She's Gone: a clarification

I need to make a correction and a clarification to my post concerning the lack of a tonic triad in "She's Gone." While it's true there are no authentic cadences, and there are no root position tonic triads, the second chord of the verse is a first inversion I chord (I6, or "E/G#" before the modulation), a passing chord from IV to ii. The same bass motion in "I'm Just a Kid" uses IV, iii, and ii.

I'd also like to mention that the "V sussy" sound is more accurately described as an A chord with a B in the bass ("A/B"). This is a sus7 type sound, yes, but its voicing and (non)resolution (the A triad moves up to a B triad in parallel motion) make the "A over B" label much more descriptive and accurate. And it's easy to play on the guitar.

And I just learned that "I'm Just a Kid" was the B-side for "She's Gone." I am pleased by this.

Have you ever really checked out the bridge to "Oh, Pretty Woman"?

I love Roy Orbison. His songs, his voice, his image and stage presence, etc. Songs like "It's Over," "Crying," "Only the Lonely," "In Dreams," and "Leah" are incredibly well-crafted pieces of melodrama, great songs with great vocals. I've always found "Oh, Pretty Woman" (yes, that's the real title) easy to dismiss. Perhaps I've heard it too many times, perhaps it was that Julia Roberts movie. But it seemed like a throwaway. Then I decided to take a closer listen to the bridge. Oh my.

Can we even call this a bridge? Is there even a chorus? It's almost more accurate to call it through-composed. There are verses, certainly, but then there's this long, two-part "bridge" for lack of a better word. No matter what you label it, the harmony is really interesting both in how it relates to the rest of the song and between the two bridge sections.

First, the move to C major from A major is pretty drastic, especially for a hit like this in 1964. It's interesting to note that C major is the relative major of the parallel minor, A minor. Got that? It comes into play moving into the second section of the bridge. The first section is a simple ii-V-I-vi-ii-V-I progression in C major, coming out of the signature E7 arpeggio bass line pretty much unprepared (though the bass line does feature E-D heavily). Simple as it is, you can also hear it as the doo-wop formula (I, vi, ii or IV, V) displaced by two measures.

As interesting as this new local tonic is, the way he gets back to A major is what really gets me. At the end of the line "Pretty woman say you'll stay with me...eeee" the pitch C rises to C sharp over an A major triad. This moment is so great: are we heading back to D? Is this a secondary dominant? What is this chord about? And then he goes to F sharp minor for the line "Cause I need you"! This is so brilliant! What a bizarre deceptive cadence. Listen to it...that A chord does two things: sets up a vague anticipation that we just might be going back to another D chord AND gets the song back to A major, EXCEPT IT'S EARLY AND COMPLETELY UNPREPARED! By the time the A tonic triad arrives again with "Come with me..." its character has changed completely. Somehow, we are firmly back in the land of A major...EXCEPT THE IV CHORDS ARE MINOR! The D minor chords from the first part of the bridge stay through the second section, though the A chord manages to be the comfy home. The transitional A chord before it is totally uneasy and weird sounding. Isn't it amazing what a good songwriter can do with EXACTLY the same chord in such a short span of time? And doesn't the music just sail on through those two keys? So effective.

The bridge ends with, once again, the doo-wop formula progression I, vi, IV, V, except the D chords are minor, not major. The verses, which I've ignored until now, are also based on the doo-wop progression, a sort of elongated and otherwise adjusted version. Just goes to show you that an understanding, assimilation, and mastery of materials is of primary importance in creative work, no matter how banal the materials are.

Oh, and the second part of the "bridge"? 10 measures long: 3+3+4. So unusual, but completely smooth and slick. So slick I've never noticed it until now. I need to stop, I keep finding new stuff.

Two more comments:
The verses of this song have one 2 beat measure each. Unless you're counting in two, but that doesn't make much sense. Listen for the IV chord.

John Zorn's Naked City uses this classic bass line, in D, as the foundation for their arrangement of Ornette Coleman's "Lonely Woman." Cute, right?

Holy crap, "She's Gone" doesn't have a I chord, either.

That means that there are two songs, back-to-back, on the Abandoned Luncheonette album that don't have an authentic cadence. In fact, neither song has a tonic chord AT ALL. This is amazing to me. "I'm Just a Kid" dodges the tonic over and over. "She's Gone" seems to substitute a sustained Vsus to V pattern for the I chord.

I get excited about things like this. Judge me as necessary. But this is nervy, risky songwriting.

I prefer the longer, album version, and this audio is junk. but the video is too good.

It is possible to enjoy the music sincerely AND goof on the haircuts.

A few years ago I decided to create sounds (using electric bass and effects) that were inspired by analog synthesizers, especially the Moog bass on Stevie Wonder's Innervisions album and Herbie Hancock's Arp synth bass on "Chameleon." I've had varying degrees of success, both mimicking these sounds and creating new ones. I've used many different effects, done a lot of fussing with settings, used different instruments. Then yesterday I discovered this track and kind of felt like a dumbass, because Pino Palladino gets such a clear, full sound using, from what I can tell, a fretless bass with a lot of high end eq-wise, a little bit of chorus, and a Boss OC-2 octave pedal. It was humbling to hear this track for the first time. Humbling to hear him nail this sort of sound nearly 30 years ago on what could have been a totally forgettable pop track.

A few thoughts:

-Isn't it fun to watch an entire band "lip synch"?
-Is that mic stand made of copper pipe? Jesus, that must be HEAVY!
-I am going to learn every one of the guitarist's sweet, sweet moves.
-I think every synthesizer should be programmed to a default "ugly orchestra hit" patch whenever you slap at it from at least two feet. That would be terrific.
-Why is the other keyboard player so sweaty? Or is he just moisturizing some new ink?
-But seriously...how is it possible that his first generation Boss octave pedal tracks better than my new one? That's ridiculous.
-Without the octave effect his playing would annoy me--too much treble, chorus, wide vibrato--gross (like Paul Young's version of "Everytime You Go Away"--YIKES. Listen to the Hall & Oates version instead.). But with the octave it's juicy synth-town. Love it. And I do give a certain allowance for the meow-bass in 80's pop music (see Duran Duran).
-"Meow-bass" deserves it's own blog entry.
-This video fades just as the bass really takes over. I recommend finding a higher quality audio and checking it out. I do love this one a lot. Do yourself a favor--turn off your 80's irony brain and just love it. Great pop music that happens to be all about the bass. It is possible to enjoy the music sincerely AND goof on the haircuts.

the opposite of the "The Police formula" and attention to detail

One of the most common arranging techniques of The Police was the "double-time chorus" formula: the verses are in some sort of 2-feel, often with the "one drop" drum pattern, followed by a more straight-ahead chorus in 4 with a more typical "rock" drum beat ("Roxanne," "So Lonely," "Can't Stand Losing You," "Don't Stand So Close To Me," "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic," "Spirits In the Material World," etc.). It's an effective technique, propelling the song forward and often creating a "catchy" chorus. There's at least one song (considering my level of obsession with this band I should know for sure) that does the opposite.

This song hits the molasses when it reaches the chorus, the reverse of the typical Police formula. But one detail really sticks out, a detail that further solidifies the reputations of a band and drummer that didn't really need solidifying. Listen to the cross stick on beat 3 starting at 0:22, 1:04, and 1:53. Stylistically appropriate, yes, BUT. They also set up the half-time feel of the chorus! Those beats 3 translate into beats 2 and 4 in half-time, the "backbeat."

I very recently discovered this detail while driving early in the morning. It's a small thing, and I wasn't looking for more reasons to love The Police, but WOW what a nice touch that is.

no tonic continued...

This song has no I chord, unless you hear the first chord as a local i chord instead of as a sus-y ii chord.

It's a ii chord.

the oopsie flat 7 bass line mistake

I've noticed this phenomenon for years, but it may have been my friend Chris Weisman that pointed it out, or made me more aware of it. Many many (many) bass lines consist of root, fifth, and the "flat" (depending on the key) seventh scale degree. This sound is such a part of rock/jazz/pop music that it sometimes makes its way into places it doesn't belong. Whether these players "hear" these lines or if they are a result of fingers falling onto the bass in comfortable patterns is hard to say. But here are a few stinkers. It would be cool if these were interesting super-impositions, deliberate or not, but no, not this time. These are wrong notes to my ears, and I really have a hard time listening to them.

U2: classic wrong bass

Man, does this song have an identity crisis. Is it straight-up majory? Is it blues-ish? It also features one of Chris's big pet peeves: the bluesy woozy strings over the I-IV dominant progression. To Adam Clayton's credit, his bass line lines up with the questionable arrangement (but the first bass entrance has some rough notes). But there's an AMAZING moment at 4:05: The Edge is bluesing out up high, and Adam plays the major-sounding line (half-steps) instead of the whole-step line. Fantastically bad. Poor guy is locked into "line B" when he should switch to "line A." Or was the guitar solo overdubbed? That's a bad idea, too.

Some may defend this, but I'm not buying it. This song is a mess. Is this tonality/mode/inflection soup part of U2's sound? Certainly. It's true of many bands. But it doesn't always work. Just listen to The Edge riffin' over the implied major 7 IV chord at 4:05 and tell me otherwise. And besides--the blues inflection has nothing to do with the lyrics. Weird choices.


Cake: the first time I heard this I was shocked at how amateurish the bass playing is. They are generally way more slick than this. The vocals get progressively more obnoxious, too--the hesitation bit.

I have a great idea--ignore the harmony completely and pretend everything is a vague, dominant-7th sound. Root, octave, flat 7, fifth over and over--EVEN WHEN THE RELATIVE MAJOR IS TONICIZED. Mercy, what a bad, clunky, unrefined sound.


Duran Duran: John Taylor does better, but it's the same formula as the above.

And weren't those weed smoking sound effects played out by 1982 (anyone compiled that list yet)? Anyway. Root, octave, flat 7 formula again. Who on earth thought the tonic I chord was a dominant chord in this tune (the melody is major/major pentatonic during the verses)? And constantly leaving the 7th unresolved on V7 is grating. At least he never plays the flat 7 on the IV chord--he plays the root 2 or more times. So...I can deal with the busy-ness of the line--it's appropriate to the style. But the line is clunky. The entire Rio album is full of bass gems and bass stinkers.


So what is my beef? Bass players that don't know what they're doing? Don't listen? That suck? Perhaps I'll expand my message--music is not a series of mutually exclusive moments. Say, chord to chord to chord. There's always a context of some sort. And the playing I've discussed ignores that context in favor of fingering patterns, or even rote lines in the U2 example. And this is especially dangerous when the music relies on combined or shifting inflections. If that context isn't understood, or if the changes aren't heard, the results can be unfortunate.