mshilarious said:
Well the guitarists who say things like "I used the 3rd mode of harmonic minor to add an augmented feel over the relative minor changes" may very well have lost sight of something really important: a good melody..
uh huh. You got.
[/QUOTE]But I don't think we were talking about that level of theory; at least I wasn't. Glen I know was not too. We were saying it's useful to know what key the song you're playing is in, what the chord progression is, how to transpose, etc..[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. However, knowing a song's key and chords, and being able to transpose isn't music theory....at least to me. It is basic functional knowledge that any musician should have. SHOULD have...it is perfectly possible to be great musician and song writer without having any clue what key your song is in.
[/QUOTE]
More advanced concepts are also useful when taken in appropriate context. Let's take the example of what I call the "cheesy" modulation: I-II, ubiqitous in pop to give a song a lift between the final two choruses. Problem is, it is used so often and almost always without transition. Can we say cliche?[/QUOTE]
Hell yeah.....that's one of those "rules" I refer too....a cheeseball preset that makes everyone sound the same. Good to know so you can learn from, but fer crissakes don't USE it.....
[/QUOTE]
Instead, as a case study, review the bridge from this classic tune, "Cherish", by the Association, written by Terry Kirkman:
http://www.azchords.com/a/association-tabs-306/cherish-tabs-168962.html
(I don't think those chords are 100% right, but they're close enough for our purposes)
This is a great song with a beautiful melody, killer harmonies, and one of the greatest bridges ever written. An absolutely brilliant pop song and #1 for three months. Let's have a look! I ain't no genius of theory, like I said I studied it in high school, not college, so please correct errors:
The verses are in F, it's got a mixolydian thang goin' on with the Eb (VII), but that's pretty common in pop music, so nothing too unusual there. The last chord, C, on "cherish you" in each verse obscures the key a bit since its has an E instead of Eb. That adds some interest after verse 1, but it quickly resolves back to F and Eb for the second verse--modulation implied, but not accomplished.
It's a more useful trick after verse 2--going into the bridge, the C is repeated, then suddenly E! Hello! This ain't your average pop tune! The C is reinforced again after the E, that's a groovy augmented feel there. This is actually a good setup for a modulation.
But no! Kirkman keeps us hanging but is now deliberately confusing tonality, throwing out C, but then Cm to go back to the F Mixo feel, then on the last line of the bridge setting up the dominant motion from D7-G with lots of dissonant chords, then the first verse is repeated in the new key, one step higher than before..[/QUOTE]
mshilarious...I like you but you put WAAAAYYY too much thought into that....

Do you think Kirkman put even 1/4 of that effort into PURPOSEFULLY creating that song *just so* and extensive knowledge of theory was required to create that song? Or do you think maybe those ideas and structures just came in the creative process and sounded cool? I tend to believe that latter......however this is not my thing. But I can appreciate it.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Why did Kirkman do that? Because he was a theory geek? Because he was a music major and played two dozen instruments? Because he was too elitist to simply plop from F to G like every other loser songwriter?
Or because the tension-resolution followed by the dissonance in the bridge takes the listeners on an emotional journey that make them feel the turmoil of the lyric?
Gives me chills everytime I hear it.[/QUOTE]
Tension resolution followed by dissonance in the bridge.....come on...couldn't you just say "verry nice note choices going on there...." and be done with it?? Nice post though.....
