This is the title track from Nick Johnston's 2016 album. It contains some solid prog-rock composition and tasteful guitar playing. It doesn't push the boat out much, but it is a very enjoyable listen. It also succeeds by not having the trite lyrics sung by annoying vocalists that prog-rock so often does.
One particular section stuck out to me and I thought I'd analyse it. This post is not really beginner-friendly, as that would require it to be three times as long. But anyone with knowledge of the basics of music theory should be able to keep up. I have included links that explain more about some of the concepts mentioned.
Here's the song in question:
The section we're looking at occurs at 2:25 and 4:55.
-------
This is a basic notation of the section. It comprises the melody and chords, the latter both as chord names and roman numerals. I have also included a piano version of this score.
-------
The first three chords are B, Db, and Ebm. This gives us the classic VI-VII-i progression in Eb natural minor scale. For me, when we land on that tonic chord, it doesn’t feel like home. This could be because of two reasons.
First, the melody is playing an Ab, which produces the feeling of a suspended 4th sound with the Ebm chord. This creates tension instead of resolving it. We then hear a Cb, the 6th of Ebm, which add even more tension. It releases this tension when we hear the 5th of the chord (Bb) in the melody. But it only sounds for an instant before the chord changes.
Listen to the example below. The first time, you hear it as it is in the song with a Cb in the melody. The second time, you hear it with the root of the Ebm chord instead. It's still subtle, but the second time sounds more resolved to me.
Second, this is an IV-V-vi progression when viewed from the perspective of the relative Gb major. We call this a ‘deceptive cadence’ because it has a dominant chord followed by something other than the tonic. Your brain expects the tonic chord (Gb) but gets a minor 6th (Ebm). Whilst this creates a subtle resolution because of the leading tone between the V-vi, it still leaves us wanting.
Here's an example of that deceptive cadence in action. The first time you hear the chords, you hear as it is in the song with that minor 6th. The second time, you hear it as your resolution loving brain might be expecting. I changed the V chord to a dominant 7th to highlight this effect. You should hear that in that second example, it feel a lot more conclusive.
-------
We then descend from tonic via the VII and land on our first interesting chord: an Ab. This chord has a C, a note not in the implied scale. If we were staying diatonic, you’d expect an Abm chord.
This is what’s known as a ‘borrowed chord’ or ‘modal mixture’. There are various scales which have Eb as their tonic but contain slightly distinct sets of notes. We call these ‘parallel keys’. You can replace a chord with its equivalent from a parallel scale to introduce more harmonic variety. So if we have a chord built upon the 4th degree of one scale, you could replace with one built upon the 4th degree of another.
Here, the scale we have borrowed this Ab from is Eb Major.
At the same time as this chord plays, the melody lands on the tonic. So as our melody is giving us a sense of ‘returning home’, the harmony hints at moving away.
-------
The second half is where most of the interest lies for me. We start again on the VI chord, yet as the melody ascends the scale we land on the note of A. Johnston pairs this with an F major chord in the harmony. This note and chord are out of scale. They come from the Lydian mode with its raised 4th. An E chord follows. In our home key, this is a bII chord (aka a Neopolitan chord). It comes from the mode of Phrygian.
This means we’ve had two chords in a row that built off of from the 2nd degree of an Eb based scale. F is the second chord of Eb Lydian, E is the second chord of Eb Phrygian. During all this, we also get a load of chromaticism in the melody. The notes Gb, A, Bb, B and C all appear within a short space of one another. This has the potential to sound bad, but the context given to them by chords make it sound great.
From the E chord, we then smoothly slip back to our tonic Eb with the help of two leading tones. The melody also resolves to the tonic with a V-i movement and we’re back home.
Cool!
Let me know if I got anything wrong or if you have any questions.
I really enjoyed this, thanks! Do you think he uses theory in his songwriting, or is it a "bang things together until I get the sound I want" approach? I can't find any evidence that he was classically trained, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. I just write pop music, where interesting chord progressions are almost by definition not allowed, and any dissonance whatsoever is a no-no. I can cover some of the older Mars Volta songs on drums, though :).
Probably a mixture of both. I hadn't heard of him before this post but he sells a Theory Primer video on his website. Includes: Building Chords - Modes - Playing in Key - Intervals - Harmony You could always ask him through his website. This release features a comprehensive run-down of what I believe to be the 'need to know' of music theory. This primer comes with detailed Guitar Pro and PDF files of all material.
I composed without theory knowledge for a long time. I think there are two types of "banging things together". The first is when you don't have any expectations. You're playing random things and seeing what catches your attention. The second is when you have half an idea already or you want to add a layer. You can hear where you want it to go in your mind's ear, but you're not sure how that translates to actual music. So you end up mindlessly testing things and it can get really frustrating the longer the search for the sound you want goes on. You feel lost. In my experience, learning theory has helped the former by allowing me to add a catalyst to my noodling when absolute freedom isn't fruitful. And it's decreased the latter as I now know how my intuition translates into the craft. From being on /r/musictheory, this seems to be the case for most other composers too. So I reckon bhrgunatha is correct, it's a mixture. That's why it's best to look at music theory as just a collection of frameworks and techniques gleaned from analysing music. In that way, it becomes a toolbox to draw from when needed. If you see it as an actual system for composing, it can become a prison.
I think there's less incentive than ever to learn more than a dash of music theory. You can outsource it to software, grab any bits you like, and then learn to play them live, if you're into that. Arpeggiators have been around forever, of course. cue Baroque music There's an analogy to be made with designing timbre from scratch. Knowing what happens with you modulate the modulating modulator with phase-shifted LFO that varies in time... MMMMmmmm dubsteppppppmusic theory ... can become a prison
For sure, there are some impressive tools popping up nowadays. One I saw recently that I thought looked great was Scaler 2. I think it comes down to whether you value having that understanding for yourself. I feel it deepened my practice and also my connection with the music I love. But ultimately it doesn't matter if you know theory or not. A cool piece of music is a cool piece of music.