Actually, chord progressions are quite objective if you understand the math/geometries behind them. If you don’t, this conversation is over your head.
In layman’s terms, three chords is all you need to make a song. You can go beyond that, of course. Jazz often uses very complex and unusual chord arrangements. But three chords is all you need.
All it takes is a small understanding of music theory, and you can identify those three chords for any scale and make a song with them.
What is “good” music will always be subjective. Sure you can use only three or four chords, but then what sets it apart from generic garbage? Someone should’ve told Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Rachmaninoff they only needed three chords to make “good” music. And remember, you are viewing music through the lense of western music theory and culture.
There’s a lot that can be done with just three chords without it sounding generic. Rhythm, meter, tempo, dynamic, different arrangements, arpeggios, and more. If you can’t use three chords to make music that doesn’t sound generic, that’s on you.
But honestly, if you can’t make a good song with just three chords, then adding more chords isn’t going to help. If anything, it will end up sounding cluttered and noisy because you don’t know how to arrange them in harmonious progressions. If you do know how, then three chords is enough. That’s the point.
And while I’m approaching this from the angle of western music theory, the same applies universally. There are geometric proportions that give music its harmonies. Not every musical system uses scales that go “whole step - whole step - half step”, with whole steps each representing 12 microtonals. But the proportions that create the harmonies are universal. You put tension on a string, the points of harmony are at the halfway point and the thirds and two-thirds points. That doesn’t change by culture.
Cultures have unique styles and systems of music, but there’s an underlying science that transcends culture, and the only point you’re proving is that you don’t understand it enough to see those principles hiding beneath the aesthetic differences
Weird thing to say, I studied music theory in university (a fact I purposely avoided just to see how much the conversation would devolve into people insulting my grasp of theory). Your point is the equivalent of “you need complimentary colors to make good art.” Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone declares what is necessary in an artform.
One, it’s not at all like saying “You need complementary colors to make good art.” First of all, no one says that. Second of all, complementary colors are a basic principle of art that any artist should understand, in order to be able to apply them to the effect that they desire. But that is a long way from saying you need them to make good art. It’s more comparable to how a musician needs to understand sharps and flats in order to use them to the effect they desire in their music. But you can make music in a key signature with all naturals.
However, what defines a complementary color is a geometric proportion. They are located at 180° from each other on the color wheel. That doesn’t change by culture, even though some cultures may have used pigments with different hues, and applied them with different techniques and forms. Just like other cultures have different musical systems, but the proportional distance between notes is what creates the harmony, and anything outside of the harmonic proportion is sharp or flat relative to the harmonic.
Second thing: I never “declared what is necessary in an artform,” so you can take that strawman somewhere else. If anything, you’re the one declaring what is “necessary,” because you seem to be arguing that you need more than three chords to make good music (which is false). Good music can be made with only three chords, and that’s a well-established fact, so the fact that you don’t understand that makes me question how honest is your statement that you studied music theory in college. What was it, a one-semester elective? You apparently didn’t pay very much attention if you think a song with only three chords must sound generic. There is so much variation that can be done on three chords. More than I can or am willing to lecture you on here.
Oh, and to your point about the classical composers? Yeah, lots of them composed musical arrangements with only three chords. Have you ever heard of an etude?
Nope.
Yes, good music is subjective.
Actually, chord progressions are quite objective if you understand the math/geometries behind them. If you don’t, this conversation is over your head.
In layman’s terms, three chords is all you need to make a song. You can go beyond that, of course. Jazz often uses very complex and unusual chord arrangements. But three chords is all you need.
All it takes is a small understanding of music theory, and you can identify those three chords for any scale and make a song with them.
What is “good” music will always be subjective. Sure you can use only three or four chords, but then what sets it apart from generic garbage? Someone should’ve told Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Rachmaninoff they only needed three chords to make “good” music. And remember, you are viewing music through the lense of western music theory and culture.
There’s a lot that can be done with just three chords without it sounding generic. Rhythm, meter, tempo, dynamic, different arrangements, arpeggios, and more. If you can’t use three chords to make music that doesn’t sound generic, that’s on you.
But honestly, if you can’t make a good song with just three chords, then adding more chords isn’t going to help. If anything, it will end up sounding cluttered and noisy because you don’t know how to arrange them in harmonious progressions. If you do know how, then three chords is enough. That’s the point.
And while I’m approaching this from the angle of western music theory, the same applies universally. There are geometric proportions that give music its harmonies. Not every musical system uses scales that go “whole step - whole step - half step”, with whole steps each representing 12 microtonals. But the proportions that create the harmonies are universal. You put tension on a string, the points of harmony are at the halfway point and the thirds and two-thirds points. That doesn’t change by culture.
Cultures have unique styles and systems of music, but there’s an underlying science that transcends culture, and the only point you’re proving is that you don’t understand it enough to see those principles hiding beneath the aesthetic differences
Weird thing to say, I studied music theory in university (a fact I purposely avoided just to see how much the conversation would devolve into people insulting my grasp of theory). Your point is the equivalent of “you need complimentary colors to make good art.” Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone declares what is necessary in an artform.
Two things:
One, it’s not at all like saying “You need complementary colors to make good art.” First of all, no one says that. Second of all, complementary colors are a basic principle of art that any artist should understand, in order to be able to apply them to the effect that they desire. But that is a long way from saying you need them to make good art. It’s more comparable to how a musician needs to understand sharps and flats in order to use them to the effect they desire in their music. But you can make music in a key signature with all naturals.
However, what defines a complementary color is a geometric proportion. They are located at 180° from each other on the color wheel. That doesn’t change by culture, even though some cultures may have used pigments with different hues, and applied them with different techniques and forms. Just like other cultures have different musical systems, but the proportional distance between notes is what creates the harmony, and anything outside of the harmonic proportion is sharp or flat relative to the harmonic.
Second thing: I never “declared what is necessary in an artform,” so you can take that strawman somewhere else. If anything, you’re the one declaring what is “necessary,” because you seem to be arguing that you need more than three chords to make good music (which is false). Good music can be made with only three chords, and that’s a well-established fact, so the fact that you don’t understand that makes me question how honest is your statement that you studied music theory in college. What was it, a one-semester elective? You apparently didn’t pay very much attention if you think a song with only three chords must sound generic. There is so much variation that can be done on three chords. More than I can or am willing to lecture you on here.
Oh, and to your point about the classical composers? Yeah, lots of them composed musical arrangements with only three chords. Have you ever heard of an etude?