|
Post by B.E. on Dec 4, 2021 2:09:34 GMT
As I listened to At My Piano recently, I made a connection between "God Only Knows" and "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" (and, relatedly, "Wouldn't It Be Nice") that I hadn't made before. I'll cue up videos below, but (essentially) there's one section in each song where the chords change quickly - I suppose, reharmonizing each note of a melody (?). Is this something that Brian had done both before and after Pet Sounds and I just hadn't focused on it before, or is this unique to Pet Sounds? And I'm really referring to the very specific arrangement and feel of these examples. They're purely instrumental, for example. And serve the same purpose.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Dec 5, 2021 3:51:59 GMT
Good observation, B.E. I see what you're stating here, and I perceive this as to where Brian was at the time, creatively. This sort of "patterning" and recurrances of musical themes was all over the SMiLE sessions.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 6, 2021 15:37:57 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the point/question, B.E.. It seems like you're pointing out instances where an instrumental melodic line is accompanied by harmonies or chords that change with each melody note (or beat): is that right?
If so, as a minor point, I don't think that's what you'd really call reharmonization. Reharmonization is when you take the same melody and apply new chords to it. So for example, a melody that goes over a G-C-D7 chord pattern might then be repeated over E-7, A-7, Bdim.
But what I understand you to be saying is indeed a pretty cool and somewhat rare thing in rock music, where chords are often held for up to four measures or so at a time. It is more along the lines of (some) jazz or even serious music, where harmonies are understood to shift more frequently. In fact, the first example ("God Only Knows") is very much like counterpoint.
I don't think the bridge of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" qualifies as that same phenomenon though. Those chords last about a measure apiece with the introductory figure played on top of them. That said, I do think it's one of the greatest compositions in popular music. That section is, if I recall (or at least as I bang it out on piano myself) something like:
Dmaj7 ' ' ' / Gmaj7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / Dmaj7 ' ' ' / Gmaj7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / C7 ' ' ' / (into F again)
Of course one cool thing about that is that the opening figure seems to be in A major when it is played on its own at the intro. But here, the bridge seems to be in D major until that last chord (C7), which is the V7 of the key the verses are in, F major.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 7, 2021 1:08:46 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the point/question, B.E. . It seems like you're pointing out instances where an instrumental melodic line is accompanied by harmonies or chords that change with each melody note (or beat): is that right? Yes, exactly. If so, as a minor point, I don't think that's what you'd really call reharmonization. Reharmonization is when you take the same melody and apply new chords to it. So for example, a melody that goes over a G-C-D7 chord pattern might then be repeated over E-7, A-7, Bdim. OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. But what I understand you to be saying is indeed a pretty cool and somewhat rare thing in rock music, where chords are often held for up to four measures or so at a time. It is more along the lines of (some) jazz or even serious music, where harmonies are understood to shift more frequently. In fact, the first example ("God Only Knows") is very much like counterpoint. Yes. We are on the same page. And I think the instance in "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" is best to identify what I mean, as the same melody is repeated immediately after the section in question but the feel is totally different because a steady rhythm has returned. Whereas it had almost felt like the music stopped (in a sense) and shifted to a more "jarring" (i.e. no steady backbeat) and exciting (more harmonic movement) interlude. The repeat of the melodic line saw the return of the backbeat and percussion, the change in the bass playing, the rhythmic tack piano (?), it then all feels like "ok, we're back to sitting on this chord for a bit, then the next, then the next." I don't think the bridge of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" qualifies as that same phenomenon though. Those chords last about a measure apiece with the introductory figure played on top of them. That said, I do think it's one of the greatest compositions in popular music. That section is, if I recall (or at least as I bang it out on piano myself) something like:
Dmaj7 ' ' ' / Gmaj7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / Dmaj7 ' ' ' / Gmaj7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / B-7 ' ' ' / F#-7 ' ' ' / C7 ' ' ' / (into F again)
Of course one cool thing about that is that the opening figure seems to be in A major when it is played on its own at the intro. But here, the bridge seems to be in D major until that last chord (C7), which is the V7 of the key the verses are in, F major.
Sorry, for the confusion, but I was referring to that short interlude immediately preceding the bridge. (Thanks for the theory, though!) Is there actually no harmony there, is it unison? Still, with my further explanation above, I think you'll see why I mentioned it as a relatedly moment. Moving even further in that direction, I'm tempted to mention the transition between "Gee" and "Heroes and Villains". (I'd also been thinking along similar lines recently in noticing instances of a pausing in music. What got me down that road is watching YouTube reactions to Beatles albums and one or two made the point that the Beatles (as a band) did that often (think of the pause in "Love Me Do", for instance). I couldn't believe I hadn't really noticed that before. Not that it's terribly uncommon or anything, but I just hadn't consciously thought about it (as a characteristic of their songwriting and performance). That said, they did it a LOT! Anyway, I plan on making a thread about that in the future. I've got a long list going!)
|
|
|
Post by jk on Dec 7, 2021 18:38:27 GMT
B.E.: I've been reading this fascinating topic but it's like trying to nail a blob of mercury! The first example that comes to my mind of a BB melody that carries its own chords, so to speak, is the wordless rising passage in "Friends", most particularly at the end, where the instruments follow it up with a mirror-image descent (and some great distortion!). But maybe you don't mean this -- it's very hard to tell!
|
|
|
Post by jk on Dec 12, 2021 10:03:39 GMT
The "pet Sounds-ism" that registers with me first and foremost is Brian's doubling of instruments, most specifically involving the clarinet. It's not the first time -- the melody of "Summer Means New Love" is played by guitar and piano in unison -- but it's much more prevalent on PS.
For example, according to Larry Knechtel in Chuck Granata's book on the album (p. 158 in my copy): "He would use a grand piano, a tack piano, and a Wurlitzer electric piano -- all playing the same thing." Although an ancient practice in orchestral music, it was an entirely new departure in pop and gave rise to sounds and textures that had never been heard before.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 17, 2021 18:56:24 GMT
This might be tangential at best to the original question/point B.E. was making, but it's been going through my mind. If I don't say it, it'll keep going through my mind.
I think the phenomenon in question--the chord changes with each note--is interesting in that it is to some degree a theoretical exercise, a matter of interpretation, more than a singular thing. As I have thought about it, it reminded me of doing harmonic analyses in college for either jazz or classical music.
What I mean is, in any music of any complexity whatsoever, you could call each beat a new chord, if only because the melody or bassline moves. But we generally use the lens of music theory (either formally or more often just the common-sense version we absorb through years of listening to music) to decide when it's a new chord--usually based on whether it is functioning as a new chord--as opposed to just saying each new group of notes is a new chord.
For a simple and familiar example, let's think about the verses of "California Girls." The first two verses would generally be considered to be in B major. The famous bassline is B-F# G#-F# B-F# G#-F# (repeated) as eighth notes. That means you COULD say the chord changes from B to B6/4 (i.e., second inversion, 5th in the bass) to B/G#--which itself is actually just a G#7--and back again. But we don't. We hear it as a B chord, with a loping, simple-walking bassline that emphasizes the root and fifth of that chord.
And the melody could, if we were so inclined, complicate it more. The second beat of the first measure is already outside the chord, a C#. ("Well east" is D# and "coast" is C#.) So on beat two, just using the basics, we have a G# in the bass, a C# in the melody, and a B major chord beneath them both: a chord that includes neither G# nor C#. Do we call it Bsus2/G#, or Badd9/G#, or G#7sus4? Nope. Because that's silly! Anybody familiar with basic popular music would hear that measure as one chord, a B major. The other notes are just passing tones that add color.
But it all occurred to me when I was thinking whether "Wonderful" could fit the description. I decided pretty quickly it doesn't, but it does have more harmonic motion than a chord chart might imply because of the (often contrary...nice touch to make it feel like baroque or classical music) motion in the bass and melody.
Sometimes, though, those kinds of changes actually do make the situation feel like truly different chords, not just superficial ones (e.g. the G#7sus4 above, which is superficially a new chord but obviously not REALLY one!). It's in their function to the piece.
Hopefully that made some sense and was modestly interesting to somebody. Personally I think harmonic analyses are fun, and used to have to do them for school all the time. But as you would expect, it doesn't come up often in everyday life. So when that part of the mind itches, it's fun to scratch it.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 17, 2021 20:57:36 GMT
Kapitan , that makes perfect sense, and is why I initially restricted my inquiry to, essentially, instrumental only interludes (or dedicated sections of songs). And when I used the word "feel" I was pretty much referring to a set of notes "functioning" as a new chord, like you said, but also in a dramatic way that is perfectly in sync with the melody. jk 's "Friends" example is a great one if we widen the net a bit. It's not its own section, and it includes vocals, but that is 100% what I'm talking about. That "ahh" section climaxes "BAM" "BAM" "BAM" "BAM". I imagine there are quite a few examples of Brian doing this sort of thing with the vocal arrangement. At an extreme, think of his a capella pieces. You run into the exact problem you outlined above. Hell, if I can parse it! Anyway, in addition to "God Only Knows", "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", "Wouldn't It Be Nice", and "Friends", there's yet another example on At My Piano that I'd like to suggest: "The Warmth of the Sun". In the original, the effect appears to be entirely contained within the answering harmony vocals of the refrain, the backing plays it straight, and thus too subtle for me to previously identify. But...listen to him play it on piano! This is just what Aimee Nolte was referring to, by the way, hearing how Brian hears his compositions as opposed to how we've heard it. No offense meant, but I kinda get "shmaltzy piano man" vibes from it (and that's largely what I'm talking about in this thread - perhaps I should have used that example sooner). But, in this context, I love it...of course.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 17, 2021 21:12:42 GMT
"The Warmth of the Sun". In the original, the effect appears to be entirely contained within the answering harmony vocals of the refrain, the backing plays it straight, and thus too subtle for me to previously identify. But...listen to him play it on piano! Yes. This is a good example of how jazz musicians differ from rock or blues musicians (in many cases). Jazz musicians are more likely to add contextual chords that could also otherwise just be the same chord for, say, four beats or a couple bars.
Easy example: blues progression.
Simplest form, you might just have the I, IV, and V7, which is what most blues-rock players in a bar band are going to do. But even a lot of more sophisticated blues players will had little turnarounds and such, maybe doing the ii7-V7 of each subsequent chord, so for example, in the final measure of the I chord before the IV chord, you might have iv7 ' I7 ' instead of just I ' ' ' . It's the ii7 of IV, then the V7 of IV, to lead into the IV. Or leading into the V7 chord, you might see someone not just do the ii of V and V of V7, but adding in ii-Vs of ii, and closing out the final bar of the V7 with a turnaround like iii-vi-ii-V7.
That is what I hear Brian doing with his vocal parts a lot of the time. I don't mean those specific changes, but that kind of thing: the voices (or voicings, in instrumental parts sometimes) are not necessary to the big-picture structure, but they are little chord changes to add tension and resolution within the piece. And you can omit them ... it just will lose resolution (in the other sense of the word, not tension-resolution, but detail).
But of course real jazz musicians also know this in their bones and improvise it in groups, which makes it a whole different level. Brian wasn't that kind of musician as a player. But he composed with those ideas, presumably because he'd have heard it from semi-jazz musicians like Gershwin, the Four Freshmen, etc. They weren't really jazz in that they didn't improvise, but they used jazz harmonic structures and changes for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 23, 2021 17:43:05 GMT
I'd like to call joshilynhoisington's attention to this thread. I think maybe she could lend some interesting responses to B.E.'s point/question, or the subject generally.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Dec 28, 2021 21:28:10 GMT
So, yes, I do have some thoughts about this.
I think there are potentially two ways to go about thinking about what we are talking about here. I think the first conceptual umbrella we could discuss would be the idea of harmonic rhythm, which is sort of the ratio of chord changes to time passing in the piece of music. Hymns are often a great example of a low-ratio, fast harmonic rhythm -- the chord changes for every note in the hymn's melody. Likewise, a chorale can be like that too.
But I don't think that's the best way to think about the phenomenon described here, at least not by itself. I think that Brian's music was defined, almost from the very beginning because of his influences, by the jazz-informed idea of chord-melody. Taken at face value, one could see the idea of chord-melody reflected in the 4-part "one chord to a melody note" style writing of a hymn, but I think the "rules" are different. We know that Brian's most formative influence was the Freshmen, and what I'm talking about is their whole thing, really. While there is (or can be) a "melody", it is not elevated in importance over the harmony lines. And that's what they are -- lines. Unlike a hymn, where it is not unusual to see the middle parts essentially sing the same note for the whole hymn, in chord-melody, that doesn't work; it's too static to achieve the characteristic sound.
So what we have are 4 or 5 or 6 separate lines, all moving to different notes every time a melody note makes a move (both melodically and rhythmically.) This is Brian's first musical language. Think about a small section of "The Lord's Prayer" -- the break in IJWMFTT is exactly the same deal, only with clarinets instead of voices.
I think the key to really opening up what made Brian unique is understanding that his whole conception of how music is put together came from singing in this particular style.
At some point I can do a video about this.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Dec 29, 2021 9:55:57 GMT
So, yes, I do have some thoughts about this. I think there are potentially two ways to go about thinking about what we are talking about here. I think the first conceptual umbrella we could discuss would be the idea of harmonic rhythm, which is sort of the ratio of chord changes to time passing in the piece of music. Hymns are often a great example of a low-ratio, fast harmonic rhythm -- the chord changes for every note in the hymn's melody. Likewise, a chorale can be like that too. But I don't think that's the best way to think about the phenomenon described here, at least not by itself. I think that Brian's music was defined, almost from the very beginning because of his influences, by the jazz-informed idea of chord-melody. Taken at face value, one could see the idea of chord-melody reflected in the 4-part "one chord to a melody note" style writing of a hymn, but I think the "rules" are different. We know that Brian's most formative influence was the Freshmen, and what I'm talking about is their whole thing, really. While there is (or can be) a "melody", it is not elevated in importance over the harmony lines. And that's what they are -- lines. Unlike a hymn, where it is not unusual to see the middle parts essentially sing the same note for the whole hymn, in chord-melody, that doesn't work; it's too static to achieve the characteristic sound. So what we have are 4 or 5 or 6 separate lines, all moving to different notes every time a melody note makes a move (both melodically and rhythmically.) This is Brian's first musical language. Think about a small section of "The Lord's Prayer" -- the break in IJWMFTT is exactly the same deal, only with clarinets instead of voices. I think the key to really opening up what made Brian unique is understanding that his whole conception of how music is put together came from singing in this particular style. At some point I can do a video about this.Please do! It's a fascinating perspective that deserves a wider audience and would make a wonderful subject for a future tutorial.
|
|