Pink Floyd Progressions I (Comfortably Numb)

viz

Danny1969 said:

I would say the Doctors part is in B minor and Pinks part D major, least that's how I hear it

That's exactly what it is.

mike_l

I also find the DADA-CGCG section, being quite bright makes the Bm-A-G-F#-Em section sound darker, and (for want of a better word) heavier

ThePrettyDamned

mike_l said:

I also find the DADA-CGCG section, being quite bright makes the Bm-A-G-F#-Em section sound darker, and (for want of a better word) heavier

I've always heard it as being a heavy progression - it almost pushes the listener down, especially on that descending bass line.  

Gassage

By the way, for those seeking the correct delay settings for this, on both the PULSE version and the Gdansk it is 600ms on the main delay, with 6 repeats, and there's a 150ms one repeat thickening delay placed on it before the 600ms delay on PULSE.

SunDial

Can anyone here explain given that the key is in D major (Relative B minor) how come the C chord during the chorus 'fits'? It would be a flatted 7 in the key of D major, yet the C chord sounds great during the chorus of Comfortably Numb, and not off at all. If anyone can please explain this that would be greatly appreciated.

mike_l

The song has modulated to a C briefly in the chorus section.

The D-A-D-A is from Bminor /Dmajor which moves down by 2 semi-tones. So the intervals are the same.

SunDial

Can you explain that in chord formula? So D-A = I and V  yet C is not in the chord formula of the D key, so how can that work?

viz

@sundial The whole song is in B Minor not D Major, so you're right; the chorus first modulates temporarily to D major - the relative major as you say - and then progresses to C major (though this is actually G major - I'll explain later), and then to A, then weaves back to D; then ultimately back to Bm. These are indeed modulations, because, as you rightly say, the C natural is not in the key of D major (it would have to be C# to be in the same key as D major). As it's a modulation, the C chord isn't trying to fit into the D/A; we've modulated to a different key. On the other hand, for a modulation genuinely to qualify as such, the piece really has to 'establish' itself in the new key. It's probably best to think of the Bm to D switch as a real modulation, and the D to the C as a 'mini-modulation'. Because if you take a step back, seeing as the chorus starts and ends on D, you could think of it as being entirely in D, with some deviations. It's a bit like if you're walking northwards from London to Cambridge on the M11 and halfway up you decide to take a small deviation and head left, westwards towards Oxford for 2 minutes, then you beat your way back onto the M11 and carry on. Now, you couldn't really say you changed the whole thing and were suddenly on a walk to Oxford. You just deviated for a bit. That's like the C/G part. Oxford is a bit like Cambridge, but slightly lower in quality. So the C/G part resembles the D/A part, but as a mere echo or shadow of the strident D/A, and it is soon forgotten as the listener is brought firmly back the the true intent - that final D. Before ultimately resting again finally on the REAL destination, that forsaken, desolate Bm, or Hull.

Interestingly, although the C/G C/G part is a shadow of the D/A D/A part, and it's convenient to say it's in C at that point, it's not actually quite that simple. Now, the D/A D/A part is of course in D. We know that - the chorus starts and ends on D, the solo starts with that awesome bell-like top F#, which is the 3rd note of D, emphasising the fact we've moved into a Major key. In no way is that D/A part in A major, with that first note being the 6th, that would just make no musical sense. And anyhow, the 2nd note of the solo is G, which is in key of D, but not in the key of A.

 

However the C/G C/G part is not actually in C. It's in G. You can tell this by listening to the ebb and flow of the music - the 'weighting' of the music. During the D/A part, the D is the tonic (the I), and the A is the dominant (the V). The dominant A (V) is the unstable chord and it 'resolves' to the stable tonic D (I). Dominant chords always tend to lead up to the tonic, which is why V-I is such an effective resolution. The 3rd note in the dominant chord (in this case the C# of the A major), is the 7th note of the D chord, so the A leads up to it. In fact if you sing A, B, C# .... D! landing on the D at the point of resolution, you can see how settled it is. It's called the 'perfect cadence'. BUT another effective resolution is the IV-I resolution. It's called the 'plagal cadence'. It moves from the Sub-dominant, down to the tonic. This is what's happening in the C/G part. The C is the IV, and the G is the I (temporarily, for that modulation). Unlike in the D/A section where the first of the 2 chords is the leader; in the C/G section, it's the second of the two chords. It's a bit like this:

D/A: Statement, question?

D/A: Statement, question?

C/G: Question, statement,

C/G: Question, statement.

 If you listen again, you will see that in the C/G part, the more forceful chord of the two is the G. And of course, in the cases where the chorus part is repeated - like when he sings "when I was a boy", we move from the C/G part, which is in G, back to the D/A part, which is in D again, and that cadence is another plagal cadence, because the G is the (IV) of D (I). At other times, the C/G part doesn't return to the D/A, but lands on an A chord, on its wending way back to the chorus's ending on D.

 

 So, the modulations in summary are:

 

Verses:

in B minor: Bm A G (passing note F#m) Em ... Bm (I - VII - VI - (passing note F#m) - IV ... I)

 

Chorus:

The part in D ... A  (I ... V)

The part in G: C ... G (IV ... I)

The A chord: A ... then a short passing chord - G first inversion, so with B at the bottom (I ...VII)

Another C/G modulation, again in G but starting on a C: C ... G (IV ...I)

Final chord of the chorus, in D (I)

 

mike_l

@viz ; have a well earned wisdom

Although I must say the comparrison between Cambridge and Oxford threw me a bit. I got banned from Oxford for raising the tone of the place...........

viz

Ha

SunDial

@ viz awesome explanation. Last night I did some research on Modulation, and came to the conclusion that indeed it modulates to the G key, emphasizing the IV chord which is a C in the key of G. And here is the kicker, I guess this works because the G chord is also the IV of the D key. So the G chord is shared by both the key of D and G.

One thing I now understand is that there can be chord formulas for minor keys as well as major keys. I always thought that Bm was the VI of the D key. But I take it that you see Bm as the I? If so, how do you formulate a chord formula around a minor key, if you don't treat it as the VI, or aeolian of the relative major?

mike_l

@SunDial ; Yep, you can have a chord formula for minor key's as well as major keys.

Using D major  you have D Em F#m G A Bm C#diminished D

Starting from Bm you have Bm C#Dim D Em F#m G A Bm, so the same chords, just a different starting/finishing place.

viz

Wisdom Mike. Yep as I said right at the beginning, the fact as to whether a song is in a major or minor key is pretty much the most important thing about a piece - as important to a piece as the question of whether a child is male or female is to the child, and arguably more important than the key itself. I can't think of anything more important about a piece than its key signature, it is as fundamental as it gets.

Major pieces and minor pieces are both as valid as each other, and if you take 2 pieces, one in E Major and another in E minor, it makes as little sense to say the one in E minor is somehow actually in its relative key G Major, as it would be to say the that one in E major is actually in its relative minor, C# minor.

For a piece in E major the convention is to call the E chord the I chord, or the i chord in the case of a piece in E minor. But most people stick with capitals, because it's taken as read that all agree what the key signature of the piece is and whether it's major or minor to start with because it's obvious by the sharps or flats in the key signature. It runs contrary to all music theory to call the E in the E minor piece the VI.

Bm IS the VI chord of D major, but only if the piece is in D major. And D major is the III chord of Bm, but only if the piece is in Bm.

viz

And by the way, you're not restricted to the Aeolian or the Ionian scales. The I chord could be the Dorian scale, as in the case of Greensleeves (which is often described as the II of the Ionian, but can also be a root scale in its own right). Or it could be the Mixolydian scale as in the case of Led Zep's Rock and Roll (which is often described as the V of Ionian, but can also be a root scale in its own right). Or it could be the Acoustic scale, which is also the IV mode of the melodic minor scale but can also be a root scale in its own right, such as in the case of the Simpsons.

In the case of Greensleeves, the backing chords are I, VII, I, V Hindu scale (like the Aeolian, but with a sharp 3rd, so thus breaking away from the strict notes in the scale, which is why it sounds so haunting) / I, VII, I, V Hindu, I.

which, if played in G minor which is the original key, is:

G Dorian, F Ionian, G Dorian, D Hindu /
G Dorian, F Ionian, G Dorian, D Hindu, G Dorian.

SunDial

When you say the root in its own right, do you mean new chord formulations can be made which differ from the traditional Greek Modes?

For example: Mixolydian is considered the V, but I take it when you say that you can take the root in its own right to mean that now you can make the Mixolydian the I.

But does this change the sound and chord formulations making the Mixolydian which is traditionally a V into a I?

viz

Well the new chord formations don't differ from the greek modes, but yes to everything else. Because if you play a song rooted in any of the 7 scales in the diatonic family, the triad chords of those 7 notes will all be based on the 7 diatonic modal scales.

So if you want to play Norwegian Wood by the Beatles, which is in E Mixolydian (E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D, E - notice the D natural, not the D# which would have been in E Ionian), the chord formations would be:

E major: E, G#, B
F# minor: F#, A, C#
G# diminished: G#, B, D
A major: A, C#, E
B minor: B, D, F#
C# minor: C#, E, G#
D major: D, F#, A

The above chords are the triads taken from the correct diatonic modal scale of each starting note. Mixolydian is a scale, and so the first triad, in E, is taken from the Mixolydian scale. The next triad, F# minor, is taken from the next mode, the Aeolian scale. After Aeolian comes Locrian, so the G# triad is taken from the Locrian scale and is therefore G# diminished. Then Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian and Lydian. Same modes, same sequence, just different starting point. It works because the notes in that E Mixolydian scale are different from the notes in E Ionian - they have a flattened 7th. So when you come to the 3rd triad, the G# triad, the flattened note is now the 5th, so it's G# DIMINISHED, taken from the Locrian scale, not G# minor taken from Phrygian, as it would have been were Norwegian Wood to have been writtem in E Ionian. If you have a piano you can easily cycle through these triads by starting on G Mixolydian, because G Mixolydian (being the 5th mode of C Ionian) has no sharps or flats, so all the starting notes, and triads, will be white notes.

There are however 65 scale families other than the Diatonic family of 7 Greek modes, for example the Persian scale family, or the Hungarian, or the Hungarian minor, or the Enigmatic, or the Harmonic minor, or the Harmonic major, or the Melodic minor, or or or. Each has 7 modes, ie 7 unique scales (so in the universe there are 462 available unique heptatonic scales - 11 factorial divided by 6 factorial x 5 factorial). And you can take any of the scales, write a piece in it, and the triads will all be 1,3,5 chords taken from that scale's modal family.

For example take the 4th mode of the Persian major scale, in A. Its notes are: A Bb C D# E F G# A. Imagine writing a song with that scale as the root of the song. So its triads would be:

A minor: A C E
Bb: Bb D# F (no idea what to call that - Bb aug 3rd?)
C maj augmented 5th: C E G#
D#: D# F A (no idea what to call that - D# dim 3rd dim 5th?)
E major diminished 5th: E G# Bb
F major: F A C
G#: G# Bb D# (no idea what to call that - G# dim 3rd?)

Now that's broken clearly away from the greek scales. But it's a perfectly reasonable scale to use - check it:

SunDial

Ah I see, so you can sort of make the Mixolydian the root, but still pretend it is the V rather then the I if you are used to that. For instance, I to II is a major to a minor, but it is the same thing still as if you had pretended the I to be the V and it had gone from V to VI. Basically the same chords, just you are putting tonal emphasis on the root.

Ok so when you start to break away from the greek modes, that is where things start to get interesting. So that means that you are no longer following the traditional chord formulas of: I ii iii IV V vi vii(diminished) but can now create completely new chord formulations depending on the modes and scales you are using.

Now out of curiosity, is it possible to modulate from the greek modes into these more exotic scales  and still have them sound harmonious?  And also, if there are so many different scales, each with their 7 modes and 7 different chord formulations, why do you think most songs follow the greek modes? I am going to try experimenting with these different scales and attempt to see the different chord formulations for each one.

viz

Sorry Branshen for the biggest thread hijack in history!

@sundial - Well sort of, but there's no pretending. It's very easy to be swayed by the stranglehold that Ionian and Aeolian have on western music. You ask why most songs follow the greek modes - well it's only really western music that does. They're entrenched in our musical system. Eastern music doesn't, in fact some eastern music doesn't even have 12 semitones. But we have songs like Doe a Deer, that couldn't be more reinforcing of Ionian as THE root of all music if it tried; the first music we hear in childhood is Ionian (Humpty Dumpty, Polly put the kettle on, Happy Birthday, Frere Jacques, Hickory Dickory Dock, Little Bo Peep; you name it, it's in Ionian). We name Ionian as the "first mode" of the Diatonic scale family with every other scale referenced back to it; we even implicitly mean Ionian and Aeolian when we say major and minor, and when we say the relative minor, we mean the Aeolian VI to the Ionian I, even though Dorian is also the relative minor of Lydian, and Phrygian is the relative minor of Mixolydian.

But referring to Ionian as the I is only an arbitrary convention, probably driven because it is such a pleasing scale, with its happy 3rd and 6th, its perfect 4th and 5th and its natual leading note 7th. (Actually when the ecclesiastical modes were selected for Gregorian Chant, they didn't even include Ionian or Aeolian. They had the 4 modes Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian, and the 4 hypomodes (though hypolydian is quite close to Ionian hahaha! but that's for another time); Ionian and Aeolian came later.)

The convention of Ionian as being the I is no less a convention than North being up and South being down, or Greenwich being the start and end of the timezone system. We in England think of Paris as being ahead by 1 hour and New York being behind by 5 hours. But in Paris, they see us as 1 hour behind and New York as 6 hours behind. They don't somehow pretend they are at 0 whilst knowing they are actually at -1. For them, they are actually at 0. And Australians don't think they live upside down. It's all relative to your viewpoint. And it's the same with Mixolydian in Norwegian Wood. It isn't pretending to be I; it actually is I, because the song is written in Mixolydian.

I think it's easiest to think of Dorian in these cases because there are some really classic songs written in it. Greensleeves is one; What shall we do with a drunken sailor is another. In Drunken Sailor, Dorian is the I (or i); the next chord is the Ionian (the VII). Dorian isn't the II.

Lots of songs modulate from one scale family to another. A good example is Gates of Babylon by Rainbow. It's written in the Freygish scale of E (which also happens to be the 5th mode of the A harmonic minor scale, and indeed the very last chord actually settles on that A minor, so maybe it's actually in A harmonic minor all the way through! Who knows. Anyway, the majority of it is in E Freygish); but then at 2:47 it suddenly hops right out of the Harmonic Minor family and into A Aeolian which is obviously in the Diatonic family. It makes for a really stark strong chorus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHCdCbTxypU

 

 

 

 

SunDial

If you listen to that Rainbow song, it almost has a dissonant eery quality to it. It seems to me that the human ear was not
necessarily wired for scales which have too many flats (such as the Super Locrian) because there is no resolve which the diatonic
scales obviously contain.

But this boggles my mind, because if there are as many modal combinations as you say " (so in the universe there are 462 available unique heptatonic scales - 11 factorial divided by 6 factorial x 5 factorial)" it would appear to me that the amount of chord combinations are nearly infinite.

With that being so, notice how the ear tends to not make a melody of scales that diverge too much from the greek modes. A lot of the exotic scales sound atonal and unpleasing to my ear. And many start to just sound chromatic and unresolving. This seems very strange to me given how many unlimited chord formulas and combinations there are. It's as if the human ear can only appreciate a very narrow band. Maybe if we were space aliens or a different species, we could appreciate all these different combinations more naturally.

Cacofonix

viz said:

Great thread. Well if I were to analyse it, I would look at it like this: firstly I would say the song is in Bm not D major, but indeed it switches to the relative major (D) temporarily for the chorus, which is why that section sounds so good - it's a sudden, optimistic change of gear, caused in the storyline by the drugs working, before sinking back into the minor root for the 2nd verse (or the fade out solo). In my view it's pretty important to determine correctly the 'sex' of the piece, that it's in the minor, Bm, rather than in a major key, otherwise the whole dark and depressing morose nature of it, lifted temporarily by a couple of optimistic relief sections, but ultimately doomed to a soaring though morbidly maniacal ending, is lost.

So if you take a step back and look at it in its entirety, it goes like this:
- Bm verse, very morose
- Bm verse, very morose
- D modulation section (relief from despair, caused by drugs, but only temporary; repeated and then repeated again for the solo)
- Bm verse, extremely morose especially after the relief of the modulation
- Another D modulation, cruelly optimistic because this time you know for sure it won't end here in happiness
- Revert inexorably to the Bm section for fade out.

Now, during this temporary modulation, the first 4 chords are D, A, D, A. Toggling from D to A is moving down a 4th. The next 2 chords are C, G, C, G. This is a repeat, or echo of the DADA bit, but 1 tone lower, because toggling from C to G is also going down a 4th, and in my view should be played as such, so as to reinforce the echo. It's very important to avoid thinking of either D-to-A or C-to-G as going up a 5th, but as going down a 4th, BECAUSE the CGCG has to be a mirror of the DADA. And as the phrase is repeated DOWN a tone, it is better to think of the phrase itself pointing downwards. (If the music were DADA, EBEB, then yes, D-to-A could be considered as going up a 5th but it's a mistake to think this in this song). You ask why that works so well as a progression, well that's the reason. And if you want to make that mirror really effective, it works really well to play D barred at the 5th fret, then A barred at the 5th. Then C barred at the 3rd and G barred at the 3rd, and don't think of any of the toggles as going up a 5th, but as going down a 4th, otherwise the repeat effect is lost, if not to your audience, to you. I don't know how Gilmour plays those toggles, but that's the best way to reinforce the repeat effect, and also in my mind foretells the come-down of the drugs in the story.

Then in the first chorus, it actually echos the complete modulated section once more (DADA, CGCG) - in the 2nd chorus the complete phrase only happens once iirc - before entering an upwards climb which ultimately concludes with the revert back to the Bm root of the song (though in the first chorus there is another round of it, with that awesome solo, before landing back to the Bm).

That climb from major to minor works like this:

Firstly it modulates to the A, then it temporarily progresses back to the D, before landing on the Bm. That progression from A to D has a passing resemblance to the chorus we've just heard, at double the speed and without the first D, because it goes: A, (then a passing chord of G 1st inversion), C, G, D..... Bm.

So during the entire chorus, it's DADA, CGCG (a double couplet repeated a tone down) - then this is either repeated or it isn't - then there's an upwards climb consisting of A, C, D (interspersed with G chords). And after the first chorus, the whole modulated section is repeated with a solo.

As you can see, when you think of the 2 modulated sections in their entirety, they do indeed start and end on D, but you're right, the ultimate resolution isn't to D, it's back to Bm, and one of the great things about the song is that the Bm never really leaves your head, because you know the effect of the drug is only temporary, and that the reality of the painful world is waiting for you after those sections of temporary relief.

I was thinking this as well.  Well, nearly.  Have a wisdom.