The Nature of Chords – The Science behind Guitarists' Favorite Chords | you will be found chords | Website providing Australia’s #1 song chords

This hast to be by far the best explanation on this subject one can ever come across. And even presented in a very likeable and fun way. About the singing: You haven't heard me, so you don't know what bad is.

Think I spent more time spotting the differences in the background, sorry. You must have had the cleaner in . . . twice ?
Also, really shouldn't leave your clarinet assembled, it buggers up the joints. Don't care about the oboe ?

Thank you. I thought your video and presentation was brilliant. The idea of the "hidden" IV chord I thought was a real "Ah ha" moment for me. l see now how the plagal cadence is more subtle: A-men; necessarily more reverent.

It's kind of silly, but when I was first learning notes and intervals, I had only previously learned guitar, which I played with no music theory knowledge and just cowboy chords and whatnot. And what's funny is I was absolutely stumped at a time because for whatever reason I couldn't wrap my head around how one interval can be a fifth and sound like a perfect fifth that is consonant and resolved in one context, yet that same interval sounds like a perfect fourth and wants so badly to resolve to a third depending on which note was contextualized as the root. This video would have really helped me understand that this almost opposing relationship wasn't just in my head, and in fact there is a deep yet contrasting connection between the V and the IV

nice video and I love your channel but I gotta say the car honks are SUPER UNNERVING when you're listening to this on the road :-/

The best explanation I've ever heard about it. Technical but not boring at all. Spot on!

Really nice I knew this already but i did watch the whole video, because of the good and fun explination. Mr Bruce you are one … of a teacher.

clearly the interpretation of dominant as domino's and subdominant as subway is the superior way of thinking of music theory.

(obviously i'm joking interpret your music the way you want)

You say "bad singing", and you may totally be right that you are a horrible singer (though I'm not one to judge, as I don't know jack shit about music), but I just don't understand what that means exactly, "bad singing". What exactly is "bad singing"? In other words, why does it sound bad? Because I checked, and you were indeed singing the right frequency/note, so clearly that's not what determines good/bad singing. And if it's the shape of the cavities in your throat and stuff, which affect the individual volume of different harmonics, that would imply that the way you sing is fixed and thus impossible to become a better singer, which is clearly untrue, as well. So what is it exactly? What is bad/good singing/voice? And if it's the way you pronounce the words that you're singing, then just don't pronounce them that way, duh. So, I just don't get it, what is a bad voice?

Another "diversion": It's not really wavelength that determines pitch, but frequency. In air at different pressure and density, a sound wave with the same frequency will have different wavelengths. A C note played in NYC and Denver will have the same frequency (and pitch), but different wavelengths. Sound travels a bit slower in the mile high city than it does near sea level, so the wavelength for that C note will be shorter in Denver than in NYC. (Further diversion: pitch is not exactly equivalent to frequency; amplitude factors into how we perceive pitch.) —Tom

I know it shouldn't…but it's annoying me having 'behind' uncapitalised (I know it's a preposition, but it's a preposition with lots of letters) and a British chap not putting the u in 'favourite'! Otherwise, great video. Something I am curious about is why this is specifically geared towards guitarists (which I am) rather than just music generally. I'll go out on a limb and say the majority of guitarists out there who are writing (and have written) popular songs don't have much in the way of formal music training: they are self-taught. This means they just play whatever sounds good, irrespective of what the theory says. Furthermore, and I don't think this can be overstated, they'll also play what they are capable of playing. Barre chords are difficult; open chords are not. It fills the learner guitarist with dread seeing the B or C#m there. C –> F open is a simple movement, which makes it easy to incorporate into songs, especially if it's to be played fingerstyle (these chords lend themselves nicely to the little articulations that add musical interest because of the simple mechanics of where your fingers are, the alternating bass sounds great with C –> F, for example). D –> G –> Em is another one. It sounds nice and involves simple movements – once you've got your fingers in place for the G the Em is just there and you naturally slide into it.

The theory of harmonics and sound is absolutely true and interesting to learn, but I'm just saying with guitar specifically, given that most players do not have formalised lessons and grades etc. like you would with clarinet, trumpet or violin (you don't come across many self-taught brass players), the skill level of the average guitar player isn't very high (this isn't a sleight on the player or the instrument – just most players are perfectly content playing their favourite songs around a campfire, and that's fine. Players keen to push themselves further can, and will). Lower skill means they are mechanically not capable of playing certain chords or even combinations of chords. Look at the shape for open A – three fingers on the fretboard and to move into any other chord shape you need to move all three. It's harder to articulate around A (except the Asus2 and Asus4), rather than songs based around D, which gives you easy access to the high E string for playing around with. I think this alone means you have relatively fewer songs using A (or composed in A), despite it being a simple chord.

Even for competent players, the diminished chord is tricky in any position, while on piano it's easy, which probably accounts for why it's rarely used in guitar music (not limited to pop), whereas it's relatively common in piano-oriented songs as a well-positioned diminished chord carries so much tension and weight behind it.

Don't know if that makes sense to non-guitar players, but that's my take on why there's an over-abundance of some chords and chord progressions over others. It's not limited to the same aspects of music theory that tell us I-V or I-IV intervals sound good, which applies to all music, but there are mechanical limitations and challenges associated with the guitar that are much less of a problem with piano, plus the relative lack of musical skill the average self-taught guitar player has compared to the average classically trained player of anything else.

I learnt 3 instruments as a kid, circle of fifths and everything. But why did they never teach me this essential lesson?

I think you overrate/overstress the importance of the IV in comparison to the V.
In popular music the II is also used a lot as a subdominant, for example in the I-VI-II-V progression. In contrast, the V is almost always present in popular songs. In addition, the tonic dominant opposition is the base for all western tonal music, the subdominant is on a lower level in the hierarchy, so to say.

Thanks for your videos.

Why in the world no one explained to me this obviously simple relationship between Fourier's analysis and the major chord. Geez, why do people like to complicate things. I feel like I wasted so much time. Still have a question, for each harmonic in your example: what's the relationship to the fundamental? The 1st harmonic is the 8va but then it gets fractional when it reaches the 3rd harmonic, the 4th is just the 8va of the 2nd, right? Or did I just totally messed my brain by confusing the harmonic series with Fourier's series?

QUICKLY becoming my favourite music channel on youtube! Absolutely loving your content David!
Cheers!

Another great video!!

Why is the tonic considered the home chord?The chord that feels at rest.
Adam Neely hypothesizes that,in the major and minor modes,none of the tonic chord's notes form a tritone with any of the other notes in the scale.The melody above the chord,could have those other notes but all would be fine.
This doesn't work with other modes.It doesn't work with the octatonic scale either,where every note forms a tritone with another note.

Another reason the tonic may be less prominent is they may have included songs in minor, whose tonic is actually vi.

Great video, these are all things I've been contemplating on recently over the past few years and it's nice to see others thinking about the same things as me and making similar headway with it.

"Guitarists' favorite chords"

Fail.

Nice diversion, haha.