OK harmonic analysis of Radiohead's "Exit Music (For a Film)"

One of Radiohead's more melodramatic tunes is "Exit Music (For a Film)" from the album OK Computer (please pardon any political advertising on YouTube...though the fact that "CommunistNihilist" has political ads attached to his/her video is very funny to me). This song lends itself to "classical" analysis, and is great for the end of first-year theory. It was supposedly "inspired" by Chopin's Prelude No. 4, though to my ears it's not all that similar besides the sol-le-sol element of the tune and the big sussy appoggiatura ending. The mood isn't the same, either. The Wikipedia entry for this tune suggests Electric Light Orchestra's instrumental "After All" as an influence; there are certainly melodic similarities, and both "Exit Music" and "After All" feature the move from a minor tonic to parallel major.

And while we're talking trivia, this is the Chopin Prelude that Jack Nicholson plays in Five Easy Pieces.

For music folks reading this (especially theory teachers), "Exit Music" has great examples of modal mixture, a secondary dominant, a Neopolitan (in function, if not an "N6", and I also like how the A minor chord foreshadows it), very clear non-chord tones in the vocal melody, and Picardy thirds (a sort of modal mixture, really).

I'd also like to mention that the first time I heard the fuzz bass come in I totally freaked out.

Sometimes it's foolish to try to analyze this sort of music in this way. But not this time. Here's my one-page kinda rough reduction and analysis (sorry that the figured bass is ugly).

Why does Appetite For Destruction kick so much ass?

Here are ten reasons why Guns N' Roses Appetite For Destruction kicks a great deal of ass.

1) tight, tight, tight arrangements
2) Axl Rose at his best
3) Slash is brilliant throughout.
4) unabashed lyrics about drugs and sex
5) The guitar arranging/production is on-par with that of Malcolm and Angus Young on Back In Black, which is BRILLIANT stuff. The placement in the stereo field and the contrasting tones? My gosh. I'm not sure this kind of guitar playing happens anymore.
6) The sequence of tracks is near perfect.
7) This album has "Welcome To the Jungle," "Mr.Brownstone," "Paradise City," AND "Sweet Child O'Mine"! Seriously?!
8) The other tracks are varying levels of great, too. "You're Crazy" is a standout.
9) "Mr. Brownstone" is a masterpiece. It will be getting an entry of its own.
10) I have a guitar tuned down a half-step just so I can play along with this album.

I welcome your input. But seriously. What an album.

A guitar is not a fashion accessory

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But recently I've experienced more "acoustic guitar as fashion accessory" incidents. And I find this troubling. You know what I mean: acoustic guitars, often festooned with punk band stickers, slung ever-so-nonchalantly and carelessly over shoulders. I hear them played sometimes, but usually a guitar is just a super-cool backpack. That doesn't carry anything.

What am I supposed to think? That you're cool? Are you trying to impress ME? Well. I suppose not. But even a 16-year-old girl (your intended audience?) can't be THAT impressed.

Why does this bother me so much? Because I've spent a lot of time learning how to play. And I have a lot of friends that can play the shit out of the guitar.

Is it just envy? That you and your acoustic guitar over your back can get any sort of attention? Eh. Maybe. Maybe I need to think on this. All I can say for sure is that whenever I see you walking around with a guitar on your back (Did YOU pay for that guitar, kid? Jesus, I'd NEVER let a precious piece of property dangle like that!), I just think two things: 1) Can you play that thing?, and 2) Just carry it around in a case. Asshole.

Yeah, what Arto said.

"Listen to the Ambitious Lovers, the whole idea was Al Green and samba. That against this; this against that; a blend, a juxtaposition, loud/soft. There's no particular point in putting these things together. The point is what comes out in the end."
-Arto Lindsay, 2000 (full interview here)

Very well said. I like to think a lot of my music works in this way. He continues:

"To me, it doesn’t make it interesting just to do something for the sake of doing it—like a disco beat with a Muslim singer [not so pc today -RG] on top. Does it sound great? Does it make me feel different? Is it a shock like a cold shower? Does it clean my ears out? We’re coming out of a period now in which juxtaposition has been an end in itself."

Besides what I believe is an amazing diss of Sting's "Desert Rose" (which the interviewer either didn't catch or decided not to touch), he's so right on. It's not enough to slap disparate elements together. Rather, does interesting music result from this juxtaposition? Is there something that comes about because these elements have been set in relief? Or is it just a novelty, a sort of postmodern, collage cop out?

Anyway. Arto is great, and clearly a deep, comprehensive listener.

Be more constructive with your feedback

I hear the word "cheesy" used quite frequently to describe music, especially pop music of the '80s. I even hear this from the mouths of musicians, even though it is an inherently dismissive and uncritical way to describe music. This is not to be confused with another demographic, the younger (than me) group that loves the '80s ironically ("wow, this is SO eighties!"). This type of surface, non-musical enjoyment is not exclusive to 20-somethings in DayGlo t-shirts and ugly high-top sneakers, of course. The packaging of popular music is and always will be the thing that attracts "listeners."

For this essay, I'm making a proposal to a different group: people, especially musicians, that claim to be music lovers, yet are still inclined to dismiss huge chunks of music as "cheesy" without any explanation. I've compiled a list of what I think most people mean when they say "Oh, I can't stand the '80s...that music is so cheesy."

-"I do not like the sound of early digital recording technologies and techniques."
    -"Digital reverb is too cold and brittle for my taste."
    -"I prefer the warmer sound of analog guitar effects." ("Why does Andy Summers use that out-of-tune chorus sound all the time?")
    -"I don't like the way the drums were recorded, generally speaking. Gated reverb is not for me."
    -"I prefer the sound of analog monophonic synths to the thin-sounding digital synths of the '80s."

-"The singers are all so insincerely sincere and overly emotive."

-"I don't like the sound of electric bass with chorus. Or guitar with chorus. Or drums with flanger, for that matter."

Those are possibilities. More often it's the following:

-"I am distracted by the fashions and styles present in early music videos. So much, in fact, I am unable to take the music seriously."

-"I grew up in that era. I liked real New Wave. You know, not The Police. Madonna was always just pop junk to me. Dead Kennedys!"

That's what people mean by "cheesy." I just wish they would be more specific. "Cheesy" is meaningless in this context. It's not even correct, by definition. "Outmoded" or "unfashionable," perhaps. Either way, dismissing an entire decade of songs based on haircuts or production values is unfortunate. It's a bit like saying you don't like Buddy Holly because his glasses seem like an affectation, or because the kick drum really doesn't cut through the mix on those Bill Haley records. And don't get me started on all that Phil Spector junk...man, let's throw everyone in a room with a couple mics...what a mess...so cheesy...and don't get me started on The Supremes and their cheesy hairdos...and didn't Bach look stupid in that wig?

I do understand the charges against some of the "digital-ness" from that decade. Producers were embracing new gear that was sometimes more reliable and easier to use (or sometimes just for newness sake) at the expense of "tone," which is subjective at best...the analog revival is now well into its second decade. But to ignore great songcraft just because there's a synth patch or guitar tone that makes you cringe seems very unfortunate.

Stravinsky invented the rock beat in 1913

In a piece that is strongly identified with and by ostinatos, the "Procession of the oldest and wisest one" section of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is the standout, both in terms of density and number of patterns present.

In 20 measures of music (about 40 seconds) Stravinsky combines a BUNCH of patterns (I forget the exact count, and a count is tricky because some are doubled); the following pattern in the percussion is the foundation. The bass drum and tam-tam start before this; the guiro enters at measure 13 (:20) of the section:

When I was studying this as an undergraduate, I made the (typical) mistake of getting lost in the score without listening enough. If you just look at the score, it appears that the percussion instruments are playing "against" the steady eighth notes in the rest of the orchestra. It is actually notated in 4/4 at the beginning of the section, making its significance on paper even less clear:

What is actually taking place is this: the eighth notes are triplets when heard against the percussion. The boom/crash that is set up by the bass drum and tam-tam is further supported by the scraping of the guiro. What is notated like this:

is heard as this:

Which brings me to the drum beat. If you substitute the tam-tam with snare drum and the guiro with hi-hat it sure sounds and looks a lot like this:

a "characteristic drum beat" from Wikipedia

So to me, the "Procession" sounds like a whole bunch of triplets over a huge back beat. Because that's essentially what it is. The notation is slick and misleading, but the effect is very plain.

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.