Songwriting

I was once talking to one of the members of staff at a prestigious music college. Someone asked him whether the college offered teaching of songwriting. He responded by quoting a famous songwriter who had said ‘You cannot teach someone to write music. They either can do it or they can’t’. I do believe that certain people seem to have ‘the gift’. If you look at songwriters such as Guy Chambers, Cathy Dennis or Linda Pew, you will see that they are able to just keep writing hits. You can look at many of today’s pop songs and see recurring names in the songwriting credits. So can someone be taught to song write, or is it just ‘in the genes’?

I don’t know the answer to this question, but I certainly have seen a huge gap in the teaching of songwriting. There seems to be very little teaching in this area. I personally think it is the most fascinating and most exciting element of music. As a school we advertised songwriting teaching but hardly anyone seemed interested. This is very sad to me, since I feel people are really missing out on a key part of our expertise. This area of the website, therefore, has been set up in order to try and provide a resource for those who do wish to understand songwriting. We will constantly update the section both with our own analysis of songs and with articles written by people who I consider to be exceptional songwriters. Since there currently seems to be such a gap in the area of good songwriting resources and also because of some of the more innovative elements of this section, we hope that this will become the best resource available for those wanting to learn about songwriting.

Top 5 Hits

   ‘Many college educators [assume] that rock stubbornly adheres in the most unsophisticated way to the simplest principles of common [Classical] practice… The assumption that rock is simply a crude extension of common-practise music is false. Rock, in fact, exhibits melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic characteristics that are not found in any other musical style …a small body of work analysing rock has been published …Most of this literature concentrates on analyses of individual works; Middleton and Steussy contribute toward establishing stylistic norms, but in each case the treatment is sporadic and forms only part of a work with a broader or different overall topic.’

What to Listen for in Rock – Ken Stephenson (Introduction)

I took all the songs that were in the UK top 5 for the 7-month period beginning 27th May and ending 22nd December 2007. The following is an analysis of the chorus chord sequences (or at least the initial looped sequence found at the beginning of the chorus, if not the whole chorus). There were 43 songs in total.

Minor Keys

In what follows all songs are written in number form. However minor songs are written as though they were in their relative major key. So where a song is minor, the root chord is chord 6 rather than chord 1. The Tonic in the minor is chord 6. The reason for this is touched on in the section ‘Note to Technical Musicians – Minors annotated in their relative major number system’ which is a part of the section dealing with ‘1564 and loops (6415, 4156)’ and follows shortly.

Abbreviations

j         major
m       minor
f       Minor with a flattened 5th
(xx)   Everything found in brackets together occupies the same number of measures as the other chords in the sequence. E.g. 16(45)1. If each chord occupies a bar then chords 4 and 5, (found in the brackets) together occupy a bar, and therefore occupy half a bar each.
(x[xx])   Here the brackets within the brackets [ ] contain chords that occupy the same number of measures as the remaining chords found in the initial set of brackets. E.g. (1[45]) – if the whole brackets occupy 2 bars then in this case 1 would last for a bar and together 4 and 5 would last for a bar – so 4 and 5 would last for half a bar each.
X       This denotes a bar with no chord played in it.
Roman Numerals:   I use Roman Numerals when there is just a root note or when the 3rd in the chord is absent so that the chord is neither major nor minor.
b   prior to a number means flat. E.g. b7 denotes a flat 7 chord.

In what follows numbers represent as close to their natural diatonic chords as possible. Therefore: -

1   is Major
2   is Minor
3   is Minor
4   is Major
5   is Major
6   is Minor

All b chords are major – e.g. b7 is chord flat 7 major

‘Top 5 hits database’

An exciting edition to this article is that all the information used for this study can be found on line in the ‘top 5 hits’ database at www.writetop10hits.com
When you enter the site you will find 8 empty boxes. Each box must contain either a chord or ? or x.

Place x in a box if you want to eliminate it from your query.
Place ? in a box if you want to know what is found in this box.
Place a chord number in a box if you want to lock the box.

For example: -

If you want to begin a chorus on chord 4 and wish to know what chord would come next in a hit song,
Place a 4 in the first box
Place a ? in the second box
And fill the remaining boxes with ‘x’ since you are only interested in the first 2 chords in the sequence.

Make sure you choose ‘chorus’ from the first drop down menu if you are interested in choruses only – there are options for all parts of the song including verse, middle 8, co = ‘chorus out’, which is the bit after the loop at the beginning of the chorus which finishes the chorus off etc. etc.

Make sure you choose ‘top 5’ from the second drop down menu or you will end up including 120 of my favourite songs in your query. However if you write a song based on my 120 favourite songs you can be sure that I will like the song even if no one else does!
‘Top 5’ includes all this songs found in this study.

Number 1s

Firstly I will list all the songs that have been at number 1 in order of sales (not sure about the order of the last 3).

Bleeding Love – Leona Lewis
Umbrella - Rihanna
Stronger – Kanye West
About You Now - Sugarbabes
Beautiful Liar – Beyonce and Shakira
With Every Heartbeat – Robyn with Kleerup
Beautiful Girls – Sean Kingston

16(45)1 or 1645

Bleeding Love (Leona Lewis): 1645
Beautiful Girls (Sean Kingston): 16(45)1

About You Now (Sugababes): 1(36)(45)1
Rule the World (Take That): 1(63)(34)(45)

Fairytale of New York (Pogues ft. Kirsty MacColl): 4(45)16, (14)5

This was the sequence used for Stand by Me, which most readers will be familiar with. In fact even non-musicians will know how the sequence sounds since in the song the chord roots are played by the bass very clearly in the intro. The Stand by Me backing track is actually sampled for the Sean Kingston song and plays throughout the song. The sequence can be found in 2 basic forms that I see as more or less the same.

16(45)1 or
1645

The reason I see these as more or less the same is that most choruses have a 4-chord sequence that repeats at the beginning of the chorus rendition. If either of the above 2 sequences are repeated, the chord order stays the same. In the first sequence 4 and 5 are simply shortened to half a bar each and then chord 1 comes in early. If the second sequence were used at the end of a song, the song would probably have an extra chord 1 tagged to the end of the song after the last rendition of the sequence in order to complete the sequence and settle on the root. However in the 80’s the song would probably have ‘faded out’. We can thank God for the 90s.

Beautiful Girls (Sean Kingston) 16(45)1: This song uses the first version of the sequence. Bleeding Love (Leona Lewis): 1645 uses the second. For both songs the chords last 2 bars each.

About You Now is interesting. The verse uses 16(45)1 in its standard form. Let me now mention another song at this point, because it has relevance. Rule The World by Take That was the 5th highest selling song of 2007 despite not getting to number 1. The chorus sequence for this song was 1(63)(34)(45). By having 6 and 5 only taking up half a bar each there is space for the addition of another chord in this sequence. So if we hypothesise the template as 1645 then the chords of the Rule The World sequence are 16345 – the same sequence with the addition of a chord 3 as a passing chord.

Now the verse sequence for About You Now was 16(45)1. But the chorus develops the sequence to the following: (13)6(45)1. This is the same sequence with the addition of the 3 between 1 and 6. Clearly the chorus is a development of the verse which uses the standard 16(45)1 sequence. Could the chorus of Rule The World, which uses the same sequence with the addition of 3 after 6, be considered a development of the same sequence?

It seems to me that it may be a telling sign that no other songs appear to use this template. However a good proportion of the top selling songs in this period use it. Is this what helped them to overtake their competitors? I suspect so, which provides support to my belief that the tune/catch is primarily the chord sequence not the melody line (I will write a full article developing this point in due course).

1645 loops beginning on chords other than the 1

Fairytale of New York (Pogues ft. Kirsty MacColl): 4(45)16, (14)5

This appears to be the 1645 loop beginning on the 4. (The ‘loop’ issue is dealt with fully immediately below.) A 1 is inserted between the 6 and 4, but according to Classical theory this can occur without causing harmonic interruption to the sequence.

1564 and loops (6415, 4156)

Umbrella (Rihanna): 4156
Here (in your arms), (Hellogoodbye): 1564
Apologise (Timbaland ft. One Republic): 6415
Do you know? (Ping Pong Song), (Enrique Iglesias): 156(45)
Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie): 4155, 4156

Home (Westlife): 1563, 4515

Now what I am about to say I believe to be extremely important. Out of the 43 songs in the top 5 in our 7-month study period, only one song has a chorus sequence that begins on chord 5. Most sequences begin on 1, 4 or 6. Now Robbie Williams has (I believe) the biggest record deal of all time – he got an advance of £80 million. Which song broke Robbie Williams through as a solo artist? I would say Angels. And personally I don’t think he would be the megastar he is today if he hadn’t had that song. In Gary Barlow’s autobiography he also considers Robbie’s breakthrough moment to be when that song was released. It’s a very important song.

As already mentioned, 4-chord sequences are usually repeated over and over in songs. The sequence being discussed here is 1564. When this is looped the sequence looks like this: 156415641564 etc. However, another sequence used perhaps as much as this sequence is 6415. If you look at the loop of the original sequence, you will see that 6415 is part of the same loop but starting in a different place.

The chorus of Angels begins on chord 5, which is very unusual. I have a theory that the reason choruses don’t begin on chord 5 is not because it’s not a good chord to begin a chorus on, but rather because people don’t think to start a chorus with it. Anyway the relevance here is as follows: the chorus loop for Angels is 5641, which is a loop of the sequence being discussed. I don’t know any other songs that use this sequence. However I believe that if it were used more often, the sequence would achieve the same success as 6415 and 1564. This is one reason why I believe this kind of study to be so important. Perhaps people are writing sequences that seem obvious and are missing some equally powerful sequences that are less obvious.

Umbrella (Rihanna): 4156
Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie): 4155, 4156: The chorus of Umbrella uses the following sequence: 4156 – another loop of the sequence we are currently discussing. Interestingly Big Girls Don’t Cry got to number 2 but couldn’t knock Rihanna off the top spot. Its chorus sequence is 4155, then 4156, and I feel that the fact that the 6 is not used in the first loop actually has the effect of increasing the power of the 6 when it occurs in the second loop. It’s a really nice variation and enhancing of the sequence. It couldn’t knock itself off the top spot though!!

Apologise (Timbaland ft. One Republic): 6415. The entire song just uses this loop. It’s always a strong loop.

Here (in your arms), (Hellogoodbye): 1564. Again this sequence is used for the entire song. It once again shows its potency through such application.

Do you know? (Ping Pong Song), (Enrique Inglesias): 156(45). This is the 1564 loop and I would suggest that the 5 at the end is simply a passing chord providing little interruption to the loop.

Home (Westlife): 1563, 4515. This is interesting. It appears to begin with 1564, with the addition of the 3 (which we have already seen more than once has appeared to function as a passing chord when it is placed next to chord 6). However, taking the Rule the World variation of the 1645 sequence: 16345, the Home sequence now could almost be considered to be using the 16345 template, with a 5 inserted between the 1 and the 6 at the beginning (which alludes to the 1645 template). Here we appear to have a hybrid of the 2 templates 1645 and 1564 (or 16345). Good egg.

(Since writing this article I have now developed the theory concerning this sequence. I will, on a future date when I find time, write about this more fully. For now, however, I will briefly outline my thoughts. The template is 1¬*64* with the stars representing where a 5 can be placed. The 5 can go in either position, each option leaving us with one of what may be considered the 3 most powerful sequences – 1645 and 1564. However, the verse of When Your Gone and the chorus of Do you know? (Ping Pong Song) – use 15645 (with different rhythms but using the same chord sequence). It seems that the 5 is necessary but can appear in both positions or just one of them. It’s kind of a passing chord – but necessary in at least one position. More will be said later in this article about the ‘passing chord’ nature of chords 5 and 3. More will also be said about the 465 and 456 template. What I did not see when I originally wrote this article was that the same kind of relationship is probably occurring in the case of these two templates. The actual template is 4*6* and the 5 can appear on either or both of the starred positions.)

Based on templates?

Hey there Delilah (Plain White T's): 1(15)6(65).
Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f            (f=minor b5)

Hey there Delilah (Plain White T's): 1(15)6(65). Could this be seen as being based on the 1564 template – simply not completing the loop, but rather ending it after chord 5? Perhaps I am pushing the theory too far at this point.

Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f. Could this be seen as being based on the 1645 template. #4f often follows chord 4 and as such I feel possibly alludes to chord 4. Could this therefore be seen as an extremely clever (if not unwittingly applied) allusion to and variation of 164 (the beginning of the 1645 loop)? Again, I’m probably pushing the theory too far at this point.

(‘f’ is my abbreviation for minor b5. I don’t use ‘half-diminished’ as a term since I feel it is a misnomer and deceptive, since the chord can either be half [or 3 quarters] of a diminished or half of a minor 7th with a flattened 5th – it depends what note the chord’s root falls on in the key. In this case it would be half of a minor with a flattened 5th since it falls on #4 and this option would keep it as close to diatonic as possible. I feel that it is confusing to tell pupils that it is half of a diminished chord when it clearly isn’t necessarily. It’s not helping them to understand what’s actually happening or to understand good theory).

Note to Technical Musicians – Minors annotated in their relative major number system

You will most probably not understand the following note unless you have a strong grasp of Classical chord theory. Unless you fall into this category, I recommend you skip this section and move onto the ‘More Sequences’ section.

The instance of the above mentioned chord sequence aptly demonstrates one of the reasons why I use a non-conventional number system for minor songs. When a song is minor I use numbers to denote the chords as though the song were in the relative major. Therefore the root of the minor key is now chord 6 as opposed to chord 1. (However I still use the traditional terms e.g. Tonic and Dominant at times alongside this, depending on what aspect of the chord’s function is being discussed, thereby drawing on the best of both worlds). In the Classical system the 6415 loop would be referred to as 1637. However:

1)   this would completely mask the looping nature of the chord sequence. 6415 is a loop of 1564 and if we called the former 1637 the situation is masked.
2)   Point 1 is not actually the heart of the matter – rather an example of the problematic nature of the Classical system. The fact is that a song can seamlessly move from minor to relative major from verse to chorus. Complicated by Avril Lavigne provides an example of this situation. The verse sequence is 1645. The chorus sequence is 6415 (note the use of both of the two sequences so far outlined in this study). From my perspective the basic key never changed. It's just that the settling point of the melody and chords has altered. Using the Classical number system would mean constantly denoting key changes throughout the song. And more importantly…
3)   …(with continued reference to Complicated), (using my system to denote chords in this discussion as opposed to the Classical system), the ‘real’ (as opposed to relative) constitution of chord 1 in the chorus is not changing from its constitution in the verse, in both instances the notes are F, A, and C – nor are the constitutions of any of the other chords. The notes are still the same. To change the numbering system for the chorus masks the similar nature of chord 1 and 6 and all the other chords (whose notes do not change at all) as the song moves from major to relative minor. Neither do the intervals between notes change. And neither do the minor or major nature of the chords change – F is major in the verse and F is major in the chorus, similarly D is minor in the verse and D is minor in the chorus. However, using the Classical system would involve ‘1’ denoting different chords in the verse and chorus and ‘1’ would also change from major to minor. The only thing that is altering is the settling point. In the chorus the only alteration in the nature of the key is that the melody and chords now settle on 6 instead of 1.
4)   The only reason to re-number the chords according to the Classical system for the chorus, so that 6 from the verse now becomes 1 in the chorus, would be if 1 in the verse has more in common with (what I refer to as) 6 in the chorus, than it does with the 1 in the chorus. Let me paint the picture more clearly: -

1 in the verse of Complicated is F and the Classical system would then require Dm to become chord 1 in the chorus. The only crazed reasoning for making such a move would be if F in the verse and Dm in the chorus have more in common than F in the verse and F in the chorus. They don’t. Even a glance at the top 5 choruses of the last 7 months shows that most choruses that begin on chord 1 then move to chord 5 (for their second chord), but most choruses that begin on chord 6 (my system) also then move to chord 5. This common movement would of course be masked by the classical system! The Classical system would expect 6 to move to chord 3j (my system), i.e. the Dominant, and if this was found to be the case, it would provide an argument for calling, what was chord 6 in the verse, chord 1 in the chorus. Then in both cases chord 1 would move to chord 5 (the Dominant). But if for a moment we entertain the Classical system and call my chord 6 chord 1, it becomes clear that the 2 chords (i.e. the minor Tonic and the major Tonic to use Classical terms) bear no relationship to each other when looking at the beginning of choruses from the top 5 of the last 7 months. Perhaps the Classical system serves to denote relationships found in Classical music. I don’t know any Classical music so I have no idea. I certainly hope so, because the system is complete anathema when applied to chart music and its application to chart music, from my perspective, simply highlights the stupidity of people who think they can understand one thing because they understand something else. For Christ’s sake study pop music if you want to understand pop music. Don’t just assume it’s Classical music – even a casual perusal of the material will tell you otherwise.

More sequences

465

With Every Heartbeat (Robyn with Kleerup) 4(46)55
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward). 4(65)4(65), 45(65)(43)2
Foundations (Kate Nash): 46546545
When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne): 4655.

Another cluster of chords which seems to recur again and again is the following sequence

465

With Every Heartbeat (Robyn with Kleerup): 4(46)55 which was one of the 7 songs in the last 8 months that got to number 1 used the following sequence for most or all of the song: 4(46)55

No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward): 4(65)4(65), 45(65)(43)2 I allocated this song 2 choruses, which is very unusual, but I just felt that they both seemed like choruses. One of them used the following sequence: 4(65)4(65), 45(65)(43)2. The sequence is repeated twice for the first half of this chorus.

Foundations (Kate Nash): 46546545. This is identical in sequence to the previously cited song: in both songs after 2 repetitions of the 465 the chorus continues with 45. This song also reached number 2.

When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne): 4655. This song got to number 3.

A loop of 465: 654 and 6524

Gimme More (Britney Spears): 654(4[45]).
1973 (James Blunt): 6,6/5,4,(1[15]).

Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4
Makes me wonder (Maroon 5): 652(4-3j), 6543

Gimme More (Britney Spears): 654(4[45]). This song reached no. 3. If the last 5 is considered a passing chord then the loop is basically 654, which is the same loop as 456 but beginning on the 6. This looping matter has of course been covered in the discussion of loops of 6415.

1973 (James Blunt): 6,6/5,4,(1[15]). This could be seen as the 654 loop. The 6/5 may be seen as acting very much like a 5: I usually never include altered bass notes but while this was chord 6, without the bass note alteration the inherent and necessary progression really doesn’t occur. This could also be seen as drawing on the 6415 template and in a sense is a hybrid of these 2 templates.

Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4. This is an interesting sequence. Could this sequence be considered as based on the 654 loop with the 2j as an added chord to the loop? If so then this opens up a little possibility for experimentation and excitement to be injected into what could be considered a rather stale and repetitive use of the same 4 or so chord templates. This song was one of the 7 songs that got to number 1 in the 7-month period covered for this study. Interestingly another song used a very similar sequence. (Discussed next.)

Makes me wonder (Maroon 5): 652(4-3j), 6543. I feel the comparison of this sequence with the aforementioned Stronger sequence to be very important. If you look at the first loop on both songs they are the same other than the fact that Makes Me Wonder has a 2 instead of a 2j. The second loop then changes. The 2 is lost and 5 moves straight to 4. I feel this perhaps points to the presence of the 654 template at this point. I feel the stable or unchanging factor is the 654 in each of these 4 loop variations being discussed. In Makes Me Wonder the 2 is then removed after the 1st repetition, leaving 654, which may support my proposal that it is a hybrid (or embellishment) of the 654 template. This song reached number 2.

456

The Heart Never Lies (McFly): 4566, 55
Clothes Off (Gym Class Heroes): 4(45)6(65), 4566
The Girls (Calvin Harris): 4(56)(x6)(31)
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward): 5644

All these instances seem pretty unpolluted. 2 of these instances are 4565. (Note again a 5 being added as a passing chord to the 3-chord template to create a 4-chord sequence – this also happened in Gimme More 654(4[45])---). A point that I think is worth raising here is that 2 of the most frequently used templates have 4 chords and include chord 1: 1645 and 6415. These sequences use 645 (a loop of 456 starting on the 6) but have a 1 inserted (which, as mentioned before, Classical theory maintains can be inserted without much interruption to a sequence). In the most used sequence the 1 does not interrupt the loop - 1645. In the other the 1 is inserted 2 positions further on. In both sequences the 4 and 6 remain next to each other (more to be said about 46 later).

426

2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue): 4261
Worried About Ray (Hoosiers): 4(25)(65)
Heartbroken (T2 Ft Jodie Aysha): 66(42)2
In each of these cases I feel the loop is reasonably unpolluted. In Worried About Ray, if the 5 between 2 and 6 is considered to be a passing chord, then we are beginning to see 5 often being used as a passing chord (see discussion of 5 as a passing chord in previous section, discussing 456 template). Perhaps both chord 5 and 3 operate more as passing chords than foundation chords in sequences. While we are on this subject, it seems worth mentioning that 1 is not found in so many of the templates being discussed.

Chord 2

There are 10 songs in our study that include chord 2 (not chord 2j). 2 of these songs have 8 bar loops and the chord 2 doesn’t appear in the first half of the ‘loop’ but rather appears to provide some variation in the second half of the ‘loop’ and also appears to participate in the process of drawing the chorus to a close (No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward): 4(65)4(65), (45)(65)(43)2, and
All I Want for Christmas is You (Mariah Carey): 1(1-iii)6(6-4m), 162vb9).
This leaves 8 remaining songs that include chord 2.

3 of these 6 songs contain the aforementioned loop: 426 (listed at the top of this section.)

This leaves the following songs: -

Fluorescent Adolescent (Arctic Monkeys): 2525, 2524
Like This (Kelly Rowland Ft. Eve): x(12)x(51), x(32)x(51)
Valerie (Mark Ronson): 1122
Beautiful Liar (Beyonce and Shakira): 3j3j4(2-3j)
Makes me wonder (Maroon 5): already discussed)

If we leave Makes Me Wonder out of the discussion since we have already proposed a theory defining its lineage this leaves 4 remaining sequences. Valerie and Fluorescent Adolescent appear to differ in constitution slightly from all the others with 2 in: they are primarily 2 chords sequences (discussed below). This leaves Beautiful Liar and Like This.

I therefore feel that proportionately (in terms of sequences containing chord 2), the 3 sequences containing the 426 loop are significant. Of course there is a likelihood of this sequence occurring 3 times by chance, but as time goes by and the pool of songs drawn from steadily increases it will be easier to see whether or not this loop continues to demonstrate proportional constancy.
Of the remaining 4 songs containing 2s, Fluorescent Adolescent is mostly 25s (3 loops of 25 in total), and Like This contains 25 in both loops (1251 and 3251).

461

Call the Shots (Girls Aloud): 4461
2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue): 4261

Call the Shots is interesting since it is written by the same songwriters as Sexy! No No No… and it is one of only 4 songs that contain 61 in this study. We will discuss Icky Thump below (one of the songs containing 61). It seems likely that we have found an idiosyncrasy of these writers – they like their 61 movement. Is it a strong movement in its own right bearing in mind 2 songs use it in repetition on its own and this constitutes almost the entire chorus of both songs? If so, how strong is it? Not sure. 2 Hearts uses 4261 and this could be seen as using a 461 template with the addition of a 2 after the 4. Perhaps it could be considered a hybrid of the 2 templates.

634

Cupid's Chokehold (Gym Class Heroes): 634(43)
Crank That (Soulja Boy Tellem) vi,vi,iii,iv; iv,vi,vi,iii

Here we only have 2 examples. However, both Rule the World, and Home, also contain this 643 movement as an embellishment of 1645 i.e. 16345. Could the cluster 634 be powerful in its own right? Again, the frequency of occurrence is far too small to be sure, but out of 11 songs in which 3 appears, this combination appears 4 times.

1xx(x-4m)

Real Girl (Muty Buena): 1,1j7,1d7,(4-4m)    (1j7=1major7th; 1d7=1Dominant7th)
All I Want for Christmas is You (Mariah Carey): 1(1-iii)6(6-4m), 162,vb9

2 songs that reached number 2 follow this pattern. One of them forms part of the modern Christmas canon so is particularly worth noting.

In the first verse of All I Want for Christmas is You the 1 is followed by a 1/3.    If this variation in the song is placed alongside the Real Girl sequence then both songs move from 1, to 1 with a variation. I think also that when the 4m appears in both songs, the bass plays the b6. I find this extremely powerful in both songs and the Mariah one is one of my favourite songs.

2js and 3js

Beautiful Liar (Beyonce and Shakira): 3j3j4(2-3j)
Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4
Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead): 42j55, (45)

Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f    (f=minor b5 – see comments on this chord)

Out of the 43 songs in the top 5 for the last 7 months, only 4 songs contain 2js or 3js. In fact only a couple of other songs even contain non-diatonic chords. Interestingly 2 of the 4 songs that contain 2js or 3js reached no.1 and the other 2 reached number 2. Perhaps this means that the use of 2js or 3js in a chorus is a powerful tool in and of itself? Interestingly, both Beautiful Liar and Stronger (the 2 songs to reach number 1 containing 2js and 3js) make ample use of these chords. Stronger uses 2j and 3j in the first loop of the sequence and Beautiful Liar is predominantly 3j:    3j3j4(23j).

The other 2 songs that use 2j or 3j are Makes Me Wonder and Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead).

I was initially particularly perplexed by the fact that the chord sequence in Stronger and Makes Me Wonder are almost the same: 652j(4-3j) and 652(4-3j). It’s surely too much of a coincidence that the sequence with 5 chords in occurs twice almost identically with just the 2j and 2 being different. Whilst I have already discussed the sequence and suggested it may be built on the 654 template, it seems too intricate and similar to be explained solely as an ornamentation of the basic template. One of my favourite songs at the moment is I Write Sins Not Tragedies by Panic at the Disco. The verse sequence is 6, 6, 2j/#4, 4 and the chorus is 642j2j. What seems particularly powerful in the verse is the altering of the non-diatonic #4 in the 2j to the 4 found in the root of chord 4. This relationship is then reversed in the chorus. A similarly powerful situation occurs when 4 is followed by 4m: the 6 is replaced by the non-diatonic b6. Now in the Kanye sequence the 2j is followed by the 4 and in both examples (this and verse of I Write Sins Not Tragedies) the bass moves from #4 to, thereby highlighting and emphasising the alteration. It seems to me that the bass plays #4 extremely often over a 2j and I wonder if this in itself is emphasising a very powerful effect created by the #4. Now of course the spanner in the works is brought about by the fact that the Makes Me Wonder chorus has 2 rather than 2j in it. However, the verse becomes particularly interesting at this point: 6, 5, 2j/#4, 3j/#5. Here the 5 is the replaced by a #5 in the bass for the last chord, which I feel has a very potent effect in a similar way to the #4 to 4 alteration. The sequence also echoes that of the chorus, the first 2 chords being the same followed by the 2 (third chord in chorus) now being replaced by a 2j/#4 in the verse. Could it be possible that the switch to 2 in the chorus somehow has a similar effect to switching from 2j/#4 to 4 in the Kanye song? I am suggesting that the #4 becomes so established in the listeners mind in the verse that when it is replaced by the 4 in the chorus in a sequence that clearly mimics the verse sequence with this new alteration, perhaps we have a similar #4 to 4 effect as that which is found in the Stronger sequence and elsewhere. Part of me feels that this seems somewhat of a stretch of the imagination but I also feel it is certainly a possibility and would explain the subtle alteration to a sequence that appears to be otherwise the same in both songs. In Rock Star by Nickelback, which was in the top 5 just after this study, the chorus first chord is G and there is a minor 3rd played over it, which suggests the chord should be G Major. However, to me, it really sounds like the implied or appropriate chord at this point is should be G major and that the b3 over it should be considered as simply an ornament drawn from the blues scale. I’ve thought lots about why it seems like the chord should be major in the absence of the major 3rd and the presence of a minor 3rd and I think the reason is because it has been major for the whole verse. It’s enough to establish it as major in the chorus even when the major third is missing and in the presence of a minor 3rd! This adds more weight in my mind to the consideration of the possibility that the #4 to 4 effect is created in Makes Me Wonder by the fact that 2 was major throughout the verse and is now minor in the chorus.

Goodbye Mr A 1(61)#4f: includes #4f. I think this song is extremely inventive in its chord use and some of the later sequences in the song display truly impressive harmonic sensitivity. I wonder if the success of this song partly lies in the exceptional and strong use of #4f in the chorus. If so, this is another instance of a non-diatonic chord adding considerable power to the chorus. In light of the discussion in the previous paragraph, this may provide more evidence of the power of the #4 in a sequence.

Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead): 42j55, (45). Here again we see this 4 to 2j relationship. Perhaps this relationship on its own is enough to create a strong sequence. Perhaps I’m overstretching the case. More samples of songs will help us to understand this situation better.

I think it is worth mentioning that this song is a cover of a very well known song. I will later mention that The Way I Are used an extremely famous hook from Push It by Salt and Pepper and that Valerie is also a cover. See further discussion of this below under The Way I Are and Valerie.

61 and 25 and 2 chord repetitions for entire chorus

Icky Thump (White Stripes): 6(61)6(61), 6(61)6(5656)
Sexy! No No No… (Girls Aloud): 6161
Fluorescent Adolescent (Arctic Monkeys) : 2525, 2524
Valerie (Mark Ronson): 1122
The Way I Are (Timbaland): 6565

The first 2 songs listed here are interesting since they both appear to pretty much exclusively use 61 looped over and over again. Perhaps this is a powerful loop in its own right? These 2 songs reached no.2 and number 5 respectively. However both songs from my perspective have strong non-melodic appeal. Icky Thump’s chorus is a guitar riff (I seem to remember) and much of White Stripes appeal I feel lies beyond the realms of purely melodic satisfaction: the white stripes have pure Rock n’ Roll vibe. Much of the strength is in the power of the raw rock vibe – dirty authentic simple guitar and drum drive. Similarly the Girls Aloud chorus (incidentally no. 5 is not amazing a chat position for Girls Aloud) I feel has a driving very repetitive almost dance like quality. I wonder if the 61 chord movement is useful in the driven not melodic context. It’s just a tentative theory though.

Fluorescent Adolescent is almost exclusively the repetition of 25 over and over. Arctic Monkeys, similarly to White Stripes, have very strong ‘vibe’ appeal: powerful driven pure raw rock drum and guitar momentum. Perhaps the use of a strong 2-chord movement over and over again is a good template over which to pump such driven ‘vibe’.

The Way I Are – In true Timbaland style this song has a strong beat and rhythm pervading it throughout. I seem to remember the entire song is just the repetition of these 63. Clearly this is not a strong or sophisticated harmonic movement. Once again I feel that the ‘vibe’ of the song, which Timbaland has become so notorious for creating, gives this song its appeal. Strong dance beat and of course the use of the already extremely famous and very successful ‘push it’ riff. In fact perhaps one of the main harmonic attractions is the ‘push it’ riff. I usually maintain that there is no real melody to vocal lines in choruses – the notes of the vocals simply ‘ride’ the chords in a simple and predictable manner to such an extent that if the ‘tune’ is played on its own without the chords backing, it is often unrecognisable: as I always maintain, with perhaps slight but deliberate exaggeration in order to drive home a generally unrecognised but (I believe) fundamental principle of song writing, ‘The chords are the tune!’ Occasionally there is a tune in a melody however – and the tune here is the oh so memorable ‘push it’ sample.

Valerie – this is the second time this has been released. This is a real anthem and I certainly can’t relegate it to the confines of ‘there is so much rock vibe to this song this is where the appeal really lies’. The chorus is just a repetition of 12. Perhaps repeating 2 chords is, in its own right, an effective tool that can be used to create drive. Seems strange that such a simple sequence could enjoy such success. Similarly to the situation found in The Way I Are, in the original version of this song there is the use of a melodic riff over the chords of this chorus (in this case played on guitar) and perhaps this helped to add melody where the chorus lacks much harmonic interest. I would argue that once the original recording has evoked emotions of musical attraction the simple reference back to the original tune will re-evoke the same attraction emotions originally experienced, in the same way that you can chant a song acappella in the bar with friends and this will evoke the emotions experienced when listening to the original recording even though most of the harmonic interest is lacking in the pub experience. In NLP this is termed as ‘anchoring’ and I believe it the essential principle underlying the issue of why we like or dislike music. It is not the music but the emotions experienced whilst listening to the music that brings attraction. This is a subject necessary of much more discussion, however, so for now we will leave this discussion for re-visitation in an article I will write at a later date.

   I feel it is important to touch on something at this point. One of my primary interests at the moment is the subject of attraction. This of course encompasses attraction to music. What attracts us to a song? I have a theory that we can easily be confused between familiarity and attraction. I think it’s a known fact that when we feel familiar with something we often feel more attracted to it. I remember when I went to see the Eminim film 8 Mile. During the course of watching the film various emotions had been stirred, awakened and excited. As the film closed the guitar kicked in for the Eminim song Lose Yourself. In that moment I suddenly turned to the person next to me and excitedly exclaimed, ‘I love this song!’ I then quickly realised that it was actually one of Eminem’s other songs I loved. However, the song was played at a moment when the relevant emotions (relevant to attraction) were in a heightened state and I mistook something I was familiar with for something I was attracted to. I similarly remember playing a manager friend of mine a Buck Brothers song in the early days when I was producing the band. He didn’t seem that impressed. However a year or two later when Buck Brothers were enjoying a reasonable amount of success in the US he went on the website and listed to the Buck Brothers tracks. When he spoke to me next he told me, ‘That song Which Me Do You Like? is an absolute hit!’ I genuinely believe it was because he had not realised he had heard the song before a year or 2 earlier, and that the unknown familiarity he had with the song made him attracted to it – or as I like to put it, he mistook familiarity for attraction. I certainly would like to study and develop this idea more in the future. The relevance here is as follows. In both the songs mentioned in the previous paragraph there is material used from previously released songs. I certainly think the familiarity, coupled with the added interest created by the new arrangement and context of these old ideas, would have added to the attraction levels people experienced when listening to these songs. Of course the Lee Mead cover of Any Dream Will Do also falls into this category. Perhaps looking at the chart position for the original version of the song Valerie (no. 9) might give a better indication of the power of the chord sequence without the added influence of this being a cover song. It is important to note, that The Way I are was the 7th best selling single of 2007 and Valerie was the 9th best selling single of 2007. Could this be partly to do with the use of ‘cover’ material? No other songs with 2 chord choruses achieved such a high level success in this study period.

Perhaps Hey there Delilah (Plain White T's): 1(15)6(65) and Ayo Technology (50 Cent/ Timberlake/ Timbaland): 663(32), could be considered basically 2 chord sequences with the remaining chords acting as passing chords. However I feel that the candidates for passing chords in these songs actually constitute integral enough a part of these sequences to not be considered as integral to the sequences rather than just being considered as passing chord embellishments.

1,b3 followed by b7,4 or 4b7

Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna): b3,b7,11, 4,b7,11: This is the only song in the study containing b7s or b3s. As such it is difficult to tell what the norms might be concerning these chords. However soon after the end of this study period 2 songs entered the top 5 which I feel may help to shed a little light on the sequence. Rock Star is problematic since technically there is a minor 3rd being played over the root power chord, which means that technically it is chord 6 or minor. However this is only for around 5 chords – the end of the chorus moves back to G major and the verse is in G major. For me, as I hear the chorus, the chord wants to be G major at the beginning of the chorus and the minor 3rd seems to be acting like a note from the blues scale being played over a major chord (perhaps because the chord was major for the whole verse). The two facts that the chorus moves back to G Major at the end of the chorus and the fact that the whole verse is in G major, add weight to my argument that it seems as though the chorus could be considered all G major. In light of this I think it is worth considering the chord sequences as 1,b3,4(b6-b7) rather than 612j(45). At this point it can be seen that the old Classical system would help this situation and avoid the need to make the decision between 1 and 6, and in these situations my system complicates issues. However I find these moments are in the vast minority.

Rock Star (Nickelback): 612j(45) – consider as 1,b3,4(b6-b7)
Piece of Me (Britney Spears) : 1,b3,b7,4

I suggest the following 2 options as templates

1,b3,b7,4
1,b3,4,b7

Piece of Me uses the first template. Shut up and Drive uses a loop of 1,b3,b7 (if for a moment we consider this as a template). The first 3 chords are b3,b7,1, and they are followed by 4,b7, which is the second part of the second loop I am proposing: 1,b3,4,b7 (and is simply the reverse of the 2 chords found at the end of the first proposed template), which could be considered the template for Rock Star. More samples are needed to verify the validity of these proposed templates – these will be supplied in due course.

145

Had Enough (The Enemy): 4145

As you will see in my conclusions below, almost all the most successful songs during the period being studied contain 4 and 6, and most centre around 3 very similar chord sequences. So what of the age old 145 sequence? The 4th best selling song of 2007 was Grace Kelley (Mika): 1145 and the 8th best selling song was (I’m gonna be) 500 miles (The Proclaimers featuring Brian Potter
& Andy Pipkin): 1145 – both using the same sequence – an age-old successful sequence. Had Enough could be seen as being based on a loop of this sequence. Why does this not feature more during our period, or for that matter why are more sequences not based on just 1, 4 and 5?
My suggestion is as follows. I noticed as I was working all these songs out, what appeared to be a pattern. Now this may have been entirely in my imagination – and I will do a proper statistical analysis soon to verify the situation, but it appeared that songs occupying the top 5 chart positions at the same time seemed to often be in the same or in a close key. If this proves to be true – or there proves to be a correlation, then this is very interesting. What would be the explanation? My suggestion is that subconsciously, in the same way that DJs at a party try to mix songs at the same speed, perhaps subconsciously, DJs are playing songs that are in a close key. (One might respond that the play lists are set by radio producers – perhaps the relationship is slightly more complex than I am outlining, but whatever the exact mechanism, I am still proposing a similar mechanism at work.) We all know that when we go to listen to a song on some days we draw towards one song, on other days another. Perhaps there are some very subtle forces at work influencing our decisions. I know from studying some of Derren Brown’s work, and from subsequent observation of my own behaviour, that if a subtle suggestion of a word is weaved into conversation, we will find that that word ‘inexplicably’ comes to mind. Similarly, its well known from psychology tests that if a word is presented in our blind field and then a string of letters is presented containing a word, if the word is semantically similar to the word that was presented in our ‘blind’ area of vision, the speed with which we find the hidden word is faster. I’m struggling to explain this concept here, but it is very real and I feel could be of great importance in this context. An example from my own life – I was driving past a sign saying ‘Dorking’ and then a minute later I referred to someone as a ‘dork’. I then stopped to think about this. I have not used the term ‘dork’ in around 15 years as far as I can remember. But these subtle cues open up semantic doors in our brain and we find ourselves ‘inexplicably’ choosing words from these semantic pools. I suggest it is similar with music. Perhaps hearing a song in a certain key ‘inexplicably’ draws us to another song in that key. Similarly perhaps hearing certain chord sequences ‘inexplicably’ draws us towards other songs with similar sequences. And this might explain why the 145 sequence was so prominent in early 2007 (the 4th and 8th best selling songs of the year used these sequences) yet over the last 7 months of the year being studied it never turned up (other than in the not overly prominent Had Enough), and then the 465, 456 sequence came out as the most influential chord template over the 8 month period. Perhaps DJs and radio stations and the UK population at large was just ‘inexplicably’ being drawn to a different sequence for a while. We all know how trends appear to suddenly shift. Just after the period being studied, Piece of Me and Rockstar were in the top 5 at the same time. Both songs arguably (see discussion above on ‘1,b3 followed by b7,4 or 4b7’ and Shut up and Drive) use a very similar sequence that is slightly unusual.

Remaining songs

Like This (Kelly Rowland Ft. Eve): x(12)x(51), x(32)x(51)           (x=no chord)
Ayo Technology (50 Cent/ Timberlake/ Timbaland): 663(32)
Hey there Delilah (Plain White T's): 1(15)6(65)

Beautiful Liar (Beyonce and Shakira): 3j3j4(2-3j)
Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead): 42j55, (45)
Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f    (f=minor b5 – see comments on this chord)

I’ve split the remaining songs into two. The last 3 songs (Beautiful Liar, Any Dream Will Do and Goodbye Mr A) I have discussed somewhat, particularly with regard to the use of the non-diatonic chords. However I have also mentioned them in this section because I feel that I have not really come up with a strong clear chord template that they might be using.

The first 3 songs listed above, however, (Like This, Ayo Technology and Hey There Delilah), I have very little explanatory commentary to offer. The sequence used in Like This appears to follow no recognisable pattern. I saw this song today on television and one comment I will make is that these chords, in their syncopated usage, really seem to be creating the tune in this chorus. Kelly is almost rapping over them. Perhaps they are more of a tune in their own right than the standard harmonic progression that usually provides the underlying framework upon which vocal lines usually sit and harmonically blend with.

Ayo Technology and Hey There Delilah could both almost be considered as 2 chord sequences (2-chord sequences are discussed above) with the 2 being then being seen as a passing chord in Ayo Technology and the 5 being considered a passing chord in Hey There Delilah. In light of this the success of The Way I Are, Ayo Technology could be attributed partly to the ‘Timbaland’ treatment – those Timbaland rhythms and sounds that appear to be so catchy right now. Bear in mind The Way I Are was only 2 chords and was by Timbaland and was the 7th best selling single of 2007. However I think this may be simplifying the situation. I just haven’t got enough samples of sequences based around 6,2, and 3 (pop songs it seems to me usually centre more around the major equivalents 1,4 and 5) to really know what works well surrounding these chords.

Hey There Delilah. I have little comment about this chorus sequence. It appears to not be based on any chord templates found during this period. It’s a really beautiful song (if you’re into really sickening love songs) and very emotional. Perhaps the attraction here is primarily the beauty of the sickening lyrics.

All sequences from study period

16(45)1 or 1645

Bleeding Love (Leona Lewis): 1645
Beautiful Girls (Sean Kingston): 16(45)1

About You Now (Sugababes): 1(36)(45)1
Rule the World (Take That): 1(63)(34)(45)

Fairytale of New York (Pogues ft. Kirsty MacColl): 4(45)16, (14)5

1564 and loops (6415, 4156)

Umbrella (Rihanna): 4156
Here (in your arms), (Hellogoodbye): 1564
Apologise (Timbaland ft. One Republic): 6415
Do you know? (Ping Pong Song), (Enrique Iglesias): 156(45)
Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie): 4155, 4156

Home (Westlife): 1563, 4515

465

With Every Heartbeat (Robyn with Kleerup) 4(46)55
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward). 4(65)4(65), 45(65)(43)2
Foundations (Kate Nash): 46546545
When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne): 4655.

A loop of 465: 654 and 6524

Gimme More (Britney Spears): 654(4[45]).
1973 (James Blunt): 6,6/5,4,(1[15]).

Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4
Makes me wonder (Maroon 5): 652(4-3j), 6543

456

The Heart Never Lies (McFly): 4566, 55
Clothes Off (Gym Class Heroes): 4(45)6(65), 4566
The Girls (Calvin Harris): 4(56)(x6)(31)
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward): 5644

426

2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue): 4261
Worried About Ray (Hoosiers): 4(25)(65)
Heartbroken (T2 Ft Jodie Aysha): 66(42)2

461

Call the Shots (Girls Aloud): 4461
2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue): 4261

634

Cupid's Chokehold (Gym Class Heroes): 634(43)
Crank That (Soulja Boy Tellem) vi,vi,iii,iv; iv,vi,vi,iii

1xx(x-4m)

Real Girl (Muty Buena): 1,1j7,1d7,(4-4m)    (1j7=1major7th; 1d7=1Dominant7th)
All I Want for Christmas is You (Mariah Carey): 1(1-iii)6(6-4m), 162,vb9

2js and 3js

Beautiful Liar (Beyonce and Shakira): 3j3j4(2-3j)
Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4
Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead): 42j55, (45)

Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f    (f=minor b5 – see comments on this chord)

61 and 25 and 2 chord repetitions for entire chorus

Icky Thump (White Stripes): 6(61)6(61), 6(61)6(5656)
Sexy! No No No… (Girls Aloud): 6161
Fluorescent Adolescent (Arctic Monkeys) : 2525, 2524
Valerie (Mark Ronson): 1122
The Way I Are (Timbaland): 6565

1,b3 followed by b7,4 or 4b7

Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna): b3,b7,11, 4,b7,11

145

Had Enough (The Enemy): 4145

Remaining songs

Like This (Kelly Rowland Ft. Eve): x(12)x(51), x(32)x(51)           (x=no chord)
Ayo Technology (50 Cent/ Timberlake/ Timbaland): 663(32)
Hey there Delilah (Plain White T's): 1(15)6(65)

Beautiful Liar (Beyonce and Shakira): 3j3j4(2-3j)
Any Dream Will Do (Lee Mead): 42j55, (45)
Goodbye Mr A (Hoosiers): 1(61)#4f    (f=minor b5 – see comments on this chord)

Conclusions

1645 appears to be the most powerful sequence. Of the 7 no.1s, two of them use this sequence and if you include the two variations with 3 inserted on either side of the 6: 13645 and 16345, then there is a 3rd no.1 accounted for out of the 7 and Rule the World is also accounted for, which was the 5th best-selling song of the year. However, for purposes of aetiological and aesthetic clarity, I will begin by discussing 465.

Here’s my theory, purely based on my conclusions after perusal of the above analysis. The majority of templates discussed all contain 4 and 6.

If we consider all our basic 3 chord options containing 4 and 6 we would have the 4 and 6 and a third chord being one of the following, 1 2 3 or 5. This accounts for all the basic 6 chords, 1 2 3 4 5 6.

The options would be as follows.

461
462
463
465

We have in fact found these as our main templates.

465 was the most common: 4 in total – a no.1, two no.2s and a no. 3.

645 is a loop of this so I would argue is the same template. 2 songs used this and 2 songs used the polluted version 6425. This included a no.1

After the 6415 loop is considered we have in fact already accounted for 6 of the 7 no. 1s. In fact I will argue below that all of these sequences use either 465 or 456 loops.

Here the conclusion could happily end. 3 chords are necessary 4 6 and 5. This in itself is a major revelation. I will develop this below.

However, let us briefly look at the other options using 4 and 6.

The other option using 4, 6 and 5 would be 456 (as opposed to 465). This is the next most used option. 4 songs use this option, one of them using a loop of 456 (second chorus of No U Hang Up: 564).

426 may account for 3 other songs, if the 642 loop is included.

Some small evidence points to the use of the remaining 2 options, 461 (2 songs) and 634 (2 songs), but the evidence is weak for a couple of reasons including pollution in 2 hearts and the use of only root notes in Crank That. However it is interesting that 426, 461 and 634 were the only other 3 chord variations to appear more than once and that they are the other 46 options.

The thing I find slightly strange is that the only 46 option where the extra chord is inserted in between the 4 and the 6 (bear in mind there are only 2 places in a 3-chord sequence containing 4 and 6 where the remaining chord can be placed – in between the 4 and the 6 or not in between them) is in the 426 variation. Obviously in the most powerful 46 option, (which occurs where 5 is the third chord) the 5 is also found in both positions, but the most powerful of these 2 options occurs when the 5 is placed outside the 46 rather than between them. So why is the preference to place the 2 in between the 4 and 6 when the 2 is added, whereas when 1 or 3 are added they appear to not split the 4 and 6? Many more samples (i.e. many more songs) will be needed to clarify and verify these questions and tentative conclusions. All this will happen in due course.

So here again are the ‘46’ three-chord options as listed above and next to them I have shown how they have tended to appear.

       As found   Loops       As found (2)       Loops

461       461
462       426       642
463               634
465       465       654       456           564

Now could all 46 three-chord options (including both those where the extra chord is placed between the 46 and those where it is placed after the 46) be strong, leaving 8 template options instead of 4? Again, we will need to see far more samples to reach a conclusion. By all means try them both as an experiment if you are song writing. It seems, however, for reasons I can’t yet explain, that there are preferences in each case – the preferences being outlined in the second column of the table above. 465 and 456 are the most common templates. However 465 seems the more powerful.

Loops

654 is also found, which is a loop of 465 (the same loop as 465 but beginning on 6) and 642 is found, which is a loop of 426. The question is, would all loops of the above templates work? I would argue that people tend to begin loops in certain places because it is more obvious to do this. As already discussed, writers seldom begin their choruses on chord 5. In this study only one chorus began on chord 5, which serves to highlight this fact. Angels is the only song I know that uses one of the most common loops: 6415, beginning on 5, yet this was an extremely successful and influential song. I suggest that if you try loops of most sequences, whether or not anyone else appears to be using these loops, you will be pleasantly surprised with the results. 564 is a great example here because it is a loop of one of the most powerful templates above, but beginning on 5 rather than 4. It is the only chorus in our sample that begins on 5 and again I feel it is possibly only because people don’t naturally think of beginning a chorus on chord 5 that it isn’t used more often. So I suggest that it might be worth writers taking powerful sequences and trying using the sequence but beginning in a place (i.e. On a chord) in the loop that people don’t usually begin on. Fairytale of New York appears to have a chorus based around the 1645 template but beginning on the 4. This is an uncommon sequence. This is probably one of the most successful Christmas songs ever. I really think this technique is deserves more experimentation and investigation. If people complain we are not coming up with new ideas but simply regurgitating the same old sequences they might be right. However, here we see a way to add a little variation to the way we use old sequences.

So in summary there are 5 three-chord templates that I am proposing as possibly being strong, all containing 4 and 6. In order of strength they are: -

465
456
426
461
463

Here, I have not cited them with their most commonly found starting point at the front of the loop (so I have put 463 rather than 634) since I am hypothesising that all loops (i.e. starting on any chord in these three chord templates) will form a strong sequence. Each of these templates including all their loops would give 15 options for chord sequences. Most of these loops are not common (sequences beginning on chord 5 are particularly uncommon) but I will reiterate that I suspect all loops may be strong.

I also am interested in finding out whether or not the other 3 templates not listed i.e.

462
416
436

are strong, and if not why not? If they are strong this would add 3 more templates to the 3-chord list.

645 plus chord 1

The most powerful sequence by far appears to be 1645, as outlined above. However the next most powerful sequences appear to me to be 465 and 1564 followed by 456. What seems to me to be very interesting is that 2 of the 3 most powerful sequences in our study contain chord 1, inserted into the 456 loop. Now why does 1 work so powerfully in the 456 loop rather than the superior 3-chord loop 465, (which is the other way to order 4, 6 and 5)? I’m not sure of the answer to this. However what also seems interesting to me is that both of the sequences involve inserting chord 1 in two different positions but not in the 3rd position option. I.e.: -

4156   (which is a loop of 1564)
4516   (which is a loop of 1645)

but not

4561

I wonder if the issue is not splitting the 6 and the 4. These appear from our study to be the essential chords in all our strong sequences. However in the third option (the one that isn’t found in our study) they are split. The 4 and the 6 is split in 2 Hearts, but I have had a theory in the past (see article ‘Chord 4 – The Hitmaker’ on www.rockpopschool.com website) that 4 is the essential chord in almost all sequences but that functionally 2 can be used instead of 4. It’s a speculative theory and I am not at all sure about it yet but if it were true then in essence the 2 is a functional repetition of the 4 in this sequence. (I haven’t visited this hypothesis for a couple of years now so it may not hold under scrutiny. I’ll check it out again one day when I’m bored).

The other strong insertion sequence appears to be the Stronger and Makes me Wonder sequence 652(4-3j), which seems a somewhat random and relatively intricately specific sequence (being nearly the same and containing 5 chords rather than the more common 4 or 3 chords in a loop) to have enjoyed such success twice in the last 7 months. If the 3j is considered a passing chord for a moment the sequence would be: -

6524.

This would leave the 64 together. The relegation of 3j to passing chord status is not entirely unfounded, I feel, since in About You Now and Rule the World we have already seen how 3 can be inserted into an established sequence and in both incidences the 3 is next to the 6 (found on both sides of the 6 in fact).   Strangely this loop uses 465 as opposed to 456 (456 being the preferred loop when 1 is inserted).

Insertions

There appear to be only basically 3 sequences that insert into the 3-chord template: both the sequences that contain 456 and 1, and the 652j(4-3j). Initially when I wrote this article I attempted to draw some conclusions concerning different insertions that might be possible. However, I now feel that this draws away from the material. We basically only have 2 types of insertion – the 2 options including chord 1 and this 652j(4-3j). Rather than try to look at how chords might be inserted, I have decided to marvel at the fact that these appear to be the only 2 sequences containing insertions into our basic 3-chord template. For now, however, I am simply quite confounded by the occurrence of 652j(4-3j) occurring twice (nearly the same on both occasions). I have made some observations concerning this sequence, but now I feel that it really does stand out by the fact it doesn’t fit very well into the model that includes most of the other sequences found.

Could the addition of the 1 and the 2 to these three chord templates be considered instances of passing chords that also add power to the basic powerful templates? If so, what would happen if other chords were added to the three-chord templates, or at lease to the most powerful 456 and 465 templates? And why do we not see more examples of such additions? Perhaps more samples will help to begin to explore these issues. I’ll continue to do what I’m doing and as songs are added, more will be revealed. I am now also beginning to focus more attention on the top 10 of each year, and the top selling songs of all time, both worldwide and in the UK, since I think this will provide more examples of the most powerful sequences.

(Since writing this article I have significantly developed and reached far clearly conclusions concerning all the above issues. I will outline my conclusions at a future date, when I find time to write another article.)

Summary

Whilst there is a splattering of examples of 426, 461 and 463 template usage, the most powerful templates appear to be: -

1645
465
1564
456

If 652(4-3j) is considered a variation of 465, then together,
just the first 3 of these templates alone account for 6 of the 7 no. 1s from our 7-month period of study

All these loops contain the templates 465 or 456 (the same chords in both possible orders bearing in mind loops), and perhaps here lie the templates for the most powerful sequences at this time.

All these sequences (other than 652j(4-3j)) contain 4, 6 and 5 and the optional addition of the 1.

Correlation

Here’s how correlation works. I will simplify it to make it easy to understand. If you want to understand it in all its statistical complexity then go read a statistics book. You’ll have real fun. And you may even start looking like me and developing some autistic traits. (The following example is adapted from an example I read from Raymond Cattell – one of my life heroes. Whilst some of his key work has been shown to be erroneous it doesn’t change, from my perspective, the fact that his observations and ideas were some of the most pertinent ever made. He is also still recognised as one of the foremost experts on psychometrics and correlational studies ever. I also seem to remember that he is one of the top 10 psychologists ever in terms of the amount of literature he has been cited in).

Take 100 people and measure their ability in chess. (How? I don’t know, perhaps get them all to play 100 games and rank their positions). We’re going to ignore normal distribution here because it will confuse the explanation. Now rank everyone on levels 1 to 10 so that the top 10 people score 10 on chess ability and the bottom 10 score 1. Now take the same 100 people and measure their ability in let’s say concentration skills. Do loads of concentration related tests and then again rank everyone from 1 to 100. Then allocate everyone, as before, scores from 1 to 10.

Now here’s how correlation works. First imagine we now plot a graph and one axis of the graph represents marks on concentration (bottom of the axis is 1 and top of the axis is 10) then the other axis represents scores on chess – (again bottom is score of 1 and top is score of 10). Then we have a dot on the graph representing each person, and the location of each dot depends on everyone’s scores in both tests. Now if the dots seem to cluster around an imaginary straight line then you have a correlation. There is a mathematical way of deciding how much they cluster around a line but lets say there is a strong correlation, and therefore a pretty clear line can be drawn around which all the points cluster. Now the angle of inclination tells you how strong the correlation is. So – and this is the important bit – if, looking at the line, as you move 3 points up the concentration scale and you look at the increase in corresponding score on chess and the corresponding score on chess increases 1 point, this shows the correlation.

That was a bad explanation so let me put that more simply.

Take all the people who scored 3 on concentration and find their average score on chess. Lets say their average score was also 3 on chess.
Now lets say you take all the people who scored 6 on concentration. Lets say their average score on chess was 4.
This means that as our population’s score on concentration increases 3 points their score on chess increases 1 point. The correlation is therefore around a third since the increase in score on concentration affects the score on chess by about a third of the amount it increased on concentration. So the correlation between concentration and chess is 1 divided by 3 i.e. 0.3. That’s just about enough to be considered significant by most psychologists.

Now how is this relevant to our study? Well basically if we can find an independent measure of how strong a chord sequence is in terms of the population’s general attraction to that sequence independent of the music genre and tune of songs etc, then we could give each sequence a mark out of ten. Then if we could find an average score for how well each sequence does in the charts, we could find, in theory, (and this really is just a theory – showered in idealistic autistic desire to quantify and control all human emotional experience on my part) the correlation between chord sequence and chart position. So, for example, lets say we take all sequence templates found in the charts over a few years and scale them 1 to 10. Then we look at the average chart position each template obtained. We can then learn how much affect increasing the power of chord template, will have on the chart position of a song released, on average.

How do we find an independent measure of chord sequence attraction level? I suggest the following. Take 10 sequences that appear to be the most prominent in chart music. Record these sequences with no lyrics but full band instrumentation in several genres. Then go onto the streets and ask a few hundred people to listen to each sequence and rate it out of 10. Different people can listen to the sequence played in different genres so that you obtain an average of the success of a sequence independent of genre. This will have the added benefit of enabling us to see if different sequences are more successful depending on the genre. This is all just a fun suggestion.

Now let’s bring this all back to the current study. If there is a correlation between chord sequence and level of chart success, unless the correlation is unity (i.e. chart success was entirely determined by chord sequence), then there are other factors involved as well as chord sequence in determining chart position, and one would not expect to see all songs at the top of the charts having the strongest sequence (i.e. Their presence at the top of the charts would not all be determined by chord sequence alone and therefore some songs may have less strong sequences since other relevant factors may be affecting the success of the song). One would simply expect to find that if all the songs using a strong sequence were taken and one looked at the average chart position, it would be higher for a strong sequence than for a weaker sequence.

In fact there appears to be only a very small number of templates used in successful songs in our study. But our study appears to provide support for my proposal that there is a correlation between chord sequence and level of chart success.

16(45)1 or 1645

Bleeding Love (Leona Lewis): 1645           Chart position: 1
Beautiful Girls (Sean Kingston): 16(45)1           Chart position: 1

About You Now (Sugababes): 1(36)(45)1       Chart position: 1
Rule the World (Take That): 1(63)(34)(45)        Chart position: 2

Fairytale of New York (Pogues ft. Kirsty MacColl): 4(45)16, (14)5
                           Chart position: 4 (2 originally)

5 songs. That’s around 10% of all songs in top 5 during study period.
Average chart position: 1.8

(It’s not many so the stats have low significance but it’s a tentative look at the power of this sequence.)

It must be immediately pointed out that despite Rule the World only getting to number 2, it actually was the 5th best selling song of the year and outsold Beautiful Girls and About You Now. It should also be pointed out that Fairytale of New York got to number 2 originally but to number 4 in our study period. This song is a classic and is around 20 years old and as such it is still incredible that it got to number 4. From my perspective, therefore, every song that used this sequence was the equivalent of a number 1. This sequence is strong beyond words with no songs that used it failing to be as successful as they could possibly be.

465

With Every Heartbeat (Robyn with Kleerup) 4(46)55       Chart position: 1
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward). 4(65)4(65), 45(65)(43)2   Chart position: 2
Foundations (Kate Nash): 46546545               Chart position: 2
When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne): 4655.             Chart position: 3

A loop of 465: 654 and 6524

Gimme More (Britney Spears): 654(4[45]).             Chart position: 3
1973 (James Blunt): 6,6/5,4,(1[15]).                 Chart position: 4

Stronger (Kanye West): 652j(4-3j), 652j4               Chart position: 1
Makes me wonder (Maroon 5): 652(4-3j), 6543           Chart position: 2

I’m going to consider the 1st four here in their own right.
Average chart position: 2

I think the 6524 template should be considered separately – but it looks extremely strong from the very limited sample we have here.

1564 and loops (6415, 4156)

Umbrella (Rihanna): 4156                   Chart position: 1
Here (in your arms), (Hellogoodbye): 1564         Chart position: 4
Apologise (Timbaland ft. One Republic): 6415       Chart position: 3
Do you know? (Enrique Iglesias): 156(45)       Chart position: 3
Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie): 4155, 4156           Chart position: 2
Home (Westlife): 1563, 4515               Chart position: 3

6 songs. Average chart position: 2.7

Here we see strong success – averaging around number 3 in the charts. But clearly not as successful as 1645

456

The Heart Never Lies (McFly): 4566, 55           Chart Position: 3
Clothes Off (Gym Class Heroes): 4(45)6(65), 4566   Chart Position: 5
The Girls (Calvin Harris): 4(56)(x6)(31)           Chart Position: 3
No U Hang Up (Shayne Ward): 5644           Chart Position: 2

4 songs. Average Chart Position: 3.2

426

2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue): 4261               Chart Position: 4
Worried About Ray (Hoosiers): 4(25)(65)       Chart Position: 5
Heartbroken (T2 Ft Jodie Aysha): 66(42)2        Chart Position: 2

3 songs. Average chart position: 3.6

Summary

16(45)1 or 1645             Average Chart Position 1.8
465                   Average Chart Position 2
1564 and loops (6415, 4156)   Average Chart Position 2.7
456                   Average Chart Position 3.2
426                   Average Chart Position 3.6

There are of course other templates that seem very strong e.g. 652(4-3j) and 1xx(4-4m) but the samples of these sequences are so low I haven’t included them. Of course over time as our samples increase in number we will be able to know with much more confidence how much assurance we have in the possibility of the existence of correlations that appear to be emerging in this initial snapshot.

Of course chart position is purely an ordinal measure and therefore from one week to the next a similar chart position could denote varying levels of significance and so it would be far preferable to use sales figures. This would also massively increase the differentiation between levels of song success and thereby make any observed effects demonstrated by varying sales figures more significant.

It seems that there may be some evidence to support the concept of relative strength of chord sequence (or template) of a chorus affecting chart position and success of a song. Over time our sample pool will continually increase in size and we might be able to draw firmer conclusions, founded on better statistical evidence providing increasing levels of supportive significance.

© Phil Warren 2008