fall under and study those styles further. I am noticing however that there is a discrepancy between syllables counted in the strictly literary sense and the melodic sense or how many notes of the vocal Melody are assigned to the given word. Do you have any suggestions on how someone should count syllables in that way? Or maybe both are important, with one being important to the writing aspect of the lyrics and the other being important to the melodic aspect of the song.. Would you have any other suggestions on exactly how I should analyze lyrics of my favorite songs to be able to emulate those styles of writing for myself. I am completely new to writing and I have always become frustrated trying to write lyrics to music or vice versa and I have never seemed to grasp an understanding. Any (more) help would be greatly appreciated. In any case, thank you for your quality content.
My approach to music theory is the opposite of yours. I tend to lump things together as much as possible. I didn't even think of your Four Chord Loops and Philip Tag's as different theories--yours was more an extension of his. And now my response to Patricia Taxon's theories is to incorporate that into your theories. It doesn't seem like any of them contradict the others. They're all complimentary. Every chord and transition function in all three ways at once. I suspect that all of them are generally important. Heck, I even essentially combine all this with my idea of Western Music Theory. Taxon's already has that built in. But I also did so with yours, seeing what you called strong resolutions as analagous to cadential motion, and what you call weak resolution predominant motion. I can't say I do a theory of everything, as I haven't really learned all the non-Western music theories. But I do tend to treat everything from four part polyphony, to classical, to baroque, to the romantic, to the jazz age, and now the rock/pop age all as one thing. I even throw in the atonal stuff as just an optional key you can use. To me it seems like all parts of a whole, all of which are necessary in different amounts to explain any piece.
it's funny, because the Axis progression sounds almost as old-fashioned as the Doo-wop progression to me. watching both Patricia's video the other night and now yours, it makes even more sense why I personally find that particular progression/the plagal cascade progression a little bit cheesy in newer pop music.
have to ask, why no lower case roman numerals -- using "VI mi" instead of "vi" ? lower case is just cleaner to me. don't you run out of room analyzing a Bach 4 part choral ? (it's been over 40 years since I studied formally, thought I may learn something by asking.) great channel all and all - thank you
Simple answer -- inconsistency of handwritten letters can make it hard to distinguish III from iii (for example) so Nashville Notation does not use lowercase.
I am not qualified to debate on this level, but with every "rule" I learn once it is drummed into me I find out about how it is vastly outnumbered by its exceptions. In this it is a lot like the English language which is a hodge-podge of rules and exceptions that are inherited from other languages and by adaptations through use. Every story that is told changes the language a little. Phrases and idioms go from novel, to familiar, to mundane, to "classic", to old fashioned and in each transition the way they can be interestingly used changes. Rules, at best, teach you some of the relationships you might find ("i before e"). Then you learn the exceptions in relation to the rule but you never forget "i before e" - it just becomes a flag on the road of your own personal learning experience that also leads you to its exceptions. Anyhow, as a nearly-50 year old with a strictly logical rational career, learning music has been an exercise in "just go with the flow and enjoy the ride"
One of the most valuable comments I’ve ever received from a music teacher was “you need to know the rules before you can break them right”, and I don’t necessarily always agree but I think it’s an interesting way to think about it. At least, that’s how I think if the “rules” in music, they’re the expectations for us to play with. I don’t know if that’s the “right way” to think about them, but I find it helpful.
Academia unfortunately disregards this kind of theorization because "dUrH pOp BaD", which is a real shame because substance is found in every kind of music. It's mostly my uni's faculty that is backwards like that tho, I guess that's why it's not really popular, despite being part of one of the biggest universities in Canada
My favourite use of the 4 chord loop is map of the problematique by muse. It doesnt really fit with the standard idea (home to outgoing etc.) For it goes Cm, Eb, Ab, Fm. The Fm doesnt really bring it back imo and the melodies they draw from that single chord progression are beautiful for it doesnt really fit with the chord tones but the neighbouring tones in the C aeolien mode.
I'm not sure why it seems we're so desperate to replace chord functions with completely different explanations rather than admitting that the functional "rules" are suggestions /examples of how we "can" Uses them instead of rules of how we "should."
All of these problems just go away when you deal with shifting key center categorization according to the Bartok wheel, and each tonal area within a given key as being on or off the tonic
So Giant Steps is really in Eb major the whole time because it's the final cadence in the form, and it goes Subdom key -> Dominant key -> Tonic key, then the same motion but on treating a Dominant key as a temporary Tonic key. It's funny like that because it goes one level further in than most tunes
How about a loop of G Bm D F#m G? for whatever reason it is one of the most 'cyclical' 4 chord loops I've stumbled across. I just can't really explain why 😅
19:12 i’ve heard a lot of people say that modern pop music doesn’t have a lot of V-I movement. is there a source for this claim? i want to know more about it but i can’t find anything online
I disagree with that assertion, depending on the definition of "modern" pop music. I'm a classic rock bassist, and I hear the V-I resolution all the time. I'm thinking Sympathy for the Devil, Have You Ever Seen the Rain (lotsa CCR), Swing Town, The Spirit of Radio, Gimme Three Steps, The Letter, Every Breath You Take (or anything with the 50s/doo-wop progression) - a lot of stuff from our old setlist.
Would be interested to get your thoughts/analysis on some ELO music. Livin Thing has a really interesting chord progression and so does Telephone Line. Jeff Lynne is awesome!
Why does Patricia Taxxon call bII-I weak? Resolving back down to the tonic by semitone obscures its function by association with Locrian having the “bII” of a diminished tonic chord. Yes, this is sort of unfair given that Locrian also has the bVII but she calls bVII-I strong anyway because it resolves back up to the tonic, even if by tone rather than semitone.
Oh wow I never realized people debated the key of the axis progression. It’s always been the first chord for me. Or whatever I start on in the loop and change the mode. But what do I know lol.
I think it is the 1st chord. Yeah, the 1st & 2nd chords go down a perfect 4th, and the 4th chord back to the 1st is also a drop of a perfect 4th, but nobody seems to be considering the downbeats and the backbeats. I think the backbeat sets up the downbeat - it points to the next downbeat. I don't think they should ignore rhythm like that. Considering only the two adjacent chords neglects the context. They don't exist in isolation.
We've already discussed and theorized about most of this stuff honestly. Jazz harmony (that's nothing more than traditional functional harmony with some new names and tools) can explain every single progression here. This is just trying to find a more rhetorical explanation for what has already been explained
@@santimontali first of all, I’m just saying it’s an interesting point in music theory history because many people have analyzed pop songs with in my opinion the wrong systems. Classical analysis isn’t a great way to analyze these chord loops, theorists have knows that for years now. it’s just now that the problem is being discussed in a way where people come up with their own models. second of all, i disagree with your statement about jazz harmony having explained these structures already. Because it’s like you said, jazz harmony is just classical harmony with some extra tools. how would you analyze the doo-wop changes with a jazz analysis? i haven’t seen a better analysis of the doo-wop changes then the one with the model described in this video. like how would you even? if you say: “I-vi-IV-V is two tonic functioning chords and a typical IV-V-I progression at the end”, i’m not buying it. calling it a long departure is way more satisfying because that’s what it feels like in the context of the loop.
@@FlorissMusic Take the creep example. G - B - C - Cm. G major --> I - V/VI - IV (deceptive cadence cause C is the VI from the E minor scale) - IVm (modal interchange from the parallel minor). These are just codes to easily understand it, if you want to get more in depth you can say, for example, that the B resolves to C cause all their notes are a st apart from the C notes, and we know that semitones resolve pretty well just as a tritone substitution. And we can also say that the C minor chord makes sense because the third (Eb) resolves perfectly to the 5th (D) of the G tonic chord. Of course this is just an example and I'm by no means a harmony teacher whatsoever. You can always find another explanation for a chord, but these 4 chord progressions have always been there from the classical period to the impressionist with ravel and debussy exploring what would be later called jazz harmony. All these progressions have already been executed by tons of musicians throughout history, pop just uses a bunch of these resources. I think what's more interesting about it is the sound design and production.
@@santimontali yeah i know what you’re saying and some years ago i would analyze it as this too, but now i just don’t hear it like this. I just don’t hear it like this. and i think the way it’s explained in the video is way better. and still how would you explain the doo-wop changes? a good model should work in many different contexts, and imo it doesn’t work in a lot of them. and then you get people saying “this pop song isn’t good because if i analyze it with my classical model it doesn’t work” or “this pop song is good because if i analyze it with my classical model it works” and what you said about production and such, as a producer i can tell you it hasn’t really changed a whole bunch in the last couple of years. Ableton 11 is gonna shake things up a bit but we’re not there yet. p.s. two things can be interesting at the same time. so if you think that music production is in a very interesting point of change rn go ahead, i’ll have my opinion you have yours.
Both broadband and narrowband understanding of a topic are necessary in my experience. The tough part is finding both with as few brains as possible, in my experience two may be lucky.
Tangential question but it bothers me in every video: what's the deal with the convention of calling the VI "six minor" when in every major scale the diatonic VI is minor? It's redundant and actually kind of confusing when one first hears it.
"All models are wrong, but some models are useful" is a handy way to put it ... "generally attributed to the statistician George Box" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
im probably just being foolish but it sounds a bit like he doesnt really like the model but was too nice to say anything about why so in the end he just kinda described it and then concludes with a bunch of stuff about how 'it's ok if it's incomplete and not perfect, and my model totally has weakness too, so don't worry, no models perfect, thats why we fail, so we can grow etc.' without really laying out his criticisms aside from a few little specifics. so the video comes off a bit like a sandwich with only the two slices of bread. Interesting model tho and i think it captures how some people intuitively write music especially.
This model appears to disregard rhythmic hierarchy which may go a long way to explain why two otherwise similar harmonic transitions sound completely different. It’s not just “what” they are, but “when”
Hi, I'm currently building a musictheory site and/ or app, which theory is built on and around the 4 chord(s) (loop) I-VIm-IIm-V(7); these chords are placed clockwise on a clock, divided in 4 quarters, each having its own chord. The theory behind it is that I state that these chords are the main 4 chords in any key, especially played clockwise starting on the I. But then, if you would want to play the IIIm or IV chord you would have to borrow it from neighbouring clocks and thus keys because you're almost changing the key a little bit then. What do you think about this (loop) and do you want to look at the theory when we're starting to put it out there on a site or in an app? Greetings and thanks for your great videos, Hans J.C. Bakker; I'm also on RU-vid under that other last name or this name I reacted with!
I feel this explains a set of progression that I always felt are unclear functionally, Blow Up the Outside Word by Soundgarden (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sC2GjXMk7i4.html)
The different models for figuring out chord loops almost feel kind of like the wave vs particle model of light!! Lord music theory really feels like it has a TON in common with physics, which kind of makes a lot of sense since all it is just applied, very subjective physics at the end of the day lol
