The Chromatic Subtonic (1)
ian hammond
The Subtonic (i.e. the chord Bb in the key of C major) has many roots.
"Norwegian Wood" has a folk/modal source. "Got To Get You Into My
Life" fits into the Swing tradition. "Love You To" shows its Indian
heritaGe. There are other sources, not to mention some songs that bear
the indelible stamp of John Lennon's own style.
This article concerns the use of the Subtonic in a chromatic sequence.
Although we can find various examples of the usage, there is no clear
"style" tradition such as "folk" or "swing" for this particular use of
the chord.
I apologise for the heavy use of technical language in this article.
While I prefer a Jargon Free Zone, it's simply unavoidable in this
kind of reference material. The summary, at the end of the article,
discusses the expressive role of the chord and sequence in more
reasonable language.
THE SUBTONIC SEQUENCE
In fact, this article concentrates on a specific sequence of four
chords:
C G Bb F Chord
I V bVII IV
The third chord, the Subtonic Bb, is not a natural member of the C
major chord set and stands out like a sore thumb in the otherwise
conservative pieces of music studied below.
The sequence contains a natural chromatic melody which may be used as
a tune, or in the bass. The melody begins on C and drops a semitone on
each chord.
C G Bb F Chord
c b bb a Bass
Here's a list of six pieces in which you can find this identifiable
chord sequence. Most have the chromatic melody present.
181x Beethoven - Waldstein Sonata
186x Brahms - Violin Concerto
1965 Lennon - It's Only Love
1967 Lennon - Mr Kite
1967 Dylan - Lay Lady Lay
197x Elton John - Song For Guy
BEETHOVEN: WALDSTEIN SONATA
Beethoven uses the Subtonic to power the opening of the main theme of
his Waldstein sonata. This theme is unusual because it relies
primarily on the sonorities of the chords: it has no 'tune' as such.
Beethoven has two variations of the pattern. The first is a clear-cut
I-V-bVII-IV:
C G Bb F Beethoven, Waldstein
C B Bb A Bass
Tovey recognises the Bb as the bVII (the Subtonic).
On the repeat Beethoven, replaces Bb with D minor so as to approach a
modulation to the mediant (C-G-d-a-B7-E).
C G d a Waldstein, Opening
c b d c Bass
Beethoven repeats the chords more or less vertabim at each point in
the movement where the sequence reappears. He does not develop the
chord in any obvious way.
BRAHMS: VIOLIN CONCERTO
Brahms' Violin Concerto is only mentioned in passing as it does not
really match the other examples. The opening main theme is spread
broadly over six bars of tonic D and closes on the dominant A. The
transition enters on the Subtonic C.
[ Main Theme ][ Transition ]
D A |C d.... Concerto, link
Transposed to C major we have:
C G |Bb c...
The affect of the Subtonic is very pronounced. Brahms repeats the
section for the soloist's entry.
In the recapitulation he replaces the Subtonic chord with bIII F, the
next step in the flat side cycle. But he doesn't transpose the
remainder of the section. It seems he was primarily interested in the
color of the chord.
LENNON: IT'S ONLY LOVE
Lennon's use is to drive the verse of this lyric piece. Musically, the
sequence is central to the song, the more so because of the brevity of
the work.
C e Bb F It's Only Love, verse
c b bb a Bass
Lennon's use is remarkably similar to Beethoven's. Like Beethoven, he
uses the descending chromatic bass and finishs the sequence on an
emphasised dominant (which Lennon augments).
In his "Notes On" series, Pollack described the Bb chord in the "It's
Only Love" as the Subtonic (bVII) but more recently has expressed
doubt that the analogous Bb in Beethoven's Waldstein sequence should
be considered a bona fide Subtonic.
Lennon features the chord again in the chorus. Again he uses the Bb-G
progression for maximum affect.
Bb G C a It's Only Love, chorus
This is, of course, a variation on F-G-C-a, one of Lennon's favorite
Doo Wop idioms. Other examples are F-G-C-E in "Imagine", or F-G-C-a as
late as "Watching The Wheels". The substitution here really does
something for the word painting.
Now, if we look at "Help!", written around this time, we find a
(passing cadential) subtonic in the verse and a chorus sequence that
features the same kind of use of the Subtonic as the chorus of "It's
Only Love". I've transposed the progression to from A major to C
major:
g... g... g... Tune
d(4) Bb(6) G C(7) Help!, chorus
Lennon aggressively exploits the clash of the Bb-G progression. He
sings a fourth against the D minor chord and a sixth against the
Subtonic Bb.
LENNON: MR KITE
"Mr Kite" is in a minor key, so the Subtonic is a natural member of
the chord set. However, the song has enough similarities to "It's Only
Love" and the idiom in general, to justify consideration here.
c G+ Bb d G G+ Mr Kite, verse
c b bb a g g Bass
Like Beethoven, Lennon alters the chord sequence on the repetition to
modulate to D minor. Later he uses the same device to modulate another
step to E minor, which is quite astounding, but then most of Lennon's
songs in Peppertime were bitonic (i.e. had two alternating tonics).
It's interesting to see Lennon exploit the modulatory potential of the
sequence.
DYLAN: LAY LADY LAY
By the time Dylan wrote this song, other chromatic sequences of four
chords had become common. I've transcribed Dylan's hypnotic pattern
from A major to C for comparison here.
C e Bb d Dylan, Lay Lady Lay
c b bb d
The remainder of the song stresses V, ii, iii and vi. The only
subdominant chord comes in the composed coda I-ii-iii-IV-I. There's
something Lennonesque about the song's chords and melody in general.
Dylan made a career out of interesting four bar patterns (and patter).
"Frankie Lee And Judas Priest" on his preceding album is archetypical
of the style.
ELTON JOHN: SONG FOR GUY
Elton John uses the sequence as the basis of his instrumental "Song
For Guy":
C G Bb F Song For Guy, verse
c b bb a
After a static section decorating the tonic, Elton John launches into
dreamy area which reintroduces the subtonic in much the same way "It's
Only Love" and "Help!".
Bb6 d(4) G E Song For Guy, break
Note how Elton John's progression uses the same decorative notes on Bb
(a sixth) and D minor (a fourth) as Lennon's chorus in "Help!". This
is very close material.
SUMMARY
There's sure to be other examples of other artists using the Chromatic
Subtonic. In retrospect, the examples above show a number of
similarities in the way the chord is used.
For some unknown reason most of the pieces were written in C major.
The Subtonic chord is bedded in a repeated four bar phrase. The
composers tend not to have reused the sequence in other works.
Of course, we don't expect a songwriter to paint by numbers. These
composers introduce the Subtonic to express their ideas and feelings
and to make their song architectures work. I find a remarkable
concordance between Lennon, Dylan and Elton John's expressive use of
the chord.
All three use the chord and the sequence to express a breathless,
conspiratorial intimacy and a sense of fragility. Brahms is not much
different.
Lennon stands out because we can see him systematically exploring the
use of the chord in song after song in 1964. The double use of the
chord in "It's Only Love" is masterly. In the verse, the chord
expresses uncertainty. But, in the chorus, it portrays his
determination to solve this equation in many unknowns. Love is a very
mysterious thing.
"It's Only Love" is a deeply passionate song, as is Elton John's "Song
For Guy", which likewise tries to wrestle with the unfathomable, in
this case the accidental death of a young colleague. This unique work
demonstrates that a lyric is not always required. The 'verse'
counterpoints the passion of the chromatic sequence with the
metronomic stoic acceptance of mechanical bit. Elton's lunge to Bb6 in
the visionary dream section has almost exactly the same affect as
Lennon's Bb beginning of the chorus.
Dylan's song is equally tender, although in this case the lyric might
cloud the issue. Like Van Gogh, Dylan is seeking love in precisely the
space where love's been sold out. It's opportunities that this
contradiction raises that Dylan explores. Love in the dirt.
"Lay across my big brass bed" fights with "Why wait any longer for the
one you love, when he's standing in front of you". Dylan's desolate
junkyard hobo "Blonde On Blonde" style does battle with the warm,
intimate Nashville country setting and that great slide guitar part.
Another thing these songs share is that they each have a special place
in the canon of their creators as well as in my affection!. Three very
noble pieces of work.
There are one or two other related topics which fall out this area
which I will handle in a separate post. This post is long enough.
Copyright (c) Ian Hammond 1999. All rights reserved.
=============================================================
"Just the sight of you makes night time bright. Very bright."
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
chris mazur
even premeditated), and, in a very wise voice, sed:
>THE CHROMATIC SUBTONIC (1)
<snip>
>In fact, this article concentrates on a specific sequence of four
>chords:
>
> C G Bb F Chord
> I V bVII IV
<snip>
>Here's a list of six pieces in which you can find this identifiable
>chord sequence. Most have the chromatic melody present.
>
>181x Beethoven - Waldstein Sonata
>186x Brahms - Violin Concerto
>1965 Lennon - It's Only Love
>1967 Lennon - Mr Kite
>1967 Dylan - Lay Lady Lay
>197x Elton John - Song For Guy
i dont' know if this helps, hinders or is completely irrelevant,
but...
One might want to explore Leon Russell's canon, as i off-hand believe
he makes some use of the subtonic. Two right off the bat that i can
think of would be:
Stranger In A Strange Land which makes extensive use of the pattern
you mention.
and
Delta Lady which uses it in the chorus i believe.
Of course, these don't predate Lennon, but Leon cut his teeth on a
number of early rock and roll hits with the Wrecking Crew. Would
research in this direction turn up early use of the subtonic. Leon, of
course later became friends with George Harrison, so that also might
be the link to where and why he began to explore its use.
--
"YES! is the answer."
--John Lennon
na
chris mazur wrote in message <36dadb10...@news.tfb.com>...
>i...@hammo.com (ian hammond) pondered, puzzled, prognositcated (perhaps
>even premeditated), and, in a very wise voice, sed:
>
>>THE CHROMATIC SUBTONIC (1)
><snip>
>>chords:
>>
>> C G Bb F Chord
>> I V bVII IV
>>Here's a list of six pieces in which you can find this identifiable
>>chord sequence. Most have the chromatic melody present.
>>
>>181x Beethoven - Waldstein Sonata
>>186x Brahms - Violin Concerto
>>1965 Lennon - It's Only Love
>>1967 Lennon - Mr Kite
>>1967 Dylan - Lay Lady Lay
>>197x Elton John - Song For Guy
>
>but...
>
>One might want to explore Leon Russell's canon, as i off-hand believe
>he makes some use of the subtonic. Two right off the bat that i can
>
>Stranger In A Strange Land which makes extensive use of the pattern
>you mention.
>
>and
>
>Delta Lady which uses it in the chorus i believe.
>
>Of course, these don't predate Lennon, but Leon cut his teeth on a
>number of early rock and roll hits with the Wrecking Crew. Would
>research in this direction turn up early use of the subtonic. Leon, of
>course later became friends with George Harrison, so that also might
>be the link to where and why he began to explore its use.
yeah jimmy webb was a wrecking crew writer who made full use of that stuff.
king of the cool chord changes.
just to hark back to the subtonic discussion.............
i think your going to be very hard pressed to find the origins of the use of
something(sub tonic) which is a rudimentry part of every composer's
vocabulary, even if they don't fully understand what it is exactly they are
doing and why it sounds so appealing and interesting.
don't you think there is a reason so many ppl respond to songs by oasis, for
example?
noel, bless his heart, doesn't know his subtonic from his diatonic. but he
has a big trickbag.
and in this bag, he knows that this is one device which works a treat in
making the tunes he writes sound dramatic and interesting (along with second
inversions and dropping thirds out of his chords). and ppl respond to these
sounds, because they are so effective and emotive. [god knows it's not the
lyrics or a great singing voice that send chills up your spine a la
lennon....:)]
my point is that everyone from beethoven (who admittedly knew his shit) thru
to early r'n'b and soul acts, thru to j.j.cale(crazy mama) thru to the fabs
thru to boyce and hart, neil diamond and just about every other succesful
writer has this device at his disposal and most are not afraid to use it. it
is one of the most natural changes to make when writing a tune and one which
is as effectivly used by experienced as well as beginner writers.
i don't even know if what i wrote even pertains. but i just thought i'd
sneak in a pov that may be worth remembering in case we started looking too
hard for something that has no start or end. of course, i could be way
wrong.
Alan W. Pollack
na wrote in message ...
....
>i think your going to be very hard pressed to find the origins of the use
of
>something(sub tonic) which is a rudimentry part of every composer's
>vocabulary, even if they don't fully understand what it is exactly they are
>doing and why it sounds so appealing and interesting.
You'll be hard pressed, for sure. You may never be able to establish one
single, preminent "first case" that started it all. But that doesn't make
the search not worth doing. Language people do this all the time, and call
the discipline by the name of "etymology;" i.e. chasing the historical
derivations of words and the evolving meaning and usage over the course of
long time period.
>my point is that everyone from beethoven (who admittedly knew his shit)
thru
>to early r'n'b and soul acts, thru to j.j.cale(crazy mama) thru to the fabs
>thru to boyce and hart, neil diamond and just about every other succesful
>writer has this device at his disposal and most are not afraid to use it.
it
>is one of the most natural changes to make when writing a tune and one
which
>is as effectivly used by experienced as well as beginner writers.
IMHO, I think you're both exaggerating and oversimplifying when you say the
flat-VII was at everyone's disposal. There are discrete periods in musical
history (both classical and popular genres) where the chord is variously
used either widely or very scarcely, if at all.
For example (and to bring the discussion back 'round to include the
Beatles), my personal starting point of this thread was as follows:
As a child of the late 50s, I cut my ears listening to top 40 hits, and cut
my teeth playing those songs and other popular folk songs on the piano more
or less from ear. At that tender age, I got pretty much ALL my mileage out
of I, IV, and V; maybe throw in V-of-V. But, damn it, there were no
flat-VII. Or at least, if there was a song that used it, I'd be stumped for
how to quite pick the chord out on the keyboard. It was not part of my
vernacular.
Okay. Roll ahead a few years to the late 60s: all of a sudden, the flat-VII
is EVERYWHERE. It is arguably one of the Beatles trademarks, just for
starters.
The motivating question is why/how/where does the chord become so "stylish"
seemingly all of a sudden?
Alan
---
"She's a trendsetter. It's her profession."
---
saki
>
>na wrote in message ...
>....
>thru
>>to early r'n'b and soul acts, thru to j.j.cale(crazy mama) thru to the fabs
>>thru to boyce and hart, neil diamond and just about every other succesful
>>writer has this device at his disposal and most are not afraid to use
>
>Okay. Roll ahead a few years to the late 60s: all of a sudden, the flat-VII
>is EVERYWHERE. It is arguably one of the Beatles trademarks, just for
>starters.
>
>The motivating question is why/how/where does the chord become so "stylish"
>seemingly all of a sudden?
I'd like to play here, I really would, but since I'm one of those language
folks and not a music person, could we translate the vocabulary into
something I can understand? :-) I'm lost here.
I'm always intrigued at things that suddenly emerge, particularly when
they're attributed to my favorite combo. I'm not shy about admitting that
the Beatles invented the better part of Western Civilization as we know
it, but before I go out on a limb here with an entirely new thesis, could
someone explain to me about flat-VIIs?
I'm fairly well versed in 50s and 60s rock and roll, so if you give me
analogies from hits of the day I can probably keep up.
--
"I fail to see why those awful common lads make all that
money, in spite of me and the government in a society such
as ours where our talent will out".
--------------------------------sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
ian hammond
>I'd like to play here, I really would, but since I'm one of those language
>folks and not a music person, could we translate the vocabulary into
>something I can understand? :-) I'm lost here.
>
>I'm always intrigued at things that suddenly emerge, particularly when
>they're attributed to my favorite combo. I'm not shy about admitting that
>the Beatles invented the better part of Western Civilization as we know
>it, but before I go out on a limb here with an entirely new thesis, could
>someone explain to me about flat-VIIs?
>
>I'm fairly well versed in 50s and 60s rock and roll, so if you give me
>analogies from hits of the day I can probably keep up.
That's not an easy ask at the moment. But, I can start with some of
the better examples of the Beatles BIG uses of the chord.
A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
The first is often the best. That astounding opening chord of "A Hard
Day's Night" is the fanfare that announces the chord to the
Beatleworld.
The chord is derived from the second chord of the verse where Lennon
sings "working"
it's been a |hard days night and I've been|WORKING LIKE A |dog
If you listen to the song, I think you can still hear that the sound
the band plays being "working like a" is *different*.
THE THREE CHORD SEQUENCE
The last three chords of "You're Going To Lose That Girl", where they
finish on "lose that girl" are on a special version of the Subtonic.
Here's some other examples of those chords:
With A Little Help...
The chorus begins with the sequence under "I get by with..."
Hey Jude
That outro. That outro.
Polythene Pam
Those three big opening chords
The chord sequence behind the solo
Oh That Magic Feeling
The three chords of that section
HEY JUDE
Let's take "Hey Jude" in a bit more detail. That's not a chore, is it?
If it is, then you might be in the wrong newsgroup. Or I might.
"Hey Jude" is a good example because you DON'T hear the subtonic for
the first half of the song. The body of the song is something that
doesn't go beyond "Lilli Marlene", or "Ob La Di" (la fustding da).
Then everyone stops while Paul makes is way erringly up an operatic
"better better better" and does that amazing little thing Little
Richard taught him on "yeah".
After that everything stops.
Time stands still.
Then the chorus and band come in with Nick's anthem: "na... na na".
Very solemn, our band, with Ringo's great voice sticking out.
[And on the very fourth "na" they rejoiced and broke bread saying,
this augers well for the tribe, and we will have many donkeys. And
they will beget ... ooops. Wrong newsgroup. It belongs in
alt.non.sequiter.]
[Rewind.]
And the very fourth "na", where they sing "na-na-na-na" quickly, *it*
happens. The play that first subtonic.
The bottom of world opens up and we drop into it a deep hole. Here's
the subtonic at it's most glorious (and this is a Lennon-Man speaking
here).
What really makes "Hey Jude" work is that the first doesn't have the
chord at all. We cross the Rubicon when we that "na-na-na-na".
[I can just see you sitting at home, mister "n" "a", with a big cheesy
grin on your dial saying: "hey, i'm the center of the fukin
universe".]
Does this help?
Be brutally honest. Like my P.A.
If it's still not clear, don't despair. Just let me know. I have some
other medicine. It's just take me a couple of hours to mix it up...
ian
p.s. Okay all you gals and guys who've done the advanced MSCE course,
we're not going to distinquish between vVII or v7 or pedal notes, 4ths
and 6ths and all. Just the basic truth that we hold to be true here.
Pizza like mama used to bake it.
ian hammond
>my point is that everyone from beethoven (who admittedly knew his shit) thru
>to early r'n'b and soul acts, thru to j.j.cale(crazy mama) thru to the fabs
>thru to boyce and hart, neil diamond and just about every other succesful
>writer has this device at his disposal and most are not afraid to use it. it
>is one of the most natural changes to make when writing a tune and one which
>is as effectivly used by experienced as well as beginner writers.
>
>i don't even know if what i wrote even pertains. but i just thought i'd
>sneak in a pov that may be worth remembering in case we started looking too
>hard for something that has no start or end. of course, i could be way
>wrong.
Everything pertains here. We're just different shades of wrong.
I said somewhere recently just because you have bread, tomatoes and
salami doesn't mean you know what pizza is".
The same applies to the Subtonic.
With all due respect, Beethoven didn't know *anything* that would have
equipped him for the mighty outro of "Hey Jude". Yes, he knew the
chord, but he didn't know how to cook it like that.
I think he would have loved it. But, he would have been floored for a
couple of days. The Diationic was so pervasive around his period that
they reworked most of the folk songs to fit with it.
Okay, I found one prominent use of the Subtonic in Beethoven's work.
But it's the exception that proves the rule. I'd have to look hard to
find any other use of the chord at all in his work.
It certainly wasn't "natural" to him.
The same applies to the great Glenn Miller and his Swing Band. They
use the subtonic just like McCartney uses it in "Gotta Get You Into My
Life" (when he sings "yeah" in "another of mind, YEAH") all the time.
But he wouldn't have expected that unfathomable little guitar solo in
the same song. You get lamb in England and Tibet. But it's different
cooking.
So, yes they all had the chord. But I don't know any other form or
period of music where the Subtonic has been so dominant [joke] and
pervasive.
It's become the Meat And Potatoes [or Tofu And Brocoli].
Lot's of people contributed. Among them were the Beatles. Lennon
played a leading role in defeating the leading note. No doubt about
that.
In terms of musical history, THIS IS VERY BIG.
I'd get all hyperbolic about the significance of it and all, but I
just happen to agree with Henry Ford: History Is Punk.
Or was that Gunk?
Or Skunk?
Spunk?
unk?
uck! I seem to have lost my
ft margin in the process. My
puter has been having a real
lem lately. A midbyte crisis.
mond
Alan W. Pollack
saki wrote in message <7bi0c8$fmm$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
....
>I'd like to play here, I really would, but since I'm one of those language
>folks and not a music person, could we translate the vocabulary into
>something I can understand? :-) I'm lost here.
>
>I'm always intrigued at things that suddenly emerge, particularly when
>they're attributed to my favorite combo. I'm not shy about admitting that
>the Beatles invented the better part of Western Civilization as we know
>it, but before I go out on a limb here with an entirely new thesis, could
>someone explain to me about flat-VIIs?
>
>I'm fairly well versed in 50s and 60s rock and roll, so if you give me
>analogies from hits of the day I can probably keep up.
Some archtypal examples:
1. Modal replacement of V by flat-VII: "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and
Whatnot." The chord change on the syllable "...mar..." is the word rosemary
is a flat-VII. "Really early" examples of this abound in pre-tonal folk and
classical music; think "Greensleeves." You could also play V in its place.
The "flavor" will be all different but you wouldn't fall off your chair from
the change either. In the Beatles song "A Hard Days Rut," the gerund word
at the end of each verse line (and I've been <xxxxxx>-ing) is a similar
example, though here, you'd really notice it if you try to substitute V.
2. The Hey Jude Progression driving the na-na half of the song: I -> flat
VII -> IV -> I. Here's an example where the whole chord pattern (not just
the flat VII per se) asserts itself as a widespread cliche in its own right;
one that rivals the I-IV-V of the blues, or the I-vi-IV-V of golden oldie
R&R.
I could go on all night like this but it's tough on my suspenders.
-- Alan
---
"Of course they're grotty."
---
na
ian hammond wrote in message <36dcde74...@news.supernews.com>...
>On 2 Mar 1999 08:42:14 GMT, "na" <n...@accsoft.com.au> wrote:
>
>>my point is that everyone from beethoven (who admittedly knew his shit)
thru
>>to early r'n'b and soul acts, thru to j.j.cale(crazy mama) thru to the
fabs
>>thru to boyce and hart, neil diamond and just about every other succesful
>>writer has this device at his disposal and most are not afraid to use it.
it
>>is one of the most natural changes to make when writing a tune and one
which
>>is as effectivly used by experienced as well as beginner writers.
>>
>>i don't even know if what i wrote even pertains. but i just thought i'd
>>sneak in a pov that may be worth remembering in case we started looking
too
>>hard for something that has no start or end. of course, i could be way
>>wrong.
>
>Everything pertains here. We're just different shades of wrong.
thak you ian for not missing a chance to lambaste me
>I said somewhere recently just because you have bread, tomatoes and
>salami doesn't mean you know what pizza is".
have salami, will travel
>The same applies to the Subtonic.
>
>With all due respect, Beethoven didn't know *anything* that would have
>equipped him for the mighty outro of "Hey Jude". Yes, he knew the
>chord, but he didn't know how to cook it like that.
of course django would not have had the jimi hendrix recipe book either.
but he would certainly made purple haze into a very passable saturday
afternoon at the coffee shop type gypsy ditty.
>
>I think he would have loved it. But, he would have been floored for a
>couple of days. The Diationic was so pervasive around his period that
>they reworked most of the folk songs to fit with it.
>
>Okay, I found one prominent use of the Subtonic in Beethoven's work.
>But it's the exception that proves the rule. I'd have to look hard to
>find any other use of the chord at all in his work.
well you cant know your beethoven vewwy well
>It certainly wasn't "natural" to him.
>
>The same applies to the great Glenn Miller and his Swing Band. They
>use the subtonic just like McCartney uses it in "Gotta Get You Into My
>Life" (when he sings "yeah" in "another of mind, YEAH") all the time.
>But he wouldn't have expected that unfathomable little guitar solo in
>the same song. You get lamb in England and Tibet. But it's different
>cooking.
well their hardly spitting distance from each other now are they?
>So, yes they all had the chord. But I don't know any other form or
>period of music where the Subtonic has been so dominant [joke] and
>pervasive.
of course you mean western music. i could name a few greek folk tunes that
are fine examples
>
>It's become the Meat And Potatoes [or Tofu And Brocoli].
or spanokopitta and taramosalata
>
>Lot's of people contributed. Among them were the Beatles. Lennon
>played a leading role in defeating the leading note. No doubt about
>that.
unfortunately for you, paul pipped him at the post with the most memorable
example.
>
>In terms of musical history, THIS IS VERY BIG.
is it though? i mean obviously its big here cos you used big letters...
>
>I'd get all hyperbolic about the significance of it and all, but I
>just happen to agree with Henry Ford: History Is Punk.
sunk
>Or was that Gunk?
grunt
>Or Skunk?
monk
>Spunk?
chunk
>unk?
man from
>
>uck! I seem to have lost my
>ft margin in the process. My
>puter has been having a real
>lem lately. A midbyte crisis.
>
>
>mond
>
a
tris...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Lot's of people contributed. Among them were the Beatles. Lennon
> played a leading role in defeating the leading note. No doubt about
> that.
>
>
something? My jaw is to the floor.....gasping to understand. My question is-
Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
Love and peace,
Ashl
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DAHLDUDE
"chromatic" adjective here.
To me, it makes more sense to call it the flatted Seven or in most cases
covered the Four of Four chord or the Subdominant squared chord.
Are there legit theory books that actually refer to this flatted Seven as the
"Chromatic Subtonic"?
Than Q
ian hammond
>ian hammond wrote in message <36dcde74...@news.supernews.com>...
>>Everything pertains here. We're just different shades of wrong.
>
>thak you ian for not missing a chance to lambaste me
Lambrusco. He meant Lambrusco.
>>With all due respect, Beethoven didn't know *anything* that would have
>>equipped him for the mighty outro of "Hey Jude". Yes, he knew the
>>chord, but he didn't know how to cook it like that.
> of course django would not have had the jimi hendrix recipe book either.
>but he would certainly made purple haze into a very passable saturday
>afternoon at the coffee shop type gypsy ditty.
If He had heard the "Purple Haze" then he would have got the recipe.
Any cook worth his salt could make a passable Siciliano after tasting
a Pizza.
Django was missing nothing. But none of my battered Jazz de la Hot
Club albums are full of Subtonics. Gin and Tonics: Yes. Subtonics: No.
>>Okay, I found one prominent use of the Subtonic in Beethoven's work.
>>But it's the exception that proves the rule. I'd have to look hard to
>>find any other use of the chord at all in his work.
>
>well you cant know your beethoven vewwy well
Okay. I'll go back and do *another* twenty years. But Andante Serioso,
which *prominent* use of the Subtonic by Beethoven did you have in
mind? I'll trade you for some parallel fifths I found in a Sonata
recently :-)
>>So, yes they all had the chord. But I don't know any other form or
>>period of music where the Subtonic has been so dominant [joke] and
>>pervasive.
>
>of course you mean western music. i could name a few greek folk tunes that
>are fine examples
I went through all the forms of music *I* know. Not just Western
Music. And I couldn't find one in which the Subtonic has been so
dominant and pervasive. That adds to more than a few tunes. My Greek
is not so good, but my Latino is passable.
>>Lot's of people contributed. Among them were the Beatles. Lennon
>>played a leading role in defeating the leading note. No doubt about
>>that.
>unfortunately for you, paul pipped him at the post with the most memorable
>example.
I can just see them in Beatleheaven, with Paul giggling to John:
"Walrus Schmalrus Johnny -- my Subtonic was bigger than yours!
Na na, n'na, na."
Slam Dunk.
ian
Greg Panfile
predate the Beatles feature the chord rather prominently:
Well All Right by Buddy Holly
On Broadway, recorded by the Drifters
Given that a song is in a certain key, the flat VII major is the major
chord one step, usually one alphebetic letter, lower. So in E, the flat
VII is D. In G it is F, and so on.
The reason it is of interest is because in the classical major scale,
neither the chord itself, or even its root note, is part of the standard
vocabulary. That is, in E the standard seventh is a diminished tritone of
D# F# A. In G it is the same one inverted, oddly enough, F# A C. This is
a rather nasty sounding chord, rarely used on its own and often assigned
rather demonic qualities. Often it is stated as the seventh of the
dominant, so in E it would appear as the upper part of a B seventh, B D# F#
A, in G as the upper part of a D seventh, D F# A C. This chord in itself
is worthy of an essay, playing an important role in music by the Beatles,
the Beach Boys, and Procol Harum as three prominent examples. It appears
in all its glory in Strawberry Fields, God Only Knows, and A Salty Dog.
The Beatles, especially Lennon, started using the VII chord in A Hard Day's
Night, and more frequently thereafter. It is all over, for example,
Revolver. In A Hard Day's Night it is the F chord mentioned above, where
it goes:
G C G F G
It's been a hard day's night and I've been working like a dog
That F chord is out of key, is not in the classical harmony, but in many
ways is playing the role of a D, that is the last tense chord before going
home to the key chord of G. In this case it acts a bit like a pun, near to
what is expected by slightly different, like threatening arrest by telling
someone you are pudding them in custardy.
On Revolver, Taxman is built on it completely, as is Got to Get You into My
Life. Both of these alternate in the verse between the root and the VII,
as does Well All Right. I use it in one of my best tunes, Everybody's Got
A Habit, although not in the sample that's on the web. The effect in all of
these songs is one of revolving around a point, effecting a bit of
localized movement without going too far afield; linguistically something
like plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. It is sometimes referred to
as "modal" because in more melodically sophisticated systems (ancient Greek
and Andalusian or Spanish Arabic music, many folk traditions worldwide)
more flexible and interesting scales are used beyond our major and minor,
but that, too, is rather involved and beyond the scope of this discussion.
The best overall linguistic analogy one could offer would be the word
"ain't" in my opinion. Wrong by the rules, frequently used by almost
everyone, clearly understood, and a part of many great quotes.
But the usefulness of analogies to talk about this stuff is very limited.
At some point if you want to follow the Beatles you have to go into the
musical side, or stop following. There is a minimal price of admission
here, an amount of effort below which certain ideas simply can't be
accessed. This is in reality no more elitist than to say that in order to
discuss poetry one has to be able to read, or at the least be able to
understand words... and is not intended pejoratively, for the most part;-).
sporter
about the chord in "From Me to You" where it goes into "I've got arms that
long...", and saying how excited they were at the time to discover this new found
chord. If I'm not mistaken, it is a V minor, which, if I'm not even more
mistaken, is a not too distant relative of the VII flat. Since no one ever told
them not to use the VII flat, it was a pretty natural progression in their search
for new and different sounds.
I'm just thankful they never had music lessons!
tris...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> My question is-
> Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
> Love and peace,
> Ashl
>
--
Steve A. Porter
na
DAHLDUDE wrote in message <19990303210449...@ng100.aol.com>...
>My question is: why is IT called the chromatic subtonic? I don't understand
the
>"chromatic" adjective here.
perhaps you should focus on the "subtonic" aspect.
or check back a few posts.
ian takes a bit of a left turn in the discussion in which he introduced the
chromatic aspect.
but even that may not be of much help.......:)
na
tris...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7bklcv$5dr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Ian Hammond wrote...
>>
>> Lot's of people contributed. Among them were the Beatles. Lennon
>> played a leading role in defeating the leading note. No doubt about
>> that.
>>
>>
>First of all, I am amazed at this discussion. Are you all music majors or
>something?
hardly majors..."subtonics" darling......:)
>My jaw is to the floor.....gasping to understand.
you're not alone, dont worry.
>My question is-
>Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
instinctively always.
technically sometimes.
Maurizio Codogno
<tris...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
% First of all, I am amazed at this discussion. Are you all music majors or
% something? My jaw is to the floor.....gasping to understand. My question is-
% Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
Of course not, but who cares?
The important thing was, they *did* it. And so we can try to guess how and
why they did it.
ciao, .mau.
ian hammond
>My question is: why is IT called the chromatic subtonic? I don't understand the
>"chromatic" adjective here.
>
>To me, it makes more sense to call it the flatted Seven or in most cases
>covered the Four of Four chord or the Subdominant squared chord.
>
>Are there legit theory books that actually refer to this flatted Seven as the
>"Chromatic Subtonic"?
>
>Than Q
I am guilty in both cases.
I invented the name "Subtonic" because I got sick of saying "the major
chord on the flattened seventh of the (diatonic major) scale".
The name is reasonably intuitive and worth defending.
I call it the "Chromatic Subtonic" when it is juxtaposed with a chord
that contains the unflattened seventh degree of the scale, which will
usually be the dominant or mediant.
The term 'chromatic subtonic' is used in passing only. It's not worth
defending.
I know of no 'legit theory book' that uses either term. I would remind
you that technical language was not carried down from the mountain on
tablets. Nomenclature is purely a matter of convenience, be it music
or mathematics and is adjusted and extended to suit the case. We fit
the grammar to the music. Not the other way around.
I will now privately ponder whether I'm 'legit' or not.
ian
ian hammond
>First of all, I am amazed at this discussion. Are you all music majors or
>something? My jaw is to the floor.....gasping to understand. My question is-
>Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
Now, if I were to describe your jaw position and your gasping in
medical language, full of latin words, you might not recognise your
own condition (unless you knew that language).
If, however, I explained each of the medical terms separately you
would see how each of them mapped to your condition. There would be no
magic: just a different language to say the same thing.
I am not a music major. It's just another language. One can learn it
with a few months application. It's not a particularly good language,
but it's the only one we've got when it come to discussing music
verbally.
The technical language is not required to make music. Just as
Shakespeare did not have to know the theory of grammar to write his
theatrical pieces.
Did they know what they were doing? It's taken us thirty years to
start to get a grasp on what they've done. I don't think they had it
all sewn up in 1969.
ian
ian hammond
> Since no one ever told
>them not to use the VII flat, it was a pretty natural progression in their search
>for new and different sounds.
Many of the best songwriters never had *formal* music lessons. But you
have to look hard to find them using the subtonic more than those who
did have formal training.
The chord was just as unnatural to the Beatles as it was to any other
person with the same cultural background, with or without training.
Cultural background is VERY important. The chord sounds much more
natural in a British/Australian culture, I suspect, than it does in a
Continental European culture (and, I suspect, in America).
The British were never completely seduced by the diatonic major scale
and kept their folk music in its original form. The Scottish and Irish
songs have it intact. There's a well-known Irish song that has pretty
much the scale and feel of the Lennon "raga" melody in "Strawberry
Fields".
The Germans seem to have almost completely dumped the pre-diatonic
modes and I think they have had a strong influence in the U.S.A.
>I'm just thankful they never had music lessons!
The Beatles had thousands of hours of music lessons in dance halls.
After that they had possibly the best musical education ever: they
were the Beatles. They learned the lot.
With good formal training they may have ignored many more rules than
they did. In comparison to School Music, Street Music is incredibly
conservative. Most popular songs slavishly obey 'the rules' to a
mindless degree which is stunning.
The idea that formal training is injurious to the health is an easily
debunked urban myth. It's like telling a tennis player they shouldn't
take training for their serve. Technology is not a substitute for
creativity, but it can usually assist. Like money and happiness.
ian
na
ian hammond wrote in message <36e05b2a...@news.supernews.com>...
>On 4 Mar 1999 08:48:52 GMT, tris...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>First of all, I am amazed at this discussion. Are you all music majors or
>>something? My jaw is to the floor.....gasping to understand. My question
is-
>>Did the Beatles realize what they were doing with this?
>Now, if I were to describe your jaw position and your gasping in
>medical language, full of latin words, you might not recognise your
>own condition (unless you knew that language).
i would question the jaw's ability to gasp in non-understandment.
>
>If, however, I explained each of the medical terms separately you
>would see how each of them mapped to your condition. There would be no
>magic: just a different language to say the same thing.
>
>I am not a music major. It's just another language. One can learn it
>with a few months application. It's not a particularly good language,
>but it's the only one we've got when it come to discussing music
>verbally.
very well put ian.
very well, put ian down.
>The technical language is not required to make music. Just as
>Shakespeare did not have to know the theory of grammar to write his
>theatrical pieces.
for some of these guys, it seems like you could almost write the book around
what they created.
>
>Did they know what they were doing? It's taken us thirty years to
>start to get a grasp on what they've done. I don't think they had it
>all sewn up in 1969.
instinct is a very powerful beast.
especially when you trust it.
(or not have the knowledge or mind-set to challenge it unnecessarily. kind
of a spin on ignorance is bliss, but ignorance is not an adequate word)
i believe they had faith in their instincts, talent and innate skill, which
they honed over many many tunes.
DAHLDUDE
it in any of my theory classes from 20+ years ago.
Why not just call it the flatted Seven? (capitalizing S would make it a major
chord in ASCIIspeak). Normally, it would more simply be symbollized by the flat
sign in front of the roman numeral seven in caps. Easy enough.
What I wasn't understanding was the "chromatic" term--subtonic is obvious
enough, but "chromatic" linked to the subtonic term sure doesn't seem to be as
obvious as flatted Seven in clarifying a point.
Granted, it's all semantics, but it would be like someone referring to the
square root of a number as "the bipolar divisor-quotient "...
ian hammond
>Thanks for answering my question. I was wondering because I had never heard of
>it in any of my theory classes from 20+ years ago.
>Why not just call it the flatted Seven? (capitalizing S would make it a major
>chord in ASCIIspeak). Normally, it would more simply be symbollized by the flat
>sign in front of the roman numeral seven in caps. Easy enough.
I suspect *any* non-standard term suffers the same problem.
>What I wasn't understanding was the "chromatic" term--subtonic is obvious
>enough, but "chromatic" linked to the subtonic term sure doesn't seem to be as
>obvious as flatted Seven in clarifying a point.
>Granted, it's all semantics, but it would be like someone referring to the
>square root of a number as "the bipolar divisor-quotient "...
I'm not sure what you mean, but "subtonic" maps to "square root" in
your example: a special name rather than a functional name (bVII).
The problem lies in the general inadequacey of musical notation.
Consider the various ways we might refer to the Subtonic in C: major:
1. bVII
2. IV-of-IV
3. the major chord on the flattened seventh
4. Bb
5. B (in German notation)
6. The third chord in "It's Only Love"
Now, if you think my sixth 'name' is over the top, then consider the
famous example of Mann trying citing an "Aoelian Cadence, i.e. the
chord sequence that ends Mahler's Song Of The Earth". Alan Pollack and
I seem to have different interpretations of that statement. I think of
it as V-vi. He had a different sequence in one of his Notes-On, but I
can't recall what it was.
I think the major triad a tone below the home chord has become so
central to the music of our time that it deserves a name that is just
as singular as Tonic, Dominant etc.
The best way to handle the issue is by defining one's terms in each
article. As I said in my initial reply, neither term is worth
defending: notation is a convenience, not an end in itself. Although a
trip to some of the classical composer and theory newsgroups might
provide another view :-) They're rabid about these issues.
ian
tris...@my-dejanews.com
"na" <.@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
> hardly majors..."subtonics" darling......:)
>
Oh, we even have a punny person here. I like it already! And thanks to
everyone who responded to my question, because I truly had no clue. I have
taken choir for 4 years, but I would like to study music on a deeper level.
Any suggestions? Love and peace, Ashley
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
DAHLDUDE
Consider the various ways we might refer to the Subtonic in C: major:
1. bVII
2. IV-of-IV
3. the major chord on the flattened seventh
4. Bb
5. B (in German notation)
6. The third chord in "It's Only Love">>
the bVII seems not inadequate at all. To me and most others that know standard
theory jargon, it really does describe the flatted Seven as a major chord
totally adequately.And yes, it is a IV of IV chord (and also a IV of iv too),
but in its simplest description without going tangential, it's simply bVII. No
confusion about that.
Again, the "subtonic" moniker wasn't the term that I found to be nebulous. It
was the use of the word "chromatic", which, when used with the "subtonic" term,
conjures all sorts of potential misconceptions to be imagined and is not as
clear an appellation as bVII or flatted Seven.
The example of calling a square root a "bipolar divisor/quotient" was meant to
point out the "why?" in devising another name for something already adequate...
It's like when a new regime wants to legitimize their power by killing off the
"old school" and its (seemingly antique) terminology. I remember this in high
school back in the early seventies; Robert's Rules of English came along with
their "new way" and it was really the same old stuff, only different
terminology. A great to sell new books, but a waste of time, money, and not a
way to bring new minds into a common language set of definitions with prior
scholars. It creates a schism when new appellations for age old definitions are
created. It alienates instead of bringing together...
Standards should remain to facillitate common understanding.
ian hammond
><<The problem lies in the general inadequacey of musical notation.
>Consider the various ways we might refer to the Subtonic in C: major:
>
>1. bVII
>2. IV-of-IV
>3. the major chord on the flattened seventh
>4. Bb
>5. B (in German notation)
>6. The third chord in "It's Only Love">>
>
>the bVII seems not inadequate at all. To me and most others that know standard
>theory jargon, it really does describe the flatted Seven as a major chord
>totally adequately.And yes, it is a IV of IV chord (and also a IV of iv too),
>but in its simplest description without going tangential, it's simply bVII. No
>confusion about that.
We seem to be drawing ourselves into a conflict where none exists.
I have not said that "bVII" is inadequate. I have said that it is a
language that seems to need multiple names for the same object. "bVII"
is fine, just as "V" is fine, but I will often refer to "V" as the
"Dominant". In the case of "bVII" I don't believe there is a standard
name. So, I will use the non-standard name "Subtonic" and you will
prefer "flat Seven".
>Again, the "subtonic" moniker wasn't the term that I found to be nebulous. It
>was the use of the word "chromatic", which, when used with the "subtonic" term,
>conjures all sorts of potential misconceptions to be imagined and is not as
>clear an appellation as bVII or flatted Seven.
I am not defining a new term here at all. I am referring to the
"chromatic use of the subtonic".
>The example of calling a square root a "bipolar divisor/quotient" was meant to
>point out the "why?" in devising another name for something already adequate...
Then you need to answer the same for the case of "V" and "Dominant".
Why have two names?
Neither of us are explaining our points very well. Perhaps that's
because it's not an important issue.
<snip>
>Standards should remain to facillitate common understanding.
Just so long as they don't become an unnecessary burden. It is quite
usual to make minor changes to a language for local use. Some of these
filter into common usage and, over time, are adopted into the
standard. That's what keeps languages alive.
A significant shift in the object a language describes will often lead
to extensions or modifications. The usage of the Subtonic by the
Beatles and their peers is clearly such a case. It's not much
different to the extensions made to the language which describe
musical form which were adopted to describe the nuances of Sonata
form.
ian
sporter
ian hammond wrote:
>
>
> With good formal training they may have ignored many more rules than
> they did. In comparison to School Music, Street Music is incredibly
> conservative. Most popular songs slavishly obey 'the rules' to a
> mindless degree which is stunning.
With record sales as the prime motivator, "rules" are followed by the most schooled
musicians of our time. And street music barely gets a chance, because it's risky.
Perhaps ignorance of music theory and the like can be restrictive, but when some
gifted person manages to create something new and different, without the benefit of
formal training, there's often an extra something. There's a part of that person that
shows itself, which would otherwise be shrouded.
The Beatles managed to take familiar sounds which didn't "scare" people (I borrowed
that form saki's Sgt Pepper review- sorry), and make them fresh and exciting. Their
outrageous chords, as Bob Dylan put it, combined with the traditional chords of
country, blues, and gospel formed such a wonderful new type pop that it ceased being
throw away dance music, and became an art form.
>
>
> The idea that formal training is injurious to the health is an easily
> debunked urban myth. It's like telling a tennis player they shouldn't
> take training for their serve. Technology is not a substitute for
> creativity, but it can usually assist. Like money and happiness.
I know, Ian. Some of the most creative musicians in the world are trained.
But I guess I'll always stubbornly believe the Beatles would have somehow been
tainted, watered down if they had formal lessons. The idea of kids with guitars and no
training, coming up with sounds that have lasted generations and literally redefining
pop music is one of the things I find most appealing about the Beatles.
--
Steve A. Porter
ian hammond
>In article <newscache$jas28f$c3h$1...@niton.accsoft.com.au>,
> "na" <.@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>
>> hardly majors..."subtonics" darling......:)
>>
>
>Oh, we even have a punny person here. I like it already! And thanks to
>everyone who responded to my question, because I truly had no clue. I have
>taken choir for 4 years, but I would like to study music on a deeper level.
>Any suggestions? Love and peace, Ashley
1. Keep listening with your ears, heart and mind
2. Acquire the "Complete Beatles Scores" (Wise Publications)
3. Study elementary harmony
4. Ask lots of questions
The rest will become self-evident.
ian
ian hammond
>
>
>ian hammond wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> With good formal training they may have ignored many more rules than
>> they did. In comparison to School Music, Street Music is incredibly
>> conservative. Most popular songs slavishly obey 'the rules' to a
>> mindless degree which is stunning.
>
>With record sales as the prime motivator, "rules" are followed by the most schooled
>musicians of our time. And street music barely gets a chance, because it's risky.
Record sales have always been the prime motivator. There are many more
alternative avenues these days than there were in 1962. Check out
www.mp3.com which supports self-publishing. Most record sales will end
up on the web sooner or later.
In a sense, Lennon *was* a trained artist. His time in art school was
not completely wasted I believe.
But we're missing a point here: I said "most popular songs": that
doesn't apply to the Beatles. "Walrus" and "Good Morning", for
example, show total artistic freedom.
>But I guess I'll always stubbornly believe the Beatles would have somehow been
>tainted, watered down if they had formal lessons. The idea of kids with guitars and no
>training, coming up with sounds that have lasted generations and literally redefining
>pop music is one of the things I find most appealing about the Beatles.
In the Beatles' case, I couldn't agree more. They've never tortured us
with an album full of unrelenting 4/4 in unvaried eight bar sections
multiplied by totally predictable structures from woh to go.
But we go in circles (and I'm repeating myself like a record). Of
course the Beatles had training. Tons of it. Thousands of
performances, hundreds of lessons from other musicians and the study
of four or five hundred songs. That's how musicians were trained a
couple of hundred years ago.
al...@rev.net
>On 6 Mar 1999 07:21:24 GMT, dahl...@aol.com (DAHLDUDE) wrote:
>The problem lies in the general inadequacey of musical notation.
>Consider the various ways we might refer to the Subtonic in C: major:
>1. bVII
>2. IV-of-IV
>3. the major chord on the flattened seventh
>4. Bb
>5. B (in German notation)
>6. The third chord in "It's Only Love"
>Now, if you think my sixth 'name' is over the top, then consider the
>famous example of Mann trying citing an "Aoelian Cadence, i.e. the
>chord sequence that ends Mahler's Song Of The Earth".
Compare the half-diminished seventh, known as the "Tristan chord".
--Spud DuBoise
____
Music of Sasa Quixote at <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/music/sq.html>
ian hammond
>i...@hammo.com (ian hammond) wrote:
>>The problem lies in the general inadequacey of musical notation.
>>Consider the various ways we might refer to the Subtonic in C: major:
<snip>
>Compare the half-diminished seventh, known as the "Tristan chord".
Most ages have their favorite 'special' chord.
For the Beatles it was the subtonic. For Beethoven it was the flat
supertonic (in a minor key, the 'neapolitan sixth' which Lennon comes
close to in "Because").
Wagner developed a number of distinctive chords which played a key
characterising role in his operas. Scriabin built part of his opus
around some specific chords. The impressionists favored chords built
around the whole tone scale.
Then there's the one that got away, the famous "Lost Chord".
Every chord has its day.
--
ian
oceandig
>Most ages have their favorite 'special' chord.
>
>For the Beatles it was the subtonic. For Beethoven it was the flat
>supertonic (in a minor key, the 'neapolitan sixth' which Lennon comes
>close to in "Because").
Ian, I know you've analyzed this quite a bit over the last months, but I
fail to see how the flat seventh chord is a signature Beatle chord. They
used it from time to time, as all pop has ("On Broadway" keeps coming to
mind!) but it wasn't a used enough to be considered "special" (although
John's favorite voicing of G Major, on the other hand, does!).
--
TH
"Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
amount of finesse." -"Chinatown"