"In the Key of"

[Cygnus64]

So if they do it once, the whole song is in D, and if they don't do it at all, you would say the song is atonal?

 

I would say the song is some sort of strange and perverse combination of Funeral dirge and sea shanty.

 

You keep asking "what if". There's a reason they did exactly what they did: because it's natural. Take out the implied V, the lick, anything, and just leave it as a IV chord: it's gonna sound weird as hell. That's why they didn't. I assure you, the Van Zant boys weren't sittin around saying "Man, we gotta establish some tonality STAT"! They did the only natural thing possible, because they didn't want to write "Sweet Funeral Home Sea Shantytown".

 

What if they do different things in different defined sections of the song?

 

1. Again, they didn't.

 

2. They could do tone clusters in the chorus for all practical purposes, it won't change much. If they want to change the actual key in mid-song, they would change key mid-song.

 

 

If they did a mix without the synth track,

 

Again........... one really has to understand what music theory is about. It's a horrible name, it should be called "music math". I can only tell you what's there, as that's the entire essence of theory: what's there. There is an F there.

It could just as easily have led to a modulation of one sort or another. What if they transitioned to G on the word "Sally"? (Not an entirely uncommon device.) Would everything up to that point no longer be in the key of F?

 

If they transitioned to G on "Sally", the name of the band would be "The John Cage". If they went to G we wouldn't be discussing the song as it never would have made it out of the studio. They didn't do that for a reason.

 

I'm beginning to think that if music theory can lead you that far astray,

 

There are a lot of smart cookies in this forum. Find one who says I'm incorrect. Difficulty: I'm not. I'm 100% correct. This is what music theory IS. It's math, and I'm giving you straight-up math.

 

it may not be serving its purpose,

 

It can only serve a purpose when it is understood properly. It's purpose isn't to speculate or to say "well they could have done this", it's purpose is to understand what is going on with the music as it is written or played. It comes in very handy with more complex music.

[Michelle ggurl]

AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!

 

Can't we just agree that some people hear it V-IV-I and feel that is acceptable, and some people hear it I-bVII-IV and feel that is acceptable? Can we??

 

I mean, if you're playing this song, and I have, what is really going to happen? If you get sheet music with the chords and melody written, you will play it correctly, right? (Assuming the sheet is correct and you can make necessary adjustments with your ears) If you listen to the track to cop your parts, you will play it correctly, right (assuming one's ear is good enough to pick out parts, let's assume everyone's here is)?

 

The fact that I think of this as a V-IV-I for key (I guess I'm one of those dense people who have played too much jazz, even though I played rock for 20 years before that, 10 of which playing repertoire that has included this song, though I haven't played it in years) doesn't stop me from also hearing it as a plagal cadence; because, you know, it has that sound. It doesn't even really change what I'd play. Whatever judgment that leads you to have of my musicality or perhaps lack thereof, bring it.

[Cygnus64]

AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!

 

Can't we just agree that some people hear it V-IV-I

 

This is where the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket. It doesn't matter how you, I, a dog, or anybody else hears it. One could hear it VI-V-II as far as I'm concerned.

 

If that's the qualification, then the subject is called "Music how I hear it 101". There will be no wrong answers on the test. If we collectively are talking about music theory, than we're not talking about how we hear it, we're talking about what is THERE. Simple fact: it's not a I, and it's not a IV. There are other things going on. I'll put it another way:

 

If you took my music theory class and said it was V-IV-I, you'd get a big fat F. You would also fail if you said I vii IV. If you said it was V-IV-I(sus2) or any other variant of the "I", you'd pass (and the same for the other way). It's not a I and it's not a IV. It has an "A", and it has a lick and various other improv that is not in the "G" chord. It ain't a G chord throughout, and that much is the gospel truth.

 

How you interpret via hearing, feel, life, etc= the human part of us. How you describe what is there= the math part. Math doesn't rely heavily on opinion- 2 plus 2 is often 4. I described exactly what is there. It's the most logical explanation. If others "hear" it differently, more power to them. It has little to do with the theory/analysis of what is there.

 

"Competitions are for Horses"- Bartok.

[AnotherScott]

What if they do different things in different defined sections of the song?

 

1. Again, they didn't.

They did. As I said, in the chorus, they go to a heavily hit C on the way back to the top of the line.

 

If they transitioned to G on "Sally", the name of the band would be "The John Cage". If they went to G we wouldn't be discussing the song as it never would have made it out of the studio.

There are songs that transition to a different key coming out of a bridge. Some even become big hits, like "Living on a Prayer."

 

[torhu]

Cygnus64, thanks for introducing us to the Creationist alternative to music theory

[Cygnus64]

Cygnus64, thanks for introducing us to the Creationist alternative to music theory

 

My pleasure. I would stay and play more, but I gotta write some fancy charts for some fancy symphonies for some fancy $$ using my fancy theory.

[allan_evett]

Ok... Since we're apparently not leaving this one alone, and additional interpretations have emerged, I'll jump back in..

 

So far, what resonates for me is Kanker's observation about chords, and their diminshed importance ( Yeah, feeling too lazy to use the thesaurus.. ). When I do free improv, sometimes there's a strong tonal center, other times not. That can change on a moment's notice; either with a new section in the piece, or within a repeated 'progression' - especially with melodic changes and added/removed chord tones from the harmonic voicing.

 

The point Cygnus made about the Dominant implications in the guitar riff reinforces my hearing D as the tonal center. But then again that piano riff over the G chord (the guitar riff being absent there) establishes G pretty strongly - but that can fit just as easily over a IV or I....

 

We just might want a 'Theo of Theory' for this one.. Then again, that could easily move the discussion into epic territory. Could make a dandy topic for a graduate thesis, though. Speaking of which, I am going to run this one by my director at CSU. He's a concert level pianist who teaches theory, and has been a rock keyboardist as well. We've had some interesting theory discussions - some of his answers to my questions surprised me, and offered a few different perspectives from what I learned in school.

 

 

[iLaw]

There are always two ways to answer a music theory question:

 

1. The right way, and

 

2. Cygnus's way.

 

.

.

.

 

AND THEY'RE THE SAME WAY!

 

 

Larry.

 

[Cygnus64]

The point Cygnus made about the Dominant implications in the guitar riff reinforces my hearing D as the tonal center. But then again that piano riff over the G chord (the guitar riff being absent there) establishes G pretty strongly -

 

Notice in my version and the store-bought version that the A is after where the piano lick is. I think that adds confusion to some of this-it's not symmetrical. The implied V acts as a pickup, not a measure. If it's thought of as a Tonic chord, it's a tonic with a second in it. Lynyrd Skynyrd: Avant Garde art rockers.

Speaking of which, I am going to run this one by my director at CSU.

 

Feel free to print any of my comments in this thread and give them to him, especially those about Baba O' Riley. I'll say it again to be absolutely clear:

 

The tonality of Baba O'Riley is established 2 minutes and 34 seconds into the song.

 

Keep in mind the title. "Riley" is a tribute to Terry Riley, one of the pioneers in minimalism. In minimalism, things move very....slowly. Yes, ladies and germs, this is the first rock n'roll minimalist song. Also keep in mind that this is assumedly the only popular song in rock that does this. It's a highly unique song, so don't be askin' me if Bon Jovi establishes tonality 2:34 into one of his songs.

 

PS- the violin at the end of Baba O'Riley? It's not. It's a viola.

[Cygnus64]

OK Kids, it's pop quiz time. Take out your pencils and eyes forward. NO CHEATING or you'll stay after class.

 

Beethoven Symphony #1 in C major. There, you already know the key. The question: Where is the tonality established?

 

[video:youtube]

[AnotherScott]

I'll say it again to be absolutely clear:

 

The tonality of Baba O'Riley is established 2 minutes and 34 seconds into the song.

If a human can tell that Baba is in the key of F within the first two minutes, but music theory doesn't/can't show it, does that mean that the humans are wrong, or that music theory is incomplete?

 

Similarly, one can listen to just the chorus of BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" -- I don't think any of us would doubt that the chorus is starting on the tonic (even if played to us out of context of the rest of the song), but if I understand your posts correctly, music theory would say that the chorus is atonal (at least if taken out of the context of the rest of the song).

 

It's that apparent disconnect that I was trying to get at. I thought the point of music theory was to be able to understand and communicate about what people hear. If instead it tells us things like, "you may think you hear a key in that song or passage, but really it has no key," then it sounds to me like music theory is describing and defining its own world rather than describing what we hear. So maybe I am simply misunderstanding what music theory is and isn't intended to be able to do.

[Cygnus64]

If a human can tell that Baba is in the key of F within the first two minutes, but music theory doesn't/can't show it, does that mean that the humans are wrong, or that music theory is incomplete?

 

Simply put, the human is making a guess. Obviously, one is basically assaulted with F for 2 minutes. Yeah, it's F alright. If I heard Baba for the first time and someone cut it off 2:32 in, I would say "It's in F". Theory is about function and relationships. In this case, it's the relationship between dominant and tonic that is finally established 2:34 in. As I said, this is very unique. Most pop songs do it in 4 bars tops.

 

Here's the best example I have- Equate it to cooking:

 

I pull out a cake pan. "He's making a cake".

I pull out sugar. "He's making a cake".

I pull out yeast. "He's making a cake".

I pull out water. "He's making a cake".

I don't pull out flour. "Woah, he's making moonshine".

 

You didn't have all the information, you didn't have all the ingredients. That's theory. Once I pull out the cake batter- game over. The cake batter is the "dominant chord" in that example, it means no turning back. Until I do, it could go another way, even though it is EXTREMELY unlikely that it would. That whole 2:33 beginning in Baba could have been a setup for.... D minor (with a lot of 7ths). Trust me, it would work. Only at 2:34 are we absolutely told that it wasn't a setup.

 

Similarly, one can listen to just the chorus of BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" -- I don't think any of us would doubt that the chorus is starting on the tonic (even if played to us out of context of the rest of the song), but if I understand your posts correctly, music theory would say that the chorus is atonal (at least if taken out of the context of the rest of the song).

 

If one takes something out of context, they create a new context. In that case, tonality is established at the end of the chorus because they move to a dominant before moving on. Yes, I would know in 2 seconds what key the chorus is in and wouldn't have to wait til the end, trust me. At the same time, the "technical" place is right before the end of the chorus. If they went on, they could easily go to a minor key, so it's the dominant at the end that gives you the information that they won't.

 

I thought the point of music theory was to be able to understand and communicate about what people hear.

I think the Skynyrd is a great example: we all can hear things differently. Another good example is "Oh Holy Night". Sounds like it begins on beat one: it begins on beat 3. "Oh Holy" is actually a pickup! Music theory encompasses everything, from notation to "music math" on and on. Theory is math: it doesn't guess. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Oh wait, that's the Terminator, my mistake.

[MoodyBluesKeys]

Thanks - you just gave me a new name for the prof. that taught the music theory classes I took - the Terminator. This individual had honed the fine art of making explanations that were completely incomprehensible. He was also a master of Shenkerian analysis. And yes - he felt no pity, no remorse, no fear (but I was so very, very glad when the course did finally stop).

 

Our textbook was "Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music", by Robert Gauldin. It LOOKED like English, I could swear all the words could be found in an English dictionary. However, any attempt to actually understand a paragraph of Gauldin's writings was an exercise in futility.

 

If I had not managed to find a copy of "Tonal Harmony", by Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne, I would never have been able to finish the two semesters I took. The second two semesters, there were not enough studens for the class, which reduced the prof's hours enough that he quit. My understanding is that the college now has an instructor that not only knows, but can also teach. (This individual was extremely knowledgable, would probably have been a good instructor in a graduate level, but was unable to communicate to first year students).

 

And no, I'm NOT going to sit down with the music to SHA and analyze it like it was a Bach chorale. I will just sit back and let the erudite pontificate with opposing positions

 

[Cygnus64]

Here is another great example. Play it, chorale-like, on a keyboard and then say what key it is in. It's a, umm, err, Bach Chorale. Yeah, a Bach Chorale.

 

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/KabalCD/chorale.jpg

[CEB]

The limits of the most modern of musical theory conventions are super exceeded by the genius of Skynyrd and the Honkettes. ... but Sweet Home Alabama is in D.

[icarusi]

Thoughts?

I'd go for the minimum info to get the job done. Usually it's key=scale then major or minor. Primarily modal stuff would usually get a specific mention because key/scale and major/minor only, could be misleading in context.

 

Keys players have the advantage. They (often) have *all* the notes without duplicates (on a single manual).

[Eric Jx]

[video:youtube]

 

Cygnus64,

 

Take the above song. The whole song is 2 chords, I hear it as I-IV-I-IV and so on.

 

Are you claiming that music theory would consider this song atonal?

[BluMunk]

[video:youtube]

 

Cygnus64,

 

Take the above song. The whole song is 2 chords, I hear it as I-IV-I-IV and so on.

 

Are you claiming that music theory would consider this song atonal?

 

 

No no no . . . it's V-I-V-I and so on! That song is in E!

[Cygnus64]

 

Cygnus64,

 

Take the above song. The whole song is 2 chords, I hear it as I-IV-I-IV and so on.

 

Are you claiming that music theory would consider this song atonal?

 

I'd say the tonality was established in 2 measures. The song doesn't begin on "I", it actually begins with a plagal cadence. clonk

 

Remember gang: It's not the chords themselves, it's their function. This song isn't I IV I IV, it's IV(inverted) I IV IV I IV IV I IV. It's "Brown Sugar" by the Stones, if it was I IV it would be "Imagine". In Imagine, the tonality is established at "You Hooo" because it's a Dominant. In this song, the tonality is established from the start because the first chord is acting like a dominant, even though it isn't.

 

If this song had the chords like Imagine and never changed I IV, than I'd say it never established tonality (until perhaps the end). In other words, if one played the first 4 measures of Imagine over and over, it would never establish tonality until perhaps the last chord. Bonus: if the last chord was IV, it would freak you out. Would that make it "atonal"? Well, it doesn't make it Schoenberg.

 

Here's a dictionary definition of "atonal" clonk

 

The basic characteristic of atonal music is the absence of a unifying correlation between tones and the main center of a key, the tonic;

 

This is exactly what I've been saying. What's the best way to get a tonic? A dominant before it. What's the next best way? A chord that acts like one.

[BluMunk]

OK Kids, it's pop quiz time. Take out your pencils and eyes forward. NO CHEATING or you'll stay after class.

 

Beethoven Symphony #1 in C major. There, you already know the key. The question: Where is the tonality established?

 

At about 0:48? Trick question?

[Cygnus64]

OK Kids, it's pop quiz time. Take out your pencils and eyes forward. NO CHEATING or you'll stay after class.

 

Beethoven Symphony #1 in C major. There, you already know the key. The question: Where is the tonality established?

 

At about 0:48? Trick question?

You got it. Not a trick question, just an example of a wandering opening that finally finds it's way courtesy of V I.

[MAJUSCULE]

I kind of abandoned this thread when Skynyrd took the helm, but I just wanted to say that my music theory class extended the Circle of Fifths to triple sharps and flats today. Six enharmonic keys for each hour on the clock. I love music school.

[JeffLearman]

 

Cygnus64,

 

Take the above song. The whole song is 2 chords, I hear it as I-IV-I-IV and so on.

 

Are you claiming that music theory would consider this song atonal?

 

I'd say the tonality was established in 2 measures. The song doesn't begin on "I", it actually begins with a plagal cadence. clonk

 

Remember gang: It's not the chords themselves, it's their function. This song isn't I IV I IV, it's IV(inverted) I IV IV I IV IV I IV. It's "Brown Sugar" by the Stones, if it was I IV it would be "Imagine". In Imagine, the tonality is established at "You Hooo" because it's a Dominant. In this song, the tonality is established from the start because the first chord is acting like a dominant, even though it isn't.

 

If this song had the chords like Imagine and never changed I IV, than I'd say it never established tonality (until perhaps the end). In other words, if one played the first 4 measures of Imagine over and over, it would never establish tonality until perhaps the last chord. Bonus: if the last chord was IV, it would freak you out. Would that make it "atonal"? Well, it doesn't make it Schoenberg.

 

Here's a dictionary definition of "atonal" clonk

 

The basic characteristic of atonal music is the absence of a unifying correlation between tones and the main center of a key, the tonic;

 

This is exactly what I've been saying. What's the best way to get a tonic? A dominant before it. What's the next best way? A chord that acts like one.

I'm missing something here.

 

I like your two examples: Imagine (CFCF) is clearly (to my ear) in C (I IV I IV), whereas Brown Sugar (GCGC) sounds like it's in C (V I V I). And the role of the dominant in establishing the tone center is clear in these two examples.

 

Lover is BEBE.

 

If it's in B, the E is IV, so it's I IV I IV -- and that's how I hear it. The melody definitely centers around B (maybe that doesn't matter to theorists, but it sure matters to my ear).

 

If it's in E, the B is V, so it's V I V I like BluMonk says.

 

Now if you say it's IV I IV I, then I'd go for that if you're saying it the way jazz/blues folks often do, ending on the beginning. Is that what you mean? But it contradicts your statement "The song doesn't begin on I."

 

If that's NOT what you mean, then how can a B possibly be a IV chord to E?

 

Please explain/clarify. Thanks!

 

BTW, I can support my case that it sounds like it's in B. (Note that I'm saying "sounds like" because I don't know the rules, but if the rules have little correspondence to what something sounds like, then maybe they aren't terribly useful in certain cases.) If after the E I play an F# before "resolving" to B, it sounds natural and fits the song (only, it has more resolution than the lyrics and tone of the song seem to want -- it's good they left it out). But harmonically, it works. It's a missing chord that matches the love who's missing in action. :-)

 

If I interpret it like BluMonk does, the B serves the dominant role, but to me it just doesn't feel like a dominant resolving to a tonic. I don't have a good argument against it, though, and I can imagine people interpreting it that way and making it work for them. But in just about any crowd, I'd call this in B.

 

BTW, it does sound like the E is trying to act a bit like a dominant, or at least, there's a dominant implied in there. There's no D implied in Brown Sugar after the C before going back to G, it's definitely different.

[JeffLearman]

In any case, I feel that applying absolutes to music is often a waste of time. It might be the correct answer in theory, but in practice -- in reality -- things often aren't cut and dried. Any rule system *tries* to explain reality, but always falls short. In fact, there's a famous proof (Goedel's theorem) that implies that if you try to divide everything (in math) into categories, there will always be things don't fit in any category -- even if one of the categories is "none of the above". It's true for any "sufficiently powerful formal system", and in formal systems, things are far easier to categorize than in natural systems (stuff that happens in the world, rather than stuff you imagine based on the rules).

 

Music theory probably isn't a "sufficiently powerful formal system" in the manner meant above, so the theorem doesn't apply to music theory per se. But IMHO it applies to *music*.

 

The rules of music theory seem to me to be a combination of two things: physics and psychology. The physics part, while complicated, is pretty well understood. The psychological part ... well, that's left to the student as an exercise. :-)

[BluMunk]

(To be clear, I don't think that Lover is in E . . . that song is in B, even if it's for reasons I don't understand . . . I was just being funny with my V I V I comment).

[Cygnus64]

I'm missing something here.

 

I like your two examples: Imagine (CFCF) is clearly (to my ear) in C (I IV I IV), whereas Brown Sugar (GCGC) sounds like it's in C (V I V I).

 

I wasn't talking about key. I mentioned Brown Sugar because it doesn't begin on Tonic (and it begins on beat 2), that's all. I could have been more clear, sorry.

 

Lover is BEBE.

 

If you listen to the first guitar riff, it's not in B (The chord. The song IMO is in B). The top note of the riff is G#, which aint in B. What makes it interesting is that riff/chord begins on beat 2 (as does Brown Sugar.) The G# to F" acts as a mini-resolution right at the beginning of the tune. It's not I IV, it's

 

mini-res I IV mini-res I IV etc.

 

If it were I IV I IV, we probably wouldn't be discussing it as it would be too uninteresting to release.

 

your statement "The song doesn't begin on I."

 

Correct, it doesn't. It has a G# in the guitar, and that doesn't spell I. It could be a inverted IV or a I with a 6, I didn't listen very carefully but it doesn't matter. The guitar riff says that it doesn't begin with a true Tonic chord.

 

In any case, I feel that applying absolutes to music is often a waste of time. It might be the correct answer in theory, but in practice -- in reality -- things often aren't cut and dried.

 

I've been hearing Sweet Home Alabama for 30-40 years. Never thought about the chords, structure, key etc until this thread. Theory is for the classroom. It can come in very handy with complex stuff. As for actually performing Skynyrd, theory has very little purpose. Most of it is natural at a certain level, anyone who has grown up hearing Western music already knows about this stuff, even though they might not be able to geektalk it.

[torhu]

If you listen to the first guitar riff, it's not in B (The chord. The song IMO is in B). The top note of the riff is G#, which aint in B. What makes it interesting is that riff/chord begins on beat 2 (as does Brown Sugar.) The G# to F" acts as a mini-resolution right at the beginning of the tune. It's not I IV, it's

 

mini-res I IV mini-res I IV etc.

A B6 (or B6/9 if you want to include the C# that's also there) is a not an unusual tonic chord. I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than that.

[Cygnus64]

A B6 (or B6/9 if you want to include the C# that's also there) is a not an unusual tonic chord.

 

Except it's not the tonic chord. The next chord is.

[AnotherScott]

I have the same feeling you do, Jeff. Theory is clearly very good at explaining itself... that is, it has devised a set of rules, and its own exercises obviously lead you to the conclusions that they have designed those exercises to lead you to... but that doesn't seem to necessarily always lead you to the answer that matches perception. If music existed first and the theory was then devised and applied to help understand that music, I'm not sure I see the value in being able to "prove" a song is in key X (or in no key at all) if, subjectively, it appears to be in key Y. Then it seems that music theory is only proving its own premises, and not describing the reality of whet we are subjectively experiencing (to the extent that "subjective" and "reality" isn't an oxymoron to begin with).

 

There are plenty of songs without V chords that don't seem subjectively ambiguous as to key. A two chord song was mentioned above... there are a numerous 2-chord songs. Another that comes to mind is Grazing in the Grass, where the two chords are a whole step apart (not counting an occasional passing chord in-between)... heck, there are even songs that have just one chord (like Pink's Get This Party Started). Yet the keys seem clear.

 

But then, I don't understand some of the stuff Cygnus has posted so it is very possible that I'm missing something.

 

Edit: and I see on a subsequent post that he talks about it being more useful for complicated music... maybe that's part of the issue as well.

 

[Cygnus64]

There are plenty of songs without V chords that don't seem subjectively ambiguous as to key.

 

The technical phrase for this is "common sense". There's a time for fancy book-lernin, and a time for good ol' reality. Neither is correct or incorrect, they exist in tandem. If you ask anyone to play "Lover" in B, not even the most nerdy Poindtexter will say "But, But, I can't find a dominant and I'm confused, help me". That's not theory, that's being an idiot.

 

Theory is just the math behind this stuff. You don't need to know that Blue + Yellow make Green to pick out the color green, it's only the technical mumbo-jumbo behind it. I know basically nothing about cars, but I know if I put gas in the lil hole on the side, the car seems to run. "Car theory" would explain intenal combustion engines, "music theory" explains the technical aspects of music. I don't know car theory but drive a car very well, and someone can play music very well without the math behind it. It's talent and mainly instinct.