# Could someone explain the music theory behind this song?



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

What's happening with this chord progression

G-B7-C-Cm


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

G-B7 typical root-movement of a third relationship, sharing at least one common tone.

B7-C half step movement typical of pop and show music (often another use is whole step) i.e. nothing to do with 'harmonic function' and everything to do with "drag it up a half / whole step for a dramatic effect" -- or sometimes mere color.

C-Cm also common move, a triad / key area going from major to its _parallel minor._

Pop music and 'chord progressions,' from a classical theory point of view, are no longer progressions, i.e. classical common practice theory has harmonic movement pegged to the diatonic scale, very polarized by tonic - dominant (I - V).

Popular music can move freely, anywhere 'that sounds good' without at all feeling wrong, it is just another mode of thinking. Rather than use the term "progressions" for pop music, I argue it is more appropriate to call that "a series of chords," to distinguish the fact they are much freed from being thought of as having function, which has much to do with what is thought of as the chords built upon a scale as having a weight and a handful of specific directions leading to the next harmony.

(Pop harmony is thought of more as "a series of whatever chords sound good one following the other." -- I literally would not trouble yourself with thinking of them much at all with roman numerals assigned, the proof being you've labeled them simply by their alpha, not numeric, designations


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

This was a big song in the 90's. No accounting for taste.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

While PetrB is fully correct, the progression itself can be simplified even more.

I hear it as just V-I (with the B7 a substitute for V6), but that's just the Schenker in me...LOL


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vasks said:


> While PetrB is fully correct, the progression itself can be simplified even more.
> 
> I hear it as just V-I (with the B7 a substitute for V6), but that's just the Schenker in me...LOL


"Substition" is found in all music theory, regardless of genre, but it is really a huge operative part of pop music and Jazz.

Shenkerian analysis _is designed_ to analyze tonal music, and actually had a certain set of agendae:
1.) to "prove" that tonal music was the only ideal.
2.) to "prove" that German (tonal) classical music was superior to any other music ~ Lol, _that_ nationalist mentality was very much in the German ethos in the time Shenker thunk up his analytic scheme 
Ergo, Shenkerian analysis has a very limited range of where it is of any use.

For a classically trained theorist, naming a chord B7 is nearly devoid of any real meaning, i.e. it means a helluva lot more with a Roman numeral indicating it is but one chord built upon a scale degree within a tonal system. "B7" rings in the ear as a disembodied thing with no context, and classical theory -- especially common practice theory -- _is all about context_


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> G-B7 typical root-movement of a third relationship, sharing at least one common tone.
> 
> B7-C half step movement typical of pop and show music (often another use is whole step) i.e. nothing to do with 'harmonic function' and everything to do with "drag it up a half / whole step for a dramatic effect" -- or sometimes mere color.
> 
> ...


Well, would this sort of thing be "allowed" in traditional classical harmony? When would you start seeing this kind of thing being done a lot in music, like with Wagner maybe since he like to break tonal barriers and such?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Well, it's not like I'm really into Schenkerian analysis these days, but when I briefly did, it helped to understand that indeed there are layers/levels in importance of pitches. 

So when I heard the Radiohead progression I really heard the bass G move to B (which Herr Schenker would say is the third of a intermediate level V chord) that then moves to C. A terribly simple bass line that even I could play over & over & over.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peterh said:


> Well, would this sort of thing be "allowed" in traditional classical harmony? When would you start seeing this kind of thing being done a lot in music, like with Wagner maybe since he like to break tonal barriers and such?


Wagner still thought in terms of the dominant relationship being fundamental (with allowances for diminished chords and such that are "proper" stand-ins for implied dominant harmonies). You do start to find more frequent root progressions by third or minor second in Wagner and later romantics, as well as more frequent use of the minor subdominant harmony, but the above sequence of chords would have seemed odd to him, certainly not the basis for a whole song.

Impressionist music started to think of chords in terms of their sound, but still informed (usually) by some underlying idea of root progression and how harmony and form work that isn't really in play in popular music.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Well, what would have seemed odd to him? I mean harmonically, not the fact that it's four chords for a whole song.

Also I know what a V chord is but what is an intermediate level V chord?

Also this progression has two borrowed chords, how did composers know the effect borrowed chords would have without hearing it, just writing it on a page.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peterh said:


> Well, what would have seemed odd to him? I mean harmonically, not the fact that it's four chords for a whole song.


Well, the B7 would be heard as V-of-VII, which should lead to another key, but that energy isn't followed up on and the succession ends with a plagal cadence. Secondly, what's the point of having a chromatic tone introduced (D#, enharmonically, E-flat), that then immediately moves up to E, which then proceeds to move back to E-flat? Why not, Wagner would say, make the connection smoother by removing the intermediate step?



peterh said:


> Also I know what a V chord is but what is an intermediate level V chord?


A secondary dominant, perhaps?


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Oh cool, well one more question you most likely didn't see since I edited my post:

"Also this progression has two borrowed chords, how did composers know the effect borrowed chords would have without hearing it, just writing it on a page."

Didn't they have borrowed chords back then so it wouldn't be strange? Back then I don't think it had to lead to another key for a modulation, I thought that it was common to just borrow chords and not modulate?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterh said:


> Well, would this sort of thing be "allowed" in traditional classical harmony? When would you start seeing this kind of thing being done a lot in music, like with Wagner maybe since he like to break tonal barriers and such?


It is not 'what is allowed,' because in any genre you are 'allowed' as long as the piece you've written "works" 

If you were writing a sort of exercise modeled upon an earlier era of classical music, or a pastiche piece of an earlier classical era, I would guess if you used that same exact chord sequence -- even if they were set in a manner more befitting the voice leading practices of the classical eras -- would sound 'odd,' if not completely unfitting. This is not because there is anything inherently 'wrong' about those four chords strung together in a sequence, but in the classical realms:
_It is unlikely those chords would occur in that sequence without some other harmonic movement between them._
_It just was not done "that way."_

Well-experienced lay listeners, including those who know nothing about music theory, might prick up their ears and sense something in the piece is not exactly 'like' the music of the period.

Elsewhere, Debussy was mentioned as being the turning point in 'classical' harmony where chords no longer were thought of as having function, but where chords were also used outside of what was formerly thought of as function and instead become color / coloristic. (Debussy is _the_ first 'modern' composer in history as far as the music history time-line goes.)

_Classical pianist Christopher O'Rily loves Radiohead tunes, and has made arrangements of a number of them._ Some of these sound like elaborate and sophisticated lounge music, others, a bit more like Gershwin, a few like early 20th century 'modern' music, and not surprisingly, a number of them sound rather Debussy / Impressionistic.

Christopher O'Riley-Paranoid Android (Radiohead) (The title tune is at the head of a playlist of a number of O'Riley's arrangements.)


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

That's very interesting. What about my chord borrowing question?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

So many questions makes me think it is time for you to acquire some theory books, either classical or pop oriented, and / or look into some of the better no-cost online theory courses. If you do, you must start at the very beginning, and work progressively through. The study of music theory is definitely dependent upon step-by-step cumulative learning.

Jump in to that sequence later, in the middle, etc. at the risk of your own confusion, learning things 'not quite right' and lessening the chance of understanding it all 

Walter Piston's _Harmony_ is good, kept up to date revised, and is so clearly written it is used in high schools as well as university music programs.

If I recall correctly, Dolmetsch has an online site with free harmony lessons, or a section / category on theory. (Theirs is also one of the best online music dictionaries -- which anyone interested in music should know of.)
http://www.dolmetsch.com/index.htm

Best regards.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Ok but I understand a lot of things pretty well I just wanna know how borrowed chords where handled.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peterh said:


> "Also this progression has two borrowed chords, how did composers know the effect borrowed chords would have without hearing it, just writing it on a page."


Given that I recognized the song without clicking on your link, just knowing that it was Radiohead and remembering what it sounded like, I'd imagine that a composer accustomed to the chromatic music of Chopin and Schumann would have found it easy to hear in their mind.

Remember that in classical music chords were born out of melodic considerations rather than the other way around, and this applies to all of the cases in which borrowed and chromatically altered chords were used. They were justified by the context rather than simply by the succession.



peterh said:


> Didn't they have borrowed chords back then so it wouldn't be strange? Back then I don't think it had to lead to another key for a modulation, I thought that it was common to just borrow chords and not modulate?


True, but the seventh chord is not treated as a dominant. You could see, in some of the works of the period, a succession akin to the following, containing a number of chords with chromatically altered tones:

G-B7-F#m-A-C-Cm-G

But moving from what would have been heard as the dominant of another chord to a chord a tritone away from the expected chord would have sounded harsh, especially given that a block voicing would not have sounded acceptable to a common practice composer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

------ thought better of it and PM'd the OP -------------------------


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

peterh said:


> What's happening with this chord progression
> 
> G-B7-C-Cm


I think it means you've got BINGO!


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

What would Mahler think?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There are certainly some passages in Mahler that most would not have thought to write beforehand. The Sixth Symphony's Finale has a theme that begins more or less like this (first few bars):

Am-B7-Am-F-Am-F-Am
i-V7ofV-i-VI-i-VI-i

Normally, of course, B7 would move to E, which would then resolve to A minor, but the theme even emphasizes that the intermediate chord has been removed by jumping up from F# to A. Of course, this means that here the seventh in the VofV is treated as non-functional, a pedal point on the tonic.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

That's really interesting. Where abouts is that part in the finale?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The Sixth Symphony's Finale has a theme that begins more or less like this (first few bars):
> 
> Am-B7-Am-F-Am-F-Am
> i-V7ofV-i-VI-i-VI-i
> ...


To be clear, Mahler was not thinking in the way Mahlerian parsed it out, i.e. he wasn't sitting at the desk in his composing cottage thinking, "tee hee, I will take the piece where theory 101 lessons would normally not go."

He was just writing, the theory learned and thinking about it all well behind him -- writing like a painter 'just' picks up the right brush and mixes the color they want without thinking of _color theory,_ formulas, anything else.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The progression is in G major:

I, V7/VI, IV, IVb ("b" means flat).

"Borrowed chord" is not a standard term and wouldn't be used for the B7 chord in any case. The B7 chord would be called a secondary or applied dominant, in this case the dominant of E minor, the VI chord. The fact that it resolves to C major instead of E minor is no great surprise; this is commonly called a deceptive resolution. This has been done for over 250 years. The C minor chord just flats the third of the IV chord. One could say it was borrowed from the parallel minor, the key of G minor, but this just complicates things. This kind of modal mixture has been part of normal harmonic vocabulary for 150 years.

From the point of view of classical theory, there is nothing in this progression that would have been considered the least bit peculiar in 1870, let alone today — except repeating it over and over again ;-)


----------

