[HN Gopher] I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
___________________________________________________________________
I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs
Author : jnord
Score : 277 points
Date : 2025-04-17 22:44 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cantgetmuchhigher.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cantgetmuchhigher.com)
| narrator wrote:
| Then there's the most complex pop song of all time:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRxTW8GxT8
| LandStander wrote:
| The song is "Never Gonna Let You Go" by Sergio Mendes
| userbinator wrote:
| The first few words of your comment, along with the sibling
| comment mentioning a "Rick", made me hesitant to click that
| link.
| nwatson wrote:
| Thanks for the Rick Beato video. Yes, complex.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| I find the analysis interesting in terms of a hobby project, but
| I'd be careful extrapolating too much out of this. 680k is quite
| the sample size, but my issue lies within the myopic selection of
| one instrument and the issues that arise from the platform of
| Ultimate Guitar.
|
| 1. I am curious, how many of the 680k songs are unique? It is
| rather uncommon for massively successful songs to only have one
| version of tabs out in the wild, so I am curious how many songs
| individual songs were counted multiple times.
|
| 2. This analysis only looks at guitar tabs or instrumentations
| there were transcribed for guitar. Chords can be made with more
| than just one instrument, thus that missing 7th note could
| actually be played by another instrument not included in the
| tabs.
|
| 3. As music progressed from the pre-jazz era to modern times, it
| became more common for people to play an instrument, like piano
| or guitar, while singing at the same time. Obviously there are
| exceptions to everything, but often times guitar pieces are
| simplified if the guitarist is also singing for practical
| reasons.
|
| 4. Music has also become more accessible as time progressed. It
| would be hard for an average person to learn the organ or hurdy-
| gurdy without access to one. It's much easier to acquire and
| learn piano when it can be a 4 inch thick plastic keyboard on a
| stand.
|
| 5. People tend to have a warped concept of the history of music.
| Pachelbel's Canon in D is by no means a complex song and has
| stood the test of time. Music through out time has also served
| different purposes. Hell, go back to Ancient Greece, Gregorian
| chants, and Medieval music. Those various time periods were not
| generally fully of complexity either. I would argue such times
| were generally less complex than modern music.
| alexjplant wrote:
| > People tend to have a warped concept of the history of music.
| Pachelbel's Canon in D is by no means a complex song and has
| stood the test of time. Music through out time has also served
| different purposes. Hell, go back to Ancient Greece, Gregorian
| chants, and Medieval music. Those various time periods were not
| generally fully of complexity either. I would argue such times
| were generally less complex than modern music.
|
| True facts. The fifties and sixties were replete with simple,
| disposable pop music. "Yummy Yummy Yummy" topped the charts in
| the late 60s and has, what, three chords in it? What about
| "Sugar, Sugar" or the Monkees? Staff songwriters and session
| cats cranked this stuff out by the ton back in the day but
| people still love to take potshots at modern pop music for
| being inferior to the oldies in this regard.
| a4isms wrote:
| The key observation for me is Sturgeon's Revelation: "90% of
| everything is crud."
|
| My most impressionable years for music were the 70s and 80s.
| I remember fantastic music from that time... But the fact is,
| most of what we hear today from that era has been curated for
| us. We hear the 10% of the 70s and 80s hits that weren't
| crud. Or maybe even the 1% that was great. If we actually
| listen to the top twenty-five singles from any month in those
| two decades, 90% of them would be crud.
|
| I think most people comparing the present to the past are
| comparing everything today to the 10% of yesterday that
| wasn't crud.
| bee_rider wrote:
| We do an awful lot nowadays, though. Hmm, actually, I guess
| it is a straightforward equation I just don't have my
| pencil or envelope handy.
|
| Imagine that we are interacting with all the accumulated
| good stuff, plus the modern good stuff, as well as the old
| good stuff (the old crud is forgotten). If our productivity
| is growing exponentially, is the proportion of crud
| increasing over time?
| pfisherman wrote:
| Complexity is not just variation in chord progression, key,
| or melody.
|
| Dark Side of the Moon is basically the same chord progression
| repeated over and over; but with different rhythm, tempo,
| arrangement for each song. The variation within the scope of
| the repetition and call backs to various melodic and rhythmic
| motifs at various points throughout is part of what makes the
| album such an epic and thematically cohesive listening
| experience.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > Pachelbel's Canon in D is by no means a complex song and has
| stood the test of time
|
| It was actually mostly forgotten until the 1960's.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel%27s_Canon#Rediscover...
|
| Can anyone find a version without Paillard's changes? Knowing
| the history, I suspect they have more to do with the song's
| popularity than the original composition.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > It was actually mostly forgotten until the 1960's.
|
| Correct, much like Bach until Mendelssohn. My point was that,
| well both, are still around. Plenty more music was lost to
| the sands of time.
|
| Which one is it? Beethoven's 5th? I think it's his 5th that
| has been played at least once a month since it was first
| performed. Now, that is a wild record.
| toolslive wrote:
| Oasis anyone?
| iambateman wrote:
| I think Ultimate Guitar has a lot to do with this.
|
| Sure, G is probably the most popular chord, but there are a
| _lot_ of chord sheets that are wrong or incomplete. If someone
| were to play many of these songs as charted on UG it would
| sound unrecognizable.
|
| Kind of invalidates the analysis IMHO
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| And how many charts call for a capo to be used so the
| performer is using key of G chord shapes but actually playing
| a different key entirely?
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > Music has also become more accessible as time progressed.
|
| Hell no. Before recorded music literally everyone was a
| musician in one way or another. Music was an activity you did
| while bored. (Today music is not an activity, it's a product to
| consume.)
|
| They had simple woodwinds and percussive instruments. People
| weren't playing the church organ while waiting for the cows to
| come home.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| Literally everyone? Have you got a source for that claim?
|
| I don't disagree that music performance was a pastime for
| many people before recorded music, but let's be real here.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| There was no recorded or productionized music back then.
| And yet people liked music as much as we do now. So the
| only way to enjoy music was to do it yourself.
|
| Singing and playing an instrument was just a basic life
| skill that everyone had back then. (Say, like driving a car
| or using a computer is today. Not everyone is a
| professional driver or computer programmer, but not being
| able to use a computer at all today would mean you failed
| at life.)
| metalman wrote:
| little kids,(feeling safe and secure) will try and grab
| your guitar out of your hands,they KNOW they can do this,
| and just go for it, guitars bigger than they are, or
| watch a little, out somewhere, smitten by a street
| mucician, dont want to leave..,..yanked
| away....scolded... in Halifax, NS, there was a ukelele
| program, and ALL children partisipated and second page
| into a search, it comes up
| https://www.ukuleleintheclassroom.org/
| kube-system wrote:
| > There was no recorded or productionized music back
| then. And yet people liked music as much as we do now. So
| the only way to enjoy music was to do it yourself.
|
| Or listen to live music in your community
| circlefavshape wrote:
| > before recorded music literally everyone was a musician
| in one way or another ... playing an instrument was just
| a basic life skill that everyone had back then
|
| You're just making this up. Playing an instrument is a
| complex skill that requires a lot of work and an
| expensive piece of equipment. Music has been a profession
| since at least Mesopotamian times
| pxndx wrote:
| You've never played with a pen, finger or spoon hitting
| different plates and vases on your table and amusing
| yourself with the drumming? Twanged a ruler on the edge
| of your desk? Congratulations, that makes you a musician.
| alganet wrote:
| Yes. Maybe not a good musician, but a musician
| nonetheless.
|
| In the same way, making a joke to amuse oneself makes you
| a comedian.
|
| Making a simple BASIC program to amuse yourself makes you
| a programmer.
|
| And so on...
| grep_name wrote:
| > Playing an instrument is a complex skill that requires
| a lot of work and an expensive piece of equipment
|
| Or it's something you just, you know, do? I listen to and
| play a lot of tunes from the Appalachians and you really
| do get the sense that just about everyone played
| something back in the day. They developed complex and
| extremely localized traditions that did not require
| formal music education to pass down. Some of them were
| musical geniuses, many were middling, just like with most
| things people do.
|
| Even poor families would often have an heirloom fiddle
| around to learn to play on (sometimes even brought with
| them from Europe), and ownership of family possessions
| was much more communal. Many parlors or bars would have a
| banjo or parlor guitar around for whoever wanted to make
| some music while hanging around. Those without access or
| with limited woodworking skill also often made their own
| fretless banjos (which look different from what you might
| normally recognize as a banjo) out of wood and hide, or
| other simpler instruments like dulcimers. Not that there
| weren't also semi-skilled luthiers making non-concert-
| grade fiddles at more affordable prices. All this culture
| is well documented in the Foxfire manuals on Appalachian
| folk traditions, complete with schematics on how to make
| those things from different regions. Pretty far from
| 'made up'. Hell, a lot of American music traces its roots
| back to music made by actual slaves. It's hard to think
| of a group of people with less means and access to the
| things you've mentioned, and yet, music.
|
| Music theory may have a nearly limitless ceiling for both
| complexity of understanding and expense of instruments,
| but your statement here completely ignores the entirety
| of global folk tradition. And it does seem like an
| accurate observation to me that participation in casual
| musicianship in everyday contexts has declined
| significantly in correlation with a lot of the trends in
| modern living.
| alexjplant wrote:
| Interesting analysis. Some observations:
|
| - Ultimate Guitar isn't exactly known for the sterling quality of
| its transcriptions. Teenage me submitted at least a few tabs that
| were clearly incorrect that still got 4 and 5 star ratings.
| Amateur guitarists are also infamously bad at figuring out
| voicings and extensions so something like a 9 might end up as a
| maj7 or just a triad. Adult me checks Songsterr first then uses
| his ear to figure out what's _really_ going on when I run across
| incorrect parts in the tablature.
|
| - Some genres of music like downtuned metal are largely
| monophonic and instead rely on quick melodic movement or drone-y
| background guitars to imply harmony. This data set doesn't seem
| to account for this.
|
| - There's no way that power chords only account for single-digit
| percentages of chords in rock, metal, and punk. There are albums
| that have been certified Platinum that are 90% power chords
| (technically power intervals, I suppose).
| throwaway0665 wrote:
| Does this take into account capo position? A G is easy to play so
| authors might use G to play a Bb for example with a capo to avoid
| barre chords. Likewise authors will choose simpler chord
| substitutes to make it easier to play.
|
| It's the same with lead sheets / the real book style music books.
| Performing musicians need to reproduce music quickly so only the
| triad will be written down even if the musician ends up playing
| some other extensions.
|
| The data is heavily biased towards simplicity. You can make
| conclusions about the data - but not music as a whole.
| notfed wrote:
| This seems to be an analysis of chords used, not chord
| progressions?
| zoogeny wrote:
| I too was a bit disappointed, hoping we'd get some statistics
| on chord progressions. But to be fair to the OP, he analyzed
| chord progressions to generate statistics on chords.
|
| It does inspire hope that someone will take the same dataset
| and provide statistics on the most common progressions.
| jancsika wrote:
| > An "interval" is a combination of two notes.
|
| Minor nitpick: it's a "dyad" that is a combination of two notes.
|
| An "interval" is the difference between two (or more) pitches.
| And just as you'd measure the space between your eyebrows using a
| ruler, you'd measure the interval between middle C and concert A
| using your ears.
|
| The bonus, however, is that our listening apparatus is already
| quantized to octaves-- if you hear a pitch against a second pitch
| that's double/quadruple/etc. the frequency of the first, your ear
| marks this interval as special. It's likely most of you've
| already used this fact to your advantage; perhaps unwittingly,
| when someone begins singing "Happy Birthday" outside your normal
| singing range. (Though most renditions of "Happy Birthday" lend
| credence to Morpheus' lesson from _The Matrix_ that there 's a
| difference between knowing the path and walking it.) :)
| gchamonlive wrote:
| That's new for me. What's an interval between three pitches
| called?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Two intervals?
| gchamonlive wrote:
| A third, fourth, fifth, sixth... Triton... Those are
| intervals. I ask again, what's an interval between three
| pitches? Is it a triad? If it's so, than it's not a minor
| nitpick, OP is just being plain pedantic for the sake of
| it.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| "Interval between three pitches" is not a well-defined
| concept, just like "distance between three points" isn't.
| You need additional qualifiers to describe what you mean
| by that. Maybe you want the shortest path between them,
| or maybe you want a triangle. In any case, using a term
| like that makes it seem like you're confused with the
| terminology.
| mkl wrote:
| They are questioning jancsika's assertion at the top of
| the thread that an interval can somehow contain more than
| two pitches:
|
| > An "interval" is the difference between two (or more)
| pitches.
| wannadingo wrote:
| Two pitches played together is a dyad, three together is
| a triad. There may be words for four or more pitches
| together but I just call them chords. The term interval
| only makes sense to describe distance between two
| elements, whether pitches or two marks on a ruler.
| keymasta wrote:
| Monad Diad Triad Tetrad Pentad Sextad Septad Octad Nontad
| Dectad Monodectad Didectad/Bidectad (?)
|
| Or,
|
| 1 Note/Unison
|
| 2 Interval/Diad
|
| >3 Chord
|
| And, I agree an interval is essentially a distance.
| Distance between three points makes no sense as they
| might very well lay outside of one straight line. Even
| they are on the same line.. are we measuring the distance
| between each distance?
|
| It's ambiguous what that might even mean, but the
| original poster might think of a collection of intervals
| which is 0 or more notes with intervals relative to a
| given root.
|
| For example if you think in integers (pitch set
| notation): m6 { 0 3 7 9 } Minor 6
| 5 { 0 7 } Power Chord ma13 { 0 2 4 5 7 9 11
| } Ionian N.C { } No Chord/Rest deg7 { 0 3
| 6 9 11 } Diminished Seventh/Dim Seven .. etc
|
| They might have different numbers of notes but I see them
| as the same type of identities. I just call them all
| changes.
|
| Also note that 13 means two different things, either the
| septad above or a pentad of the form 1 3 5 7 13 aka 7(6)
| "dominant add six"
|
| So in set notation it's: ma13 { 0 4 7 9
| 11 } 13 { 0 4 7 9 10 } Etc..
| dehrmann wrote:
| That's like asking what's the distance between A, B, and C.
| droidist2 wrote:
| Could call them "stacked intervals" like "stacking thirds" to
| make a triad
| crdrost wrote:
| So when you've got an interval you usually mean two sounds
| that are separated in time. So like the iconic Jaws Melody
| dun-dan-dun-dan-dun-dan, those notes are separated by an
| interval that could be called one semitone, 100 cents, or a
| minor second, depending on who is talking.
|
| Or in "Oh when the Saints Go Marching In," the 'Oh-when'
| interval is two tones (four semitones), 400C/, or a major
| third, the 'when-the' interval is another minor second, and
| the 'the-Saints' interval is one tone or a major second.
| Adding those up we find out that "oh-Saints," if you just
| omit the other words, is 700C/ or a "perfect fifth", so
| "saints-Go" is a descending perfect fifth, -700C/.
|
| Now you can play all four notes at the same time and you
| would still refer to these distances between the notes as
| intervals, but nobody is likely to describe this sound as a
| bunch of intervals. It is a "I(add 4) chord" in that context
| and the +100C/ interval between the major third and the
| perfect fourth is what gives it its spiciness.
|
| So then you have to clarify whether you mean that we are
| playing one note first and then two notes together second, or
| are we playing all three notes at the same time, or are we
| playing all three notes separately.
|
| If it's one and then two, or two then one, the higher note of
| the dyad will sound like the melody usually, and you'll
| reckon the interval between those two. People who have really
| well trained musical ears, instead hear the shift on the
| lowest note, but it requires training.
|
| If you mean that all three are separated by time, then it's a
| melody. In this case these first four notes of "Oh When the
| Saints Go Marching In" would perhaps be described maybe as an
| arpeggiated major chord with a passing tone, same as I said
| earlier as "I(add 4)." I'm not actually 100% sure if that's
| the right use of the term passing tone or whether passing
| tones have to lie outside your scale or something.
|
| If the three notes are played at the same time, that's a
| chord, specifically it's a triad chord. You might talk about
| the stacked intervals in that chord, a major chord stacks a
| minor third on a major third, a minor chord stacks a major
| third on a minor third, stacking major on major is augmented,
| stacking minor on minor is diminished, and there are
| suspended chords where you don't play either third, so sus2
| stacks a fourth atop a second and sus4 stacks a second atop a
| fourth. So a lot of those have their own names, and some of
| those names get weird (like to stack a fourth on a fourth you
| might say "Csus4/G," which treats the lowest note G as if it
| were the highest note but someone decided to drop it down an
| octave).
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > So like the iconic Jaws Melody dun-dan-dun-dan-dun-dan,
| those notes are separated by an interval that could be
| called one semitone, 100 cents, or a minor second,
| depending on who is talking.
|
| For what it's worth, I would call that a "half step".
| dehrmann wrote:
| > dyad
|
| Correct, though you'll much more commonly hear about triads, as
| in major and minor triads, and you'll hear "power chord" more
| often than "dyad," even though it's one specific dyad.
|
| > if you hear a pitch against a second pitch that's
| double/quadruple/etc. the frequency of the first, your ear
| marks this interval as special.
|
| Some of that is that the higher octaves reinforce existing
| overtones, so the higher note is already there in a sense.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's not unusual to see dyads described as intervals.
| Technically they're different. But where "triad" is used all
| the time, "dyad" just isn't used much.
|
| Intervals are basically the number of semitones between two
| pitches. Life would be easy if you could just say "seven
| semitones", but in the context of scales and keys the intervals
| have names - second, third, etc - with modifiers that are
| somewhat context dependent.
|
| Example: an augmented fourth and a diminished fifth are both
| six semitones wide, but you'd use one name or the other
| depending on the key/scale and other details.
|
| Intervals that span more than an octave are usually called
| [number of octaves] + [usual name].
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Minor nitpick: it's a "dyad" that is a combination of two
| notes.
|
| > An "interval" is the difference between two (or more)
| pitches. And just as you'd measure the space between your
| eyebrows using a ruler, you'd measure the interval between
| middle C and concert A using your ears.
|
| How are you imagining that works? If you had three eyebrows,
| how much space would there be between them? Intervals are, by
| definition, the space between two points.
| jerf wrote:
| "(Though most renditions of "Happy Birthday" lend credence to
| Morpheus' lesson from The Matrix that there's a difference
| between knowing the path and walking it.)"
|
| I have to resist the temptation to deliberately sing my
| renditions of Happy Birthday on the diminished fourth/augmented
| fifth of whoever the loudest person is, as a passive protest of
| the fact that even if I do, _it hardly affects the result_.
|
| It has somehow become a very impressionistic song, when sung by
| The People. There's definitely the sense of the relevant
| intervals as the song progresses but the sheer randomness of
| the intervals of each singer relative to each other has, I
| think, attained some sort of actual cultural status that is
| actually special to that song. Get a few people to sing "Row
| Row Row Your Boat" and they are generally much more on tune for
| some reason, barring those who can't carry a tune at all under
| any circumstances. It's like some sort of cultural signaling
| about how they don't take birthdays too seriously or something
| like that.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| Power chords are only 5% in Metal? OK.
| divbzero wrote:
| Isn't OP analyzing frequencies of individual chords, not chord
| progressions?
|
| Analyzing individual chords involves counting the frequency of
| each chord (such as G, C, or D).
|
| Analyzing chord progressions would involve counting the frequency
| of chord pairs (such as D--A or C--G), chord triplets (such as D
| --A--Bm or C--G--Am), or longer sequences of chords. For an
| alternative look at the data, you could also normalize chord
| progressions across key signatures for your analysis (D--A or C--
| G would both normalize as I--V, D--A--Bm or C--G--Am would both
| normalize as I--V--vi).
| naijaboiler wrote:
| i know. I was so disappointed reading that article. I had gone
| in expecting an analysis of progressions. e.g. VI-IV-I-V
| instead I got a page of chords analysis.
|
| chord progression != chords.
| mkl wrote:
| Yes, I was disappointed.
|
| The original paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22046 _did_ look
| at chord progressions. They also trained a machine learning
| model to predict the next chord. Some of the chord progression
| data is in graph form at
| https://github.com/spyroskantarelis/chordonomicon.
|
| The raw chord data is at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ailsnt
| ua/Chordonomicon/tree/.... It consists of one row per song
| containing a list of chord names in song order (no timing
| information) and Spotify ids for track and artist. It seems
| like Spotify has a different id for every released version, so
| it's really hard to search for particular songs in the data.
|
| To normalise across key signatures you need to know what key
| the song is in (at each point), and the data doesn't contain
| that. For many genres it could be guessed reasonably accurately
| from the chords.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Isn't OP analyzing frequencies of individual chords, not
| chord progressions?
|
| Not according to the other comments, which say that the data
| set strips chords that follow identical chords, as if "too" was
| one of the most common words in written English.
| naijaboiler wrote:
| says chord progressions, and then just talked about chords
| without any progressions. disappointing article.
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| Listing the "most frequent chord" is a weird analysis, I'm more
| interested in the "most frequent key", or a transition matrix
| from one key to another, e.g., if I'm in F, what's the chance I
| go a fifth up to C, or a fourth down to Bb. Just telling me G is
| a popular chord doesn't do much.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The "haunting" riff in the Hounds song features a tritone, and
| it's a modal-ish progression - perhaps with hints of folk music
| lurking in the background.
|
| You're not going to understand it by counting chords.
|
| A lot of pop has these quirks. Even things that sound like
| I-IV-V or I-V-vi-IV bubble gum.
|
| Slapping labels on the most obvious chords in a naive way
| misses them completely.
| domenici2000 wrote:
| Exactly, this is useless. It's like saying the letter E is the
| most used letter in the world and Wheel of Fortune is your
| dataset.
| johnfn wrote:
| It's significantly _worse_ than that. It 's like saying the
| letter E is the most common letter in a corpus of text where
| most of the text has been ceasar-shifted.
| edoceo wrote:
| G is the best one though, maybe D.
| memset wrote:
| The way this analysis, and the original dataset were created,
| makes no sense. This is, in part, not the author's fault, since
| the original data [1, 2] is flawed.
|
| First, the original data was constructed like this: "...The next
| step was to format the raw HTML files into the full chord
| progression of each song, _collapsing repeating identical chords
| into a single chord_ ('A G G A' became 'A G A')... "
|
| Already this makes no sense - the fact that a chord is repeated
| isn't some sort of typo (though maybe it is on UltimateGuitar).
| For example, a blues might have a progression C7 F7 C7 C7 - the
| fact that C7 is repeated is part of the blues form. See song 225
| from the dataset, which is a blues:
|
| A7 D7 A7 D7 A7 E7 D7 A7
|
| Should really be:
|
| A7 D7 A7 A7 D7 D7 A7 A7 E7 D7 A7 A7
|
| With these omissions, it's a lot harder to understand the
| underlying harmony of these songs.
|
| The second problem is that we don't really analyze songs so much
| by the chords themselves, but the relationships between chords. A
| next step would be to convert each song from chords to roman
| numerals so we can understand common patterns of how songs are
| constructed. Maybe a weekend project.
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.22046 [2]
| https://huggingface.co/datasets/ailsntua/Chordonomicon/blob/...
| volemo wrote:
| Could you explain the Roman numerals part?
| zenogantner wrote:
| Typically, chord progressions are described independently of
| the key they are in.
|
| For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2750s_progression
| Twirrim wrote:
| By convention in music, we use Roman numerals to signify what
| chord we should play relative to the root (key). "I" refers
| to the root/tonic/key and we count up from there. [1]
|
| So, for example, a common three chord progression in a major
| scale would be I - IV - V. If we take the key of C, those
| would be C, F, G, as F and G are the fourth and fifth chords
| respectively.
|
| In the key of G, it'd be G, C and D. In that key, a good
| example song is "Sweet Home Alabama", where almost the entire
| song is just V - IV - I over and over again.
|
| One of the most popular chord progressions, used in an
| astounding number of pop songs is known as the "Four Chord
| Trick", I - V - VI - IV, famously demonstrated by the Aussie
| comedy band Axis of Awesome[2]
|
| I think I'd agree with the person you're replying to, both in
| that the original source is flawed due to not including the
| "dupes", despite them being important, and also because key
| is largely irrelevant, chord progression is much more
| important.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis
| [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ.
| cpelletier wrote:
| Minor chords are written in lowercase so the Axis of
| Awesome progression should be I-V-vi-IV
| james_marks wrote:
| This is about the simplest description of chord
| progressions you're going to find.
|
| There is something peculiar that people who understand
| music theory tend to have a difficult time explaining it
| without stacking concepts and new terms.
|
| While I'm sure those concepts are necessary for
| completeness, to a beginner in becomes a brick wall, and
| this is blessedly direct compared to, to e.g., the linked
| wikipedia entry.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| The number "I" means the chord from the first note of the
| scale (e.g. C E G in C major, or F A C in F major), and
| uppercase means major and lowercase means minor. Other
| numbers will then be e.g. "V" will be G B D in C major. You
| may then add digits as well in which case they indicate
| intervals above the bass, e.g. "V6" is a first inversion
| chord (e.g. B D G in C major) and "V7" adds the seventh (e.g.
| G B D F in C major).
| slater- wrote:
| You're talking about figured bass, which is its own type of
| notation.
|
| "V6" to a jazz player would not indicate first inversion,
| it would be a major triad (built from the 5th of the tonic
| scale) with the addition of its own 6th scale degree. "V7"
| would include the dominant 7th (as opposed to the major
| 7th), "V13" would have the dominant 7th and also the 6th.
| Inversions aren't specified, the voicings are left up to
| the player.
| zenogantner wrote:
| The problem with collapsed repeated chords comes not only from
| the data processing -- most Ultimate Guitar songs are written
| down entirely ignoring how often a chord is repeated -- the
| classic "lyrics plus chords" format is incomplete and requires
| the player to somewhat know the structure of the song anyway.
| The write-up usually just gives hints where, relative to the
| lyrics, the chord changes.
| moefh wrote:
| Exactly. In my experience, it's not just Ultimate Guitar, all
| of these sites with chord progressions assume you already
| know how the music sounds. They're not enough for someone to
| lean a song having never heard it, so they're almost
| certainly not enough to automate analysis of the chord
| progressions.
| b800h wrote:
| I agree with you to some extent, but I'm also alive to the
| problem of how you achieve what you're talking about when
| chords can change at any point in a bar.
| vthommeret wrote:
| If you're interested in more relative chord progression analysis,
| check out Hooktheory (I'm not affiliated but I think love their
| two books / apps):
|
| https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/index
|
| It's "just" 32K songs, but you can see the top chord
| progressions:
|
| https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/common-chord-progressio...
|
| And see which songs follow any chord progression you choose
| (either absolute or relative chords):
|
| https://www.hooktheory.com/trends
| ronyeh wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of Hooktheory, and have bought all their books
| and products. Thumbs up!
| murki wrote:
| here's a person who analyzed this data and presented it in a
| far more interesting way https://www.amitkohli.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2015/02/interac...
| cole-k wrote:
| It's an admittedly smaller dataset, but Hook Theory has an
| analysis that allows you to search by chords (including relative)
| and look at trends:
|
| https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab
|
| https://www.hooktheory.com/trends
|
| It's a weird coincidence to see this post since I only
| occasionally remember about Hook Theory and binge it, but I
| remembered earlier this week.
|
| Many of you have probably heard the Axis of Awesome four chords
| song (if not, look it up, it's great), but it's fun doing the
| same thing with other songs.
|
| Like, did you know that you can sing the chorus of Numb by Linkin
| Park over the chorus of...
|
| * I Hate Everything About You by Three Days Grace
|
| * Immortals by Fallout Boy
|
| * Cheap Thrills by Sia (swung Numb lol)
|
| (+ the bridge of The Rock Show by Blink 182)
|
| Numb has a pretty common chord progression so I could pick songs
| with the exact same chords, but there are also some oddly
| specific finds like this video game (?) song that inexplicably
| has the same relative chord progression as Hotel California
| https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/view/zun/reincarnation#...
|
| ---
|
| I am often surprised how a seemingly simple chord progression has
| only one result, even when I search by relative chords and ignore
| extensions and inversions, e.g.
| https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/chord-search/results?ke...
|
| However when you put that query into the normal search box, it
| does match a lot more songs, showing that there is a i III _ VII
| trend, just that i III vi VII is strange (which I guess makes
| sense). Perhaps my lack of music theory makes it harder to
| normalize my queries, but it's also possible that (1) there isn't
| enough data or (2) there is inconsistency in how people annotate
| the pieces (some songs will have II II II II, for example,
| following the rhythm, whereas some songs will have just a single
| II).
| parpfish wrote:
| Hook theory: It doesn't matter what I say, so long as I sing
| with inflection
| mastazi wrote:
| I'm surprised that according to the article, in jazz, some chords
| like D and A, which are mostly found in sharp keys, are more
| common than chords like Bb and Eb, which are usually found in
| flat keys.
|
| I remember once creating a dataset based on 50 random tunes from
| the Real Book and sharp keys were less than 20% of the total
| (based on the key signature at the start of the score) so that
| graph in the article doesn't seem right.
|
| Maybe the discrepancy is because modern jazz fusion tunes are
| under represented in the Real Book and those are usually more
| guitar-oriented, so perhaps more likely that the musician would
| pick a sharp key like D or A. As opposed to straight-ahead jazz
| were people try to accommodate for sax/trumpet/trombone etc.
|
| Or maybe it's because chords like D or A can be dominants in
| minor keys that are flat keys, e.g. D in the key of Gmin or A in
| the key of Dmin. - EDIT I just realised that dominants are listed
| separately so this is not the case.
|
| One more thing: according to the article, major triads make up
| more than 50% of chords in jazz... what? That's certainly wrong,
| most major chords in jazz are usually maj7th or 6th even when
| they don't have upper extensions. I think that what they actually
| meant is "major chords that are not dominants". But they used the
| label "major triad" instead.
| AIPedant wrote:
| The dataset is not "jazz," it's Ultimate Guitar's tablature of
| jazz songs, so the data is very low quality.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| I do not see the mention of what chord progressions are used.
| They did mention what chords (according to only the notes, not
| according to the key) are common, though.
|
| I would expect that a full analysis should write the roman
| numbers (so you will have to know what key it is as well), and
| might also consider such things as non-chord tones, modulation to
| other keys, etc. (However, this is not as simple as just putting
| them into the computer and writing a SQL query or whatever.)
|
| What I had seen on television and what I had read, is that I-V-
| vi-IV chord progression is common in modern music. (There is also
| i-VI-III-VII, which is the relative minor key than I-V-vi-IV,
| which is obvious once you realize it.)
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Just changing key from G too F # does not make the song unique if
| it still follows the same chord schema. It'd be better to
| identify chords relatively, i.e. IV->I->V->vi
| huimang wrote:
| Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e.
| roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted,
| the original dataset is flawed because the _structure_ of a song
| is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers
| /analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the
| underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing
| analysis.
|
| "Most common chord" is mildly interesting, but not really that
| useful. The most common key, and the most commonly used chords
| relative to that key (i.e. with roman numeral analysis) would be
| much more useful and interesting. This would help paint a clearer
| distinction between e.g. country and jazz, not that "jazz uses Bb
| major more". Also, anyone with general instrument knowledge would
| surmise that since Bb and Eb instruments are much more prevalent.
|
| "If you're sitting down to write a song, throw a 7th chord in.
| The ghost of a jazz great will smile on you."
|
| 7ths don't belong to jazz only, and the average songwriter isn't
| making data-driven decisions on how to settle on the chord
| structure for their song.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| I think most musicians know that I-IV-V-I is the zero thought
| default for in key chord progression, it's so overused you
| don't need fancy analysis to figure it out.
|
| For me, I'm more interested in the intervals and voicing pairs,
| because those tell you something deeper about the music that
| you don't get from the chord progression.
| toolslive wrote:
| I-IV-V-I, II-V-I and maybe I-VII-VI-V and you can consider
| yourself "advanced" ;)
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| There's bandleaders who have geared their entire
| performance so if you can pick this kind of thing up by
| ear, follow their timing, and put effort into making _them_
| sound better, you 're more valuable than some alternatives
| having truly advanced formal musical training.
|
| Especially with equal or better chops, lots of players like
| this can go into a studio and make recordable music, in one
| take, without actually rehearsing together in advance.
|
| And play in any key, since it's just Roman numerals.
| epiccoleman wrote:
| I have an almost irrational love for I-IV-VII-V. It's got a
| sort of happy, laid-back nostalgic vibe - sort of the best
| way I know to smuggle an extra major chord into a key. It
| can be approached in some fun different ways - can be
| thought of a "mixolydian" progression off the tonic, but
| it's also two I-IVs stuck together - almost a little mini-
| modulation if you wanna think of that way.
|
| Sunrain[1] by Lotus is probably my favorite example (listen
| for the chords that come in under the main riff). But it's
| a staple in tons of rock music, and once you get it into
| your ears you'll hear it all over.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAc-B5eDKmI
| zarathustreal wrote:
| Jeeze this song is hard to listen to.. it _almost_ feels
| like intentional syncopation on the guitar part but I
| can't imagine they would have left it in intentionally
| after hearing how grating it is against the drum groove
| epiccoleman wrote:
| Man. Different strokes, I guess. One of my favorite
| songs. That's ok though, really just meant to get the
| chord progression across.
| peanut-walrus wrote:
| Wouldn't using relative chords simply show that 99% of songs
| use the I chord? :)
| navane wrote:
| It's like analyzing music by looking at the amplitude of the
| sound wave instead of the frequency. Music is all about the
| changes.
| clonedhuman wrote:
| Yeah. It's all about what changes, what doesn't, and when
| and where those changes occur. Stability and novelty.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Agreed on chord numbers and progression being the analysis that
| should have been done. For example, blues is mostly defined by
| a 1-4-5 progression and the ol 2-5-1 is pretty ubiquitous
| across time and genre.
|
| Also, I think disappearance of 7th chords - major, minor, or
| dominant - is vastly overstated. Keep in mind that these are
| from guitar tabs so likely ignoring chord inversion / voicing /
| substitution taking placw to simplify notation. For example a B
| minor triad can be substituted for a Gmaj7.
|
| Bm triad = B,D,F#
|
| Gmaj7 = G,B,D,F#
|
| Or if you want to be fancy a Bb/Gm can work as either Bbmaj7 or
| C7 depending on where you put it in a progression.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| As you have suggested, it has also become common to use
| patterns like Bm/G to create a Gm7 that is less spicy than if
| the bass G were mixed into the treble octaves. 9 and 11
| chords are also done this way.
|
| C7/D is a C9 chord, and C/D is a bit more "open" of a sound
| but still a 9 chord.
|
| G7sus4/B is a G11 chord, dropping the 9th.
| seertaak wrote:
| Anyway a 2-5-1 is the rotation of a diatonic substitution of
| a 1-4-5 (2 for 4). Only one note difference between those two
| chord changes.
| apercu wrote:
| To further this, my trio is down a half step because we're
| older now and it's easier to sing at a lower register. This is
| pretty common for a lot of over 40 artists as well.
|
| Also, as you know, blues has dominant 7ths all over.
| seertaak wrote:
| Agree completely. I assume OP means major or minor 7th chord -
| they can't possibly mean dominant 7th, because...does there
| even exist a single blues song which doesn't have that chord?
|
| And let's say you take maj7 chords - "you and me song", "you
| are so beautiful", "sing sang sung", "1975" - just off the top
| of my head. Pretty much any pop song which is melancholic
| sounding.
|
| For min7, choose virtually any Santana song.
|
| Even if you said maj9 or min9 it still wouldn't be remotely
| true. Otoh 13th chords....I think you'd have to reach to find a
| non-jazz occurrence of that chord. And it happens in jazz all
| the time.
| kortex wrote:
| I am pretty sure the analysis is: however the chord is
| notated in Ultimate Guitar, that's how it's analyzed. So if
| the chord sheet says C Am F G, that's exactly how it's being
| analyzed, even if that G is almost certainly acting as a
| dominant 7th, especially once you factor in what all the
| other voices are doing.
| sysrestartusr wrote:
| > and the average songwriter isn't making data-driven decisions
| on how to settle on the chord structure for their song
|
| aren't decisions like that implicit to the source of
| learning/inspiration? it's not data-driven on the surface of
| the writers awareness, and maybe not data-driven in the
| statistical sense, but "intuitively", "that which sounds good
| successively", is based on what one heard so far within the
| context of the song ... so it's one hundred percent data-
| driven, just not data that one has consciously quantified.
|
| IMO: average songwriters and musicians and producers are the
| top exactly because they hit exactly that big fat belly of the
| bell curve/ G distribution ... I'd say you have it backwards...
| there's much more experimentation and less data-stuff going on
| left and right of the average
| uoaei wrote:
| The parallels between your critique of music analysis, and
| linguists' critique of LLMs, bear remarkable similarities.
| "Language/thought is more than sequences of tokens" will still
| be true no matter how much data we throw at the problem to
| smooth the rough edges.
| airstrike wrote:
| Except music theory has a math component to it so it's
| arguably somewhat quantifiable and falsifiable in a way that
| linguistics never will be.
| uoaei wrote:
| This is an incredibly ignorant assertion, even for someone
| who has so obviously studied neither linguistics nor music
| theory.
| Levitz wrote:
| The parallelism doesn't really work, I'm going to try to
| stretch it to make a point though.
|
| Imagine that we were at a stage in which LLMs didn't really
| make sentences, only output like "Potato rainbow screen sunny
| throat", then we studied which words are used. There's really
| not much value to the words at all, we could maybe see which
| words are bundled together, we could try to ascertain what
| kind of words are used more, but in wanting to study the
| coherence of it all, it just holds very, very little value.
|
| Chords by themselves hold very little meaning. The sensations
| evoked come from chords in a context and the progression
| provides very valuable context. Talking about a chord in a
| song is like talking about a word in a book, it's never
| really about that piece of the puzzle appearing, it's about
| how that piece is used in the puzzle.
| uoaei wrote:
| It does work, particularly the emphasis on causal sequences
| being wholly inefficient to represent multidimensional and
| abstract concepts such as those that exist in both language
| and music.
|
| The fact that you never refer to "syntax" even in this
| attempt at high level reasoning gives me pause and I cannot
| help but to conclude that you are making arguments in bad
| faith.
| golergka wrote:
| > average songwriter isn't making data-driven decisions on how
| to settle on the chord structure for their song
|
| Depends on what do you call data-driven. A songwriter most
| likely knows that a lot of fifth chords to gives power-metal
| vibes, and diminished and out-of-key songs do give these ghosts
| of jazz.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| Aren't Ultimate Guitar chord progressions user contributed? They
| often simplify the actual chords in their tabs.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Oh just when this morning I was wondering how I might find which
| sequence of chords would cover all songs ever published.
|
| That led me to remember of the famous combinatory proof that was
| published in Redhit to answer which sequence of some television
| series one should watch to achieve a minimal chain of something.
|
| But I was also concerned that finding chord progression for all
| songs would be the hardest part, compared to any chord
| progression which can be just generated by anyone.
| vitaly-pavlenko wrote:
| my favorite paper on analyzing chord progressions so far is this
| seemingly niche comparative study of five metal genres:
| https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58172029/Boddin...
|
| it shows which chords exactly set black metal, power metal,
| metalcore, death metal and progressive metal apart
|
| (i also try to do my own narrative on chords, but so far there's
| nothing to write home about: https://rawl.rocks/)
| digbybk wrote:
| I'm having a hard time believing power chords only account for
| 5.8% of chords in metal.
| wbl wrote:
| Metal is extremely hard to analyze because intermodulation
| products do so much.
| dboreham wrote:
| The probability that the tab on Ultimate Guitar for any given
| metal song is accurate, tends to zero.
| svag wrote:
| There is a nice standup sketch from an Australian comedy group,
| the Axis of Evil, that most of the pop songs are using only four
| chords, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
| kube-system wrote:
| I was disappointed to see they use Ultimate Guitar data for this.
| Back when I played regularly under the study of a professional, I
| quickly found that the _majority_ of tabs on the site are just
| plain wrong.
|
| Likely some of the "simplicity" observed in the chords here
| aren't actually due to the music being simple, but that the user
| who contributed the tab made their best simplified guess as to
| what it was.
|
| Unfortunately the analysis is probably flawed because of the poor
| quality of data.
| ben7799 wrote:
| As others have said this is interesting but use of Ultimate
| Guitar is flawed as the tabs/scores are so bad on that site, very
| often not even being close to the real chords.
|
| On top of being simplified tons and tons of songs get rewritten
| with a Capo so people can just play G-C-D shapes, if your
| analysis doesn't look for "Capo" and then transpose all the
| chords then you end up overrepresenting the key of G and it's
| chords. Then very often 7th chords, Sus chords, etc.. all get
| transcribed down to major chords & minor chords due to the
| beginner focus. Interestingly he doesn't include 6th chords as
| their own thing.
|
| To be fair there are tons of songs that do actually use those
| chords, so they may still end up coming out as the most popular.
|
| I have a grandfathered in lifetime membership to UG that I only
| had to pay once for. It was cheap so worth it, but I really find
| the site kind of icky as they are mostly monetizing crowd sourced
| low quality work and it's very often wrong. And they nerfed their
| iPad app recently which is really annoying.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The power tabs and guitar pro tabs are a big step up over the
| text based stuff on ug. You can play it in midi and see they
| are usually perfect.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Obviously I've had access to those for a long time. I would
| still say they are nowhere near as good as published
| material. And sometimes I've seen the community text ones
| actually be more correct.
|
| Really a question of how much you pay for it. Sounds like
| some plans are $25/month, that's enough to just buy tons of
| published material instead. I paid $5 for a lifetime
| membership.. very worth it.
| pc86 wrote:
| It sounds perfect which is part of it, but if you've ever
| looked at the Pro tabs, especially the vocal transcriptions,
| the fretboard positions are all over the place, seem to be
| wrong about half the time, and in the worst cases I've seen
| nearly physically impossible to play.
|
| Also for unknown reasons (licensing?) it's impossible to have
| the vocal track play when you're using a backing track.
| strunz wrote:
| The fact that the data showed only 6% of Metal songs having
| power chords should've told him to throw the data out the
| window. UG has terrible tabs/charts.
| YZF wrote:
| It's really not _that_ bad. It 's a mix. There are also many
| versions for most songs and often comments with corrections.
|
| Learning songs by ear is probably a useful skill that people
| don't develop because of all the other sources of
| information... but probably helps more people play which is
| good.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| They have quite a few versions usually but the most accurate
| version is usually the one with far and away the most positive
| reviews/upvotes.
| calibas wrote:
| From my experience playing guitar, the average punk or metal song
| is almost entirely power chords, while this data says power
| chords are only 5% of chords in both genres...
|
| I thought maybe there's types of metal and punk that I don't know
| about, but Wikipedia, LLMs and guitar tab sites all agree with
| me. Punk and metal is overwhelmingly power chords, so I don't see
| how the data comparing chord types can be correct.
| xfalcox wrote:
| I guess one aspect missing here is weighting more popular songs
| on that analysis.
|
| I assume that the analysis is simply counting every song
| chords, so a unknown band you've never heard about has the same
| impact as The Ramones.
|
| I'd like to see the same graph weighted by band popularity
| using either YouTube or Spotify data.
| Levitz wrote:
| That was also really surprising to me, but I think it can be
| explained by the fact that they bundle up repeated chords.
|
| You could play a G power chord for 3 minutes straight and it
| would count as one.
| aczerepinski wrote:
| As a jazz musician I'd estimate that there are at least an order
| of magnitude more seventh chords than triads in jazz songs. I
| question a dataset that says there are more triads. Makes me
| wonder what else is wrong with the data.
|
| For instance, G being the most common key in jazz doesn't ring
| true. I'd wager that it's Bb, Eb, F in some order.
|
| Maybe all of the songs in this set were simplified for guitar
| players?
| alganet wrote:
| HN proceeds to give a crowd pseudo-lecture on notation, because
| notation is important. I think HN misses the point.
|
| If you do these analysis using very basic notation knowledge
| (letters on top of lyrics are chords!), can you discover by
| yourself what you missed?
|
| Many self-taught amateur musicians go through something similar.
| You play the simple chord chart, then you notice by yourself that
| it is not enough. You start to understand the instrument,
| training the ear, and learning beyond the simple charts.
|
| Can you do that with data? Possibly. Maybe, as others mentioned,
| another dataset would be needed. However, to suggest that such
| dataset needs to be "a better one in notation" seems misguided.
| duped wrote:
| I don't see anyone harping on notation, but using notation to
| point out why the analysis is lacking.
| alganet wrote:
| The author self-reported lack of music knowledge.
|
| Using notation to point out the mistakes makes no sense.
| Unless the message in those critics is "learn notation".
| dboreham wrote:
| You don't need to learn any notation to understand the
| concept that human perception of music is driven by
| relative frequency relationships, not absolute frequency.
| alganet wrote:
| Yeah, that seems about right.
|
| Many musicians can just play a song that feels good.
| Never knowing anything about notation or frequency stuff.
|
| Maybe a data guy can extract something useful from an
| incomplete dataset too. What was the author trying to do?
| Showing some prowess with data while learning about
| music. I think the result was good.
| duped wrote:
| The notation is the tool to describe abstract concepts.
| It's impossible to talk about _why_ analysis is flawed if
| you don 't even have the language to describe the data
| being analyzed.
|
| edited to remove some snark.
| alganet wrote:
| So it is _exactly_ what I called it to be then: HN giving
| a pseudo-lecture on notation. Because notation is
| important.
|
| However, it's a loose exploration of data, no hypothesis.
| The "flaw" only exists if you treat it like it is meant
| for professional musicians.
| duped wrote:
| I think large scale automated harmonic analysis is a worthy
| endeavor for the purposes of musicological research that could
| even be applied to pedagogy (deceptively hard problem: identify
| what piece(s) of music to teach to achieve specific goals for
| students).
|
| But you really need good (and preferably ethical) sources of data
| to do that, and UltimateGuitar ain't it. You also probably want
| to engage with some music theorists to normalize the data to give
| you better analysis and ask better questions than "what is the
| most common chord."
|
| From this analysis I don't think "is music getting simpler" can
| be answered, and I think the trends are interesting questions to
| investigate for musicologists but this data set and analysis are
| too flawed to answer them.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| That's a really interesting read.
|
| I'm shocked at the similarities between country and punk. Did not
| imagine that!
| dboreham wrote:
| Oh, the data came from Ultimate Guitar? So as every guitarist
| knows: it's wrong.
| RajT88 wrote:
| What a flawed study - Metal music only uses 5.8% power chords?
|
| There is no genre more power chord heavy. (pun intended)
| murki wrote:
| what I was hoping this article would do (i.e. express this
| information as roman numeral progression) has been done here
| https://www.amitkohli.com/chord-progressions-of-5-000-songs/
| osxman wrote:
| Ultimate Guitar is not very accurate. That is because for example
| blues notes are 'bended' on a guitar by pushing up the strings a
| lot. Many notes are wrongly notated on Ultimate Guitar. It is
| better to use official sheet music books.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| One thing that jumped out at me was the data point suggesting
| there are very few power chords in electronic music. But in fact,
| they're ubiquitous because it's easy to make a power chord in a
| single note, by tuning oscillators a 5th apart. _Any_ synth with
| 2 or more oscillators comes with a bunch of 5th patches (or patch
| sheets if it 's all analog). It's one of the first synthesis
| techniques people learn to make thick-soundings patches.
|
| Also the whole idea of doing the analysis based on absolute
| rather than relative notes makes little sense to me as a
| musician, though perhaps that's because I didn't start with
| guitar or a tuned instrument like a trumpet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-18 23:01 UTC)