119 chord progressions

axisluminary · #1 03-21-2008, 06:32 PM

i recently heard about these "119 chord progressions". initially, it was presented in reference to the ii-V-I progression (Ionian), but i think the progressions themselves are just regarded as being commonly used through-out popular music. apparently there is a book and all sorts of other things (a guy by the name of Dick Grove came up with some stuff), but i can't find anything at all. anyways, does anybody know of a link or website where i don't have to pay, or purchase something, to see these 119 progressions?

DocBop · #2 03-21-2008, 09:38 PM

Dick Grove's basic view was every pieces of music in the world is a II-V-I. To get to that point you factor in the chord substitutions.

III and VI are sub's for I
IV is a sub for II
VII is a sub for V

That was just something basic Dick talked about in his Harmonic Relationships class. I wish I still had my old books from studying at Grove School of Music he was a great teacher.

axisluminary · #3 03-21-2008, 10:07 PM

awesome, thanks for that info. it should keep me busy for a while.

Ed Fuqua · #4 03-22-2008, 12:02 PM

We had a nice go round about this awhile ago, my take is that it's a great way to make a lot of different compositions sound the same. Lee Konitz has a nice little exposition on the lost art of playing melodic line development.
Look sure, there a buncha tunes out there that have SIMILAR harmonic frameworks. But there's a reason you can't copywrite HARMONY, only MELODY (well, and lyrics). And that's because melody (well, and lyrics) is what makes one song different from another.

Likewise, if you learn MELODIES and not CHORD PROGRESSIONS you give yourself much more freedom to "recompose" the underpinning of that melody - not just substituting voicings but coming up with new ways to harmonize the melody that may have absolutley NO RELATION to the harmony as composed. If what you learn is the progression, you lose that.

MarkTAW · #5 03-24-2008, 02:09 PM

It's not an Ionian progression, the goal is to get to I and you're working backwards from there.

V - I is "the" cadence. You don't need to dress it up. Hit any note a dozen times in a row and then go a 5th down and it *feels* right. Throw in a 7th and you've got a killer cadence.

C C C C C C C C C C C C C7 F. or G G G G G G G G G G G G G G7 C.

ii is just "the five of the five." (V of V = ii, V of I, I) You're extending it out by one - but extending it backwards, earlier in time. Again the goal is the I, the ii is just a way of getting there.

As DocBob says - you can substitute an IV for an ii (shares 2 notes in common, in fact ii7 has all the notes of IV), etc.

axisluminary · #6 03-24-2008, 07:25 PM

i didn't mean to imply that the ii-V-I progression was to be explicitly used in Ionian mode, that was just what was being used in the reference. i was just curious, specifically, about the 119 chord progressions involving the ii-V-I progression.

Ed Fuqua · #7 03-25-2008, 09:45 AM

...sigh...

axisluminary · #8 03-25-2008, 12:02 PM

what's... the... problem... ed?

and if you're going to give me some diatribe about how i'm missing the point on the importance of melody, don't bother... i asked for one thing, and surprisingly enough i got a straight answer for it. the rest of what's been posted seems to be in response to assumptions, about my level of knowledge and playing, on everybody else's part.

Ed Fuqua · #9 03-25-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by axisluminary

A.what's... the... problem... ed?

B.and if you're going to give me some diatribe about how i'm missing the point on the importance of melody, don't bother...

Why ask A if you're going to restrict it with B?

Quote:

Originally Posted by axisluminary

the rest of what's been posted seems to be in response to assumptions, about my level of knowledge and playing, on everybody else's part.

There are only 3 other people besides yourself involved in this thread and in none of the posts do I see any reference or implication as to the state of your "level of knowledge and playing". My only suggestion would be that it may be more beneficial to read what people actually write rather than respond to what it is you think they meant.

axisluminary · #10 03-25-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Why ask A if you're going to restrict it with B?

why "sigh" when you could just state your problem?

Quote:

My only suggestion would be that it may be more beneficial to read what people actually write rather than respond to what it is you think they meant.

well, let's try it together.

Quote:

We had a nice go round about this awhile ago, my take is that it's a great way to make a lot of different compositions sound the same... Likewise, if you learn MELODIES and not CHORD PROGRESSIONS you give yourself much more freedom to "recompose" the underpinning of that melody - not just substituting voicings but coming up with new ways to harmonize the melody that may have absolutley NO RELATION to the harmony as composed.

great, thanks, except i didn't ask for your take, or point of view, on any of this. granted, i can appreciate the concept, and i do understand it, but i didn't ask for any of that. all i wanted to know was more information about the 119 progressions that this Dick Grove came up with. not how it might be detrimental to developing songs and/or melodies, and trying different things. the first response i got was sufficient enough, but whatever, this is getting really silly and absurd(especially about such a small issue). peace.

Ed Fuqua · #11 03-25-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by axisluminary

why "sigh" when you could just state your problem?

It seemed like a good idea at the time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by axisluminary

great, thanks, except i didn't ask for your take, or point of view, on any of this. granted, i can appreciate the concept, and i do understand it, but i didn't ask for any of that. all i wanted to know was more information about the 119 progressions that this Dick Grove came up with. not how it might be detrimental to developing songs and/or melodies, and trying different things. the first response i got was sufficient enough, but whatever, this is getting really silly and absurd(especially about such a small issue). peace.

Don't worry, you don't need to ask. But all that doesn't address the point "...assumptions, about my level of knowledge and playing, on everybody else's part." The only "everybody" in this thread is me, DocBop and MarkTAW and none of these everybodies posted anything concerning your playing at all.

Peace, indeed.

Ed Fuqua · #12 03-25-2008, 02:13 PM

Oh (and I know it doesn't have anything to do with 119 progressions and it's JUST A QUESTION and isn't code for I think your mother dresses you funny or anything), your profile lists you being available for instruction on double bass, but you don't list that you actually own a double bass. Did you stop playing DB?

axisluminary · #13 03-25-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Oh (and I know it doesn't have anything to do with 119 progressions and it's JUST A QUESTION and isn't code for I think your mother dresses you funny or anything)

HAHAHAHA, oh i just found my new signature. that was the best thing ever. and no, i don't own a double bass anymore, it was a bit of a bother to haul everywhere and i don't have the space for one right now.

Quote:

But all that doesn't address the point "...assumptions, about my level of knowledge and playing, on everybody else's part."

i only said everybody, knowing that that consisted of you and mark, because it was shorter than listing names. also, from your first responses, i basically took that as you assuming i didn't know what the hell i was doing and that i was some jerk just looking for an easy way to write songs.

Ed Fuqua · #14 03-25-2008, 02:54 PM

Which is my point. I am only responsible for what I write, NOT what you read. I generally don't have a problem with saying exactly and precisely what I want to say and if that's what I wanted to say, I would just go ahead and say it.

axisluminary · #15 03-25-2008, 03:20 PM

okay, so if i was wrong in understanding that you were talking about what would be my playing/composing (in context of the origianl post), then what were you talking about?

i don't think you've gotten the point that i have been trying to make.

but whatever, if you want to be right, then by all means, go ahead and consider yourself that. i really don't care anymore.

arjune · #16 03-25-2008, 05:24 PM

This got nasty fast...

jazzbo · #17 03-25-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by axisluminary

great, thanks, except i didn't ask for your take, or point of view, on any of this. granted, i can appreciate the concept, and i do understand it, but i didn't ask for any of that. all i wanted to know was more information about the 119 progressions that this Dick Grove came up with. not how it might be detrimental to developing songs and/or melodies, and trying different things. the first response i got was sufficient enough, but whatever, this is getting really silly and absurd(especially about such a small issue). peace.

C'mon now. That's just the way things work. You ask Talkbass, and by posting you're asking us all, and people are going to tell you how they see it. People see things differently and that's the beauty of a community.

I think the point Ed is making is vital and that's why he's stressing it right now. So, I can understand that you just wanted the freakin' reference, but Ed was takin' the "teach a man to fish" route.

You know, this happens to be the second time I'm coming into a conversation late and backing up Ed's points. So, some might be getting a weird idea about all this. I'm not doing this on purpose I tell ya, I'm truly not. What I'm thinking is that maybe I'm just getting old and all curmudgeonly and impatient. Maybe it's because I've been neckdeep in this final paper and clinical vignette for three days and need escape. Who knows.

Ed Fuqua · #18 03-26-2008, 09:16 AM

I've been about as clear as I can. Yes, I understand that my initial post was not a direct answer to your question. I get your point.

What I still don't understand is how you made the leap from that to "i didn't know what the hell i was doing and that i was some jerk just looking for an easy way to write songs." You're getting all worked up over stuff that NOBODY has said, but you.

It's not about being right, it's about being accurate. If you can't be bothered to read what people actually write and instead want to take offense to whatever slights you can "interpret" from what you "think" they said, fine. Just don't expect me to buy into it.