I've Seen All Good People (was: comma pump files)

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:03 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: comma pump files
>
>

re: the end of _I've Seen All Good People_,
from _The Yes Album_ [1971] by Yes

>
> i guess technically this is more like a "drift"
> rather than any kind of "shift" . . . drifts don't
> bother me as much as shifts, personally . . .

ah, yes, i prefer to think of it as a "drift" as well
... this time, an intentional one!

> what happens in the song, by the way, is that the progression
>
> I-bVII-bVI-bIII-IV
>
> repeats a whole tone lower every time, so that each IV gets
> reinterpreted as the V of the key that follows it . . .
>
> so there's a "drift" of 9:8 every time . . . in
> order to eliminate this drift, one would have to
> use a tuning system in which 9:8 vanishes . . .
> unfortunately, that wreaks havoc on the diatonic
> scale and just about any other recognizable musical
> construct . . .

but in this particular case, i don't think that's at
all "unfortunate"! the genius of this piece is that
Yes used a usual diatonic tuning conception and found
a way to work this drift in in a brilliant way!

it's very typical in late-1960s-early-1970s rock music
to find a chord progression that goes I-bVII-IV-V,
playing on the mixolydian modality (minor-7th degree
with major-3rd) characteristic of much rock. in this
progression, the minor-7th of the tonic becomes the
root of the bVII chord, then at the end the V chord
has the major-7th as a leading tone, at which point
the progression repeats. it's interesting because in
a way it's polytonal: the I-bVII-IV can be reinterpreted
as V-IV-I in the key of IV, then when, in the key of IV,
that I goes to a II#3, that progression IV: I-II#3 becomes
reinterpreted as I: IV-V. so the whole structure with
the double interpreteation looks like:

I: I - bVII - IV - V
IV: V - IV - I - II#3

so the really brilliant move that Yes made was to
extend the progression with a "prequel", putting
another chord another "whole-step" higher before
the first chord in the above example I: I = IV: V.

by having this "extra" chord at the beginning, causing
the whole progression to slide down an extra "tone",
they ended up with a V-I at the end that brings the
next repetition into a new key a "tone" lower than
the last time around, so that there are four different
tonalities all being implied at different parts of
the progression, and then those four keep rotating
downward each time it's repeated:

I: I - bVII - bVI - bIII - IV |
bVII: ... - I - bVII - IV - V | I: I - bVII etc.
IV: V - IV ... | bVII: ... - I
bIII: ... - V - IV - I - II#3 | IV: V - IV
| bIII: ... - V

> gene looked a little bit at these weird temperaments
> on tuning-math . . .

i must have missed that while i was on "tuning vacation" ...

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40321.html#40321

>
> it's very typical in late-1960s-early-1970s rock music
> to find a chord progression that goes I-bVII-IV-V,
> playing on the mixolydian modality (minor-7th degree
> with major-3rd) characteristic of much rock.

***You know, as a *pianist* I never quite understood why this was...

However, after spending more time with the *guitar* of late, I can
see the, apparently, the derivation comes from the easy *parallel*
nature of major chords, in fact *any* chords on the guitar...

(Slightly OT)

Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 10/29/02 8:17:21 AM Central Standard Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> I: I - bVII - bVI - bIII - IV |
> bVII: ... - I - bVII - IV - V | I: I - bVII etc.
> IV: V - IV ... | bVII: ... - I
> bIII: ... - V - IV - I - II#3 | IV: V - IV
> | bIII: ... - V
>
monz.

Many common hymns have unusual chord sequences. But neither players nor
singers think anything about it, because no one analyzes them.

As part of taking Harmony I had to learn to analyse music to learn, not only
which chords were used, but their inversions as well. And when I had to
compose music for the class, including the above analysis was part of it.

In other words, if I used a given chord sequence, I had to justify doing it,
if it wasn't the normal thing. And if "not convincing" was written anywhere
on my score, the grade was lowered! If my composition failed tu fulfill the
assignment,"very good" might be written on it, but I got no grade for it. And
had to do the assignment again.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40321.html#40321
>
> >
> > it's very typical in late-1960s-early-1970s rock music
> > to find a chord progression that goes I-bVII-IV-V,
> > playing on the mixolydian modality (minor-7th degree
> > with major-3rd) characteristic of much rock.
>
>
> ***You know, as a *pianist* I never quite understood why this was...
>
> However, after spending more time with the *guitar* of late, I can
> see the, apparently, the derivation comes from the easy *parallel*
> nature of major chords, in fact *any* chords on the guitar...
>
> (Slightly OT)
>
> Joseph Pehrson

i don't agree that mixolydian modality or these chord progressions
come from the ease of playing parallel chords on the guitar. i've
been obsessed with the beatles and late-1960s-early-1970s rock music
since childhood, so i'd be happy to go into extensive discussions
about this . . . somewhere else (how about metatuning)?

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40321.html#40347

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_40321.html#40321
> >
> > >
> > > it's very typical in late-1960s-early-1970s rock music
> > > to find a chord progression that goes I-bVII-IV-V,
> > > playing on the mixolydian modality (minor-7th degree
> > > with major-3rd) characteristic of much rock.
> >
> >
> > ***You know, as a *pianist* I never quite understood why this
was...
> >
> > However, after spending more time with the *guitar* of late, I
can
> > see the, apparently, the derivation comes from the easy
*parallel*
> > nature of major chords, in fact *any* chords on the guitar...
> >
> > (Slightly OT)
> >
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> i don't agree that mixolydian modality or these chord progressions
> come from the ease of playing parallel chords on the guitar. i've
> been obsessed with the beatles and late-1960s-early-1970s rock
music
> since childhood, so i'd be happy to go into extensive discussions
> about this . . . somewhere else (how about metatuning)?

***Hmmm. It seemed like a *natural* to me... Over to Metatuning...

JP