Does this make a weak musician?

No, I don' t think it shows signs of a "weak musician." It shows signs only that your music teacher has offered an opinion which you can elect to accept or reject. Leave it at that.

Between Kab and Mamianka I have little to add. However, let's make it even more interesting.

As an example, I'll use Stephen Foster's *Oh! Susanna.* Take a look at the chords here:

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/folk_susanna.htm

Now hand that over to James Taylor and see what he does with them:

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/j/james_taylor...

Foster's chords were simple indeed, but *not* "weak," for Taylor would never had attempted to embellish in such a creative fashion.

Kudos to Kab and Mamianka!

Kabum (music instructor)

It is difficult to determine what you mean by a "weak" musician. It is probable that I might agree with him given only four chords, however, the real test is what four chords. The true definition of music is melody, harmony (chords) and rhythm. So each contributes to pleasurable experience. When one writes a musical composition, they usually write the melody first, but often hear the harmony at the same time and then the rhythm is suggested by the melody, and sometimes the lyrics.

As a long time professional arranger/composer (not of pop songs), I have done hundreds of arrangements of other peoples music as well as hundreds of my own tunes. Four chords in a tune would be a challenge, but it is possible with a clever arrangement it could work.

Therefore I would say that simply because a tune has "only" four chords, it doesn't have to be weak, and certainly the teacher who said that may be in fact well qualified to comment on whatever tune is used as and example. Generally I expect to write two to four chords to every single bar, not the whole tune. That is to me the fullness and beauty of music.

Others may disagree, and they would not be fans of my music and certainly not jazz fans.

If there are only four chords in a song, and they are used in the same pattern over and over, then the melody, rhythm, and lyrics better be so stunning that the harmony NEEDS to be simple. If those other parameters are also week or boring - then yeah, your harmony is poor, too. You can use re-harmonization to freshen a work that has not much going for it - but all the elements are a matter of balance. I can think of Mahler symphonies, or Beethoven symphonies, that use a limited set of harmonic resources for a considerable period of time - but the REST of the work is so intense, it needs that harmony simplicity. Four chords in folk music? The lyrics are often profound - same deal for country. Four chords in rock? Often the power of the rhythm and the energy of the work compensates.

You have not given us the context of your teacher's statement. Perhaps they said YOUR song was boring? Perhaps they said that the song being *discussed* was boring? Who knows? - we were not there. Something tells me that you are being pointedly sensitive about this - maybe because *I* was a music teacher for 34 years, and when kids disagree with a teacher, it *must* be that the teacher is an idiot.

If this teacher gets on your nerves, then you can always drop their class - unless we are talking about something like a mandated General Music class. IF they are a certified teacher ( school) then they have a bachelors AND masters degree in music, had to go through student teaching and an extensive interview process, they 3 years of further observation and administrative criticism to maintain their position. They also had to PROVE their fine musicianship; the NCLB requirements require that we must be able to prove that we are "highly qualified" within our area of certification. (one of my PE colleagues would joke that while the rest of us had all these performance requirements, all HE had to do was make ten baskets in a row! Truth was - PE teacher takes as many physiology classes as a pre-med student!)

Ask your teacher for clarification if you do not understand things. But going on the *excuse ME!!!* kind of posture is not appropriate - and self-defeating.

You will get all kinds of wild responses from irate KIDS here. I had to give you the other side. It's my job.

It makes the song uncomplicated. It may still be catchy and have a great hook. It won't have depth and it won't have much texture. If it's three or four instruments and runs under five minutes, though, it doesn't matter that much. Dream Theater had a lot of accomplished musicians, but the Rolling Stones held their popularity for much longer with a lot less going on in their music. A four chord song is a very weak effort at a symphony, but a symphony is a really weak effort as party tunes. It depends on your audience.

Lots of great music, the classics, even are less than 4 chords (most of the blues, country, classic rock, folk, and punk for god sakes). Chords are only 1 part of the picture. Think of it as a painting with the chords really only being the backgroud. What about melody, dymamics, style, and rhythm? Ask your teacher why his "interesting chords" only made him a music teacher and people are making millions on 3 and 4 chords every day. Just a point of view I'm not sayin....I'm just sayin.

It is not important that we agree with everything that any teacher says.

In this case it seems to be an opinion.

I don't know of any benefit that you would achieve by debating it without having a number of examples. If you have a number of good examples the teacher might surprise you by returning a compliment for your going in depth.

Calling a person a weak musician is nothing new. Bach was called a lazy composer in his early years.

So many music teachers are extremely weak musicians as they're classically trained. It's sickening. Four chord songs are some of the most famous songs ever, type "four chord songs" into youtube, there's hundreds that i'm sure your music teacher sees as "anthems", but doesn't realize they're four chord songs as s/he is too self-righteous.