Here's the idea:Song Analysis Thread

[metaljustice83]

Fingerpickingood wrote:
"what i'd like to get going is analysis of specific songs, where we could all learn tunes and talk about them and share ideas about them. and ask questions about them.

we don't even need to change much, we could just have say a different person every so often starts a poll thread with names of tunes and youtube links for them. we could have a signup thread where people signup and first come first serve is the order we go in for creating the poll threads. then everyone votes in the poll thread for some set time period. the winner with the most votes is the tune we look at and we start a thread of that tune. then after some set time period the next person in the signup list creates the next poll thread."


If you guys like the idea and I see enough suggestions I will sticky this thread.

Feel free to discuss and suggest.

[jwilliams]

so the idea is..the winning song, people learn and discuss and etc? I'm not sure what the idea is here

[fingerpikingood]

the idea is just to have a song, like a song a week, or a song every however long, the same song, that people can learn, and freestyle over, and practice with, and whatever, analyze it from chord structure to some cool passages in it someone plays that people like, you know, whatever.

but then it's like, well how do you get people on the same page and choose songs, so that everybody can benifit from this from songs they like, while still learning other styles they might not be used to, and getting a bunch of songs under their belt.

and that's where the voting system i described comes in. I mean, one guy can come in and mention a song, and get some help for it, but it's not quite the same as having multiple people checking it out for its sake and in the knowledge that at some point they will choose some tunes and get similar help with one of them.

we got different people with different styles that have read different books and have different things to bring to the table, we can even play solos over the tune, or its progression, make suggestions on other peoples' solos for it, and get ideas from what others have played.

it's not all that different from just making a thread on your own about a tune, and yet it is.

just like drawing a line down the middle of a road is not all that different from just a road, except it allows us to drive nearly head on at 100km/hr and feel completely safe.

it's just structure.

[jwilliams]

sounds like a good idea to me

[Malcolm]

Yes, would be interesting. On a keyboard forum I check in with Autumn Leaves has been running for years. Some song examples live on and some end up not being that interesting and die a natural death in a week.

I vote yes.

[metaljustice83]

well, lets get some suggestions of tunes that will be good and I will get a poll going after we get a good list. Eventually if it takes off enough, we have a jazz one going, a instrumental rock one going, classical one going, etc etc. But lets just get some ideas for now.

My first instinct is,


cry me a river

Joe Pass and Ella Fitzgerald's version

[Malcolm]

Since I'm Country ---
Hank's Cold, Cold Heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e7UMstGEEk
Dirt simple but so effective.

Nora Jones Cold, Cold Heart. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g35zS1tVO3o Taking the old dirt simple and bring it into the jazz world. With comments on the bass guitar's choice of riff. Best I can tell it's the major pentatonic over the entire song - welcome comments on base line construction.

Clapton's Layla http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEx9O...eature=related Comments on UK reviving the old blues and Clapton in general. Selections from The Unplugged album.

B. B. King http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ny5ajCn0xw -- Comments on B. B's. style of phrasing.

Autumn leaves -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdkfA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4x0u...eature=related -- Comping study.

[JonR]

Since I'm Country ---
Hank's Cold, Cold Heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e7UMstGEEk
Dirt simple but so effective.

Nora Jones Cold, Cold Heart. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g35zS1tVO3o Taking the old dirt simple and bring it into the jazz world. With comments on the bass guitar's choice of riff. Best I can tell it's the major pentatonic over the entire song - welcome comments on base line , not a construction.

It's a double bass, of course, not a bass guitar!
It's essentially using the root 5th and 7th of each chord, with a passing 4th. Here what it would be for bass guitar:

G----------0-------------|-------
D----------------0--2----|----------
A-0----------------------|0--------
E------------------------|--------
  1  .  2  .  3  .  4  .  1  etc

This is partly what makes her version jazzier/bluesier than Hank's original: the bass is adding the b7 of the tonic chord. (The other thing that makes it jazzier, of course, is Jones' own piano playing: very free, not really country at all.)

Theoretically, this is an example of beautifully simple popular songwriting: the kind of thing country was always good at, of course (combining folk, blues and popular song forms, before rock'n'roll), but Hank was a master - no, THE master. No frills, nothing superfluous. 3 chords and simple, memorable melodies.

Here's an analysis (for what it's worth!):

|I - - - |I - - - |I - - - |V - - - |
|V - - - |V - - - |V - - - |I - - - |
|I - - - |I - - - |I - - - |IV - - - |
|V - - - |V - - - |V - - - |I - - - |

That's the basic format, but Hank (in key of D) extends the 3rd line - 1 more bar on the IV chord to stretch that high vocal note. (I love the little smile as he sings that note, and stretches himself slowly to full height each time - obviously the bit of the song he really enjoys, the peak of intensity.) And from there the melody descends gracefully to the tonic.
In contrast Norah Jones (key of A) dispenses with that extra bar entirely (keeps the 3rd line to 4 bars), but adds a bar to the first line. So the pitch of intensity at the end of the 3rd line is diminished, while the effect of extending the 1st line - without a corresponding held vocal note - is kind of coolly marking time, as if considering her options, or just enjoying the groove for a moment longer. It puts a little more emphasis on the I-V chord change too, as if the 3rd bar of the vocal was the extra bar, and the V chord is starting again. She also adds a few more bars between verses, just keeping that gentle groove flowing.

More simply, these little variations stop it from being too "four-square", too predictable. (It would be possible, in performance, to extend any of the lines by an extra bar, or all of them.)

The other thing that helps it move, harmonically, is adding a 7th to the V before returning to I, and to I before moving to IV. (In Jones's version, the 7ths are there all the time in the bass anyway.)

Both versions - very different in themselves - are a masterclass in feel, in holding a cool groove. (The studio version of Hank's original was somewhat faster than this deliciously relaxed tempo. He was in the habit of taking heartbreak songs at unsuitably jaunty tempos, IMO. Not on this video tho.)

The melody is mostly scale-wise descents, but incorporating chromatics here and there. Eg the melody of the 2nd line runs like this (written in chord tones):

|V      |         |         |I
|3-2-2-1|1-#7-b7--|3-7-6-#5-|3

The #5 on the V ascends a half-step to the 3 of I. This is a typical blues-country sound. The melody could simply have descended to the P5 before going up again, but that flattened blue 3rd (#5 of V) adds a crucial melancholic element.

[JonR]

well, lets get some suggestions of tunes that will be good and I will get a poll going after we get a good list. Eventually if it takes off enough, we have a jazz one going, a instrumental rock one going, classical one going, etc etc. But lets just get some ideas for now.

My first instinct is,


cry me a river

Here's the basic changes (in Ella Fitzgerald's key, but without Joe Pass's embellishments):
A1
||Fm(add9) - Db/F - |Fm6 - Fm7 - |Bbm7 - Eb7 - |Ab - C7 - |
|Cm7b5 - F7 - |Bb9 - - - |Bbm7 - Eb7sus4 - |Ab - C7 - ||

A2
||Fm(add9) - Db/F - |Fm6 - Fm7 - |Bbm7 - Eb7 - |Ab - Gm7 C7 |
|Cm7 - F7 - |Bb9 - - - |Bbm7 - Eb7sus4 - |Ab - G7b9 - ||

B
|Cm(6) - - - |Dm7b5 - G7b9 - |Cm(6) - - - |Dm7b5 - G7 - |
|Cm(6) - - - |Dm7b5 - G7b9 - |C69 - - - |Gm7 - C7 - |

repeat A1.

This is key of Ab major, but with a strong hint of the relative minor (Fm), and a definite modulation to C minor in the bridge.
The opening 2 bars on Fm feature what is sometimes known as CESH - "contrapuntal elaboration of static harmony". In this case, it's a chromatic rising line from the 5th of the chord up to the b7. (The second chord could be written as Fm(#5), or Fmb6.) This is a distinctive element of this song, as most songs with lengthy sections on a minor chord use a descending line (root-maj7-7-6), such as My Funny Valentine.
(The "add9" btw is representing that long first melody note. Adding the 9th to a minor chord is a great way of signalling melancholy or poignancy. This songwriter knew what he was doing...)

Here's a functional analysis of the chords (the way I see them - other interpretations are possible, particularly seeing the Fm as a tonic in that key):

A section - key Ab major:
||vi - - - |- - - -|ii - V - |I - V/vi - |
|ii/ii - V/ii - |V/V - - - |ii - V - |I - V/vi - ||

Notice that we get the V of Fm at the end of the 1st line, but it doesn't lead back to Fm, but on to Cm7b5, the "supertonic of the supertonic" (hehe, there's a phrase to roll off the tongue - call it ii/ii "two of two" if you prefer ). In fact you could ignore the Cm7b5 as an embellishment of the following F7, with F7 being the true target of the previous C7.
However, instead of the ii chord (Bbm in this key) that the previous bar (bar 5) leads us to expect, we get a full bar on Bb9 (V/V, secondary dominant of the dominant). This chord has a nice strong bluesy sound, underlining the title phrase.
Essentially, tho, what we have is a classic circle-of-5ths root progression, twice: F-Bb-Eb-Ab-(C)-|F-Bb-Eb-Ab - just with some variations in chord type, and the chords held for different lengths of time.

The second A section finishes with another secondary dominant (V/iii), leading us into the key of C minor (not C phrygian, which would be the diatonic mode on that step).

Bridge:
We get a i-ii-V in this key three times, before the Cm becomes C major (a "picardy third", minor tonic turning major), which in turn becomes a dominant. Gm7-C7 suggests a ii-V in F major, but leads us back to F minor.
So there's kind of a neat switch here. Bars 6-7 of the bridge are a minor key ii-V leading to a major I; bar 8 of the bridge is a major key ii-V leading to a minor I.
(The idea that Fm is the tonic to begin with is countered by that rising line, which seems (IMO) to inevitably pull towards the following Bbm7, as the line aims at an Fm7. If this chord was played with a descending 1-maj7-b7-6 line, it might sound more like the key chord.)

In performance, most of those secondary dominants will be preceded by secondary supertonics. (IOW, V7 chords will become ii7-V7s.) Eg the C7 in bar 4 and 8 would be preceded by Gm7b5, and the G7b9 before the bridge would have a Dm7b5 before it (as in the bridge itself).
Also, the Cm in the bridge often has an A bass in the 2nd half of the bar, making it technically Am7b5 at that point. (The melody is C melodic minor here, so we potentially get that rare beast, a "locrian natural 2" chord: Am9b5. Or Cm(maj7/A.)

(I haven't transcribed Joe Pass's chords, but that would be an interesting exercise... The Barney Kessel transcription gersdal posted is probably the most famous version, because of its use in the film "The Girl Can't Help It", and has that nice chromatic intro.)

[gersdal]

Here's the basic changes (in Ella Fitzgerald's key, but without Joe Pass's embellishments):

Thanks Jon. A lot of great info!

I didn't have much time yesterday, so I dotted the guide tones in Cm rather than Fm (I play the tune regularly ... in Cm ). Sorry about that. Could you have a look at the guide tones I listed, and check if I got it correct?

I could transpose them to Fm if needed

[JonR]

Thanks Jon. A lot of great info!

I didn't have much time yesterday, so I dotted the guide tones in Cm rather than Fm (I play the tune regularly ... in Cm ). Sorry about that. Could you have a look at the guide tones I listed, and check if I got it correct?

I could transpose them to Fm if needed

Your first sequence is the main melody notes. That's a good principle for beginning improvisation, but "guide tones" in jazz usually refers only to 3rds and 7ths of chords: as you've shown, largely (and with embellishments!), in the second version.

I can see one mistake, which is a b7 (Db) on an Ebmaj7 chord.
And there's a few enharmonic errors - all Gbs actually: on Bb#5, B7 and D7b9 - should all be F#; melodically the first two work as Gb, but the enharmonic should go with the chord, IMO - esp the D7.

In the bridge, you could take the F of the Gm7 down via the E of Em7b5 to the Eb of Am7b5. (Em7b5 is really just Gm6, as this is a tonic function Gm in the same way as the opening Cm - "guide tones" are therefore (IMO) a bit more open to choice. It's debatable, in fact, whether the Gm should have a b7 - although it does make a nice chromatic line from the G-F# of the previous 2 chords!)
The Bb13 is a substitute, a reharmonisation - an interesting one I've not seen before there. Melody note is C (as you know) but there would also be an E (#11) in the chord, along with D, G and Bb. IOW, the basic chord should really be C9 (Gm6 with C on top). I would definitely put in an E, so you get a F-E-Eb descent on those 3 chords (Gm7-Bb9#11-Am7b5).

[gersdal]

Your first sequence is the main melody notes. That's a good principle for beginning improvisation, but "guide tones" in jazz usually refers only to 3rds and 7ths of chords: as you've shown, largely (and with embellishments!), in the second version.

Point taken. I tried to include the Ed Byrne idea of using the main melody notes as a basis for the improvisation. I'm not sure if he calls it guide tones I'll check.

I can see one mistake, which is a b7 (Db) on an Ebmaj7 chord.
And there's a few enharmonic errors - all Gbs actually: on Bb#5, B7 and D7b9 - should all be F#; melodically the first two work as Gb, but the enharmonic should go with the chord, IMO - esp the D7.

In the bridge, you could take the F of the Gm7 down via the E of Em7b5 to the Eb of Am7b5. (Em7b5 is really just Gm6, as this is a tonic function Gm in the same way as the opening Cm - "guide tones" are therefore (IMO) a bit more open to choice. It's debatable, in fact, whether the Gm should have a b7 - although it does make a nice chromatic line from the G-F# of the previous 2 chords!)
The Bb13 is a substitute, a reharmonisation - an interesting one I've not seen before there. Melody note is C (as you know) but there would also be an E (#11) in the chord, along with D, G and Bb. IOW, the basic chord should really be C9 (Gm6 with C on top). I would definitely put in an E, so you get a F-E-Eb descent on those 3 chords (Gm7-Bb9#11-Am7b5).

Thanks. I've updated the file. Hope it is ok now.

[fingerpikingood]

am I the only one that reads JonR's posts and doesn't uinderstand a single thing of what he's talking about?

no disrespect to you JonR it's not you, it's just that for me, you are saying a whole bunch of information all at once, which doesn't sound like anything to me. to me, they are just words.

one thing that sucks for me right now, is that my guitar is kind of out of commission, but i think i could still benefit from studying songs on piano. the downside is that anything i submit will be piano.

i think the reality of the situation is that in a song like this, such a complicated song, we could right a full book of text explaining what you could do to the song. but unless you already know all your theory perfectly that will all be just words and have no meaning. so for me, it really helps to either hear what someone is playing, a specific recording. or something someone submitted.

if it's just words, you could say almost anything. you can do almost anything in music. right?

and to me, there's a little confusion as to what song we're doing.

i think there needs to be structure, you can structure it any way you want, but there needs to be structure or else it will likely start of strong and then wimper into nothingness. i personally think so anyways. I mean fine, if you want to do a cry me a river song (i guess kind of ironic name for this post..) then it would probably be best served in its own thread.

so who chooses the next song, and when? well here's the truth. what just happened is that a thread spawned about one song, and some discussion will go on about it, and nothing else has changed whatsoever in teh forum. so although, fine great, this thread happened and people like it, really the spirit of the idea has already vanished, and it has not even begun yet. but that's ok, if we don't want that, then we don't want it, nothing wrong with that. but if we do want it. we need to actually make it. the yellow line in the road is actually a necessary component not a frivolous design to make the road look pretty.

but were not very many here. i think a crucial thing is to make it fair for everyone. i mean, ya you could just look at the songs you want to look at, but then you're screwed if nobody wants to look at songs you like, which is not really the point of the thing. i think it should be for everyone to get to look at things that interest them. and on the plus side of that, you learn from stuff that doesn't interest you, but that you might discover something cool about and incorporate into what you do.

I'm going to look at that tune, cry me a river, but then, that tune is just a chord progression and a melody, which i can't read. so i'll go and look at one version on yougle and others at another one, which is great if we tell each other which parts we are looking at, but the crucial part i think is the actual music.

you can't analyze songs without actual music. that just doesn't make sense.

ya you can say what you "could" do, but you could do pretty much anything.

also for me personally, this song begins a ltitle complex. songs like this have decided what some complex chords are to be, when in reality they need to be changed if you're going to improvise well over it. so these progressions are limiting in a way, and that's why when you hear people interpret them they are different.

sometimes they will play the same tune and on every pass in teh chord progression the chords will be different.

idk, i guess i envisionned more studying real songs, and not text on a page, which is little more than a skeletal guideline to be loosely followed.

ok that's it for my rant. carry on

[bluesking]

am I the only one that reads JonR's posts and doesn't uinderstand a single thing of what he's talking about?

I don't know if you are the only one. From my point of view, JonR's posts are often the most lucid, useful, entertaining and complete I have seen on the internet. I think everyone has to appreciate the opportunity afforded by clear writting and the patience of a saint. Such techniques are the closest opportunity any one of us has to actually get inside someone else's mind.

Perhaps you are asking for more than a forum can provide? Yes, there is a lot of talking here and perhaps its true not everyone understands what everyone else talks about. I think what you are actually looking for is not a forum, but a band. In a band you can play with other musicians and use your ears and hands as much as you need to. I actually quite like for this place to remain focused on talking about music because I already have plenty of opportunities to try "practical examples" either using recording media or other musicians.

On the topic of the original post: Yes, I am prepared to try the idea however I have a few reservations:

1.) How do we stop these song studies going off-topic?

2.) I personally will only contribute to those songs that I have an interest in learning. Life is to short to learn music one isn't interested in.

3.) As I can't read standard notation I expect my interest in a given thread will disappear when I see it (another reason why I enjoy JonR's posts so much!)

4.) How are we going to choose songs which are of interest to both experienced and less experienced players?

[gersdal]

am I the only one that reads JonR's posts and doesn't uinderstand a single thing of what he's talking about?

I don't know, but find them just fine.

i think the reality of the situation is that in a song like this, such a complicated song, we could right a full book of text explaining what you could do to the song.

I don't think we are out to write a book. You're right, we could write a book about it, but this is a forum... we throw each other a bone and hopefully as a result we grow (possibly slower than if we found a book that covers the item, but still..).

but unless you already know all your theory perfectly that will all be just words and have no meaning. so for me, it really helps to either hear what someone is playing, a specific recording. or something someone submitted.

You can find the tune on youtube. I even gave a link to it.

if it's just words, you could say almost anything. you can do almost anything in music. right?

What on earth ... I'm sure a recording of your playing the song will be accepted.

and to me, there's a little confusion as to what song we're doing.

metaljustice83 suggested "Cry me a river". He's the officer, so I follow. Malcolm suggested Cold Cold Heart, and Jon (the polite guy he is) followed that cue too. Maybe I was a bit too fast starting the whole thing off. I didn't realise it was still under debate.

I mean fine, if you want to do a cry me a river song (i guess kind of ironic name for this post..) then it would probably be best served in its own thread.

If the mods want a new thread for it, they can move everything from whenever they decide is the right place to a new thread. Probably a good idea.

so who chooses the next song, and when?

So far it is an idea. Let it flow. Could be great. Could be a dying thing. I don't know. I'd rather contribute to my best ability to get it great, rather than discussing the possiblities of it dying.

well here's the truth. what just happened is that a thread spawned about one song, and some discussion will go on about it, and nothing else has changed whatsoever in teh forum. so although, fine great, this thread happened and people like it, really the spirit of the idea has already vanished, and it has not even begun yet.

The spirit was great for a while when we did the Stricktly threads. That went on for quite a while, and then it died. A loss in my opinion, but it is to be expected in a forum like this.

I'm going to look at that tune, cry me a river, but then, that tune is just a chord progression and a melody, which i can't read. so i'll go and look at one version on yougle and others at another one, which is great if we tell each other which parts we are looking at, but the crucial part i think is the actual music.

I'm looking forward to your contributions when you've looked at the tune.

you can't analyze songs without actual music. that just doesn't make sense.

Well. I can look at the sheet music and do quite a lot.

also for me personally, this song begins a ltitle complex.

Cold Cold heart is not to complex. I suggest you follow Malcolms suggestion.

songs like this have decided what some complex chords are to be, when in reality they need to be changed if you're going to improvise well over it. so these progressions are limiting in a way, and that's why when you hear people interpret them they are different.

IMHO They are challanging, but not limiting. Cold Cold heart is easier.

sometimes they will play the same tune and on every pass in teh chord progression the chords will be different.

That's why it is a chord progression. It changes

idk, i guess i envisionned more studying real songs, and not text on a page, which is little more than a skeletal guideline to be loosely followed.

Cry me a river is a very real song. You have to explain me what you mean...