General Harmony/Orchestration/Theory Questions

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Good catch, Jilalexanderlokus! Gnome's just got the quarter to eighth note unit the wrong way round.

[Loert 2,509]

On 22/01/2017 at 6:15 AM, Gnome in Plaid said:

The flute(s) technique from 0:11-0:25?

I know this has been discussed elsewhere here, but I can't seem to find the thread, so... might this be an accurate transcription?

4 Flutes (1 C, 2 Alto, 1 Bass) with the 2 higher flutes maintaining vocal drones on C and the 2 lower flutes flutter-tonguing?

 

Some very rough observations:

 

Contrabass clarinet plays C only, no Ebs. 

You are missing a quarter rest at the beginning of every other bar (8, 10, 12), hence the top note can't be a drone.

The only Eb I hear is the top voice on the second beat of bar 12 (which you essentially got correct assuming we add that rest at the beginning). The final chord does not have an Eb in it. I think it's just C G C with the G bent up very slightly. The last two notes in the upper voice are Ab C. 

[Will 2,215]

I recently heard Miles Davis's "So What" from Kind of Blue for the first time.

 

Some of the chords instantly reminded me of War Horse. 

 

For instance:

 

 

Compare to:

 

 

Is there indeed some relationship? Is this an example of Williams's jazz background influencing his compositions?

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Typically the jazz influence is more subtle (and therefore all the more dazzling) but that sounds like it could have been a conscious reference to that famous riff.  Either way, it's not something that would be likely to exist without jazz.  

[KK 3,307]

Two questions: 0:40, are the basses tremolo-ing, or would you figure there's some kind of written pulsation rhythm. And anyone want to shed some light on what's going on in 2:02?

 

 

[Jilal 569]

How would you go and describe the energetic parallel chords in Leonard Bernstein's Mambo? I was thinking something along the lines of CminMaj7(b5) -> BbminMaj7(b5) -> ... , or perhaps B/C -> A/Bb -> ... ?

[Loert 2,509]

8 hours ago, KK said:

Two questions: 0:40, are the basses tremolo-ing, or would you figure there's some kind of written pulsation rhythm. And anyone want to shed some light on what's going on in 2:02?

 

 

 

Not an expert on stringed instruments so this is merely an educated guess, but I figure that in both cases the strings are playing as loudly as possible. So the double basses would be playing tremolo but because it's so loud they take longer bow arcs, giving it a pulsing sensation. Same for the violins - they're playing as loud as possible, and because of the high pitch you get harmonics seeping through.

 

1 hour ago, Bartokus Novus said:

How would you go and describe the energetic parallel chords in Leonard Bernstein's Mambo? I was thinking something along the lines of CminMaj7(b5) -> BbminMaj7(b5) -> ... , or perhaps B/C -> A/Bb -> ... ?

 

The top chords are definitely parallel diminished major seventh chords. But what's really going on is that Bernstein is using a I - Vm7 progression on B, but blurring it by shifting up what would be the middle root (B3) up a semitone to C4. The two bars after are almost a Petrushka polytonality (F# over C in the bottom). 

[Jilal 569]

Thanks for the insights Thomas! I wasn't really looking at the score though - it was merely the chord type that transfixed me for a while (and considering the voicings that I believe to remember, I'd say Bernstein regarded it as one whole chord). It's not really as documented as other seventh chord types. So ... "mM7(b5)"?

[Loert 2,509]

3 hours ago, Bartokus Novus said:

Thanks for the insights Thomas! I wasn't really looking at the score though - it was merely the chord type that transfixed me for a while (and considering the voicings that I believe to remember, I'd say Bernstein regarded it as one whole chord). It's not really as documented as other seventh chord types. So ... "mM7(b5)"?

 

I'm not sure what you're exactly saying. The main audible chords are diminished major seventh chords, or ^omaj7. mM7(b5) is the same thing. 

[Jilal 569]

1 hour ago, LampPost said:

I'm not sure what you're exactly saying. The main audible chords are diminished seventh major chords, or ^omaj7. mM7(b5) is the same thing. 

 

Wow, I should definitely get more sleep than just 3 hours a day. Completely missed that!

 

Sorry for making you copy-paste Wikipedia links. 

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

16 hours ago, KK said:

Two questions: 0:40, are the basses tremolo-ing, or would you figure there's some kind of written pulsation rhythm. And anyone want to shed some light on what's going on in 2:02?

 

 

 

Basses could either be executing a really fierce, gritty tremolo, or they could have been instructed to re-bow the same note at random and the result is something like a quasi-tremolo.  The second moment, if I were to try rewriting it, would be those open voicings in half the first and second violins, while the second stands play those aleatoric figures on harmonics, but that's just my likely clumsy approach to it.

[KK 3,307]

On 2/21/2017 at 8:16 AM, LampPost said:

So the double basses would be playing tremolo but because it's so loud they take longer bow arcs, giving it a pulsing sensation. 

 

This seems like the probably explanation for the first instance!

 

On 2/21/2017 at 8:16 AM, LampPost said:

Same for the violins - they're playing as loud as possible, and because of the high pitch you get harmonics seeping through.

 

On 2/21/2017 at 3:38 PM, TheGreyPilgrim said:

The second moment, if I were to try rewriting it, would be those open voicings in half the first and second violins, while the second stands play those aleatoric figures on harmonics, but that's just my likely clumsy approach to it.

 

I think it's a combination of both. Probably having the firsts playing the open voices and the seconds randomly pulsating around the same pitch with a really intense sul pont.

[mrbellamy 6,270]

Some Potter questions. One, "Hedwig's Theme," is there any reason why the harp has a raised fourth here and the celesta/violins don't?

 

 

Second, could anybody help with this short progression in "Harry Gets His Wand"?

 

 

 

 

I get that in broad strokes it's basically i and V (dominant 7 with b9 in the bass?) but I'm getting hung up on details, at least with the chords I outlined. Would you say they're passing or what?

 

I guess the blue is a respelled vii dim? What would you call that with the A-natural?

 

Same question with the red, and I guess I'm also a little confused where that Eb fits in. 

 

I also tried looking at the celesta line for clues:

 

 

Is that maybe some sort of altered D major scale? I don't know, that would make sense with the strings in B minor but I'm a little lost haha. I need help putting names on some of these things and piecing it together.

 

And then just a notation thing, the little V-i in the celesta/harp that comes right after (at 1:30), any reason why the A# would be spelled Bb in the celesta (on top, harp on bottom)? I guess it doesn't really matter, just seems kinda weird...

 

[Loert 2,509]

6 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

Some Potter questions. One, "Hedwig's Theme," is there any reason why the harp has a raised fourth here and the celesta/violins don't?

 

Because the top note in the string runs is Bb, i.e. A# enharmonic. That's also the note notated as the peak of the harp glissando in bar 2.

 

6 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

Second, could anybody help with this short progression in "Harry Gets His Wand"?

 

Williams seems to be altering between B minor chords and diminished major seventh chords. E.g. second chord is G^omaj7, blue chords are Bb^omaj7. Fifth chord is G^omaj7 with an added E on the top, which I think is mainly there for melodic reasons (you could also view it as F# dominant seventh with a G in the bass). But the Eb in the red chord is odd indeed. It adds a slightly major tinge to the progression IMO, because of the dimished 4th interval (i.e. major 3rd) in the bass. But obviously the red and blue chords are related in a structural sense. I dunno, maybe Williams just wanted more variety in the bass line? There could be a multitude of reasons.

 

6 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

I also tried looking at the celesta line for clues:

 

Probably just B minor scale with a kind of 1-2 octatonic "tail" beginning at F#, which ensures inclusion of A, Bb, C# present in the strings. Creates a mysterious atmosphere.  

[Jilal 569]

Here's my obviously flawed attempt at analyzing the passage.

 

[mrbellamy 6,270]

@LampPost @Bartokus Novus You guys rock, thank you!!

 

Diminished major sevenths  knew I was missing something there. And the bass line in Bartokus's measure 6 does make sense as a D# looking at it as a chromatic mediant. That's my big hump right now is learning to more fluidly read enharmonic spellings in score study. This passage doesn't even have transposing instruments, throw those in and I get nervous haha. Oh well....I'll keep trying.

 

7 hours ago, LampPost said:

Because the top note in the string runs is Bb, i.e. A# enharmonic. That's also the note notated as the peak of the harp glissando in bar 2.

 

Okay, so a follow-up question about that, because that peak A in the harp doesn't have an accidental by it...why not?

 

And are there any thoughts on this one? I know it's not a big deal but again I'm just trying to navigate enharmonic spellings and why or why not some things would be spelled differently in notation. I'm grasping a lot of that when it comes to things like voice leading and chord function, but since with this, the chord is an F# major triad in first inversion to B minor, it seems the celesta's A# is written as Bb just...because lol? I'm too insecure for that!

 

14 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

And then just a notation thing, the little V-i in the celesta/harp that comes right after (at 1:30), any reason why the A# would be spelled Bb in the celesta (on top, harp on bottom)? I guess it doesn't really matter, just seems kinda weird...

 

 

[Jilal 569]

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

That's my big hump right now is learning to more fluidly read enharmonic spellings in score study. This passage doesn't even have transposing instruments, throw those in and I get nervous haha. Oh well....I'll keep trying.

 

Rest assured, I'm not overly fluent at reading a line in F or Eb either (Bb is passable). Notice Williams always sketches in concert pitch.

 

Can you read fluently in alto/tenor clef though, @mrbellamy? Those are pretty elementary in orchestral music.

 

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

Okay, so a follow-up question about that, because that peak A in the harp doesn't have an accidental by it...why not?

 

And are there any thoughts on this one? I know it's not a big deal but again I'm just trying to navigate enharmonic spellings and why or why not some things would be spelled differently in notation. I'm grasping a lot of that when it comes to things like voice leading and chord function, but since with this, the chord is an F# major triad in first inversion to B minor, it seems the celesta's A# is written as Bb just...because lol? I'm too insecure for that!

 

Don't you worry all too much. Music is supposed to be fun!

 

I believe Williams still tends to compose most of his music at the piano (where A# and Bb are the same key), so in his mind, I assume they're two acceptable ways of spelling the chord that lay under his fingers.

 

Since the harpist was asked to put the pedals in Bb-Eb-F# configuration before, a Bb would have actually made more sense to me, though. I can't spot any pedal markings for this passage at all, at any rate! How horrid.

 

Both enharmonic spelling and odd choices of harp pedaling (especially in the case of glissandi!) occur quite frequently in Williams's music. Try to think of the harp as a decorative instrument. Sometimes, the aim is to accentuate only certain tetrachords or some important notes with a glissando/glissandi, so F# and Bb could suffice to accentuate a passage which was written using the third octatonic collection (C-C#-Eb-E-F#-G-A-Bb) in case the melody or derived harmonies don't heavily feature the remaining C# and Eb. The remainder of the glissando will sound fine anyway - it's more of a textural rather than a melodic/harmonic element.

 

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

Okay, so a follow-up question about that, because that peak A in the harp doesn't have an accidental by it...why not?

 

He uses the Bb/A# as a decorative note, not as an integral part of the scale. The harp is accentuating that. In fact, for both the string runs and harp glissandi, the actual E Hungarian minor scale would create a texture that's far too muddy. Compare the two notations and the audio file below.

 

untitled.mp3

 

[mrbellamy 6,270]

Okay, that helps, thanks! So, just to clarify, the stemless noteheads in parentheses for the harp glissando don't really need specific accidentals, because those high and low peaks are more so outlining an approximate range to ad lib within and it's really more about following the shape and creating that texture?

 

3 hours ago, Bartokus Novus said:

Rest assured, I'm not overly fluent at reading a line in F or Eb either (Bb is passable). Notice Williams always sketches in concert pitch.

 

Can you read fluently in alto/tenor clef though, @mrbellamy? Those are pretty elementary in orchestral music.

 

Yeah, I've gotten better with those by now. Well, alto more than tenor since I haven't come across the latter enough to really practice. I'm a trumpet player so treble was all I ever read for about 10 years. Got more serious about piano and score study in the last few years, which meant acquainting myself properly with bass and alto clef. My sight reading still isn't as good in either as it is in treble but good enough to go on.

 

And yeah, transposing Bb of course comes fairly naturally to me  I've been feeling a little more comfortable reading F, need to read more jazz/wind band lit to really get into Eb. My background is mostly performance, attended conservatory for a couple years which is where I got some foundation in theory, but yeah, reading and analyzing a transposed score only recently became a not hugely overwhelming process for me!

[Loert 2,509]

17 hours ago, Bartokus Novus said:

Since the harpist was asked to put the pedals in Bb-Eb-F# configuration before, a Bb would have actually made more sense to me, though. I can't spot any pedal markings for this passage at all, at any rate! How horrid.

 

There is more than enough time for the harpist to change the pedals before that passage. If it was Bb, the harpist would have to play the same string twice whilst changing the pedal inbetween - far less efficient than just playing A# - B.

 

And why do you assume the top note of the string run is part of the Hungarian scale and hence should be A#? Bb is perfectly valid in this case.

[Jilal 569]

5 hours ago, LampPost said:

 

There is more than enough time for the harpist to change the pedals before that passage. If it was Bb, the harpist would have to play the same string twice whilst changing the pedal inbetween - far less efficient than just playing A# - B.

 

And why do you assume the top note of the string run is part of the Hungarian scale and hence should be A#? Bb is perfectly valid in this case.

 

I'd just keep the pedals in position - changing them can be quite noisy apparently, especially in a quiet cue like this one. A pedal marking would have been necessary though, with all the altered accidentals written down.

 

I was just humorously nitpicking, really. I do think Williams would regard it as a Hungarian minor inflection, though, so I'd say it has to be A#.

[Loert 2,509]

50 minutes ago, Bartokus Novus said:

I'd just keep the pedals in position - changing them can be quite noisy apparently, especially in a quiet cue like this one. A pedal marking would have been necessary though, with all the altered accidentals written down.

 

Seriously?  

 

50 minutes ago, Bartokus Novus said:

I was just humorously nitpicking, really. I do think Williams would regard it as a Hungarian minor inflection, though, so I'd say it has to be A#.

 

But that's not what he wrote down.

 

[Jilal 569]

3 minutes ago, LampPost said:

 

Seriously?  

 

 

But that's not what he wrote down.

 

 

Of course it is. It's just an enharmonic spelling, happens all the time.

 

By the way, we were discussing Harry Gets His Wand, not Hedwig's Theme.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Can anyone decipher at those POTA-esque four chords? First seems to be a straightforward Bbm7 and the fourth is something like Ab(add4)/Gb, but the other two are murkier.

 

 

 

 

[filmmusic 1,822]

I have a question:

I've analysed the Love theme from The Terminal by Williams.

In there i've found some double dominants and irregular solutions of them,

Now, i see that a V/VI-IV makes sense (according to the harmony book of Aldwell it's like III-IV).

 

Does a V/III-IV or V/III-II make sense?

 

Also, does anyone know where I can find a complete list of ROman numeral analysis>

like this but more complete:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis

I remember having seen it somewhere in a book, but can't seem to find it now...

[SteveMc 2,674]

@TGP, @Loert, @Ludwig, @Falstaft.

I hope you don't mind too much, gentlemen, but I have a couple of Bruckner 9 portions that I'm really curious about.  I've only recently really got into musical theory.

I want to know pretty much everything that's going on from 1:48-3:00.  Particularly, that recurring theme.  It begins with a note played by the horns and trombones (?), which sets up the upward reaching three notes for the trumpets, while the lower brass continues on its own way.  What is the harmonic significance here?  How do the strings figure into it?

 

Also, the passage from 20:05-22:00 absolutely floors me.  How does Bruckner achieve this sound and texture?  The music is subtly, but definitely evolving.  I'd really like to know how and why, harmonically speaking. 

With appreciation, 

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

The first passage you mention is pretty simple, classic Bruckner.  Widely voiced tremolo strings playing something that seems to imply the movement's E major home, but with some pitches added and others left out which makes it seem more anticipatory, unrooted.  The flittering of the string tremolos and that expectant harmonic quality which seems to have lots of internal momentum despite its relatively static nature (there are some flourishes to it which comment on the trumpet phrases, it's not just sustained notes) make it quite exciting.  The woodwinds and low brass/timpani are supporting the same structure pretty much, just adding more color and filling out the low and high extremes.  There's plenty of room in the middle register for the trumpets to speak their declamatory phrases quite clearly without blaring them out, and the horns have a more sturdy figure outlining some of that ambiguously thrilling harmony in the middle of the texture as well.  Overall it's just that expectant quality that I think makes it stand out.  Part is fairly static orchestration that still has inherent movement in it because of the tremolos in the strings and timpani, and part is a harmonic framework that seems to be going somewhere.  It's a moment that makes you lean forward with anticipation.

 

That second passage, RVW must have been a fan of that.  Divided strings with lots of octaves and contrary motion.  That's followed by what I would just say is a series of slippery modulations based around those insistent oboes - again, it's a fairly repetitive element grounding something else that's changing, which gives that sense of subtle evolution for you, I imagine.

[Loert 2,509]

52 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

I want to know pretty much everything that's going on from 1:48-3:00.  Particularly, that recurring theme.  It begins with a note played by the horns and trombones (?), which sets up the upward reaching three notes for the trumpets, while the lower brass continues on its own way.  What is the harmonic significance here?  How do the strings figure into it?

 

Everything?!?! Well, I can give you something. The main harmony in that section sounds to me like an F# 11th chord, without the 3rd (so, spelled in ascending order, F# C# E G# B).

The B here in fact acts more like a raised 3rd, because it feels throughout like it wants to resolve down to the 3rd (A#). This is partly why the 3rd is left out, otherwise the B and A# would arguably clash in function.

 

At the same time there's an almost overwhelming tendency for the entire chord to collapse into a simple B major chord (i.e. the tonic). The B in the chord is important here because it essentially pre-echoes the tonic, so you can already HEAR where the music is pulling you to but you also know very well that the music is not there yet. This is why Bruckner might have made the first note of the trumpet phrases a long B, to really emphasise this "ghost" tonic. This is one of the reasons why this section sounds quite exciting despite there being almost no change in chord.

 

Now more on the brass. Yes, you hear essentially two characters here: the short, punctuating trumpet, and the long, wailing horns. The top note of the horns is a G#, which is one tone above the pitch of the bass note of the chord, F#, and so you get a similar "pulling" effect as you do with the B pulling towards the A# in order to create a complete F#11 chord. The range employed for the horns here is also excellent - I don't have the score in front of me but I wouldn't be surprised if the horns were totally unsupported. This top G# note in the horns sounds especially full and brilliant - "epic" even, as some would say! (and Bruckner was excellent at "epic"). You can't miss it and so it makes a real impact. Also, there is a basic observation to be made about how well the horn and trumpet phrases bounce off of each other. One goes up, the other goes down. One has a particular sound (the trumpets sound quite raspy, lots of high harmonics), the other has another particular sound (the horns sound round and pure - at total odds to the trumpets).

 

This section reminds me a lot of the finale of Walton's Symphony No.1. There's one bit which even uses the exact same chord. Listen to the end, I'm sure you will enjoy it!

 

 

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Loert, @TGP, @Ludwig, @Falstaft, @Jilal

It is me again, gentlemen.

Been trying to get my head around James Horner's "Jenny" as of late.  Here it is for reference.

 

Am I right to assume the piece is in D major?  If my ear serves me right, the opening piano note is a high D, and the repeating string figure that soon follows outlines a D major chord, and the piece's final chord sounds like D to me.

What starts to confuse me, however, is the second part of the string figure.  It goes from a descending A, G, F#, D to a descending A#, A, G, D, appearing to outline a G minor chord.

Both figures accompany the melody when it is played by solo horn.  A rough transcription:  

What exactly is Horner doing here, in terms of how he harmonizes the melody and in terms of overall tonality?

With thanks,

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Don't have time to perhaps address all you ask, but the high piano notes are alternating between A and Bb. The key is indeed D major,  with the tonoc chord under the A, and a Gm6 chord under the Bb. This is a classic romantic or "exotic" chord progression: you might recognize from Princess Leia's Theme, or a variation of it in Herrmann' North by Northwest Overture. With the C# in the melody, it flirts with a Dmaj7. Overall it's a very diatonic piece, with the melody sticking pretty close to the basic chord tones. Please let me know if I can address further questions,  I'll get to them when I have time. 

[Loert 2,509]

3 hours ago, Steve McQueen said:

What exactly is Horner doing here, in terms of how he harmonizes the melody and in terms of overall tonality?

 

If I told you exactly what Horner is doing here, then you wouldn't need to listen to the piece anymore!

 

A few points about your transcription. Firstly, it should be an octave higher up. Secondly, it is much more correct to notate the A# as a Bb, because you want to notate in accordance with the scale at that point in the music, and G minor doesn't have an A#. Thirdly, you miss some beats so the transcription starts to shift out of beat. Here is a basic transcription of that section with chord symbols (from 0:22):

 

 

So the first chord movement we hear is D (tonic) to Gm/D (i.e. a G minor chord with the D in the bass, the subdominant of D). The D in the bass is kept for two reasons: to avoid too much movement near the beginning of the melody, and to enhance the effect of the bass moving to G in bar 4. Nick Parker calls this a Gm6, though I disagree because I can't hear a 6 (i.e. E) anywhere. It DOES appear as the second chord in Princess Leia's theme (which was obviously Horner's model for this theme), and for what it's worth, a Gm6 chord would function the same as the Gm chord we have in the Rocketeer; it seems like Horner "just" left out the E.

 

Gm6 -> D, or more generally, IVm6 -> I, is a very characteristic Romantic progression. It can be traced back to at least Wagner, who for example did a IV6 -> IVm6 -> I (Gb6 -> Gbm6 -> Db) progression at the end of Gotterdammerung. It was definitely used by Chopin, Liszt and Schubert as well. I'm sure you can see how it was used all over the place in film music - it works well because the IVm6 chord has a strong pull towards the tonic. It does not have as strong a pull as the dominant (V) chord, but the V chord (or, more specifically, the I-V-I progression) in fact draws a lot of attention to itself and so film composers tend to avoid them unless they SPECIFICALLY want to draw attention to the music.

 

But anyway, as I said already, the Rocketeer does not use the IVm6 chord, only the IVm chord. But the function is similar.

 

Now, the other notable progression in this section is the transition from Gm to Eb Lydian between bars 4 and 5. Skip to the next paragraph if you understand what modes are. If you aren't aware of the term "Lydian" then it basically means that you take a major scale and you sharpen the fourth note (so for example, in C major, you would sharpen the F to create a Lydian scale). That is one way of describing it; another way is to say that the "Lydian mode" is what you get when you take a major scale and play the notes in ascending order starting from the fourth note. So, if you take a C major scale, and start playing up from F, then you get F G A B C D E F, which is F Lydian. Obviously, you can do this from each note in the major scale, i.e. you can start from C, from D, from E etc... And you will end up with different modes. If you start from C, you get the Ionian mode = the major scale. Start from D, you get Dorian (b3, b7). Start from E, you get Phrygian. F -> Lydian. G -> Mixolydian. A -> Aeolian. B - > Locrian. These modes are known as the "diatonic" modes because they are derived from the major scale, and is what Nick Parker means when he says that the section is very diatonic (it would in fact be completely diatonic if it weren't for the Ebs and Abs in bars 5 and 6 respectively).

 

The Eb Lydian in the context of a D tonic is significant, because the Eb Lydian is then highly suggestive of an EbM7 chord (Eb G Bb D). This is a very "bright" chord, and the Lydian mode is the brightest diatonic mode. So what you get is not only a semitone shift from D in the bass up to Eb (i.e. a "brightening" of the bass*), but you land in a very bright harmony. Now if you add a minor chord in between the tonic and this "semitone-raised" Lydian harmony, then the brightness is even more sensual, because of the contrast. So this is another very evocative, "heart-on-sleeve" progression which film composers love to use. There is a particularly vivid example of this technique at the end of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake:

 

where he goes E -> Eaug6 -> F Lydian/E. The aug chord functions similarly to a IVm chord. Note that in this case, Tchaikovsky keeps the bass note constant, which creates a heightened "tension" at the cost of a less bright harmony. (Btw, this is what Williams does in his Han & Leia theme, where he keeps the bass note constant whilst using a similar chord progression).

Btw, note also how in this part of Horner's excerpt (and Williams'), some of the intervals in the horn are quite large. You have the octave jump in bars 4/5 and the major seventh jump in bar 6. These kinds of leaps are often employed to create a more expressive atmosphere and again it's a very (late-)Romantic idiom. Also, it's funny how Horner adds an English horn on top of the French horn before bar 5. I don't know if this is a French/English joke, or because of Horner's surname...but it's interesting.

 

Final thing - the Gm harmony at bar 7. We have just heard a succession of two bright Lydian harmonies, which promise something big to come...only to drop down softly back to Gm (again, by semitone in the bass). The way Horner does this is beautifully subtle and unassuming, IMO.

 

I think that will do for now! Let me know if you have any further questions.

 

P.S. After listening to this in depth I now know where Debney cribbed the love theme from Cutthroat Island .

 

 

 

*Music presents this paradoxical property where sometimes the "smallest" changes have the greatest effect. In this case, shifting the bass note up by a semitone gives a greater sense of "shifting up" than if you were to shift the bass up by a larger interval. The Minimalist style in music is based on the whole precept that a small number of subtle changes gives a greater sense of direction than a large number of big changes.

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Loert!   

Thanks ever so much for taking the time to do this, man!  I suspected something Lydian was going on, but it is amazing to see how this kind of writing plays out.  Makes me love the music even more.

And that semitone drop is simply lovely.

(apologies for my transcription.  I'm always going out of beat.)

Thanks again to @Nick Parker, too.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

2 hours ago, Loert said:

But anyway, as I said already, the Rocketeer does not use the IVm6 chord, only the IVm chord. But the function is similar.

 

Thanks for the correction, Loert. I was giving the piece a drive-by listening, heard the Eb you mentioned popping up, and my mind willed into existence that chromatic movement ( D, Eb, E// Dmaj/Eblyd.7/E half dim.7 aka Gm6). 

 

Great write-up! 

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Loert , @Nick Parker , @TGP.

C'est moi, encore.  Something a bit different this time around, though.

"Something To Believe In" by Bangles bassist Michael Steele just might be my faorite song.  It's not a typical four chord pop ballad, to be sure, and I've been trying to figure it out as of late.  I'd like to get an objective perspective on the song, to figure out if Steele's writing is as unique and technically proficient as I think it is.

Here's the song:

 

Some quick background:  four writers are credited on the song, Steele herself, her friend--keyboardist David White, and songwriting duo Eric Lowen and Dan Navarro ("We Belong").

In an interview, Navarro states that he and the others wrote the outline of what became the song's middle 8 sometime in early '87.  Sometime between then and when the album came out in late '88, Steele wrote the rest of the song, including all the lyrics.  Navarro says he was suprised that she gave away 75% of the credit on a song that was 75% her own.

While further contribution from White is a possibility, the apparently personal nature of the song suggests otherwise.  Steele had played flute in high school, and was known to speak of music in technical terms.  Her composition "Following" from The Bangles' previous album also proves her to be capable of unusual harmonic constructions.  

 

The song follows an unusual pattern structurally of Verse- Prechorus-Verse - Prechorus- Bridge-Coda-Bridge, or, as i'd put it, A-B-A-B-C-A'-C.  The lack of a chorus to fully resolve to reflects the lack of full resolution inherent in the lyrics.

Unusual resolutions also are present harmonically.  The song is in A Major, apparently, but beyond that all online gutar tabs are in disagreement.  

In the A section, the chords apparently go A- Dsus2/A- A- G.  Why is the G chord here in A major?  Later, as best as my ear can tell, she adds a couple of F Major 7s before going back to A

I'd really like to know how these things fit together.

Here's what I have transcribed so far (work in progress):

I don't really know what is going on in the middle 8s, with the vocal harmonies tacking on an extra layer of complexity.  Not sure if they are in A Major or not.

Also, at the end of the coda, the progression A-Dsus2-G (or G6?) is heard, before the first chord (C#m7?) of the middle 8.

What makes this combination so affecting?  Also, what do you think of the song's rhythm and production?

 

Many thanks!

 

 

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

 

@Steve McQueen

 

 

The G in A major is a flat 7, so it's A in Mixolydian mode (kinda tying into what I believe @Loert was talking about with you when you asked about Rocketeer). The G major chord is just built from that flat chord tone, and can be a common way to go to/from a tonic (if I remember, the old Sonic the Hedgehog games like to do that, if you're into those). 

 

I'd say those chords are pretty solid; if I were to be pedantic, I would omit the 7 from those F major chords, which creates a b6-b7-I kind of thing (popular in Broadway apparently, and you can hear it in Super Mario Bros.!) Just a nice little bitta spice, there.

 

I would personally call that C#m7 a C#m9, with the next chord a Dadd9 ( D F# A E).

 

As far as that power you feel: I think that moment is a great example of subsitution and constancy used for dramatic impact.  For myself, I think C#m9 is a very juicy chord, so that alone gives it oomph. Remember that G was flat earlier, and then she slams a G# in a fat chord in the relative minor of Amaj. There's also that new plucky guitarish sound, adding a new element, with the  voice synth layer being higher than the rest of the song. But the drum beat and overall rhythmic feel is still more or less the same (giving and taking certain elements), so it's still chugging along, which accentuates the surprise of all the changes.

 

Those are my brain-run thoughts and feelings. Slick track! 

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Loert, in light  of what you have been saying regarding harmonic transitions, what do you think of the melody and progressions of the song I posted above, particularly in the passage from 2:36-2:50?

At any rate, I think it is a lovely song to lose oneself in. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

24 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

@Loert, in light  of what you have been saying regarding harmonic transitions, what do you think of the melody and progressions of the song I posted above, particularly in the passage from 2:36-2:50?

At any rate, I think it is a lovely song to lose oneself in. 

 

I'm not good enough for you.  

[SteveMc 2,674]

26 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

I'm not good enough for you.  

That's not it at all Nick!  I'm just curious about what Loert has to say on the matter, given his strong opinions that he shared about La La Land.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

27 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

That's not it at all Nick!  I'm just curious about what Loert has to say on the matter, given his strong opinions that he shared about La La Land.

 

[Loert 2,509]

15 hours ago, Steve McQueen said:

@Loert, in light  of what you have been saying regarding harmonic transitions, what do you think of the melody and progressions of the song I posted above, particularly in the passage from 2:36-2:50?

At any rate, I think it is a lovely song to lose oneself in. 

 

OK so I've listened to the song you linked through once. I have never listened to it before nor do I really listen to this style of music so you can expect a fairly "objective" opinion from me.

 

My first impressions are that I like this song a lot. I love how the drumkit comes in late, and even then is only built upon "step by step", as it were, which gives the listener the feeling that something is being pursued. The two opposing "harmonic spaces" (i.e. 0:00 vs 1:51) play off each other very well. It sounds to me almost like the opposites of introspection (first harmonic space) and extrospection (second harmonic space).

You asked about the transition between 2:36 - 2:50. I will say that, if I were to be nitpicky about the purely technical aspects of the music, Steele's held G note just before the transition clashes with the next harmony, which is C#min7, since that chord has a G# (and F#) in it. So the G wants to resolve to a G#, though we don't really get to hear it.

However, in the grand scheme of things it is not a problem (it might even be a quality) because the song makes it quite clear that the second harmonic space is "off limits" to the vocal line. So the fact that Steele's voice breaks off just before the transition (note, not even on the transition), and the fact that the note she sings doesn't fit into the next chord, may be argued to add to the coherence of the overall piece, even if it's not technically streamlined.

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

14 minutes ago, Loert said:

Steele's held G note just before the transition clashes with the next harmony, which is C#min7, since that chord has a G# (and F#) in it. So the G wants to resolve to a G#, though we don't really get to hear it.

 

One of my favorite parts about it!

[SteveMc 2,674]

11 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

One of my favorite parts about it!

Mine too!  The music, like the "speaker"( to use a poetic term) wants to have resolution, with that resolution just out of reach.  I find that harmonic clash vital and quite brilliant in a way.

 

Thanks again guys! 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yes yes this is a silly novelty song but

 

Can someone explain to me why the harmony is so weirdly, fundamentally, primitively satisfying to my ears from 0:18-0:30?  It's like the aural equivalent of the feeling when someone lightly scratches your back.

 

 

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Disco Stu, I'm somewhat new at this, so I can't give you a very technical explanation.

The song is in F, but it is "going places."  Some chords have have F# or B natural, but it keeps bouncing along, keeping close to, but not fully reaching the tonic, the home note and chord, until it does.  So it is both familiar and different, as it were, eliciting a pleasant reaction.

 

 @Nick Parker and @Loert can probably give you a better (probably much more correct) answer. 

[Ludwig 1,120]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

Yes yes this is a silly novelty song but

 

Can someone explain to me why the harmony is so weirdly, fundamentally, primitively satisfying to my ears from 0:18-0:30?  It's like the aural equivalent of the feeling when someone lightly scratches your back.

 

 

 

"Primitively satisfying" - what a great way to describe the harmony there!

 

It's a progression of descending fifths that is kept in perfect fifths longer than is typical for these progressions. First, I'll just say that descending-fifth progressions are the backbone of classical harmony, and for a host of reasons they have a sound of inevitability to them. In other words, they're usually pretty satisfying to hear.

 

Here, the descending-fifth progression is set up with a conventional turnaround progression, I-V/ii-V/V-V, then continues it in a faster rhythm starting with the home tonic chord, I (in B-flat, by the way, not F). In more normal situations, a descending-fifth pattern from I would begin I-IV-vii^o, with vii remaining in the key (meaning the bass is the leading tone). But here, it's altered to the flat ^7 degree, making it sound unexpected but satisfying. The pattern continues in these perfect fifths, which brings the harmony further and further away from the home key, before finally being hoisted back to the home key's dominant chord, which then dutifully resolves to the tonic, fulfilling a descending-fifth trajectory that goes:

 

I - V/ii - V/V - V - I - IV - bVII - bIII - bVI - bII ( - V - I)

 

I would also mention that the 3+3+2 "tresillo" rhythm that kicks in with the fifth chord in the progression speeds up the chord changes with what is probably the most common accompaniment rhythm in all popular music. So it gives it a cool factor on top of all this.

 

Buddy Holly used the same progression in the bridge of "Everyday", but his has more subtlety and swagger IMO:

 

 

Notice that the first verse (and, strangely, only the first verse) uses the turnaround progression too, as though the bridge grows out of that.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

17 minutes ago, Ludwig said:

 

"Primitively satisfying" - what a great way to describe the harmony there!

 

It's a progression of descending fifths that is kept in perfect fifths longer than is typical for these progressions. First, I'll just say that descending-fifth progressions are the backbone of classical harmony, and for a host of reasons they have a sound of inevitability to them. In other words, they're usually pretty satisfying to hear.

 

Here, the descending-fifth progression is set up with a conventional turnaround progression, I-V/ii-V/V-V, then continues it in a faster rhythm starting with the home tonic chord, I (in B-flat, by the way, not F). In more normal situations, a descending-fifth pattern from I would begin I-IV-vii^o, with vii remaining in the key (meaning the bass is the leading tone). But here, it's altered to the flat ^7 degree, making it sound unexpected but satisfying. The pattern continues in these perfect fifths, which brings the harmony further and further away from the home key, before finally being hoisted back to the home key's dominant chord, which then dutifully resolves to the tonic, fulfilling a descending-fifth trajectory that goes:

 

I - V/ii - V/V - V - I - IV - bVII - bIII - bVI - bII ( - V - I)

 

I would also mention that the 3+3+2 "tresillo" rhythm that kicks in with the fifth chord in the progression speeds up the chord changes with what is probably the most common accompaniment rhythm in all popular music. So it gives it a cool factor on top of all this.

 

Buddy Holly used the same progression in the bridge of "Everyday", but his has more subtlety and swagger IMO:

 

 

Notice that the first verse (and, strangely, only the first verse) uses the turnaround progression too, as though the bridge grows out of that.

 

Thanks for that!  I love that Buddy Holly song too.  Certainly a more respectable entry in the pop canon than "Spanish Flea"  

 

It's also super satisfying that the specific harmony of the main melody at 0:18 is the only time you hear the melody presented exactly like that until the very last repetition of it in the song.

[Loert 2,509]

One thing I would add to Ludwig's excellent analysis is this: what makes that excerpt particularly special is the two trumpets, particularly the way they are articulated and the way that they play in sixths (i.e. an interval of a sixth apart). The sixth interval, in combination with the descending fifths progression, gives it a kind of "cuteness" and comic effect, which is further emphasised by the relatively quiet dynamics of the trumpets and their low range.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

57 minutes ago, Loert said:

One thing I would add to Ludwig's excellent analysis is this: what makes that excerpt particularly special is the two trumpets, particularly the way they are articulated and the way that they play in sixths (i.e. an interval of a sixth apart). The sixth interval, in combination with the descending fifths progression, gives it a kind of "cuteness" and comic effect, which is further emphasised by the relatively quiet dynamics of the trumpets and their low range.

 

For sure, those sixths give it a nice open feel (something Koji Kondo was often very conscious of employing in the olden days to give the limited technology a fuller sound), and the articulations add just the right level of poppy crispness. 

[karelm 2,901]

Ok I know I hear that progression many songs.  I thought it was dueling banjos.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Can any of y'all tell me what time signature(s) this track is in? It has a deceptive four on the floor type beat, but it's more complex than 4/4.

 

 

[HuberSepp 6]

Mostly in 6/4 (4/4 + 2/4) I would say. But not constantly.