bVII Chords in Pop Music
McGuffin
often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
Joey Goldstein
Probably because it is simple and because it sounds good. Lots of pop
music is written by less than average guitar players who simply move
barre chords around to places on the fretboard that sound good to them.
There's also a blues connection. The only non diatonic note in a bVII
chord is the bVII itself which is one of the blue notes in the key and
is also a component of the I7 chord.
Why blues uses dom7 chords is another story, one for the musicologists,
but I'll bet it has to do with the overtone series and with the way that
African slaves interpreted Western musical sounds they were hearing when
they were brought to America.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Dr.Matt
Mixolydian modes were common.
--
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers: http://www.goldinc.com/cgi-bin/harvest_this.cgi
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
David Olen Baird
<mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I suspect it's a heritage from the blues. There are lots of
non-diatonic notes in the blues scales.
BTW, the mixolydian mode is a diatonic scale with a whole step between
7th and 8th scale degree. At least in the mixolydian context the flat
7 chord could be thought of as a "diatonic" chord.
>A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
>often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
>know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>
>
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
paramucho
<mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The subtonic (flat seven triad) is the chord that "had" to happen in
rock. It was unavoidable. Here's just some of the paths that can be
tracked (mapped roughly with some gross simplifications):
1. A simple extension of the flat seventh note in the blues/rock
scale (the cadence {E D} "ma-han" in the Beatles' "I Wanna Be Your
Man" is harmonised with the chords E-D (the bass stays on E). However
it occurs relatively rarely in rock "blues" songs and in fact occurs
most effectively in simple diatonic settings.
2. The boogie pattern I-IV-I is often repeated on the subdominant,
producing the sequence IV-bVII-IV. In extension, this leads to the
sequence (IV)-bVII-IV-I, where bVII-IV-I is the so-called "Double
Plagal" cadence.
3. From Jazz, it appears as dominant 11th. The Beatles' "Got To Get
You Into My Life" (a reefer song), has a good example which is later
developed as a double plagal cadence in the brief guitar solo.
4. The Beatles pseudo-Indian music features the chord in the sitar
based "Love You To". Importantly the chord is cadential.
5. Mixed modes are not unusual in rock, thus the natural minor
subtonic may appear in a piece with a minor and major tonics. The
Beatles' "I'll Be Back" is a good example.
7. Rock songs that hover between a major tonic and an aoelian minor
tonic, are bound to get confused between the major tonic's subtonic
and minor tonic's flat supertonic -- the same chord. We see this in
Lennon's "Yes It Is" and in a very sophisticated form in Lennon's
homage to Beethoven, "Because" [c# |f#6 |G# |A |c# |A7 |A6 |D/f# |d-].
There are other roots (folk/Irish etc), but I'll be brief here:
The first full blown totally subtonic sixties rock song was probably
the Van Morrison song "Gloria". The double-plagal riff [E |D A ]
was developed by one of the band's members before the song was
written.
The ultimate quatro-plagal cadence song is "Hey Joe" [C |G |D |A |E ].
The Beatles borrow this unashamedly, repeating it as a retransition
from the E major bridge of "A Day In The Life" to get back to the
verse in G.
For me the most interesting examples of the use of the subtonic (and
it's a passion of mine) were Lennon's experiments around the time of
the HELP! album. Lennon tries the chord in many different styles. He
seems to be trying to fit into the tonal requirements of the western
system. The results are fascinating.
There's a lot more interesting stuff on this topic (and on Beethoven's
use of the chord).
Looking at the evolution of the chord, one wonders why it took them so
long.
I'm still trying to work out what the chord, and the related dominant
minor, do to our Shenkered-view of tonality. Schenker (and Schoenberg)
don't have any place for a flattened leading note.
Ian
Ken Durling
Nice expo, Ian. In addition to what many have pointed out about the
blues and folk modality, the "double plagal" usage I believe is an
extension of a secondary subdominant function that can be found
repeatedly in Bach. I can't put my finger on it right now, but I
found one such chain of these chords invloving at least four members.
One I do remember is the chorale "Aus tiefer Not" - No.10 - that has a
lot of interesting use of IV/iv and iv/iv, starting in bar 6. It's
probably more common in minor, especially as a pivot chord, since bVII
in minor is the dominant of the relative major. (But then, even in a
major key, using bVII is borrowing from the parallel minor.)
There is another chorale with a lot of interesting "punning" on the
subdominant - No.12, "Puer Natus." Here, in a minor key, the IV chord
is used as V/V in the relative major, and the V of the relative major
is used as bVII - or IV/iv - in the minor.
For a more modern example, I suggest Debussy's
"Sunken Cathedral" which is filled to the rafters with subdominant
trickery.
Ken Durling
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:58:05 GMT, "McGuffin"
><mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
paramucho
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:55:18 GMT, i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
>
>Nice expo, Ian. In addition to what many have pointed out about the
>blues and folk modality, the "double plagal" usage I believe is an
>extension of a secondary subdominant function that can be found
>repeatedly in Bach.
I've recently been doing a (limited) survey of how the chord has been
treated in the past. Schoenberg likes to call it V-of-bIII -- that way
he can get it back some form of dominant relationship. The more recent
reading is as IV-of-IV.
I think we need to look a little closer at examples of its usage
before jumping to conclusions. Here's some sketched out reasons:
o We can see blues, jazz, modal, eastern and western forms
o There's a discernable "chromatic" usage as well
o Lennon will sometimes replace it with I7 or v
o The diatonic juxtaposition of 7 and b7 reminds me of the
earliest forms of chromaticism: the musica ficta.
In short, I think the subtonic is just part of a whole musical fabric
that is built around the absorption of the b7 note and its extensions
into a basically diatonic (rather than blues) fabric. There are
probably a couple of different ways that we should look at the
function of the chord.
> I can't put my finger on it right now, but I
>found one such chain of these chords invloving at least four members.
>One I do remember is the chorale "Aus tiefer Not" - No.10 - that has a
>lot of interesting use of IV/iv and iv/iv, starting in bar 6. It's
>probably more common in minor, especially as a pivot chord, since bVII
>in minor is the dominant of the relative major. (But then, even in a
>major key, using bVII is borrowing from the parallel minor.)
I'm not sure whether a listener can "hear" that we borrowing from a
parallel minor. I think that's more a way we think about chords in the
abstract. But the treatment of the tonic third in rock is very
interesting in this regard.
>There is another chorale with a lot of interesting "punning" on the
>subdominant - No.12, "Puer Natus." Here, in a minor key, the IV chord
>is used as V/V in the relative major, and the V of the relative major
>is used as bVII - or IV/iv - in the minor.
Many thanks for the references.
>For a more modern example, I suggest Debussy's
>"Sunken Cathedral" which is filled to the rafters with subdominant
>trickery.
Debussy often went to the flat side of the cycle. Beethoven also
explored the note and the chord. I've got a piece coming on the topic
which I'll post here when complete. I usually post this stuff to
rec.music.beatles.moderated and to my web page www.beathoven.com.
There's a couple articles at my web page, under /theory/, on the
subtonic.
Ian
McGuffin
"paramucho" -->
> >A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
> >often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
> >know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>
> The subtonic (flat seven triad) is the chord that "had" to happen in
> rock. It was unavoidable. Here's just some of the paths that can be
> tracked (mapped roughly with some gross simplifications):
>
> 1. A simple extension of the flat seventh note in the blues/rock
> scale (the cadence {E D} "ma-han" in the Beatles' "I Wanna Be Your
> Man" is harmonised with the chords E-D (the bass stays on E). However
> it occurs relatively rarely in rock "blues" songs and in fact occurs
> most effectively in simple diatonic settings.
McGuffin-->This is sort of exceptional, as you say.
>
> 2. The boogie pattern I-IV-I is often repeated on the subdominant,
> producing the sequence IV-bVII-IV. In extension, this leads to the
> sequence (IV)-bVII-IV-I, where bVII-IV-I is the so-called "Double
> Plagal" cadence.
McGuffin-->I hadn't considered this, but I'm not sure if it explains the use
of the chord, given the common context.
>
> 3. From Jazz, it appears as dominant 11th. The Beatles' "Got To Get
> You Into My Life" (a reefer song), has a good example which is later
> developed as a double plagal cadence in the brief guitar solo.
McGuffin-->Missed that one. It seems to keep the tonic root in the bass
(F/G), so I don't know what to do with it theory-wise. I'm going through the
Beatles' songbook right now, and their harmonization seems to be entirely
intuitive in some places.
>
> 4. The Beatles pseudo-Indian music features the chord in the sitar
> based "Love You To". Importantly the chord is cadential.
>
> 5. Mixed modes are not unusual in rock, thus the natural minor
> subtonic may appear in a piece with a minor and major tonics. The
> Beatles' "I'll Be Back" is a good example.
McGuffin-->When it sits in a minor progression, I don't count it. I may be
wrong here. Maybe someone pulled the chord out of a minor progression and
tried it within a I-IV-V context. I dunno.
>
> 7. Rock songs that hover between a major tonic and an aoelian minor
> tonic, are bound to get confused between the major tonic's subtonic
> and minor tonic's flat supertonic -- the same chord. We see this in
> Lennon's "Yes It Is" and in a very sophisticated form in Lennon's
> homage to Beethoven, "Because" [c# |f#6 |G# |A |c# |A7 |A6 |D/f# |d-].
McGuffin-->In "Yes It Is" the bVII seems to act as a pivot to a temporary
visit to the relative minor at the first ending[|E C#min|A D|C#min E|. Or
else it just sounds cool.
>
> There are other roots (folk/Irish etc), but I'll be brief here:
McGuffin-->This is what I was wondering about. Is it more likely that the
use is vamps (I-bVII-IV-I, I-bVII-bVI-V, etc.) comes out of a modified
American blues tonality or a British folk tradition?
>
> The first full blown totally subtonic sixties rock song was probably
> the Van Morrison song "Gloria". The double-plagal riff [E |D A ]
> was developed by one of the band's members before the song was
> written.
McGuffin-->This is what I've been looking for. The Kinks "All Day and All of
the Night" is in the same ballpark, if a little earlier and more bluesy.
>
> The ultimate quatro-plagal cadence song is "Hey Joe" [C |G |D |A |E ].
> The Beatles borrow this unashamedly, repeating it as a retransition
> from the E major bridge of "A Day In The Life" to get back to the
> verse in G.
McGuffin-->Now I have to look up the "plagals".
Thanks for a great post. Given my own interest in triadic vamps, I can't
help thinking that the attraction of the Gloria-type usage comes from the
power of parallel movement and the use of chords for tonal "colors" rather
than for their classic key-related duty. That doesn't explain why one triad
is used rather than another, but it still might be a useful way to think.
Where can I get more info on Brit folk?And I'd still like to check '50s R&B
to see if they were using b7s too.
Albert Silverman
which are to be "expected" are chords based upon the root-tones
C,D,E,F,G,A,B?
Then must we "explain" how chords based upon any *other* of the twelve
possible root-tones managed to worm their way into what you are calling
"pop" music?
Do you really believe such nonsense?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
indeed
>
Albert Silverman
Joey Goldstein <joegoldATidirectDOTcom> wrote:
>
>
>McGuffin wrote:
>>
>> A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
>> often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
>> know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>
>Probably because it is simple and because it sounds good. Lots of pop
>music is written by less than average guitar players who simply move
>barre chords around to places on the fretboard that sound good to them.
Imagine using a chord because it "sounds good"!
What is this world coming to, anyway?
No respect for Ancient Theory. Disgraceful!
>
>There's also a blues connection. The only non diatonic note in a bVII
>chord is the bVII itself which is one of the blue notes in the key and
>is also a component of the I7 chord.
Voodoo!
>
>Why blues uses dom7 chords is another story, one for the musicologists,
>but I'll bet it has to do with the overtone series and with the way that
>African slaves interpreted Western musical sounds they were hearing when
>they were brought to America.
Of course. Perfectly natural. Overtones rule! Is this what Gordon says?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
Albert Silverman
Just ask our resident "expert" on chords. He is always willing to provide
an answer--whatever the question.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where "doctors" have no patience
and do not understand chords and chord relationships
Albert Silverman
paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>
>I'm still trying to work out what the chord, and the related dominant
>minor, do to our Shenkered-view of tonality. Schenker (and Schoenberg)
>don't have any place for a flattened leading note.
Now let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that Schenker would
deny that a piece containing the notes CDEFGABb is "tonal" because these
notes are not all found within a major or minor scale?
Is THIS what you are saying?
And if it is, then is this what YOU believe?
In other words, are you claiming that "tonality" is synonymous with the
use of tones in a particular type of scale? If so, then the "pop" piece
using the chords C,F,B,G would definitely NOT be "tonal"--would it?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>
>Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fred Nachbaur
imagine the sound of a thousand jaws dropping were you ever to post
anything containing a semblance of civility.
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <NEex5.3444$nk3.2...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> McGuffin <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Are you implying that, in the "key" of C, for example, the only chords
> which are to be "expected" are chords based upon the root-tones
> C,D,E,F,G,A,B?
>
> Then must we "explain" how chords based upon any *other* of the twelve
> possible root-tones managed to worm their way into what you are calling
> "pop" music?
>
> Do you really believe such nonsense?
>
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
> indeed
> >
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+ The Best Things in Life are still Free... +
+ http://www.netidea.com/~fredn +
+ ... but now you can also buy my CD :) +
* http://ecom.mp3.com/cgi-bin/order.cgi?cd_id=50719 +
*UK/Europe: http://www.peoplesound.com/artist/frednachbaur +
+----------------------------------------------------------+
McGuffin
> >
> Are you implying that, in the "key" of C, for example, the only chords
> which are to be "expected" are chords based upon the root-tones
> C,D,E,F,G,A,B?
>
> Then must we "explain" how chords based upon any *other* of the twelve
> possible root-tones managed to worm their way into what you are calling
> "pop" music?
>
> Do you really believe such nonsense?
>
>
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
> indeed
Dude,
Take a breath. You don't get points for ignorance. Where to begin?
Yes, I am implying that in a music based largely on three diatonic chords
and characteristically kept harmonically simple for both melodic and overall
aural effect, I do expect that when a particular non-diatonic chord is used
in exception to this general practice, there must be a reason. The bII major
triad is not particularly common in rock harmonies, and nor is the VII major
triad. When non-diatonic chords are used in rock music, they most often are
part of a modulation. That's mod-u-la-tion. Look it up. When a non-diatonic
chord appears in a progression that is otherwise diatonic, or not obviously
in any one key, that does indeed invite an explanation, whether through
theory or strictly as an historical matter. As to your last dribble... what
I referred to as pop music is... pop music. I have no idea what you were
suggesting, but think you should really go back on the prozac. Without it,
you are a most unpleasant person.
McGuffin
paramucho
<mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"paramucho" -->
>
>> >A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
>> >often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
>> >know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>>
>> The subtonic (flat seven triad) is the chord that "had" to happen in
>> rock. It was unavoidable. Here's just some of the paths that can be
>> tracked (mapped roughly with some gross simplifications):
>>
>> 1. A simple extension of the flat seventh note in the blues/rock
>> scale (the cadence {E D} "ma-han" in the Beatles' "I Wanna Be Your
>> Man" is harmonised with the chords E-D (the bass stays on E). However
>> it occurs relatively rarely in rock "blues" songs and in fact occurs
>> most effectively in simple diatonic settings.
>
>McGuffin-->This is sort of exceptional, as you say.
>
>>
>> 2. The boogie pattern I-IV-I is often repeated on the subdominant,
>> producing the sequence IV-bVII-IV. In extension, this leads to the
>> sequence (IV)-bVII-IV-I, where bVII-IV-I is the so-called "Double
>> Plagal" cadence.
>
>McGuffin-->I hadn't considered this, but I'm not sure if it explains the use
>of the chord, given the common context.
Neither had I for a long time until someone else brought to my
attention last year. It's an appealing idea because it provides a
simple operational model. If you play songs involving the chords I,
IV, V and bVII night after night, then you get used to using bVII.
>> 3. From Jazz, it appears as dominant 11th. The Beatles' "Got To Get
>> You Into My Life" (a reefer song), has a good example which is later
>> developed as a double plagal cadence in the brief guitar solo.
>
>McGuffin-->Missed that one. It seems to keep the tonic root in the bass
>(F/G), so I don't know what to do with it theory-wise. I'm going through the
>Beatles' songbook right now, and their harmonization seems to be entirely
>intuitive in some places.
"Intuitive" can also just be another way of saying "a usage for which
I don't understand the rules yet". Which particular harmonisations did
you have in mind (and which score are you using?)
>> 4. The Beatles pseudo-Indian music features the chord in the sitar
>> based "Love You To". Importantly the chord is cadential.
>
>
>>
>> 5. Mixed modes are not unusual in rock, thus the natural minor
>> subtonic may appear in a piece with a minor and major tonics. The
>> Beatles' "I'll Be Back" is a good example.
>
>McGuffin-->When it sits in a minor progression, I don't count it. I may be
>wrong here. Maybe someone pulled the chord out of a minor progression and
>tried it within a I-IV-V context. I dunno.
My brief overview doesn't handle constraints. I'm looking here at how
the chord was introduced into their pallette.
>> 7. Rock songs that hover between a major tonic and an aoelian minor
>> tonic, are bound to get confused between the major tonic's subtonic
>> and minor tonic's flat supertonic -- the same chord. We see this in
>> Lennon's "Yes It Is" and in a very sophisticated form in Lennon's
>> homage to Beethoven, "Because" [c# |f#6 |G# |A |c# |A7 |A6 |D/f# |d-].
>
>McGuffin-->In "Yes It Is" the bVII seems to act as a pivot to a temporary
>visit to the relative minor at the first ending[|E C#min|A D|C#min E|. Or
>else it just sounds cool.
>
>>
>> There are other roots (folk/Irish etc), but I'll be brief here:
>
>McGuffin-->This is what I was wondering about. Is it more likely that the
>use is vamps (I-bVII-IV-I, I-bVII-bVI-V, etc.) comes out of a modified
>American blues tonality or a British folk tradition?
The latter progression is not common in rock. There's a great example
in the verse of "Mad Dogs And Englishmen". The chorus close of that
song is I-bVII9-I, with Coward singing the pedal tonic over the
subtonic (the use pedal notes with the subtonic is a whole subject in
itself). Lennon's cadence in "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" is
similar.
Regarding the former, I have searched far and wide without success so
far. It is possible that the progression is an independent
(re)invention of pop. Certainly, the overwhelming importance given the
chord is an identifiable trait that seems unique to rock.
>> The first full blown totally subtonic sixties rock song was probably
>> the Van Morrison song "Gloria". The double-plagal riff [E |D A ]
>> was developed by one of the band's members before the song was
>> written.
>
>McGuffin-->This is what I've been looking for. The Kinks "All Day and All of
>the Night" is in the same ballpark, if a little earlier and more bluesy.
I've got the dates written out somewhere, but I can't find them at the
moment.
>> The ultimate quatro-plagal cadence song is "Hey Joe" [C |G |D |A |E ].
>> The Beatles borrow this unashamedly, repeating it as a retransition
>> from the E major bridge of "A Day In The Life" to get back to the
>> verse in G.
>
>McGuffin-->Now I have to look up the "plagals".
>
>Thanks for a great post. Given my own interest in triadic vamps, I can't
>help thinking that the attraction of the Gloria-type usage comes from the
>power of parallel movement and the use of chords for tonal "colors" rather
>than for their classic key-related duty.
In that context, yes. Particularly in their use in repeated mantra
progressions. However, they still perform a tonal function, even if
it's not classic in nature.
My point is that we shouldn't be trying to simplify the use of the
subtonic down to a single cause. Take the use of the chord in "Help!"
(in the chorus, not the verse cadence) or in "It's Only Love" and you
can see it being used for its chromatic color.
Again you can find other more trite examples of bVII-V (in "All My
Loving" or in "Yes It Is"). You'll find this kind of progression in
Elizabethian music (I think). The function here is simply to heat up
the dominant.
The Beatles are perhaps the worst band to look at for triadic vamps,
in the sense that they *couldn't* produce a song as formless "Gloria",
in a tonal sense (except as an exercise in the form). Perhaps the most
monumental use of the bVII-IV-I cadence is in the chorus of "With A
Little Help From My Friends". But it took Joe Cocker to discover that
power and turn into a repeated anthemic mantra. The Beatles in fact
still felt driven to write [D A E |D A E |A A E], using a simple
plagal cadence to close.
>That doesn't explain why one triad
>is used rather than another, but it still might be a useful way to think.
I've given this some thought. I think the simple answer is that the
chords they played were strictly related to the kind of things they
were trying to express. They didn't use chords to show off, in fact
they tried to keep things simple. It's interesting to note that
Beethoven seems to have gone through a period when he was exploring
the use of less used chords, and it was also at a time when he was
striking out and trying to find his own path.
>Where can I get more info on Brit folk?And I'd still like to check '50s R&B
>to see if they were using b7s too.
I get all the books I can find on British folk song. I've found some
info, but not a lot. There is one beautiful, well known Irish song
with has a great example of a rock scale.
I haven't found much in fifties rock. One Buddy Holly song makes very
prominent use of the chord. The chord seems to be generated by
electric guitar habits although it sounds modal in its simple
juxtaposition with the tonic. A bit like "The Night Before".
Although I'm also searching for this material, I don't really think
it's particularly relevant to the rock usage of the chord. Much of
what was produced was re-invention of the musicians of the sixties
rather than the result of previous experience. I have a reference here
somewhere which makes the same remark about William Byrd and his
period.
Ian
David Webber
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8q5s0i$eqs$4...@news.panix.com...
> Just ask our resident "expert" on chords. He is always willing to provide
> an answer--whatever the question.
...unlike Albert Silverman, who will whinge eternally about what others say,
but has himself never ever provided any answers to any questions at all.
(I am fascinated by the discussion in this thread - just treat Albert like a
rainy day everyone: turn up your collar and get on with business as usual
without letting it affect you too much.)
Dave
--
Dave Webber
Author of MOZART the Music Processor for Windows - http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the North Cheshire Concert Band http://www.northcheshire.org.uk
paramucho
<da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:8q5s0i$eqs$4...@news.panix.com...
>
>> Just ask our resident "expert" on chords. He is always willing to provide
>> an answer--whatever the question.
>
>...unlike Albert Silverman, who will whinge eternally about what others say,
>but has himself never ever provided any answers to any questions at all.
>
>(I am fascinated by the discussion in this thread - just treat Albert like a
>rainy day everyone: turn up your collar and get on with business as usual
>without letting it affect you too much.)
I delete all Albert's posts as they appear in my newsreader.
His only power lies in his ability to generate responses.
Delete and be happy.
Enjoy the power.
Ian
paramucho
wrote:
>In article <39d52726...@news.remarq.com>,
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm still trying to work out what the chord, and the related dominant
>>minor, do to our Shenkered-view of tonality. Schenker (and Schoenberg)
>>don't have any place for a flattened leading note.
>
>Now let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that Schenker would
>deny that a piece containing the notes CDEFGABb is "tonal" because these
>notes are not all found within a major or minor scale?
That's not what I'm saying (and I wouldn't state anything about the
vagaries of musical theory with such vehemence).
I'm saying that Shenker et al have the dominant and the unflattened
leading note, in cadences, as a central part of their model. Take that
away and it seems to me that the model must fall down.
It's an interesting question (no matter what the outcome), but one for
which I don't have a clear answer at present.
Ian
Albert Silverman
Theory. Of course you don't have a clear answer to it, nor do those who
foist off these nonsensical concepts to the unwary student as "theory."
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>
>Ian
>
Albert Silverman
McGuffin <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> which are to be "expected" are chords based upon the root-tones
>> C,D,E,F,G,A,B?
>>
>> Then must we "explain" how chords based upon any *other* of the twelve
>> possible root-tones managed to worm their way into what you are calling
>> "pop" music?
>>
>> Do you really believe such nonsense?
>>
>>
>> (Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>Dude,
>
> Take a breath. You don't get points for ignorance. Where to begin?
>Yes, I am implying that in a music based largely on three diatonic chords
>and characteristically kept harmonically simple for both melodic and overall
>aural effect, I do expect that when a particular non-diatonic chord is used
>in exception to this general practice, there must be a reason. The bII major
>triad is not particularly common in rock harmonies, and nor is the VII major
>triad. When non-diatonic chords are used in rock music, they most often are
>part of a modulation. That's mod-u-la-tion. Look it up.
*I* am not the one who needs to look it up. You are using this term when
you cannot define it. You cannot define it since you don't understand the
basic ideas which underlie chord relationships and the *twelve-chord*
system of musical composition based upon the triad. Too bad. So you
continue to ramble on, without relevance to the REAL concepts that are
involved.
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> My question goes to the very heart of what is wrong with Ancient
> Theory. Of course you don't have a clear answer to it, nor do those who
> foist off these nonsensical concepts to the unwary student as "theory."
So what's your answer?
Jerry Freedman Jr
> >to see if they were using b7s too.
>
> I get all the books I can find on British folk song. I've found some
> info, but not a lot. There is one beautiful, well known Irish song
> with has a great example of a rock scale.
>
What is the beautiful, well known Irish song?
Although my familiarity with Celtic music is probably not as great as
yours, fiddles tunes are full of bVII. Mixolydian and dorian are quite
popular
J. Freedman,Jr
--
Creation took 6 days because God didn't
have an installed base
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Garett and Catherine
have it in the most important area of the song:
Ruby Tuesday
Windy
With a Little Help from my Friends
Free Bird
In each case, bVII is followed by IV, then either I or V-I.
I don't see a modulation here. I don't sense a temporary key of IV. But it
may be a naturally evolved pattern similar to
V of V of V to V of V to V to I.
Here its IV of IV to IV to I.
Also, except for Windy, where it occurs in the verse starting the song, the IV
of IV to IV occurs in the chorus in most situations, or at least (as in Free
Bird) after a normal I - V -VI progression, or a I - V - II as in With ...
Friends.
So we have the surprise of the bVII note modally replacing VII or VI
temporarily.
The next step would be, in key of C, a Eb - Bb - F - C progression. I can't
think of one of those in a popular song, but I'll bet its out there somewhere.
paramucho wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:58:05 GMT, "McGuffin"
> <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> The subtonic (flat seven triad) is the chord that "had" to happen in
> rock. It was unavoidable. Here's just some of the paths that can be
> tracked (mapped roughly with some gross simplifications):
>
> 1. A simple extension of the flat seventh note in the blues/rock
> scale (the cadence {E D} "ma-han" in the Beatles' "I Wanna Be Your
> Man" is harmonised with the chords E-D (the bass stays on E). However
> it occurs relatively rarely in rock "blues" songs and in fact occurs
> most effectively in simple diatonic settings.
>
> 2. The boogie pattern I-IV-I is often repeated on the subdominant,
> producing the sequence IV-bVII-IV. In extension, this leads to the
> sequence (IV)-bVII-IV-I, where bVII-IV-I is the so-called "Double
> Plagal" cadence.
>
> 3. From Jazz, it appears as dominant 11th. The Beatles' "Got To Get
> You Into My Life" (a reefer song), has a good example which is later
> developed as a double plagal cadence in the brief guitar solo.
>
> 4. The Beatles pseudo-Indian music features the chord in the sitar
> based "Love You To". Importantly the chord is cadential.
>
> 5. Mixed modes are not unusual in rock, thus the natural minor
> subtonic may appear in a piece with a minor and major tonics. The
> Beatles' "I'll Be Back" is a good example.
>
> 7. Rock songs that hover between a major tonic and an aoelian minor
> tonic, are bound to get confused between the major tonic's subtonic
> and minor tonic's flat supertonic -- the same chord. We see this in
> Lennon's "Yes It Is" and in a very sophisticated form in Lennon's
> homage to Beethoven, "Because" [c# |f#6 |G# |A |c# |A7 |A6 |D/f# |d-].
>
> There are other roots (folk/Irish etc), but I'll be brief here:
>
> The first full blown totally subtonic sixties rock song was probably
> the Van Morrison song "Gloria". The double-plagal riff [E |D A ]
> was developed by one of the band's members before the song was
> written.
>
> The ultimate quatro-plagal cadence song is "Hey Joe" [C |G |D |A |E ].
> The Beatles borrow this unashamedly, repeating it as a retransition
> from the E major bridge of "A Day In The Life" to get back to the
> verse in G.
>
> For me the most interesting examples of the use of the subtonic (and
> it's a passion of mine) were Lennon's experiments around the time of
> the HELP! album. Lennon tries the chord in many different styles. He
> seems to be trying to fit into the tonal requirements of the western
> system. The results are fascinating.
>
> There's a lot more interesting stuff on this topic (and on Beethoven's
> use of the chord).
>
> Looking at the evolution of the chord, one wonders why it took them so
> long.
>
> I'm still trying to work out what the chord, and the related dominant
> minor, do to our Shenkered-view of tonality. Schenker (and Schoenberg)
> don't have any place for a flattened leading note.
>
> Ian
>
>
Albert Silverman
Garett and Catherine <kat...@enteract.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure I agree with your theory of the bVII. Here are some songs that
>have it in the most important area of the song:
>Ruby Tuesday
>Windy
>With a Little Help from my Friends
>Free Bird
>
>In each case, bVII is followed by IV, then either I or V-I.
>I don't see a modulation here. I don't sense a temporary key of IV. But it
>may be a naturally evolved pattern similar to
>V of V of V to V of V to V to I.
>Here its IV of IV to IV to I.
This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
"extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
I asked this individual to DEFINE what he meant by a "modulation." Of
course he failed to offer such a definition. Because he does not have
one. In his view, it is sufficient simply to refer to a "modulation" in
some vague manner. Just wave a magic wand and any perceived problems will
disappear.
Who needs to know what anything MEANS?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where definitions are unimportant
when logic is unavailable
Dr.Matt
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <39D0264B...@enteract.com>,
>Garett and Catherine <kat...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>In each case, bVII is followed by IV, then either I or V-I.
>>I don't see a modulation here. I don't sense a temporary key of IV. But it
>>may be a naturally evolved pattern similar to
>>V of V of V to V of V to V to I.
>>Here its IV of IV to IV to I.
>
>This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
>"extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
The reason you have a problem with this, Albert, is evidently that you
haven't yet metabolized the concepts of tonicizing, diatonic music, and
chromatic music. But the resources are available, and I know of no reason
why you ought not to be able to master them.
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
> "extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
>
> I asked this individual to DEFINE what he meant by a "modulation." Of
> course he failed to offer such a definition. Because he does not have
> one. In his view, it is sufficient simply to refer to a "modulation" in
> some vague manner. Just wave a magic wand and any perceived problems will
> disappear.
>
> Who needs to know what anything MEANS?
Well, since you asked:
Modulation: The process of abandoning one tonality and establishing a
new one. It is usually affected by a pivot chord which belongs to both
the old and new tonalities. [Note, however, that it says "usually".
Check out some Schubert, especially the late quartets, in which pivot
chords are implied at best, completely absent more often than not.]
Tonicization: The process whereby harmonies other than those related to
the tonic are given greater vividness or emphasis.
(from Music Theory Dictionary, Wm. F Lee, U. Miami 1965)
Hope this helps. Knowing what things mean can be helpful at times, and
definitions are readily available to those who take a bit of effort to
look.
Albert Silverman
Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <8qqj4k$lq1$1...@news.panix.com>,
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <39D0264B...@enteract.com>,
>>Garett and Catherine <kat...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>>In each case, bVII is followed by IV, then either I or V-I.
>>>I don't see a modulation here. I don't sense a temporary key of IV. But it
>>>may be a naturally evolved pattern similar to
>>>V of V of V to V of V to V to I.
>>>Here its IV of IV to IV to I.
>>
>>"extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
>
>haven't yet metabolized the concepts of tonicizing, diatonic music, and
>chromatic music. But the resources are available, and I know of no reason
>why you ought not to be able to master them.
*I* am not the one with a problem--"doctor".
Try looking inward.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where "doctors" have no patience
and do not understand the concept of a "tonal center"
Albert Silverman
Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>
>
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
>> "extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
>>
>> course he failed to offer such a definition. Because he does not have
>> one. In his view, it is sufficient simply to refer to a "modulation" in
>> some vague manner. Just wave a magic wand and any perceived problems will
>> disappear.
>>
>> Who needs to know what anything MEANS?
>
>Well, since you asked:
I asked that individual to define what HE meant by "modulation," not to
spell out the absurdities in traditional textbooks.
Now tell me what YOU mean by "tonality." You must of course be able to
define this, if your definition of "modulation" is to have any meaning.
At this point you will stumble, since you are going to define
"tonality" in terms of a major/minor scale. And this in turn is going to
lead you to a stone wall of irrelevance.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
David Webber
> Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
> >The reason you have a problem with this, Albert, is evidently that you
> >haven't yet metabolized the concepts of tonicizing, diatonic music, and
> >chromatic music. But the resources are available, and I know of no reason
> >why you ought not to be able to master them.
>
> *I* am not the one with a problem--"doctor".
>
> Try looking inward.
>
Well Matt, - now you know the reason :-(
David Webber
> I asked that individual to define what HE meant by "modulation," not to
> spell out the absurdities in traditional textbooks.
>...
Albert, either you can hear what key the music is in or you can't. Those
who can hear it can detect when the key changes - modulation.
Those who can't, can't.
If I were you, I'd give up asking, and listen more carefully to to more
music. It's really the only way to understand the concept.
Dr.Matt
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
>> Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> >The reason you have a problem with this, Albert, is evidently that you
>> >haven't yet metabolized the concepts of tonicizing, diatonic music, and
>> >chromatic music. But the resources are available, and I know of no reason
>> >why you ought not to be able to master them.
>>
>> *I* am not the one with a problem--"doctor".
>>
>> Try looking inward.
>>
>
That makes it seem like Al cannot master those concepts because he
lives too far from me and I haven't the time to visit him and help
him out with it.
I am skeptical of that. I think Al ought to be able to pick up
the concepts from any source, not just me.
Joey Goldstein
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <Jd5A5.4643$O5.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
> >In article <8qqj4k$lq1$1...@news.panix.com>,
> >Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In article <39D0264B...@enteract.com>,
> >>Garett and Catherine <kat...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >>>In each case, bVII is followed by IV, then either I or V-I.
> >>>I don't see a modulation here. I don't sense a temporary key of IV. But it
> >>>may be a naturally evolved pattern similar to
> >>>V of V of V to V of V to V to I.
> >>>Here its IV of IV to IV to I.
> >>
> >>This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
> >>"extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
> >
> >The reason you have a problem with this, Albert, is evidently that you
> >haven't yet metabolized the concepts of tonicizing, diatonic music, and
> >chromatic music. But the resources are available, and I know of no reason
> >why you ought not to be able to master them.
>
> *I* am not the one with a problem--"doctor".
>
> Try looking inward.
Although you're usually the most well adjusted one here Albert I think I
have to side with Matt on this one.
David Webber
Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:zakA5.4804$O5.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> >Well Matt, - now you know the reason :-(
>
> That makes it seem like Al cannot master those concepts because he
> lives too far from me and I haven't the time to visit him and help
> him out with it.
Well home visits by the doctor are a relatively rare thing - and only when
the patient is practically dead and unable to get up. This one has far to
much life in him to expect that.
> I am skeptical of that. I think Al ought to be able to pick up
> the concepts from any source, not just me.
I didn't mean to imply anything different :-)
Perhaps the runes are too ancient for him to read?
Fred Nachbaur
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <39D13616...@netidea.com>,
> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Albert Silverman wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
> >> "extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
> >>
> >> I asked this individual to DEFINE what he meant by a "modulation." Of
> >> course he failed to offer such a definition. Because he does not have
> >> one. In his view, it is sufficient simply to refer to a "modulation" in
> >> some vague manner. Just wave a magic wand and any perceived problems will
> >> disappear.
> >>
> >> Who needs to know what anything MEANS?
> >
> >Well, since you asked:
>
> I asked that individual to define what HE meant by "modulation," not to
> spell out the absurdities in traditional textbooks.
>
> Now tell me what YOU mean by "tonality." You must of course be able to
> define this, if your definition of "modulation" is to have any meaning.
>
> At this point you will stumble, since you are going to define
> "tonality" in terms of a major/minor scale. And this in turn is going to
> lead you to a stone wall of irrelevance.
Not at all. Tonality /may/ involve specific scales or modes, but in
general only means that a certain note (or "tone") provides the central
reference point. When this reference tone temporarily shifts to another
one, you have a tonicisation; if it shifts more definitely or for a
longer period, you have a modulation.
It's really quite easy. Nothing mysterious about it, though certain
people go to great lengths to try to make it look complicated.
Albert Silverman
Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>
>
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>>
>> In article <39D13616...@netidea.com>,
>> Fred Nachbaur <fr...@netidea.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Albert Silverman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> This idea of temporary "modulations" to explain the appearance of certain
>> >> "extraneous" tones is one of the great absurdities of so-called "theory."
>> >>
>> >> I asked this individual to DEFINE what he meant by a "modulation." Of
>> >> course he failed to offer such a definition. Because he does not have
>> >> one. In his view, it is sufficient simply to refer to a "modulation" in
>> >> some vague manner. Just wave a magic wand and any perceived problems will
>> >> disappear.
>> >>
>> >> Who needs to know what anything MEANS?
>> >
>> >Well, since you asked:
>>
>> I asked that individual to define what HE meant by "modulation," not to
>> spell out the absurdities in traditional textbooks.
>>
>> Now tell me what YOU mean by "tonality." You must of course be able to
>> define this, if your definition of "modulation" is to have any meaning.
>>
>> At this point you will stumble, since you are going to define
>> "tonality" in terms of a major/minor scale. And this in turn is going to
>> lead you to a stone wall of irrelevance.
>
>general only means that a certain note (or "tone") provides the central
>reference point. When this reference tone temporarily shifts to another
>one, you have a tonicisation; if it shifts more definitely or for a
>longer period, you have a modulation.
First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
Much more important is the mechanism by which some particular *chord* is
established as the "reference" chord, and the relationship of all other
chords, *based upon TWELVE roots*, to that particular chord.
It is at this point where traditional "theory,* to which you continue to
refer, falls flat on its --- and never recovers. And Humpty-Dumpty cannot
put it back together again.
And it is *this* area in which I have concentrated my theoretical efforts
in explaining the nature of *triad-based* music, which was developed
during the common-practice period and continues *today*, where attempting
to equate "tonality" with the tones of a major/minor scale is ridiculous
and irrelevant.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where "tonality" meands different things to different residents
>
It's really quite easy. Nothing mysterious about it, though
certain
>people go to great lengths to try to make it look complicated.
>
Dr.Matt
take your theory as a premise.
Patrick O'Melia
> First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
NOTE: If you're taking about chords are you not talking about notes ?
--
Patrick M. O'Melia
pom...@visi.com
Fred Nachbaur
Patrick O'Melia wrote:
>
>
> > First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
>
> NOTE: If you're taking about chords are you not talking about notes ?
In Mr. Silverman's Wonderland notes only exist in threes, and harmonies
only exist vertically. In that same Wonderland, the apparent fact that
"tone", "tonic", "tonicisation" and "tonality" seem to share a common
root is an illusory coincidence.
Albert Silverman
Patrick O'Melia <pom...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
>
>NOTE: If you're taking about chords are you not talking about notes ?
There is a difference between a "chord" and a "note." A chord contains
several notes, and these two entities exist on different *levels* of
musical structure. It is simply not possible to equate the two, due to
this difference in structural levels.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>Patrick M. O'Melia
>pom...@visi.com
Dr.Matt
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <pomelia-2709...@63.226.149.144>,
>Patrick O'Melia <pom...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
>>
>>NOTE: If you're taking about chords are you not talking about notes ?
>
>There is a difference between a "chord" and a "note." A chord contains
>several notes, and these two entities exist on different *levels* of
>musical structure. It is simply not possible to equate the two, due to
>this difference in structural levels.
However, Al is not at all as dumb as he is pretending to be in this
post. In many of his postings on sequences of chords, he explains a
progression in terms of a semitone melodic tendency on the part of a
particular note. Elsewhere he denies that sequences of chords imply
counterpoint, but most of us understand that he's just confused on this
issue.
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>>Patrick M. O'Melia
>>pom...@visi.com
>
>
Joey Goldstein
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>
> First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
No you're not. You've asked for the definition of "tonality". Fred gave
you the modern, broad definition, the one currently in use, but you
insist on reverting back the definition used at the end of (more like
the beginning of) the 19th century. Tonality (and therefore a tonal
center) has less to do with a central chord than it does with a central
TONE. The concept of "key" has a lot to do with chords and a reference
chord. The concept of "tonality", as it is understood today by people
who understand music, unlike people such as yourself, does not.
> Much more important is the mechanism by which some particular *chord* is
> established as the "reference" chord, and the relationship of all other
> chords, *based upon TWELVE roots*, to that particular chord.
The above statement is totally irrelevant to this conversation. It would
be relevant if we were discussing your own theory of harmony but no one
happens to be discussing that right now, except you.
> It is at this point where traditional "theory,* to which you continue to
> refer, falls flat on its --- and never recovers. And Humpty-Dumpty cannot
> put it back together again.
It only falls flat in your mind Albert because as you have said over and
over and over again you do not understand traditional theory. You don't
seem to understand much actually.
> And it is *this* area in which I have concentrated my theoretical efforts
> in explaining the nature of *triad-based* music, which was developed
> during the common-practice period and continues *today*, where attempting
> to equate "tonality" with the tones of a major/minor scale is ridiculous
> and irrelevant.
Attempting to equate "tonality" with the tones of a major/minor scale is
irrelevant.
What exactly do you think the traditional definition of tonality is Albert?
lad...@my-deja.com
pom...@visi.com (Patrick O'Melia) wrote:
>
> > First of all, I am talking about *chords*, not about "notes."
>
Several years ago here in rec.music.theory, Albert Silverman was asked
whether, when played by itself, without chordal accompaniment, the
melody of "Joy to the World" could be said to be in a certain key. His
answer was no. Let your own ears be the judge.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
David Webber
<lad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8r06lk$j29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Several years ago here in rec.music.theory, Albert Silverman was asked
> whether, when played by itself, without chordal accompaniment, the
> melody of "Joy to the World" could be said to be in a certain key. His
> answer was no. Let your own ears be the judge.
ROFL! This explains why I can't play my saxophone in any key! It will
only play one note at at time and so it's impossible <g>.
Dr.Matt
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><lad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8r06lk$j29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> Several years ago here in rec.music.theory, Albert Silverman was asked
>> whether, when played by itself, without chordal accompaniment, the
>> melody of "Joy to the World" could be said to be in a certain key. His
>> answer was no. Let your own ears be the judge.
>
>ROFL! This explains why I can't play my saxophone in any key! It will
>only play one note at at time and so it's impossible <g>.
Maybe you need to play around with multiphonics, oh atonal one!
Glenn Mandelkern
McGuffin <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
>often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
>know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>
Might it be the popularity of "Mustang Sally,"
the "Ride Sally Ride" effect?
Just a guess.
I know a musician who plays at bars and parties who just loathes
everytime someone asks to hear "Mustang Sally." He's also told me
of a few train wrecks that have happened when other accompanists
don't play C, Bb, C, C but instead C, B, C, C.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Mandelkern "Hee, hee, hee, hee!" -- Questor the Elf
gma...@netcom.com
San Jose, CA
Software Developer / Career Advisor
"A 3-D Hiring Model for the Information Technology Industry",
http://www.techweek.com/articles/5-4-98/Log-On.html
Glenn Mandelkern
>In article <pomelia-2709...@63.226.149.144>,
>
>whether, when played by itself, without chordal accompaniment, the
>melody of "Joy to the World" could be said to be in a certain key. His
>answer was no. Let your own ears be the judge.
>
Was this for the Christmas carol "Joy to the World,"
or Three Dog Night's version, i.e. "Jeremiah was a bullfrog"???
Or does it matter?
lad...@my-deja.com
gma...@netcom.com (Glenn Mandelkern) wrote:
> In article <8r06lk$j29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <lad...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >ment, the melody of "Joy to the World" could be said to be in a
> >certain key. His answer was no. Let your own ears be the judge.
> >
>
> Was this for the Christmas carol "Joy to the World,"
Yes.
> or Three Dog Night's version, i.e. "Jeremiah was a bullfrog"???
> Or does it matter?
You have to get through a few phrases of this one before you have all of
your key information settled and unambiguous. Ultimately, it doesn't
matter.
David Webber
> Maybe you need to play around with multiphonics,
Occasionally I do - they're usually mistakes <g>. I've never really
thought of the instrument as having been designed so that I can make nasty
nasal and/or gutteral noises at one pitch while blowing it at another.
However I do occasionally get asked for special effects on the odd note. I
find that gargling down the instrument can give a very "interesting" sound
which (applied subito fortissimo) can make people jump out of their seats.
> oh atonal one!
I atone! I atone!
Dr.Matt
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:Co0B5.5053$O5.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>> Maybe you need to play around with multiphonics,
>
>Occasionally I do - they're usually mistakes <g>. I've never really
>thought of the instrument as having been designed so that I can make nasty
>nasal and/or gutteral noises at one pitch while blowing it at another.
>However I do occasionally get asked for special effects on the odd note. I
>find that gargling down the instrument can give a very "interesting" sound
>which (applied subito fortissimo) can make people jump out of their seats.
>
>> oh atonal one!
>
>I atone! I atone!
No, that's ten days from now. Ten days ago was Vigil of Forgiveness.
Forgiveness before atonement---this is one of the reasons Jews are
traditionally neurotic.
David Webber
> >I atone! I atone!
>
> No, that's ten days from now.
Just think of it as me trying hard not to be late. :-)
Anyway I'm afraid my repentence is a sham - in a week or so I have to
perform in a lovely concert band arrangement of "Slava" by Lennie
Bernstein - the Alto/Soprano sax part involves a few notes of that nature,
and I really rather enjoy it
McGuffin
"> >A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock
music,
> >often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
> >know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
> >
>
> Might it be the popularity of "Mustang Sally,"
> the "Ride Sally Ride" effect?
>
> Just a guess.
>
My earliest find - Buddy Holly - Well Alright. Mustang Sally comes years
later
Even
The I - bVII - IV -I progressions sounds to more like a V - IV - I - V.
Could I be right ? Any examples ?
Anyway, the diantonic notes of major tonalities only explain a part of the
most encountered progressions. I'm developing an application for focusing on
chord and progression analysis. It's a big piece of work, but I'm getting
the pieces together, one by one.
Even
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:39C59FF0...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> McGuffin wrote:
> >
> > A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock
music,
> > often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does
anyone
> > know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
>
> Probably because it is simple and because it sounds good. Lots of pop
> music is written by less than average guitar players who simply move
> barre chords around to places on the fretboard that sound good to them.
>
> There's also a blues connection. The only non diatonic note in a bVII
> chord is the bVII itself which is one of the blue notes in the key and
> is also a component of the I7 chord.
>
> Why blues uses dom7 chords is another story, one for the musicologists,
> but I'll bet it has to do with the overtone series and with the way that
> African slaves interpreted Western musical sounds they were hearing when
> they were brought to America.
Albert Silverman
Even <enor...@online.no> wrote:
>Hi, Guffy
>
>The I - bVII - IV -I progressions sounds to more like a V - IV - I - V.
>Could I be right ? Any examples ?
>Anyway, the diantonic notes of major tonalities only explain a part of the
>most encountered progressions.
Now there are TWO of us around here who understand this!
More importantly, do you know WHY this happens to be true?
>I'm developing an application for focusing on
>chord and progression analysis. It's a big piece of work, but I'm getting
>the pieces together, one by one.
Good luck.
But it will never sell, because it will necessarily conflict with
"tradition," which is the backbone of the Academic Musical
Establishment (Ancient Authority).
Have you ever heard of them?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
Jim Fish
"Even" <enor...@online.no> wrote:
> Hi, Guffy
>
> The I - bVII - IV -I progressions sounds to more like a V - IV - I -
V.
> Could I be right ? Any examples ?
> Anyway, the diantonic notes of major tonalities only explain a part
of the
focusing on
> chord and progression analysis. It's a big piece of work, but I'm
getting
> the pieces together, one by one.
>
>
Yes the I - bVII - IV - I sounds like a V - IV - I - V. If you have
a song in C and you go to a section where your playing C - Bb - F - C
and then you return to a solid key of C by using G or more effectively
G7 or some other dominant variation your song is in C. You can regard
the 'solo' or 'jam' section (that is almost always what this
progression is used for in rock'n'roll) as a modulation if you wish or
you can stick with the I - bVII - IV - I that occurs naturally in a
myxolydian based progression, which is what most rock'n'roll really is
(ask your local bass player, he'll tell you that he plays the hell out
of that scale/mode in rock'n'roll)
The problem that you're encountering is that there is no universal
theory. The Rameau theory for common tonality has its limitations even
during the era of Common Tonality, to use it for analysis of
rock'n'roll, or blues, or jazz, etc. is tenuous at best. Often by
looking at shifting modal centers using tertiary harmonies one can find
a structure within r'n'r and blues. Most often the foundation is
myxolidian.
Yes, it is difficult to rationalize the chord progressions according to
traditional theory. No, there isn't a need to abandon traditional
tonal theory when applied to the works from which it evolved (a theory
comes from the recognition of devices, patterns, etc. already
concretized in a work or works).
Can there be a theory developed that would encompass r'n'r, and blues,
and jazz, and folk, and classical, and romantic, and impressionist, and
primitivism, and neo-classical, and any other music where the vertical
sonorities are, or can be, the foundation for the work? I doubt it.
All these musics have things in common as well as differences. It is
the differences that you have to look at. If you can resolve them you
have discovered a theory that is applicable to those things you have
resolved. Personally I would like to see that done on a universal
level.
Albert's been talking about a theory that would encompass all chord
based music (I think) for a long time. You've heard the proverb "The
proof is in the pudding", yes? Well I don't know about the proof
because I haven't even seen the pudding.
Good luck in your work. Personally I hope you do it, and soon.
jim
Dr.Matt
Jim Fish <jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <p3qE5.2129$W31....@news1.online.no>,
> "Even" <enor...@online.no> wrote:
>> Hi, Guffy
>>
>> The I - bVII - IV -I progressions sounds to more like a V - IV - I -
>V.
>> Could I be right ? Any examples ?
>> Anyway, the diantonic notes of major tonalities only explain a part
>of the
>> most encountered progressions. I'm developing an application for
>focusing on
>> chord and progression analysis. It's a big piece of work, but I'm
>getting
>> the pieces together, one by one.
>>
>> Even
>>
>Yes the I - bVII - IV - I sounds like a V - IV - I - V. If you have
In isolation. This is why some of us have tried to explain to
Mr. Silverman that voice leading and even rhythm are intertwined into
harmony and cannot be extricated. To which he generally replies "yes
they can be extricated but you need the melodic phrasing", as if the
melodic phrasing were separate from voice leading and rhythm. This
side-show has been going on for several years. It may have occasionally
dawned on him that voice leading and rhythm accomplish the same
clarification of harmony that melodic phrasing does, and in fact include
melodic phrasing as a subset, but if he has had that thought, he has
been kind enough to hide it and keep up the very comical interactions.
Jim Fish
fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <8s0om0$d80$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jim Fish <jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "Even" <enor...@online.no> wrote:
> >> Hi, Guffy
> >>
> >> The I - bVII - IV -I progressions sounds to more like a V - IV -
I -
> >V.
> >> Could I be right ? Any examples ?
> >> Anyway, the diantonic notes of major tonalities only explain a part
> >of the
> >> most encountered progressions. I'm developing an application for
> >focusing on
> >> chord and progression analysis. It's a big piece of work, but I'm
> >getting
> >> the pieces together, one by one.
> >>
> >> Even
> >>
> >Yes the I - bVII - IV - I sounds like a V - IV - I - V. If you
have
>
I think that's what I said throughout my rambling.
> This is why some of us have tried to explain to
> Mr. Silverman that voice leading and even rhythm are intertwined into
> harmony and cannot be extricated. To which he generally replies "yes
> they can be extricated but you need the melodic phrasing", as if the
> melodic phrasing were separate from voice leading and rhythm. This
> side-show has been going on for several years. It may have
occasionally
> dawned on him that voice leading and rhythm accomplish the same
> clarification of harmony that melodic phrasing does, and in fact
include
> melodic phrasing as a subset, but if he has had that thought, he has
> been kind enough to hide it and keep up the very comical interactions.
>
I don't know if you recall my first encounter with Al but his idiocy
and rudeness resulted in a major flaming from me.
BTW we once spoke about dodecaphony and its inherent tonal redundance
or lack thereof. I have made some study of 12-tone since that
discussion (perhaps 6 months to a year ago) and although I have found
many wonderfully diverse works it is Webern whom I find most
disturbing. He wrote following the Masters (Schoenberg) rules rigidly.
I believe that is why he created so many short works. If the rules are
followed without deviation, it makes it extremely difficult to vary
things over a long work. Sure rhythm, timbre, meter, can be changed
liberally but then they become little devices rather than strong
elements.
Like I say, I have found many wonderful works. I'm particular to
Schoenberg's Violin Concerto op. 36, but none of them rigidly follow
Schoenbergs rules. Of course that is true for all theories, isn't it?
No one really follows all the rules or has all the answers. That is
except for Albert ;-)
Dr.Matt
into writing, begging off the matter by stressing vague notions of
craft and art. He sometime went so far as to lampoon various proposed
rules...e.g., "no pitch class can sound again until the rest have been
sounded", which, if taken literally, forces the composer to write an
unvarying ostinato!
McGuffin
"Jim Fish" > Yes the I - bVII - IV - I sounds like a V - IV - I - V. If
you have
> a song in C and you go to a section where your playing C - Bb - F - C
> and then you return to a solid key of C by using G or more effectively
> G7 or some other dominant variation your song is in C. You can regard
> the 'solo' or 'jam' section (that is almost always what this
> progression is used for in rock'n'roll) as a modulation if you wish or
> you can stick with the I - bVII - IV - I that occurs naturally in a
> myxolydian based progression, which is what most rock'n'roll really is
> (ask your local bass player, he'll tell you that he plays the hell out
> of that scale/mode in rock'n'roll)
McGuffin-->Ahh... here's where my interest lies. The two progressions given
above are, in fact identical if taken out of context, but in conventional
use they can rarely be confused. By using the C above in the first and
fourth measure of a vamp, within a song that has already been defined as in
the key of C, I don't see how you could hear the progression as occuring in
F. A V - IV - I - V progression is possible, but the ear hears the repeated
chord as the tonic, doesn't it? Which brings us the the myxolydian
interpretation. The guitar player is more likely to be playing a minor
pentatonic scale - I - bIII - IV - V - bIIV - over these chords. I may be
going against the grain here - I've seen rock guitar instruction books that
call the bIIV the "myxolydian" chord - but I don't see the sense of calling
this a myxolydian progression if the melody uses the bIII.
Jim Fish
fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> Interestingly enough, Schoenberg himself refused to put his "rules"
> into writing, begging off the matter by stressing vague notions of
> craft and art. He sometime went so far as to lampoon various proposed
> rules...e.g., "no pitch class can sound again until the rest have been
> sounded", which, if taken literally, forces the composer to write an
> unvarying ostinato!
>
anything concrete about his "rules"
Jim Fish
"McGuffin" <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jim wrote: (see previous)
<snip>
>
> McGuffin wrote:
> McGuffin-->Ahh... here's where my interest lies. The two progressions
given
> above are, in fact identical if taken out of context, but in
conventional
> use they can rarely be confused.
Jim:
Agreed
> McGuffin:
> By using the C above in the first and
> fourth measure of a vamp, within a song that has already been defined
as in
> the key of C, I don't see how you could hear the progression as
occuring in
> F. A V - IV - I - V progression is possible, but the ear hears the
repeated
> chord as the tonic, doesn't it?
Jim:
I agree. The problem (if there is one) lies with the interpreter. If
someone were to look at a piece of music strictly on paper he might
decide that a modulation had in fact taken place. If this same person
listens to the same piece he may decide that there is no modulation.
Although I can't think of any instances off hand, I don't doubt that
there are songs in which the sense of modulation occurs aurally, but
for the most part I can agree with you, the song remains within the key.
> McGuffin:
Which brings us the the myxolydian
> interpretation. The guitar player is more likely to be playing a minor
> pentatonic scale - I - bIII - IV - V - bIIV - over these chords. I
may be
> going against the grain here - I've seen rock guitar instruction
books that
> call the bIIV the "myxolydian" chord - but I don't see the sense of
calling
> this a myxolydian progression if the melody uses the bIII.
>
Jim:
This is the problem with analyzing these songs with traditional tonal
concepts. There are influences from other cultures (most notably
African) in rock'n'roll, and blues, as well as most all 20th century
popular music. Although there are these wonderful vertical sonorities
they are not the only thing happening.
As I said 'ask your local blues or rock bassist' (or something like
that) Most often he'll be playing the mixolydian mode or at least
emplying it for a large part of the time. When you say the "minor
pentatonic" you're right. I would add that the guitarist will add the
tritone to the pentatonic as well which creates the "blues scale" (the
reason I say tritone is because there will always be arguments about it
being the b5, or the #4, or the #11 (my personal choice) and what you
call the minor third is often referred to as a #9th thus this scale has
the 3 "blue" notes (b3/#9, #4/b5/#11, and b7).
The soloist (guitarist, sax player, keyboardist, bassist [if he gets
the chance]) will use the "blues" scale, the minor pentatonic, the
diminished (both but the one that has the minor 7th lends itself more
easily), the myxolydian (although it can be tonally bland in this
context rhythmic variations can enliven it, particularly in bass
solos), the pentatonic (major that is) and combinations of all. My
personal favorite is a cross between the "blues' and mixolydian (for
simplicity numbered like this: 1,2,b3,4,b5,6,b7,8(1))
The point is that all twelve notes can be used for solo or melody.
Resolution of them is important. In the last mode/scale that I gave all
the notes, with the possible exception of the 4th can be sustained
without there being a great leap for the listener to accept them as
sonorities. As for the 4th scale degree, it works under some
conditions, particularly when the major third is not present.
As for why it is called a mixolydian progression, it's because of that
bVII chord, and the ambiguity of using the b7 in the mixolydian mode
which causes the dominant to not be so strong in large parts of rock
and blues. Of course the V occurs but it is often followed by a IV - I.
All in all it is a wonderfully strange mixture of tonality and
modality, and vertical and horizontal sonorities.
Dr.Matt
Most likely sources for insight into Schoenberg's compositional process
include Richard Hoffmann, John Rahn, Bob Morris, Milton Babbitt, Andy
Mead, and a few others--i.e. the real explication of how he got his
sound didn't start to come out until the 1960s and afterwards. Webern's
canons etc. hint at exposing the understructure.
Also, there's testimony from those who knew the triumvirate that all
three--especially Webern--performed their material with very soupy
romantic rubato-filled lyricism. The very crisp performances of Webern
that we're accustomed to may be telling the wrong story about what his
music was like at the time.
David Olen Baird
wrote:
>I have made some study of 12-tone since that
>discussion (perhaps 6 months to a year ago) and although I have found
>many wonderfully diverse works it is Webern whom I find most
>disturbing. He wrote following the Masters (Schoenberg) rules rigidly.
Not being a student of Webern, I'm wondering if anyone else can concur
with Jim's contention that W wrote using strict rules.
I have heard some student works that are quite Webernesque to my ear
and wondered if this was the result of some rigidity in the
application of serial technique.
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
McGuffin
> > McGuffin:
> Which brings us the the myxolydian
> > interpretation. The guitar player is more likely to be playing a minor
> > pentatonic scale - I - bIII - IV - V - bIIV - over these chords. I
> may be
> > going against the grain here - I've seen rock guitar instruction
> books that
> > call the bIIV the "myxolydian" chord - but I don't see the sense of
> calling
> > this a myxolydian progression if the melody uses the bIII.
> >
>
> Jim:
> This is the problem with analyzing these songs with traditional tonal
> concepts. There are influences from other cultures (most notably
> African) in rock'n'roll, and blues, as well as most all 20th century
> popular music. Although there are these wonderful vertical sonorities
> they are not the only thing happening.
McGuffin-->My question is, Does the bVII chord actually come into pop music
from modal influences - most likely through British musicians with some
knowledge of brit folk music, during the early sixties - or through an
attempt to harmonize the use of the bVII in the melody of r&b tunes?
Personally, I've been favoring the blues influence more than the modal. As a
pedagogical tool, a modal framework can be used to describe many pop
harmonies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their origins are truely
from modal sources. It's more a musicological than a theoretical issue, but
their's no musicology newsgroup, so here I am.
Dr.Matt
McGuffin <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> > McGuffin:
>> Which brings us the the myxolydian
>> > interpretation. The guitar player is more likely to be playing a minor
>> > pentatonic scale - I - bIII - IV - V - bIIV - over these chords. I
>> may be
>> > going against the grain here - I've seen rock guitar instruction
>> books that
>> > call the bIIV the "myxolydian" chord - but I don't see the sense of
>> calling
>> > this a myxolydian progression if the melody uses the bIII.
>> >
>>
>> Jim:
>> This is the problem with analyzing these songs with traditional tonal
>> concepts. There are influences from other cultures (most notably
>> African) in rock'n'roll, and blues, as well as most all 20th century
>> popular music. Although there are these wonderful vertical sonorities
>> they are not the only thing happening.
>
>McGuffin-->My question is, Does the bVII chord actually come into pop music
>from modal influences - most likely through British musicians with some
>knowledge of brit folk music, during the early sixties - or through an
E.g. Paul McCartney...
>attempt to harmonize the use of the bVII in the melody of r&b tunes?
E.g. HR Bird...
>Personally, I've been favoring the blues influence more than the modal. As a
>pedagogical tool, a modal framework can be used to describe many pop
>harmonies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their origins are truely
>from modal sources. It's more a musicological than a theoretical issue, but
>their's no musicology newsgroup, so here I am.
How about both...
Jim Fish
"McGuffin" <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
the 'British Invasion" guys and would be found in some form of American
(black) blues. It was from all the great black blues musicians that
most of the english guys got there ideas.
On the other hand, the english guys may have had something concrete and
original to add. Like I said - good question - I don't know.
paramucho
wrote:
>>Personally, I've been favoring the blues influence more than the modal. As a
>>pedagogical tool, a modal framework can be used to describe many pop
>>harmonies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their origins are truely
>>from modal sources. It's more a musicological than a theoretical issue, but
>>their's no musicology newsgroup, so here I am.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:58:05 GMT, "McGuffin"
<mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A question: the flat 7 major triad shows up frequently in pop/rock music,
>often as a part of a vamp used for solos eg. C - Bb - F - C. Does anyone
>know how this non-diatonic chord found it's way into pop music? Thanks.
[This is a rushed, edited version of an earlier response to the same
question]
The subtonic (flat seven triad) is the chord that *had* to happen in
rock. It was unavoidable. Here's just some of the paths that can be
tracked (mapped roughly with some gross simplifications):
1. A simple extension of the flat seventh note in the blues/rock
scale (the cadence {E D} "ma-han" in the Beatles' "I Wanna Be Your
Man" is harmonised with the chords E-D (the bass stays on E). However
it occurs relatively rarely in rock "blues" songs and in fact occurs
most effectively in simple diatonic settings.
2. The operational behaviour of the electric guitar makes it very easy
to play "chords as notes". The guitar, in general, is a "chord
machine", leading to experimentation with chord patterns.
3. The boogie pattern I-IV-I is often repeated on the subdominant,
producing the sequence IV-bVII-IV. In extension, this leads to the
sequence (IV)-bVII-IV-I, where bVII-IV-I is the so-called "Double
Plagal" cadence.
4. From Jazz, it appears as dominant 11th. The Beatles' "Got To Get
You Into My Life" (a reefer song), has a good example which is later
developed as a double plagal cadence in the brief guitar solo.
5. The Beatles pseudo-Indian music features the chord in the sitar
based "Love You To". Importantly the chord is cadential.
6. Mixed modes are not unusual in rock, thus the natural minor
subtonic may appear in a piece with a minor and major tonics. The
Beatles' "I'll Be Back" is a good example.
7. Rock songs that hover between a major tonic and an aoelian minor
tonic, are bound to get confused between the major tonic's subtonic
and minor tonic's flat supertonic -- the same chord. We see this in
Lennon's "Yes It Is" and in a very sophisticated form in Lennon's
homage to Beethoven, "Because" [c# |f#6 |G# |A |c# |A7 |A6 |D/f# |d-].
8. I have *not* yet found a gospel example or even early blues
example of the chord. That said, my resources are few. One of the
early Stones' songs that uses the chord, "The Last Time", is said to
based on a song of the same name by the Staple Singers, but I haven't
found that yet.
9. The rather corny cadential use where it interrupts the path to a
dominant half-close [I... |bVII V7 |...] should be considered quite
separately (it's almost Elizabethan, but probably reinvented, as it
probably was in Elizabethan times.
There are other roots (folk/Irish etc), but I'll be brief here.
The chord is used in as many different ways as there are sources of
the chord. There is no simple "formula" to describe the use, function
or affect of the chord. Contrary to popular belief, it is usually not
used in blues or folk-like context. In fact, Beethoven's use of the
chord in the opening theme of the Waldstein Sonata is probably closer
([C |G/b |Bb |F/a...]) common rock usage which places the chord in a
diatonic context.
A 1958 Buddy Holly song, "Well Alright", shows a simple use of the
chord [D C |D |D A |D ] etc. It was a "group" composition and largely
driven by rhythmic counterplay. The affect is modal in the same sense
that the Everly Brothers often achieve with their sudden guitar chord
figures, such as "Wake Up Little Suzie", [D: D |F G F|D ....]. The
Beatles use that kind of figure in "Please Please Me", [E: E...|E G A
B|E ] and elsewhere.
The first full blown totally subtonic sixties rock song was probably
the Van Morrison song "Gloria". The double-plagal riff [E |D A ]
was developed by one of the band's members before the song was
written. Again a group composition and again largely rhythmic.
The Beatles first full use of the chord was in "A Hard Day's Night"
where it opens the song (inverted as v7), colors the verse (bVII6) and
carries the outro (bVII2). Lennon experiments with the chord in many
different styles in the following two albums. He seems to be trying
to fit into the tonal requirements of the western system. The results
are fascinating. The chord is one of the reasons for the armonic/tonal
experimentation of the Peppertime period.
McCartney tends to use the chord in the same way as Buddy Holly, e.g.
"The Night Before" and "Another Girl" (both McCartney) are similar.
The ultimate quatro-plagal cadence song is "Hey Joe" [C |G |D |A |E ].
The Beatles borrow this unashamedly, repeating it as a retransition
from the E major bridge of "A Day In The Life" to get back to the
verse in G.
There's a lot more interesting stuff on this topic (and on Beethoven's
use of the chord). Looking at the evolution of the chord, one wonders
why it took them so long. I don't think it's sufficient to look at
folk/blues influences and I'm not sure they played a central role,
given the way the chord is used. In any case, rock has made more out
of the bVII than any other period of western music. It's a true
achievement. The chord has become a de facto member of an updated
diatonic culture.
Ian
Jon Riley
Jim Fish <jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s4bcb$9k1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <rDaF5.428$MK6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "McGuffin" <mrmcg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> the 'British Invasion" guys and would be found in some form of
American
> (black) blues. It was from all the great black blues musicians that
> most of the english guys got there ideas.
> On the other hand, the english guys may have had something concrete
and
> original to add. Like I said - good question - I don't know.
I agree this is an interesting question. My feeling is it's a mixture,
with more influence (ultimately) from Celtic folk, where mixolydian is
a common tonality. Celtic folk came to America well before the 20th
century of course, and US white folk music would have influenced black
musicians as much as vice versa.
In blues, the bVII of the melody acts as an interval with a tonic
root, not as a root of a chord in its own right. Adding a bVII chord
to blues takes it away from an authentic blues sound - which was
originally one-chord music anyway.
Another thought is the use of parallel minor tonalities (I don't know
if this has been brought up already). The use of G and C chords in a
tune with A major as its tonic is a common device in rock, and sounds
"right" no doubt partly because those chords belong to A minor. But
rock musicians tend to prefer the sound of major chords.
And blues does have a relevance here, because the alternation of those
chords highlights the tension between minor and major 3rds (the prime
element of blues melody), as well as adding a bVII to the scale.
BTW, IMO the British invasion (and I speak as a Brit old enough to
remember :-) ) brought nothing original to American pop culture, other
than a fresh way of combining various American styles. It's been said
before many times, but the Beatles et al simply woke the US up to the
stuff in its own backyard.
Generally, UK artists have a greater (if sometimes ill-informed)
respect for out-dated American forms than Americans do. At the same
time, they feel detached enough to pick and choose from unrelated
genres and make new compounds. UK artists are not committed and can
cross boundaries in a way that ethnic Americans (one assumes) find
harder.
Eg, there are (and can be) no real blues artists in Britain - but a
hell of a lot of Brits play the blues. (For some strange reason we
love it, and still do, more than ever.) In fact, the reason blues
survives is entirely due to the Rolling Stones and the similar bands
that followed them. If it wasn't for white (UK) obsession, blues would
have died in the 60s, as US black culture outgrew it.
Woops, getting a trifle OT...
JonR
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:12:53 GMT, fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt)
>wrote:
>
>>>Personally, I've been favoring the blues influence more than the modal. As a
Just a side note that nothing from me was actually quoted in this posting,
though I did participate earlier in the thread.
Jim Fish
> Jon wrote:
> I agree this is an interesting question. My feeling is it's a mixture,
> with more influence (ultimately) from Celtic folk, where mixolydian is
> a common tonality. Celtic folk came to America well before the 20th
> century of course, and US white folk music would have influenced black
> musicians as much as vice versa.
Jim wrote:
I'm glad you pointed this out. I think most of the Americans here who
have studied history, particularly the evolution of folk and popular
music are aware of this.
Funny thing is, I've been playing blues and traditional celtic music
for many years now. Glad you woke me up.
Thanks,
McGuffin
> <Big snip>
> > Jon wrote:
> > I agree this is an interesting question. My feeling is it's a mixture,
> > with more influence (ultimately) from Celtic folk, where mixolydian is
> > a common tonality.
I Lennon's "You've got to hide your love away", recorded in 1965, the
changes are |G D| F G |C |F C | G D | F G | C | F C | D |. The
instrumentation is acoustic guitar, voice, with a flute taking the melody
for one verse. It always sounded like a Brit folk tune to me, but the D
major tells me that it's not the myx. modal tune that gets talked about so
much. Do *you* call this progression myxolydian on the basis of one chord?
McG
Jim Fish
I think you meant this question for Jon but since it followed my name
in the thread I'll toss in my two cents worth.
I think the song is in G. The melody never uses the pitch class F.
The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants to give
for its presence)
There might be an argument for D mixolydian since, if memory serves me
correctly, the song ends on the D chord with the melody note F# and
there is a huge C presence. However, then you have to say that there
are changing modes from D dorian to D mixolydian and, again, the lack
of the melody note F makes that a weak argument IMHO.
Personally I hear the song in G with that last chord being a device to
show that nothing has ended. In a poetic sense, the love is hidden, not
finished.
That may sound schmaltzy but the Beatles arrangements often had a
poetic connection, for example "Let It Be" is a series of plagal
cadences which helps evoque the semi-religious nature of the song.
Aside from Uncle Albert, I don't think you'll find too many people who
will say that all things structured as chords must fall under some
exact theory. There are often many interpretations of what occurs in a
song and a theorist should realize that besides the chords there is the
melody and poetic license (aside from other things like meter, rhythm,
timbre, etc.) and you never know what brilliant POV someone may have.
I'm kind of curious if Margo has a slant on this from her expertise in
music before the common tonality era.
Tore Lund
>
> I think the song is in G. The melody never uses the pitch class F.
> The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants to give
> for its presence)
But what is color? Anyway, the only place where the F major chord is
distinctly held for 3 beats it departs from a C chord and returns to a C
chord. Therefore it might make sense to view this as a brief modulation
to C. The only other place we have an F is on the syllable "head" where
it is rather indistinct. (Playing an F chord for 3 beats here is really
overkill, since the chord is only hinted at on the record.)
> There might be an argument for D mixolydian since, if memory serves me
> correctly, the song ends on the D chord with the melody note F#
Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a G
chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you hear it
as "unfinished".
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
paramucho
>Jim Fish wrote:
>>
>> I think the song is in G. The melody never uses the pitch class F.
>> The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants to give
>> for its presence)
>
>But what is color? Anyway, the only place where the F major chord is
>distinctly held for 3 beats it departs from a C chord and returns to a C
>chord. Therefore it might make sense to view this as a brief modulation
>to C. The only other place we have an F is on the syllable "head" where
>it is rather indistinct. (Playing an F chord for 3 beats here is really
>overkill, since the chord is only hinted at on the record.)
The performance chords are roughly like this:
g g g g E-string
d d c d B-string
g ga a g G-string
d d f ed D-string
(b) a c (b) A-string
g x x g E-string
Resulting in something more like this:
g a c b Tune
|G5 D4 |F2 G5 | Chords
d f Bass
g a c g Bass
Note the parallel bass/tune, the organum affect, d/a f/c, accentuated
by the octaves of the 12-string guitar, the lack of a third in the G
and D chords, and the pedal G. It's all a bit like some archaic dompe.
>> There might be an argument for D mixolydian since, if memory serves me
>> correctly, the song ends on the D chord with the melody note F#
>
>Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a G
>chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you hear it
>as "unfinished".
The tonic is clearly G and sections of the song are clearly diatonic.
The subtonic colors the mode.
The fact that D is usually played with a fourth rather than a third
leaves the close a little ambiguous. The strongest movement is the C-D
in the melody, which is anything but final.
g dc cc d Tune
|C |F C |G Chords
d
I seem to recall the song being scored with D as the final chord, so I
think many hear the song as a half-close.
The feel of the verse reminds me more of something like Byrd's "The
Woods So Wilde" than of Celtic folk songs... If anything, it's the
thirdless chords and parallel fourths in the bass area that give the
song it's distinctive color.
Compare the verse with that of "I'm A Loser", which has the same basic
chords, to see how the voicings and tune modify the affect.
Just about every song Lennon wrote in this period employed the
subtonic, and he used it in many different ways.
Ian
Dr.Matt
Mixolydian has allowed raised ^7 in cadential motion since the middle ages.
So yes, "Hide your love away" does fit the model of normal Mixolydian.
Jim Fish
> > The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants to
give
> > for its presence)
>
> But what is color?
Jim:
Color is a frequently used ambiguous term. You'll find it in Grove's,
Harvard, etc. My reference to color is often used to describe chords
outside of the norm for a tonality, when the tonality is still strong
but, for a fleeting moment.
Tore:
> Anyway, the only place where the F major chord is
> distinctly held for 3 beats it departs from a C chord and returns to
a C
> chord. Therefore it might make sense to view this as a brief
modulation
> to C.
Jim:
I wouldn't even think of it as a modulation.
Tore:
> The only other place we have an F is on the syllable "head" where
> it is rather indistinct.
Jim:
Hence the term color.
> > There might be an argument for D mixolydian since, if memory serves
me
> > correctly, the song ends on the D chord with the melody note F#
>
Tore:
> Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a G
> chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you hear
it
> as "unfinished".
Jim:
Well paramucho remembers differently from you so we need a consensus or
at least someone needs to find the song in its original first release
form.
It definitely ends with the melody on D (I was wrong about the melody
note) which, even if the chord is G, would have a strong half-cedence
sound. I never said that I hear it as "unfinished" I said, “Personally
I hear the song in G with that last chord (D) being a device to show
that nothing has ended. In a poetic sense, the love is hidden, not
finished” Perhaps you’re equating my “poetic sense” with my musical
sense.
My only version of this song is on the "Anthology" discs where it ends
on a G chord. However, it is a studio sketch. Where did you find your
version of the ending?
respectfully,
Albert Silverman
Jim Fish <jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39E82D13...@online.no>,
> Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>> Jim Fish wrote:
>> >
>> > The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants to
>give
>> > for its presence)
>>
>> But what is color?
>
>Jim:
>Color is a frequently used ambiguous term. You'll find it in Grove's,
>Harvard, etc. My reference to color is often used to describe chords
>outside of the norm for a tonality, when the tonality is still strong
>but, for a fleeting moment.
Here we go again, off into the deep blue yonder. VERY deep--and very
meaningless, like so many things in music "theory".
Well, there is red, and then there is yellow, and then there is blue. Now
THAT is color!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where the residents are colorful
Jim Fish
slv...@panix.com (Albert Silverman) wrote:
> In article <8s9rbm$l3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jim Fish <jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <39E82D13...@online.no>,
> > Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> >> Jim Fish wrote:
> >> >
F.
> >> > The subtonic chord is color (no matter what reason anyone wants
to
> >give
> >> > for its presence)
> >>
> >> But what is color?
> >
> >Jim:
> >Color is a frequently used ambiguous term. You'll find it in Grove's,
> >Harvard, etc. My reference to color is often used to describe chords
> >outside of the norm for a tonality, when the tonality is still strong
> >but, for a fleeting moment.
>
> Here we go again, off into the deep blue yonder. VERY deep--and very
> meaningless, like so many things in music "theory".
>
> Well, there is red, and then there is yellow, and then there is blue.
Now
> THAT is color!
>
> Albert Silverman
> (Al is in Wonderland!)
> where the residents are colorful
>
descriptor. The words tone, wavelength, and intensity are used both the
acoustics of sound and in the physics related to color.
Come on Al. Respond to my reply in thread "Why oh Why???"
Put your theory to the test.
Quit attacking that which everyone acknowledges as not exact, but
hardly meaningless.
Meaningless is talking about a theory and never providing proofs.
jim
(jim is in "See the colorful world around you land")
Where the residents allow for semantics in language
because the world is full of many colors in many fashions.
Tore Lund
>
> Tore:
> > Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a G
> > chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you hear
> it
> > as "unfinished".
>
> Jim:
> Well paramucho remembers differently from you so we need a consensus or
> at least someone needs to find the song in its original first release
> form.
Ian said he seemed "to recall the song being scored with D as the final
chord". But he notated it with a G chord himself, so I don't believe
there is any disagreement on this point.
> It definitely ends with the melody on D (I was wrong about the melody
> note) which, even if the chord is G, would have a strong half-cedence
> sound. I never said that I hear it as "unfinished" I said, “Personally
> I hear the song in G with that last chord (D) being a device to show
> that nothing has ended. In a poetic sense, the love is hidden, not
> finished” Perhaps you’re equating my “poetic sense” with my musical
> sense.
OK, sorry for putting words into your mouth.
> My only version of this song is on the "Anthology" discs where it ends
> on a G chord. However, it is a studio sketch. Where did you find your
> version of the ending?
The "Help" album.
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Jim Fish
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> Jim Fish wrote:
> >
> > Tore:
> > > Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a
G
> > > chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you
hear
> > it
> > > as "unfinished".
> >
> > Jim:
> > Well paramucho remembers differently from you so we need a
consensus or
> > at least someone needs to find the song in its original first
release
> > form.
>
> Ian said he seemed "to recall the song being scored with D as the
final
> chord". But he notated it with a G chord himself, so I don't believe
> there is any disagreement on this point.
>
> > It definitely ends with the melody on D (I was wrong about the
melody
> > note) which, even if the chord is G, would have a strong half-
cedence
> > sound. I never said that I hear it as "unfinished" I
> > I hear the song in G with that last chord (D) being a device to show
> > that nothing has ended. In a poetic sense, the love is hidden, not
> > sense.
>
> OK, sorry for putting words into your mouth.
>
> > My only version of this song is on the "Anthology" discs where it
ends
> > on a G chord. However, it is a studio sketch. Where did you find
your
> > version of the ending?
>
> The "Help" album.
I guess that would be the final word :-)
paramucho
>Jim Fish wrote:
>>
>> Tore:
>> > Sorry, memory does not serve you correctly. The melody ends on a G
>> > chord with the flute playing a D. But it's interesting that you hear
>> it
>> > as "unfinished".
>>
>> Jim:
>> Well paramucho remembers differently from you so we need a consensus or
>> at least someone needs to find the song in its original first release
>> form.
>
>Ian said he seemed "to recall the song being scored with D as the final
>chord". But he notated it with a G chord himself, so I don't believe
>there is any disagreement on this point.
Yes, and that was in the old days when the transcribers tended to try
make the strange sounds they were hearing "fit" with models they
understood. Some of the early analysis, such as Wilfred Mellers', was
based on those scores (which is apparent because he cites the songs
using the same crazy keys used in the transcriptions).
To repeat myself, the strongest signal we hear is the melody going
from C to D. The chords are fairly muffled throughout and D is often
played with a fourth rather than a third (which is often true in this
period). The piece has no clear bass. The close certainly doesn't
sound definite to my ears.
>> My only version of this song is on the "Anthology" discs where it ends
>> on a G chord. However, it is a studio sketch. Where did you find your
>> version of the ending?
>
>The "Help" album.
And the movie, which has some good clear shots of Lennon playing,
although I'm not sure of the close. The Wise full scores are generally
reliable at this level.
Ian
M. Schulter
: I'm kind of curious if Margo has a slant on this from her expertise in
: music before the common tonality era.
Hello, there, and actually I might begin with a bit of more recent
"history." Around the early 1970's, while involved with medieval and
Renaissance music, I would soemtimes improvise in a "modern" modal folk or
blues style, and loved a progression like (C4 is middle C):
F4 G4
D4 E4
Bb3 C4
I definitely regarded this as Mixolydian, and regarded the Bb sonority as
the "subfinal" of the mode.
Now for some earlier history. As Dr. Matt has correctly observed, a fluid
treatment of F/F# in pieces in the G mode can be heard in European
medieval compositions as early as the era of Perotin, around 1200. A
beautiful conductus like _Crucificat omnes_ illustrates this contrast,
a matter of apparently free discretion rather than specific cadential
preferences until we approach the era of around 1300. Thus F# frequently
occurs in the triplum or highest of the three parts, as I recall, but the
final cadence is a typical one with F-G in the lowest part or tenor:
C4 D4
A3 G3
F3 G3
(M3-1 + m3-5)
In the 13th and 14th centuries, directed cadential progressions typically
are guided by the resolution of unstable intervals to stable unisons,
fourths, fifths, or octaves, and here we have the whole-tone motion in all
voices typical of 13th-century style, where this kind of cadence is
typical in octave-species or modes such as G, just as ascending semitonal
motion is typical in the F-mode and descending semitonal motion in the
E-mode.
Around 1300, with some tendencies in this direction in the late 13th
century (e.g. Adam de la Halle, Petrus de Cruce), the principle of
"closest approach" gains recognition in theory and practice: thirds
contracting to unisons should be minor, while thirds expanding to fifths
or sixths to octaves should be major. The focus of this guideline
is on directed progressions from unstable to stable intervals, and the
"perfection" of minor thirds before fifths or sixths before octaves by
inflection to make them major is a feature of cadences in various modes
and on various steps.
For example, in a typical cadence or cadence-like progression to G, we
have
F#4 G4
C#4 D4
A3 G3
(M6-8 + M3-5)
During the 15th century, an interesting change occurred: thirds and sixths
increasingly became points of full concord and rest rather than partial or
"imperfect" concord (in the original sense) and active motion. However,
the traditional 14th-century resolutions by "closest approach: (m3-1,
M3-5, M6-8) often continued to guide progressions between now-stable
tertian sonorities, just as 18th-19th century progressions may continue to
guide the "post-triadic" harmonies of modern jazz.
As Wilfred Mellers has observed, the fluidity of accidental degrees in the
Beatles sometimes recalls Elizabethan practice (not necessarily implying
any direct influence), which in turn more generally reflects 16th-century
common practice in various parts of Western Europe.
For those of accustomed to such styles, the alternation of F/F# in a piece
centered on G, or B/Bb in a piece centered on C, are a natural and
attractive feature of the style. Others may find it "unaccustomed."
For example, this might be a typical cadence on G:
G4 A4 G4 F#4 G4
D4 F4 D4 D4 D4
B3 C4 B3 A3 B3
G3 F3 G3 D3 G2
Here the first progression from G3-B3-D4-G4 to F3-C4-F4-A4 includes a
progression of M3-5 between the two lower voices; then we return to
G3-B3-D4-G4, followed by a typical 4-3 suspension leading to the rest of
the cadence.
Both the fluidity of degrees such as F/F#, and the use of progressions
guided by such traditional medieval resolutions as M3-5 in a new tertian
kind of texture, are features of 16th-century vertical organization
lending the music much of its beauty.
Such progressions -- not necessarily in the same kind of musical setting
-- might occur in various styles including folk or rock music of the 20th
century.
Please note that I am not drawing any conclusions as to the analysis of a
specific modern piece, nor expressing an opinion as to the actual origins
of "modal" progressions in some of the genres being discussed.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
paramucho
wrote:
>As Wilfred Mellers has observed, the fluidity of accidental degrees in the
>Beatles sometimes recalls Elizabethan practice (not necessarily implying
>any direct influence), which in turn more generally reflects 16th-century
>common practice in various parts of Western Europe.
...
>Such progressions -- not necessarily in the same kind of musical setting
>-- might occur in various styles including folk or rock music of the 20th
>century.
>
>Please note that I am not drawing any conclusions as to the analysis of a
>specific modern piece, nor expressing an opinion as to the actual origins
>of "modal" progressions in some of the genres being discussed.
I commend Margo's caveat to all: the use a scale which has
similarities to a known mode does not a lineage make. Indeed, Margo's
survey shows how various degrees of the mode altered over time. There
is no such thing as a "absolute mode", fixed for all time.
One reason to reject the notion that a Beatle, for example, might be
drawing directly on a mode is the subtle, personal style of ascending
and descending forms and the use of the accidentals. Another is that
there is no easy way to translate a melodic mode in to the logic
applied to chord sets.
This does not mean that it is impossible to establish a lineage, only
that we need direct evidence.
I recall reading somewhere that it is thought that the Elizabethans
themselves reinvented a good deal of their technology rather than
inheriting it.
Ian