>I think that it's amazing how she managed to write an

>>74997514
why have you only greentexted half of this dumb ramble

>>74997514
Jack Antonoff is the genius behind the cliche chord progression.

>>74997514
First of all, someone actually took the time to write this. Let that sink in. Not to mention that you're reading too much into the lyrics of a top 40 act.

>>74998150
They screwed it up, too. The actual chord progression being addressed is I-V-vi-IV - NOT I-V-VI-IV. The latter of which would legitimately make it some weird avant garde level composition since major keys don't have major 6 chords...

>>74999372
Fairly sure it would be interesting but not avant-garde, I Wanna Hold Your Hand's has I-V-vi-III7 sprout up multiple times, and that's easily the most boring Beatles song musically speaking.

>>74997514
A lot of music pre 1990's is like that. Especially once you get like pre 1970, no chorus and the same chords throughout. It's only new to people like you who don't know shit about music

>>74999372
Which song are we talking about?

>>74999535
I Wanna Hold Your Hand's has I-V-vi-III7 sprout up multiple times
It isn't really a III7 - it's a V7/IV (which is why the chorus in that song follows so fluidly from the verse - it starts on a IV, thereby completing the incomplete progression of the verse.) Having a random VI chord in the middle of a progression like that would honestly be quite bizarre.

>>75000756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-NTv0CdFCk

>>75000652
>new=good
w e w

>>75000828
Why was a picture of Taylor Swift posted then?

>>75001054
I'm the poster of
>>74999372
>>75000794
>>75000828

I'm being facetious - that Lana song has exactly the same chord progression as what's being described in the OP. I have no idea what actual TS song was being talked about since I've never really listened to more than 2-3 of her songs. The thing is - t doesn't even matter, because this stuff is so elementary music theory-wise.

>>75001181
>The thing is - t doesn't even matter, because this stuff is so elementary music theory-wise.
Exactly. I've analyzed some of Taylor Swift's hits recently and I couldn't for the life of me fathom the use of Vi chords. Her songs are even more miniscule theory wise. Her producers love G major key for some reason, avoid F# and most sharp notes, there's an overabbundant use of the tonic and one to three note melodies are prevalent (it's usually the tonic with a major third). Lyrics obviously invite the listener with the word "you" in the first 30 seconds of the song. It's cocaine for human ears and perfect for casual listeners. That's why it hardly fails to chart.

>>75000794
Ok, fair, but then again it's only a half-step of difference. If you lay out the chords actual chords, it's not that different. It's an entire step up from V, yeah, and it sounds kinda dissonant, but much like the tension caused by the vi it resolves nicely into the IV because they still share one note at least (the root of vi is the major third in IV) and the others change into a half-step. It's kinda similar to Creep in that regard, Creep being an obvious song that relies less on functional harmony and more on chromaticism because it goes G-B-C-Cm, which is a small shift of really up to a step or a half step (1-3-5 into 3-5b-7 into 4-6-1 into 4-6b-1 into 1-3-5 again).

It's something pretty different and spicy but not bizarre overall, it basically sounds like a Radiohead song.