i can't figure this one out. Teenage daydream contains the following chords:
A Bm D E F# G
According to to my basic understanding of theory, 2 major chords next to each other are the IV and V so a D and E would indicate the key might be A major....... But while the Bmin fits with that, the F# should be a minor and the G should be a G# diminished. So that doesn't quite work....
But the wisdom of the Internet suggests the key is D major.
if that's right, the E should be minor, F# minor, G major (ok that's ok) A (OK as well) B min is also ok....and there is no C# to be a diminished.
That I don't get at all. Could anyone kindly explain this?
An official Foo liked guitarist since 2024
Comments
Secondly, this is not a diatonic song. In other words the chords are not all taken from the diatonic scale. They are not constructed by harmonising the chords in D major (you are right, the song is in D).
For example the F# is indeed major - it’s called a secondary dominant. It provides a V chord for the Bm, so the F#->Bm is like a proper V-I resolution. Not that the Bm is a I, but the move from F# to Bm is a “perfect cadence”. (He could have played f#m but it gives a better resolution to allow the F# to have a major 3rd). This is a really common secondary dominant - it happens in That’s Life and many many others. He also plays E major not e minor. That is also very common to have a major II chord. Again, not diatonic, but common nonetheless.
Also he modulates temporarily to a section that is in E (well, it is in E, but again not diatonic - it has parallel chords of III, bVII, I, so just parallel major chords of G, D and E. It’s really common in rock just to play parallel major barre chords. Look at all punk. And Smoke on the Water).
Anyway the important thing is, one really can’t rely on a mathematical approach to analysing songs. One has to rely on one’s ear first and foremost; it is far more reliable. You’re correct it’s in D major, it has a main opening section which goes I III vi V II IV I. That’s D, F#(major), Bm, A, E(major), G, D. Only the vi is minor. Then it moves to E, and does that III-bVII-I bit a few times.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Does that make sense?
putting it differently, the diatonic song in D major can be compared to the non diatonic sequence is also in D major.....so 2 songs, both in D major, with fundamentally different chords. How confusing is that?!
If you were a classical pianist, you’d have sheet music that showed a key sig of D major (two sharps, the F# and the C#); and when that F# chord came up, the A would be sharpened to an A#. Just for that bar. Nothing unisual about that, its just a choice to deviate and add some chromatic colour if you’ll pardon the tautology. You just have to get used to knowing what the base case is, and what the exceptions are I guess.
I completely understand your dilemma but it’s one I never faced, because I didn’t come to the world of theory in a cerebral way - I was too young. I came at it from how it sounded, from a purely harmonic and melodic perspective not a mathematical or theoretical perspective. So I have a sort of immediate instinct for it, backed up by a pretty basic but quite solid knowledge of theory that I acquired subsequently. And I think that’s the direction everyone should come at it; don’t let the theoretical bit run away with itself too quickly, otherwise it gets divorced from your natural instinctive understanding of how the thing actually sounds.
So in this case, firstly know it’s in D. Know it categorically and unquestioningly. D is the home of the song, it simply isn’t anywhere else. You don’t need to read or write anything to know that. Then start hearing that the 5th note of the first D chord (the A) slips up to an A# on the 2nd chord (the F# chord). Wonder why that is. Notice that it’s the same thing that happens on That’s Life, Don’t Look Back in Anger, Georgia on my Mind, and hundreds of others, and then notice that they all resolve to the vi chord, and that III-vi is the same as V-i. So that’s why it’s happening. Then learn that it’s called a secondary dominant.
That way you’re coming at it from the viewpoint of how it sounds; not how it’s written. Don’t know if I’ve explained what I mean properly.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Take a song in D major
You can add accidentals for flavour (just because you can, there are no rules)
The fact that the accidental in question is an A# which as the effect of turning the F# from minor to a major
The sequence resolves to III, IV and V chords which stick to the diatonic (base) set of rules
The musical term for this is secondary (because it's the second chord in the sequence?) dominant (?not sure why?)
is is that almost right?ł
1) The song is in D.
2) As part of the move to Bm (the vi chord), he plays a chord with F# at its root.
3) Diatonically that would be a iii chord (small letters, ie f#m)
4) But to make it more effective he plays a III chord, F# major; that is not diatonic, but it sounds good.
The reason it sounds good is because it deploys a ‘secondary dominant’. To understand why it’s called that, you need to understand two things: the names of the chords, and the concept of ‘resolutions’.
Names of the chords
Each note in the major scale has a name; this name also applies to that note’s corresponding chord (the chord with that note as its root).
The name relates to its position in the scale but also to its role. In the major key, the names are:
I - tonic because it’s the TONal centre.
ii - supertonic because it’s above the tonic.
iii - mediant because it’s the middle chord in a triad, halfway between the 1st and 5th note.
IV - subdominant because it’s below the dominant
V - dominant because apart from the tonic it’s the most important chord. It’s not more dominant than the tonic, but it’s the next strongest chord.
vi - sub mediant because it’s the same distance from the tonic as the mediant was, but it’s below not above
vii - leading note because it leads up to the tonic at the top.
There is only one chord called the dominant, and it’s the V chord. It is a really really important chord in western music.
Resolutions
A resolution happens when a chord resolves to another. Usually it resolves to the tonic but doesn’t have to.
The most perfect of all resolutions is the V-I or V-i resolution. It’s a dominant -> tonic resolution, and it’s called the ‘perfect cadence’. It works for major and minor tonics. (Other cadences exist, such as plagal or imperfect cadences, and interrupted cadences, but the perfect cadence gives the strongest resolution. It’s just so solid.)
You can add the 7th note to the V chord (thus making it a dominant 7th chord - now you know why!) like this: V7-I (or V7-i). It’s even more effective than the V-I because of the movements between pairs of the notes over the cadence. In a V-I, the 3rd note of the V is the leading note of the tonic, and slips up to it. The 5th note of the V is the supertonic of the tonic and slips down to the tonic. And in a V7-I, the added 7th note of the V is the 4th note of the tonic and slips down to the 3rd. A bit like a sus4.
The perfect cadence is therefore a major triad moving up a 4th (or down a 5th) to the resolved triad, and if the first chord has a 7th then it’s even better. Only two pairings of chords are a 4th apart with the lower chord as a major triad: the V-I and the I-IV. But only one of those has a flat 7: the V7–I. And as there is only one dominant chord, there is only one perfect cadence, UNLESS you construct a secondary dominant:
Secondary dominants
Although there is only one dominant note (and therefore chord) in the major scale, especially one with a flat 7, there are many pairings that are a 4th apart which could form perfect cadences if only the first chord were the right type. They are:
I-IV (or i-IV in the minor key)
ii-V - as per the ubiquitous ii-V-I
iii-vi
V-I (or V-i) - perfect cadence
vi-ii
These could all be converted to proper perfect cadences just by changing the first chord to a major (and adding a flat 7 if you like) and treating the second chord as a sort of temporary tonic. The first chord is called a secondary dominant because it’s not the REAL, primary dominant. Thus:
I7-IV (this happens in blues - when you move to the IV chord you are basically doing a perfect cadence and resolving to the IV as though it were a temporary tonic.
II-V. Bach does this a lot. Instead of ii-V-I (or ii-V-i) he does II-V-I (or II-V-i).
III-vi. This is the one in the Bowie song we’re talking about).
V-I. Well that’s the actual proper one.
VI-ii. This is common in jazz. It’s an extension of the 251 and is called a 6251.
For all of the above you can add the 7th note, flattening it if it’s not already flattened:
Ib7-IV (the 7th would normally be a major 7th; it needs to be flattened)
II7-V (the 7th is already flat)
III7-vi (the 7th is already flat)
VI7-ii (the 7th is already flat)
There you go
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
is it crazy how saying sentences backwards creates backwards sentences saying how crazy it is?
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Seriously, I now understand that. Using an accidental note you modify a chord to provide a temporary condition known as a secondary dominant to provide a stronger resolution to the next chord..... All in the interest of creating an interesting musical impact.
thanks mate, greatly appreciated- didn't want to get too mathematical about it but simply trying to understand what's going on. I do agree with @pintspiller and @Gassage too- it's about music not maths and aural pleasure!
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
Anyway I agree with gassage, there is something similar between Moonage and Hotel, and it is somehow in the voicing;
Hotel is in Bm, and the only non-diatonic chord is the F#, which is a major V, despite the song being minor; this is actually very common for a minor piece, to have a V rather than a v (which would have been diatonic) - in fact this is what the harmonic scale is founded on - but it’s still noticeable as a sort-of deviation from the diatonic.
Although that is the only similarity, chord-wise, the whole sound of the song does have a certain similarity to the Bowie song; partly because Mr Gassage probably has a bit of perfect pitch, and partly because Bm is the relative of D. Anyhoo, I know what he means.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
one of the most obvious to me is Bird of Paradise and Brothers In Arms. (Is that on acct of the accidental being a flattened fifth? Viz, help me out....)
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
Brothers in Arms soloing seems to be all in natural minor, apart from on the v chord where he plays that really distinctive raised 2 (the minor v chord normally has a flat 2 - it’s based on the phrygian scale basically), which gives the solo a sudden Dorian-esque feel (because the raised 2 on the v chord is the same note as the raised 6 on the minor tonic). Is that the note you mean? It really stands out in his noodles.
Bird of Paradise seems to be mainly natural minor noodlin’.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
That blues symphony one has loads of b5 notes when passing from the 5 to the 4.
Nice tone too
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.