What's the best method to learn chord progressions, /mu/?

I think you let music theory soak too deep into your process. When people get too into music theory, they forget that C to G is a perfectly acceptable chord progression that sounds amazing. Stop overthinking things and forget music theory. Just play and hopefully you stumble across something that sounds good.

Learn circle progressions (descending fifths, ascending 2nds etc.)
>>54589122
C to G is a good progression from the theoretical standpoint though

>>54589226
C to G is just a good progression for pop. I don't know what you mean by theoretical... making music doesn't really work that way. It all matters on what sounds good.

>>54589122
I wouldn't disagree. But simpler progressions do nothing for me personally. I'm not looking for technical wankery, but I'm aiming for something different. Boards of Canada's chord progressions are a good example of what I mean.

>>54589470
hm, i don't really think Boards of Canada sit down and write out the chord progression before working on the song. I think they get a bunch of synthesizers that play different notes that fit the key of the song, and all those different notes combine into the chord progression you're hearing.
But if you're talking about something like Dayvan Cowboy, the guitar player probably just stumbled across that progresion and they wrote a song around it. That's how it always works.

File: All of me.jpg (56KB, 577x728px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 577x728px

>>54589470
check out jazz stuff. they often have great progressions.
Look at this one, it I III vidim ii III vi II ii V (I)
and from there you can make even more implications. Make the vi major add a flat nine and revoice it as a b2 dim to pull yourself into the II chord better. so C E Adim D- E C#dim D D- G C.

TL;DR chords are implications of implications, if you can justify it partially with sound than it will work

File: wtc-i-14b.jpg (29KB, 407x197px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 407x197px

>>54589059
>best method to learn:
Study the masters. get on imslp.org and look at how bach or brahms use chords (assuming you can analyse a piece of music an work out the chords...)
>how to make interesting and original chord progressions
intuition. write one chord that sounds good to you. then move on to the next chord. write a new chord that sounds "right" when played after the first chord. keep playing the first chord and your potential new chord until it seems to work really well. then move on to the next chord. rinse and repeat until you reach some kind of logical conclusion (which may or may not be returning to the tonic)

changing key is a great way to make progressions interesting, same with applied chords and inversions.

Like most things related to harmony and counterpoint, Bach is the go-to guy to perve on how to master it. (pic)

But really chord progressions should be personal to you, so learn what you can then just write and ignore the "rules". Modal harmony is another way to break out of the traditional diatonic system

>without sitting there and trying every combination for hours until something sounds decent.
a good amount of music, even the most technical shit, probably starts out that way. i agree with >>54589122, you may be thinking too much and unwittingly limiting yourself. try just noodling around, find something that sounds good, and use your music theory knowledge to build off of that+understand why it sounds good

>>54589799
Question about pic. Why does it switch to b on the third chord? Why isn't it just the i of the f#?

>>54589962
Its both. Its a pivot chord, that is present in both keys.

sometimes its not clear that a modulation has occurred until you hear a V - I (or other such progression that emphasizes the new tonic) in the new key. With bach he often moves through many keys without you even realizing, because he's so good it all just sounds like the same key

>tfw i dont understand shit you guys are talking about
theory is really fuckin confussing for me, idk how you guys do it, did some of you actually studied music?

>>54589669
I mean more stuff like Olson, Farewell Fire, or 5.9.78 that have distinct chords going on. I can play a few of them on the piano (but can't really analyze them) and they definitely aren't using standard chords or chord progressions in most of their songs. But yeah, I doubt they sit down and analyze it like that. I'm just not near that level yet.
>>54589858
I probably am. But I've only really been lightly studying theory for a year or so, so I'm completely lacking the intuition. I'll be in the middle of a chord progression that sounds good, and can clearly hear what the next chord should sound like in my head, but no matter how much I try, I can't create what I hear.
>>54589718
>>54589799
Will definitely look into both of these. Thanks