Comments

Compositionally, "More Than Words" is a straightforward ballad, but it has some notable things going on. The song is played in G Major, but Nuno tuned his guitar down a half-step, so it's actually in F#. For clarity, I'll use G Major as the reference key for this discussion. (1) The song uses a "secondary dominant" pivot chord to create a marvelous melodic hook. On the vocal line "all you have to do to make it real," and then later on the line "all I ever needed you to show," Nuno sneaks in a G7 chord, which is the V of IV. This creates a particularly ear-catching turn in the song because it comes right after Gary has sung an F# (7th degree of the G-Major scale). The G7 chord forces Gary to move the melodic line down a half-step to F natural -- which creates a big harmonic shift. This secondary dominant chord effectively functions as a pivot point, leading to a classic V-I cadence in a new key. In other words, the maneuver pulls the song's center of gravity away from G Major and towards C Major. It's a way of rotating the harmonic axis of the song, and it keeps the tune from becoming tedious. We can trace this kind of harmonic motion to 18th-Century Europe, and specifically, to the late Baroque period. A great example is the last movement of Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 5 in G major. In 1939, composer and Harvard professor Walter Piston explored the concept of the secondary dominant in his seminal text, the "Principles of Harmonic Analysis." Notably, he used the Mozart example to describe how the diminished 7th degree creates a "secondary leading tone" that can resolve down to the 3rd degree of the newly "tonicized" chord. This is precisely the device that Nuno and Gary are using in "More Than Words": the F# in the melody moves down to F natural (on the G7 chord) as a leading tone to move stepwise down to E (the 3rd of C Major). Voila! It's a charming little turn in the song. (2) After the secondary dominant chord, when Gary sings the line "Then you wouldn't have to say," Nuno follows the newly "tonicized" C Major chord with a C minor. This is the "minor iv" chord in the key of G -- sometimes called a "borrowed chord" from the parallel minor key. It creates a brief bittersweet moment as the harmonic motion resolves back to the G Major. This iv-I resolution is a lovely cadence, and it's an effective musical device for injecting a sense of romance into an otherwise bland musical passage. Another well-known song that uses this cadence is Radiohead's "Creep": think of the end of the chorus when he sings the line "I don't belong here." That's a iv-I cadence going back into the verse. The chorus of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" uses the same maneuver, as does the Beatles' "Nowhere Man." And an even better example is the Eagles' "Desperado," as it uses not just the the iv, but the iv6 (Cmin6). This creates a real sense of longing, because minor 6 chords are really inversions of min7b5 (minor-7-flat-5) chords, which possess a wistful, aching quality. John Williams' "Han Solo and the Princess" love theme from Star Wars is an exquisite example of this use of the minor vi6 interacting with the I. It's a kind of variation of the diatonic chords built off the "6th diminished scale" (a concept that comes from bebop and modal jazz). But that's a more sophisticated use of the minor iv. The way Extreme is using the minor iv in "More Than Words" is pretty simple -- but effective. (3) Towards the end of the song, on the line "'Cause I'd already know," they insert the b9 (flat-9) upper extension on the V7 chord -- i.e., making it a dominant-7-flat-9. This is a tasty variation of the V7, and it contains many points of tension that crave resolution back to the tonic chord. We can think of it as a diminished-7 chord superimposed on the root of the V, a half-step above it. It's a colorful chord most often heard in jazz standards (like "Stella By Starlight"), and it's unusual to find it in a modern pop song. In fact, "More Than Words" might be the last Billboard #1 single to contain this chord -- until Silk Sonic used it in "Leave the Door Open," which recently topped the chart. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Also, the single version of "More Than Words" ends on the tonic chord, but one of the vocal harmonies goes from the 5th to the 6th scale degree -- creating a sort of Beatlesesque musical ending. It's surprising, and I kind of like it. (4) One thing kinda bugs me about Extreme's "More Than Words" recording: the vocal intonation. To my ear, Gary's voice sounds a little flat in parts of the song. For example, whenever he sings the D# (in the key of F#), the 6th, over the tonic chord, his pitch sounds slightly flat to me. Anyone else hearing this? This surprises me given that he's a good singer and the whole band is pretty fastidious. It occurred to me that he's singing mostly without vibrato -- perhaps to create a more sincere-sounding performance (probably a good idea given how creepily manipulative the lyrics are, as Tom Breihan repeatedly pointed out). Vibrato has a tendency to make the pitch average of a note sound sharp due to the nature of the oscillation. If you're used to singing with vibrato and using that oscillation to center your pitch, I can imagine that your intonation would go flat in the absence of vibrato. Other thoughts?

I am involved with the organization CODE PINK, and last Wednesday they organized a petition on this issue (along with other important ones). You can sign it here, and I encourage everyone who cares about this issue to do so: https://www.codepink.org/bieberboycott

Good question. I think competent composers and songwriters absolutely know what they're doing -- even if they don't know the formal names for things. To wit: Joni Mitchell was using sus chords for years, intentionally and artfully, before she knew what they were called. She referred to them as "chords of inquiry" -- because that's what they meant to her. It was years before someone (maybe Wayne Shorter?) told her what everyone else calls them. One can write evocative, emotionally powerful music without having any formal training and without knowing official terminology. But when communicating with others, it helps if you have a common language with which to describe things. If you're a working musician, it's pretty important to be able to name notes, intervals, rhythms, and chord types using commonly accepted language -- and it's important to understand how notes, chords, and rhythms relate to each other. If you were to ask me to play a 16th-note C Lydian arpeggio, but my term for that is "Lavender chugalug," it would take a minute for each of us to figure out what they other person means -- which is not an efficient way to communicate.

Good catch! Do you realize you've just volunteered to proofread all my writings in the future? :-)

A few thoughts and questions: (1) The legendary Toots Thielemans is credited as having played harmonica on this song. I just listened to the youtube link, and I swear I can't find harmonica anywhere in the song. I am missing it? Can someone point out where it is? On a related note, the blistering guitar solo that finishes out the song appears to be uncredited. Who played it? (Maybe Michael Landau or Dann Huff?) Is it possible that a previous version of this song had a Toots Thielemans harmonica solo that was later replaced with a guitar solo, and they never bothered to update the credits? (2) There are some fascinating harmonic choices in the music composition. The song is in the key of D (until the whole-step-up key change at the end when the drums and guitar kick in), and to me, the most notable characteristic of the composition is its elegant use of chord inversions -- which are all over this song. The chorus section, where he sings "I don't have the heart...," starts on the IV chord (GMaj). The next chord you would expect to hear in a schmaltzy late-80s/early-90s ballad like this is the V chord (AMaj), which leads back to the I (DMaj). However, they play the AMaj not in root position, but in first inversion: that is, over a C#. This creates an unstable feeling in part because the bass note has moved a tritone interval, which is the most harmonically uncomfortable jump you can make -- given that G and C# are at opposite ends of the Circle of Fifths. It's a surprising moment in an otherwise unremarkable song, and it's a smart choice because it creates a sense of weightiness and uncertainty in that moment -- perfectly complementing the words James is singing. This harmonic choice indicates a high level of thoughtfulness and skill on the part of the songwriters. (3) There are other tasty compositional bits throughout the song, but the one that really catches my attention happens in the middle of the verse sections. When James sings "You say it's 'cause you're dreaming / Of how good it's going to be...," the chords leave the D-Major diatonic mode and modulate to BbMaj9 and then Emin7b5/A, before returning to DMaj. This is really wild -- and totally awesome. The BbMaj9 chord is the bVI in DMaj, and the Emin7b5/A is a stylish flavor of the V chord -- it's a half-diminished ii-over-V chord. It creates a kind of dark, smoky musical color that pulls us back to the tonic chord (DMaj). This is the kind of harmonic language rarely heard in pop music circa 1990, and is more reminiscent of what you might hear in sophisticated Gospel music. It's too bad the song doesn't celebrate these fleeting moments and make more out of them. "I Don't Have the Heart" really could benefit from more of this kind of writing. (4) That awful synth piano people are rightfully complaining about sounds a lot like the E. Piano 1 preset on the famed Yamaha DX7. Have I mentioned lately how much I hate that sound? It's been a little while, I know. Other thoughts?

Anyone interested in investigating how "Vision of Love" works compositionally? I think it's pretty cool, so let's check it out. (1) The song starts off ominously with a C drone, with Mariah descending on a melismatic C-minor pentatonic phrase -- telling us we're in C minor. But as soon as the verse starts, there's a bright musical shift, and it's clear the home chord is C Major (on the line "treated me kind"). However, in the second bar ("sweet destiny" lyrics) we hear a C13 chord -- which contains a Bb. So it's actually C Mixolydian, setting up a pivot to F. When the F chord lands, Mariah sings an Eb on the word "desperation" -- a flat third in C (the "blue note"), making the F chord an F7. The F7 is the V chord in Bb. Why is this significant? We're not even halfway into the first verse, and the song has apparently changed keys 3 times -- from Cmin to CMaj to C Mixolydian (F key signature) to an implied Bb Maj (because of the F7 chord). And because it's so seamless and musical, all these pivots don't call attention to themselves as gimmicky key changes. The melody that sews the changes together is almost entirely based on the A minor blues scale and Mariah sings it so assuredly and soulfully that it all just feels "correct" -- not like it's doing anything harmonically unusual. It's really lovely... and it gets better. (2) The end of the first verse, going into the chorus, contains a marvelous example of an "inverted pedal point." Pedal points are bass notes that are sustained underneath moving chords, which can create tension and excitement. At the top of the verse, going from C to C13, that's actually an example of a pedal point, because you can think of the second chord as a Gmin6/9 over C -- which creates a kind of suspended sound as the note C is held in the bass. "Inverted" pedal points are similar, except the sustained notes are higher up in the harmony (not in the bass) -- and that's what's about to come next in the song. The chords at the end of the verse, going into the chorus are F7, E+, E7#5, Eb6, D7. The note C is common to all these chords, and it binds them together on top as the bass line walk down chromatically. That's the inverted pedal point. It's remarkable because the chorus section begins in the middle of that sequence (on the Eb6 chord). In other words, it starts on a "borrowed" chord, the bIII6 -- something I don't think I've ever heard anywhere else (i.e., I can't think of another example of this). It's quite clever in the way the inverted pedal point over the walk-down bass line makes the verse and chorus hang together without a pause or gap. In fact, the inverted pedal point works throughout the entire song. After the D7, the chords that finish out the chorus are F, F/G, C, C+, Bb9b5. There's a C in every chord. (3) The I-->I13-->IV7-->III+-->bIII6-->II7-->IV-->IV/V chord progression that comprises the verse and chorus contains no minor chords. I suppose you could consider the Eb6 to be a Cmin7 in first inversion, or the C13 to be a Gmin6/C, but still it is pretty remarkable that every chord contains a Major 3rd interval from the root, while by and large creating a progression that doesn't sound "all Major." It's the songwriters' deft use of secondary dominant chords and augmented triads that "tells the story" and grabs the listener's ear. Tom Breihan wrote that Mariah Carey didn't grow up listening to Gospel music... But if you look at this song's musical architecture, it really is steeped in the Black Gospel tradition, and the harmonic vocabulary is far more appealing than most of what was on the pop charts in 1990. I always thought of Mariah Carey as a consummate singer who also co-wrote some pop songs, mostly as a vehicle to show off her vocal prowess. This song is so well crafted that I'm now rethnking that notion: her writing was not merely incidental, but an end in itself. Irrespective of who's singing it, I think this song would still hold up. (4) Can you think of other music that uses a similar chord progression? I'm reminded of Norah Jones' "Don't Know Why," which uses a I-I7-IV-III7-vi-II7-IV/V progression. It's not the same as what's in "Vision of Love," but has some robust similarities (notably, its use of secondary dominants as pivot points and its use of common tones). Another piece of music that comes to mind is the first movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 1., which begins with a I7-IV chord change in the strings and winds -- functioning as a pivot from C to F (like in "Vision of Love"). Other ideas?

Great observation! I thought about this too, because the Cb (enharmonic to B) and the A are each a half-step away from the target chord, Bb. But I think of "enclosure," mostly a bebop concept, being about using chromatic *notes* above or below the target note. In other words, it's a kind of melodic technique for smooth voice leading. It doesn't seem to me that that's what Kurt did with his Cb-->A-->Bb turnaround. But maybe that's just how I'm hearing it -- and maybe to Kurt's ears, it sounded linear in some way. Certainly, he must've thought it sounded musical or evocative. What are your thoughts?

Boston is a good reference here, if only for its stark contrast to Nirvana. Tom Scholz demonstrated incredible skill and cleverness with functional harmony, channeling the greats like Bach and Rachmaninoff, while injecting all kinds of surprises into the harmonic movements. Using the example cited by above by stereogump: on "More Than a Feeling," Scholz used a chromatic mediant modulation at the end of the chorus to go from CMaj to EbMaj (minor third up), and up chromatically to Emin7, and then up a fourth to Aadd13. Over this surprising sequence, Brad Delp sings the note G, a common tone that ties these disparate chords together -- and all in the service of deftly pivoting key centers from GMaj to DMaj (and eventually to D Mixolydian). This is master-level song craft using functional harmony, where every move has a purpose. It's like a musical Swiss watch where each chord and each note makes sense and works perfectly. It's quite the opposite of Nirvana, who created enormously evocative music by throwing so many of these ideas overboard. It's as though Kurt Cobain was operating within an alternate system of musical rules (or lack of rules?). Both are great for different reasons.

For me, alternate guitar tunings are a means to an end, a kind of tool that allows chord voicings to fit comfortably under my fingers. Alternate tunings can also be a great way to break out of ruts or formulas, and to discover new musical colors, textures, or harmonic patterns. But when I listen to music I usually don't notice things like what kind of tuning the guitarist is using, and I don't think it affects how I hear melodies. Same goes for effects. Does it for you? And I wasn't familiar with Alan Pollack's site -- so, thank you for linking to it. I'll check it out.

That's quite a subject, isn't it? The iconic sound of Layne Staley's and Jerry Cantrell's vocal harmonies comes, in part, from their use of stacked perfect 4th intervals. It's pretty unusual, as we normally hear 3rds or 6ths in 2-part vocal harmonies. Use of parallel 4ths is a marvelous melodic technique used in modal jazz ("quartal voicing") -- e.g., Miles Davis' "So What" or Coltrane's "Impressions." You can also think of it as inversions of parallel 5ths (which can be traced back to Medieval Gregorian chants). You can hear "stack of 4th" chord voicings all over Steely Dan tunes. It's a great sound, and one I use often in film scoring.

Thanks Simone. I don't have a youtube channel with music theory breakdowns. But your point is well taken. Maybe there's a way, for future articles, that I can include audio reference clips that isolate or focus on specific concepts. I'm not sure if that would make sense in this medium, but do you think it would be helpful? I hope the song references already included (like Aretha Franklin, Goldfinger, etc.) do help in communicating the ideas. I appreciate the feedback!

Hi thegue, The original Prince version (and the Family version) does not contain the key change going in to the chorus -- so the entire song stays in the same key. Furthermore, he doesn't use neutral or variable thirds the way Sinead does -- so it lacks the aching quality of Sinead's recording. Prince's version is in B Major and follows the same verse pattern as Sinead's, but at the end of the verse he does something really cool: he plays a bVII chord -- an A9 -- and here he does indeed bend the 3rd down to D natural, creating a marvelous bluesy sound. Unfortunately, the chorus that follows is rather underwhelming. My main issue with Sinead's version is the fourth chord she uses in the verses. The verse chords follow the following pattern: F, C/E, Dmin7, F, C9. (In the last iteration before each chorus, she goes to A7 after the Dmin7, setting up the key change.) You can see that the first three chords walk down diatonically in F, but then, weirdly, the progression returns to F Major for the fourth chord, breaking the flow and returning "home" in the middle of the verse. This has always felt amateurish to me -- like they didn't know where to go next, so they just went home. The solution is very simple: the fourth chord should be an F/C (or second inversion of the F Major chord). It keeps the same character as the F in root position, but has a forward momentum that feels unresolved. Then for the C9 that follows, the bass note is already there and can continue pedaling under the chord change. From a "voice-leading" perspective, I think it works better than what's in Sinead's recording. Try it out and tell me what you think. In Prince's version, he doesn't use the I-->V cadence at the end of each verse cycle. Instead, he employs an awkward iii-IV-V-IV-iii-ii line that feels heavy-handed and jejune. (Later in the song, he uses the iv6 chord -- which is an Emin6 in the key of B, which is pretty cool. But the recurring motif still feels tedious to me.) What do you think?

Thanks Link! I find it exciting to rediscover these songs from my childhood (many of which I had forgotten) and to comment about them here. And I thoroughly enjoy reading your and others' comments on the music. Sometimes I worry that my comments might come off as self-indigent or pedantic, so I'm glad you don't read them that way.

Yes. Great observation. (I described this as well in my comment right above yours.) :-) Sinead's use of dissonance helps keep the song from being too "pretty" -- and I think it imparts a sense of longing, pain, and heartbreak that mirrors what's in the lyrics. It's a very effective (and affecting) amalgam of consonance and dissonance.

I hadn't heard this song in years, but listening to it now I like it a lot more than I had remembered. It's really quite exquisite. Here are a couple of notable things about the composition and performance of "NC2U": (1) Sinead's use of the "neutral third" and the related "blue note" are superb. In Western harmonic theory, common triadic chords usually consist of these three notes: 1, 3, and 5, which correspond to scale degrees. If the "3" is two whole tones apart from the "1," it's a Major third interval and the chord is "Major." If the "3" is one-and-a-half tones away from the "1," then it's a minor third interval and the chord is "minor." However, there's a concept known as the "neutral third" -- which is neither Major nor minor, but somewhere in between. It can be very evocative, especially in blues and rock music. A great example is Aretha Franklin's vocal performance in "Respect." Traditional Arabic music uses neutral thirds as well, as does a lot of American folk music. Some 20th-Century composers like Charles Ives also experimented with neutral thirds. Sinead uses the neutral third all over the place in "NCTU." For example, when she sings the line, "I go out ev'ry night and sleep all day," you can hear that she sings an A natural on the word "night" -- but she bends that note down in pitch almost to A flat. The chord she's singing over in an F Major, yet the resulting melody is in neither Major nor minor, but a little of both. I think it's totally rad and it's one of the best things about the song. Without Sinead's use of the neutral third, the song would probably sound boring and dirge-like. It's Sinead's tasteful and surprising "note bending" of the third that gives the song its edge. She also employs the famous "blue note" -- a concept related to the neutral third. The blue note is the use of a flat 3 (minor third interval relative to the 1) over Major chord, or a flat 5 (tritone interval) over a minor chord. At the end of the chorus, Sinead sings the line, "nothing compares 2 u" over the chords Dmin and Dmin/C. The phrase "2 u" contains the notes Ab and G -- which are the flat 5 and 4 of D minor. Those notes are also the #5 and 5 of C Major (which is really the chord that resolves the end of the chorus). Like with Sinead's use of the neutral third, her hitting blue notes in the chorus imparts a character that's both edgy and haunting. The song itself is very simple, so these melodic vocal gestures go a long way in breaking the song out of it's strict diatonic mold. It's striking, and it's so good. (2) The song's verses are in F Major, but at the end of each verse there's a deft use of a secondary dominant chord that functions as an unusually sort of pivot point into the chorus, in which the key center shifts up a perfect 4th to the key of Bb. For example, when Sinead sings "nothing can take away these blues," the chord underneath is an A7 -- which is the "V of vi" in the key of F, or a secondary dominant chord. But instead of modulating to D minor, as would be implied by the A7, the song lands on a totally unexpected Eb Major chord (the IV chord in Bb) -- a tritone away from the A7. It creates a surprising and amazingly effective lift into the chorus. The most poignant part of the song, to me, is second line of the chorus, when it goes to the iii (minor 3) chord in Bb -- which is the D minor. It's an unlikely modulation, but it feels satisfying -- and exquisitely heartbreaking -- from a harmonic standpoint. The lyrics serve only to amplify the emotion. And it's at the end of this phrase that Sinead deploys that haunting blue note I described above. I have some small quibbles with the song compositionally, but I won't get into them now. Anyone have other thoughts on this?

I was in high school when "Opposites Attract" came out, and I remember having no interest in it at the time. But hearing it now for probably the first time in 30 years, I'm finding it oddly compelling. Tom wrote that it's hard to judge this song as a piece of music. I disagree. The song's production style is harsh and cacophonous, but I think the underlying composition is actually kind of cool. The song is in C Dorian mode, and the Cmin-->Bb--F/A chords under the line "we come together 'cause opposites attract" are pretty great. This is what gives that hook its memorable character. If you can get past all the annoying production elements, you might find that it's not a badly crafted tune. In one of the verses, Paula Abdul sings, "I take it easy," and then he sings "baby I get upset" -- over an Amin7b5 (or A7-half-diminished) chord with a bass line that walks up diatonically in C dorian. How often do you hear that kind of tasty harmonic movement in a silly dance/pop tune like this? The composition is actually pretty subtle -- which makes it hard to hear under all the noisy production. Oliver Lieber's choice to write the song in Dorian mode was smart. The minor tonality gives the song a bit of an edgy flavor, but the raised/natural 6th scale degree (the A natural) makes it feel light and fun. The resulting juxtaposition of the "C minor" and "F Major" tonality serves the song well. [For reference, a few other songs that use Dorian mode include "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk, "Blinding Lights" by The Weeknd, "Mad World" by Tears for Fears, and "So What" by Miles Davis.] Regarding the music video: the animation was done by Chris Bailey, who was at Disney at the time. He's now at Warner Bros. and has been doing the new "Scooby Doo" show. I got to know him a couple of years ago when he hired me to perform, record, and produce the theme song for the new Scooby show (after hearing my scoring work on "The Tom and Jerry Show"). I guess in a circuitous way, that brings us back to Paula Abdul and Gene Kelly. It's funny when all these different threads connect.

You rang? Ha! Yeah, "All the Things You Are" is a great Jerome Kern song. Like "Autumn Leaves," which Link mentioned, it's mostly based on Circle of Fifths relationships. "All the Things You Are" has a really cool feature: it uses "mediant modulation" to reorient the key center to the Major III chord (by way of a secondary dominant chord). So it starts in Ab at the beginning and then resolves at the end of the first section to C Major. Then for the next section, it shifts to C minor (the relative minor to Eb Major) and winds its way around the Circle of Fifths to Ab, and uses a secondary dominant pivot to land in G Major (the Major III of Eb Major). Pretty cool pattern, I think. The melody mostly hits 3rds and 7ths of each chord, so it clearly expresses the character of each chord without ambiguity. Like a lot of jazz standards that use the ii-V-I cadence, "All the Things You Are" is a great case study in functional harmony. I'm glad you brought up this song in the context of today's number one hit, "How Am I Supposed to Live Without You" -- because that song also uses ii-V-I pivot cadences to modulate keys (like from Bb in the verse to Eb in the chorus). [For the record, I don't like Michael Bolton's recording of the song, but I think the songwriting itself is pretty good.]

"I think if Phil Collins can stay involved all problems can be solved." Ha! Yes, absolutely. And thanks for indulging me with this engrossing thread!

Speaking of getting through the 80s, here's my favorite 80s parody ever (and probably my favorite Simpsons intro ever). You all probably already know this clip well, but in case you haven't seen it, enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZu5iDTtNg0

Yeah, that song is pretty amazing, huh? Over the last few years, I've had to defend that song numerous times from criticism by friends of mine who scoffed at its corniness. I do admit the song is corny, but it's also awesome. Both things can be true. I think Rick Beato did a pretty good job of showing the chord changes, so I don't know that I can add much there. But I have often wondered what motivated Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil (the songwriters) to use such audacious modulations -- in the context of a love song, of all things. Maybe it was like an exercise to see if they could make a catchy pop song using an incredibly unintuitive and complex musical architecture? I'm reminded of John Coltrane's "Giant Steps" -- which he composed specifically as a kind of etude: a challenge to himself, requiring him to solo over an unlikely set of harmonic leaps (or "giant steps"). He had to devise melodic lines that sound musical and intentional and that make sense across that weird chord progression. That was the difficult task he created for himself, and many of us today recognize that Coltrane's act of creating it was itself a triumph. To this day, soloing over "Giant Steps," making a coherent melody over those changes at that tempo, is like a musical equivalent of scaling Mt. Everest. If this is what Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil were trying to do with "Never Gonna Let You Go," I think they succeeded. I enjoy the song simply for the listening experience, but I also admire the creativity and adventurism that undoubtedly went into creating it. It's cool to think there was a time when that level of musicality was not only tolerated but celebrated in pop music.

AdaminPhilly, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don't think it's Pollyannaish to believe things can improve. On the contrary, I think it's crucial that we recognize that things can improve. I do have to disagree with you about the trends in world hunger -- the notion that it has gotten better. Anthropologist Jason Hickel at the London School of Economics and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, among others, have independently demonstrated that the opposite is true. While the UN has been touting that its poverty reduction programs have cut global poverty and hunger in half since 1990, Jason Hickel, in particular, has shown how the UN has been cooking the books in order to make this claim -- using misleading and even intentionally inaccurate data. In reality, around 4 billion people (over half of the world's population) remain in poverty, and around 2 billion (a quarter of the world) remain hungry -- more than any previous time in history. Also, the once-popular perception that Norman Borlaug and the so-called "Green Revolution" were beneficial for humanity has been unravelling. Scientists, nutritionists, and environmentalists have been increasingly critical of the Green Revolution for having caused more harm than good -- due to the shift to large-scale monoculture and input-intensive farming, GMO-based practices, and non-sustainable and socially devastating farming methods. Indian scholar Vandana Shiva has written about this extensively, as have economists like Manfred Max Neef, showing how Borlaug's work has actually caused more deaths than it purportedly prevented. In any case, I agree with you that change is possible. In fact, it's imperative. As odd as it may seem to have this conversation on what is supposed to be a music-centric forum, I'm glad we're having it -- and I appreciate engaging with you. :-)

In this comment, I intended to reply to panoramastitcher's comment.

I totally agree with you. I think there's a moral imperative to try to alleviate suffering in the world even if we just do it as individuals. And individual action can be truly meaningful. I'm glad you brought up the example of helping out at a kitchen or food shelter -- because that's important. My concern is that socioeconomic problems like homelessness, poverty, and hunger have been normalized in our popular conception of the world. We've been taught to think of poverty and food insecurity as natural occurrences -- like gravity, or ocean tides. Like it's just an inevitable part of nature, and so we can only address the suffering it causes by charitable actions we take as individuals, in the margins. In reality, there's a ton of research over the last few decades demonstrating that poverty and hunger in the modern world are the predictable (and predicted) consequences of policy choices made by powerful interests. I think until this is widely understood, we can't meaningfully make change. Individual actions, while indeed helpful in alleviating suffering, cannot change the underlying structure that creates poverty, hunger, and homelessness. I think the answer is some combination of each of us acting individually (as you described) while also building large-scale movements to reconfigure policy in a manner that is more just and equitable.

Yes, I see your point. There's only so much you can say in the context of a pop song without coming off as prescriptive or preachy.

I'm rather ambivalent about this song. It feels a bit drab and plodding -- in part cue to the production, but also in part that there's not a lot of movement compositionally. The song is in F minor, but it's tuned around 15 cents sharp (at least at it is in the studio recording). The intro and verse chords are Fmin7, Eb, Bmin -- so if we designate "home" to be Fmin7, the verse uses a i-bVII-iv progression. Note the lower case i and iv indicate minor chords there, not Major. The chorus is far more compelling compositionally, as we have chords moving over an F pedal, creating a greater sense of drama. The chords are Fmin, Eb6/F, DbMaj7/F. There's a rich, ominous feel these chords, and the melody lands repeatedly on the note C, which emphasizes the most compelling note in the chords -- imparting a dark, expressive color to the entire passage. As to the subject matter of the song, in the lyrics: it seems to me both Phil Collins and his critics may be missing elephant in the room. Poverty and homelessness are often framed as social problems that can be alleviated with charity. This is folly. Poverty and homelessness are the result of public policy created by powerful factions whose interests are served by these policy choices. You can't have extreme wealth without extreme poverty. The former requires the latter. And we could easily end the conditions of homelessness and poverty if we were to choose to do so. Phil sings, "Oh Lord, is there nothing more anybody can do?" as though it's a rhetorical question. According to recent studies by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would cost around $20 billion per year to end homelessness in the US. This amounts to around 2% of what the US pays on militarism and war -- enterprises that exist primarily to enrich war profiteers and large corporations engaged in extractive industries, etc. Yes, Phil, there is something we can do. We're choosing not to do it. According to a 2020 studied conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Cornell University, and the International Food policy Research Institute, it would cost around $11 billion per year for 10 years to end world hunger. This is 0.005% of the US GDP. If budgets are moral documents, what does this say about us? I appreciate the sentiment of "Another Day in Paradise," but I wonder if it helps cement into place the popular misconception that poverty and homelessness are intractable problems, and that they're the natural result of unchangeable laws of nature. Tom Breihan writes that "there's probably some net social good..." in the song's effect on listeners. I'm not so sure. “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Touché. :-)

I believe Billy Joel is a national treasure. When I think of the best songwriters of the 20th Century, a few names come to mind: Cole Porter, Harold Arlen, Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn, Victor Young, Holland–Dozier–Holland, Lennon/McCartney, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, Fagen/Becker... and Billy Joel. In particular, there are three albums he released from 1976-1978 that are true masterpieces and represent the pinnacle of the art form: Turnstiles, The Stranger, and 52nd Street. I probably wouldn't be a musician today if, as a young child, I hadn't discovered Billy Joel and immersed myself in his compositions. Having said that, I have to agree with Tom Breihan (and others commenting here) that "We Didn't Start the Fire" is an abomination. It pains me that a songwriter with as much skill and heart as Billy Joel wrote this god-awful mess of a tune: it's glib, crass, and insulting to listeners' intelligence. It infuriates me that this song hit #1 on the Billboard chart, and that a lot of people think of this musical atrocity when they think of Billy Joel. It's probably the worst thing Billy Joel ever did -- and totally uncharacteristic of his amazing body of work -- yet it's what so many people now associate with him. BTW, kudos to Tom for connecting this horrid mess of a song with another (far more destructive) abomination: Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History." Perhaps that's a topic for another discussion. If we take a look at the song's underlying composition, there are a couple of notable things about it: (1) The melody (to the extent you can call it that) is entirely based on the G Major pentatonic scale. Starting on the 5th degree of the scale, we have the notes: D, E, G, A, B. (If you play those notes in order, you get chorus melody. Play them in reverse, and you get an approximation of the verse melody.) It's possible Billy Joel decided to restrict his composition to just these notes as an exercise to see if he could write something musically coherent with such a limited palette. If so, the experiment failed. I think the fact that he pretty much sticks to only those basic pentatonic notes, played mostly in sequence, is part of why the song sounds like a nursery rhyme from hell. (2) The song is essentially in G Major, but he plays the first chord of the chorus in 2nd inversion: it's a G/D. This is the only redeeming thing about the song, as far as I can tell, and the only indication that the songwriter has some skill. This 2nd-inversion chord creates a kind of forward momentum that feels weighty, yet unstable -- because the tonic chord is not in root position and is begging for some kind of resolution. It's a very good start for the chorus, given what he's apparently trying to do lyrically. It's followed by an E7sus, which is also really good because it establishes a kind of walk-up pattern in a strong but emotionally ambiguous manner -- due to the chord's "suspension." The third chord in the chorus is a CMaj9. It's not terrible, but it's disappointing because it keeps everything diatonic and imparts a kind of smug, self-assuredness to the song. If, instead, he'd gone to an A7 for that third chord, it might've sounded more playful and might've given the whole song a more tongue-in-cheek feel, telling us that Billy is actually poking fun at himself -- a characteristic the song badly needs. Or, if instead of the CMaj9, he'd gone to an E7sus/F (or Dmin6-9/F) chord, that would've added a kind of richness, and emotional complexity, to the sound that the song also badly needs. The F bass note would break the diatonic feel, and the B natural in the chord would impart a Lydian sound -- with a sense of wonderment and hope. But, alas, it wasn't to be. Anyway, that's all for now. I do love Billy Joel, but really wish he hadn't tarnished his legacy with this song.

This is indeed amazing. Looking forward to this immensely. Given that there were only two mics on stage, it's curious that Kevin Reeves decided to pan them hard Left and right for this release. (At least that's what it sounds like on the youtube video.) Maybe he was trying to recreate the stereo imaging of the original album recorded at Rudy Van Gelder's, with Coltrane panned hard left, and McCoy Tyler panned somewhat to the right (like maybe 2 o'clock). I do wonder how the players were arranged on stage.... Was McCoy Tyner on stage right, with Coltrane towards the center, Elvin behind him, and Jimmy Garrison slightly stage left? This would explain piano being almost alone in the right channel of the mix, with everyone else on the left (and Elvin kind of floating around between 12 and 9 o'clock). Anyone know? (And I wonder where the mics were placed relative to the players....?)

Link, I'm glad you invoked Genesis on this thread. You're right that they frequently employed adventurous key changes -- and Tony Banks was deft at finding ways to sew it all together using principles of functional harmony. In those instances where they'd make unusual intervallic jumps or key changes that didn't comport with any known principles of functional harmony, they'd still use smooth voice leading to make it feel musical.

Hi Brigit, I see your point and I'm coming around to agreeing with you. Sometimes, it can be fun to insert "disruptions" into a piece of music, even if they seem random or perfunctory. And given the degree to which so much pop music conforms to the same patterns and rules, maybe we should celebrate those rare occasions when a song does something unexpected -- even if it feels jarring or inelegant. So yeah, in a way I agree with you that these sudden key changes do have their own peculiar charm. They shake up the familiar harmonic patterns we've come to expect, and that in itself is undoubtedly a good thing.

I was on the fence about whether to weigh in on this one. I've generally avoided commenting on songs where I've worked with the artist or songwriter (although I've violated this rule in the past). Diane Warren is a friend and colleague, and I haven't commented on her other songs before because I thought doing so might be awkward. So I'll try to keep this succinct: (1) When the intro moves to the verse, and the verse moves to the pre-chorus, we hear a special kind of "chromatic modulation." Chromatic modulations are ones where the key center shifts up (or down) by a half-step interval. In this song, going from verse to pre-chorus, the key center changes from Bb to B. Chromatic modulations are a fairly common type of key change (Beyonce's "Love On Top" is a popular example), but in today's song, it's unusual because the shift occurs from the tonic (I) chord in Bb to the IV chord in B -- meaning, it lands on the E chord. Therefore, as listeners, we don't hear it as a half-step (Bb to B) modulation, but rather a "tritone" modulation, Bb-->E. (To be precise, it's a an Eb/Bb-->E modulation, so it feels like a combination of a tritone and a half-step key change.) Tritone intervals are uncomfortable, even jarring to the listener because they represent the farthest distance on the Circle of Fifths. The scales of Bb Major and E Major are on opposite ends of the Circle of Fifths, and therefore have almost no notes in common. This is why the the modulation from the verse to pre-chorus sounds kind of awkward. It jumps from one key center to a different, completely foreign key center -- and it does so with no warning or preparation. [I should mention that moving from one chord to another chord a tritone away can sound lovely if that second chord is a passing chord. The jazzy "tritone substitution" for the V7 in a ii-V-I turnaround is a great example. But that's not what's happening here.] If Diane had wanted the song to have smoother-sounding transitions, she could've had the melody linger on the one note that Bb and E have in common: Eb (or D#). The note Eb is the 4th degree in the Bb Major scale, and D# ("enharmonic" to Eb) is the 7th degree of the E Major scale. (The note D# is also the third degree of the B Major scale, the actual new key center.) The Carpenters' "We've Only Just Begun" is a great example of what I'm talking about: with that song's various key changes, the melody bridges all the big modulations by holding out common tones. The result is natural-sounding transitions that surprise the listener, but without sounding incongruous. In "Blame It On the Rain," it's possible that Diane was specifically trying to jolt the listener with strident modulations. I don't know... Lee Chestnut wrote (above) that Diane indicated she came upon the the key change accidentally and that wasn't thought out -- but she did choose to keep it. At some point, I may ask her about it. (2) The short bridge of the song moves to Ab Mixolydian mode -- for reasons I'm unable to discern -- and it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. It leads to another awkward key change, out of nowhere, to C Major, for the last chorus and coda. I assume these seemingly random key changes are supposed to inject excitement into the song, but there's something arbitrary about them. I suppose if Diane had used pivot chords before each key change, or some kind of graceful transition that sounds intentional, it would've resulted in a different song. Maybe Diane wanted those sudden, lurching key changes for a reason, and it wasn't really an accident (which would explain why the song contains so many of them). (3) I like the pedal point in the verse: a fixed Bb in the bass, with the chords Bb, Cmin (or Eb6), F6, moving around above. It feels restrained and creates anticipation for what's about to come. And the melodic phrasing is tasteful, with the rests at the beginning of each line in the verse creating space and a nice parallel structure. In the pre-chorus, the "Gotta blame it on something (gotta blame it on something)" call-and-response phrasing really helps build momentum for the big chorus. Importantly, I think the unequal phrase lengths over six bars (rather than the more common eight bars), adds excitement because it's unexpected, yet appealing because the melodic hook is strong. I think it's pretty well done. OK, I guess this wasn't succinct. Other thoughts?

I don't have perfect (absolute) pitch, but I have good relative pitch. Relative pitch allows me to identify intervals, notes, and chords after hearing a reference pitch. So if you were to play me middle C, for example, I could identify any other note you played after hearing the first note. It's a useful skill and if you haven't already developed it, you can with some practice... or you may develop it over time simply by playing and listening to a lot of music. There's also something known as pitch memory -- a skill that allows you to remember specific pitches, but not necessarily every note. A lot of guitar players, for example, can imagine the sound of an E in their head correctly because they've spent years tuning the first string of their instrument to that note. And once they've gotten that note, if they have good relative pitch, they can interpolate other notes by calculating the intervallic distances in their head. Sometimes I can find an E without reference, and sometimes middle C. But my pitch memory isn't great and it's something I should work on. Regarding your question about composers using theory versus innate feel: I think it's usually the latter. In my experience, most people write music and make musical choices based on instinct (I know I do). Theory can come in handy if you're in a bind and you need to explore a range of possibilities to solve a musical problem or work something out. I think it's most enjoyable to write and play what sounds or feels good, and then after the fact you can go back and look at its underlying musical architecture and examine why it sounds or feels good. In my view, music theory is simply a set of principles that can help us understand things. I don't see it as a set of rules or procedures for how to create music (though some people seem to think it is), but rather as a framework with which to understand or communicate concepts. Thanks for reading!

Yeah, I agree. The guitar solo in "Coloratura" doesn't really compare to David Gilmour's iconic playing. Gilmour's exquisite bends, vibrato, sense of melody and time (with those amazing rakes), and his jewel-like tone (replete with pinch harmonics) are incomparable. Because Coldplay is sort of invoking a Pink Floyd-type vibe, people are associating the two. However, I do think Jonny Buckland's solo serves a similar role as some of Gilmour's iconic solos - i.e., to inject excitement and elevate the song.

Fishhead and others have mentioned the guitar solo in this song. Does anyone find the sound familiar? The guitar is played through a Tom Scholz Rockman unit, a piece of technology we've discussed in comments from previous TNO articles. In the song's verses, it's a clean single-coil Strat with heavy chorused effect; in the song's chorus, he's using the "Dist" (i.e., distortion) preset on the Rockman X100. You can hear this sound all over Boston's Third Stage and Walk On albums (the applications for which Tom Scholz designed the gear), and it is integral to the sound of ZZ Top's Afterburner, Def Leppards Hysteria, and countless other albums. It's all very iconically 1980s, isn't it? Also, Fishhead: you mentioned the "very subtle, minor key change when she sings 'we all fall down'.” Nice catch! To be precise, however, it's not really a key change, but a non-diatonic "passing chord" -- a Bbmin7b5, or Bb half diminished 7. The song is in the key of E, and this chord is based on the "tritone," the point farthest away on the Circle of Fifths from the E Major key center. It's a kind of "approach chord" to the IV chord (A Major). To my ears, it's the best part of the song, and makes the "we all fall down" lyric more heartbreaking. Good call!

I hadn't given this song much thought before today, but hearing it now, I like it a little better than I had remembered. Tom's right that the original is so much better, and the Simply Red version was completely unnecessary. The song itself (i.e., the composition) isn't bad. Here are some thoughts: (1) The refrain chords follow the I-iii-IV-bvio pattern. This fourth chord is "flat 6 diminished." The song is in the key of Bb, so we have Bb, Dmin7, Ebadd9, Gbdim7. That fourth chord is the tasty bit, and it's functionally equivalent to the Vb9 chord (F7b9 in the key of Bb). If you play an F7b9, but replace the bass note with the b9 (Gb), you get the flat-6-diminished chord heard in this song. Even better, try it out as an F7b9sus chord with the b9 in place of the F. It's even tastier, right? (I'd call that chord a Gb6b5). (2) The flat-6-diminished chord is pretty important in jazz theory. How would you go about soloing over it? I recommend not using the diminished scale, but rather the V Mixolydian flat 9 scale. So for the Gbdim7 chord heard in this song, you'd play a melody based on the F Mixolydian flat 9. It works beautifully, and if you're worried about possible "avoid" notes to get you in trouble -- you can play it as an F Mixolydian flat 9 pentatonic and then let loose and shred. You're welcome. (3) Why does the flat 6 diminished chord work the way it does in this song? Apart from functioning as the dominant V chord (which feels a strong gravitational pull back to the tonic I chord) it also functions as an "approach chord" in Bb. The Gb wants to resolve down to F, the A wants to resolve up to Bb, the C wants to resolve either to Bb or D, and the Eb wants to resolve down to D. The songwriters made a fine harmonic choice. Any time you introduce a non-diatonic chord in a composition (i.e., any chord that doesn’t normally live in the key you’ve chosen), it pulls the listener away from the song's key center. In this case, it was not only a good idea, but I think I necessary one to engage the listener and keep them interested. Otherwise, this song's chord progression would've been very predictable, and the song might've even risked sounding dirge-like. (4) The second part of the verses has a key change up a minor third -- to Db Major. I love minor third transpositions in general, and this one creates a particularly satisfying lift. Then how do they go back to Bb for the chorus? Using a secondary dominant chord: Eb/F (which resolves to F), which is the V chord in Bb. (It's a secondary dominant because the F is the V of vi in Db Major.) It works marvelously as they're coming from an Ebmin9 chord, so we get the lift to the parallel major (Ebmin --> EbMaj), plus we get the surprise of the secondary dominant chord, which sets up the tonic (Bb) for the chorus. Very nice. (5) The above chords apply to the Simply Red version (in Bb). For the Harold Melvin version, just transpose everything up a half step. Other thoughts?

Right on, Link. If I had seen your comment before I posted mine, I would've chimed in on your thread. :-) Seems we're on a similar wavelength.

This is a compositionally quirky song. The chords in the main hook consist of D Major, F Major, A minor, and G Major. You'll probably notice that these chords don't fit neatly into any common Western scale, and are vaguely reminiscent of Booker T and the MGs' "Green Onions." [In both of these songs, you'll find two Major chords a minor third apart -- which is a little unusual to hear in a pop song.] The melody Roland Gift sings is fairly static, and mostly follows the root positions of each chord, along with some pentatonic blues-based decorations. Importantly, it's the D major chord, at the top of each cycle, that gives this song its essential identity. Bands like the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, and the Who were experimenting in the 60s with substituting Major chords where you'd normally expect minor ones -- and that's what Fine Young Cannibals are doing here. It's precisely this chord substitution that gives the song its hard edge. Fundamentally, this is a blues song, and that's why the D Major (that one peculiar chord that doesn't fit with the others) works so well in this context. "The blues" doesn't observe the traditional Major/minor dichotomy that is so fundamental to Western harmonic theory. In some respects, we can think of blues tonality as being in its own category, separate from traditional European-based harmonic language. In the vocal melody of this song, you can hear Roland singing an F natural on top of a D Major chord (with contains an F#). If we're following the "rules" of Western harmony, this would create a kind of "tonal rub" -- a dissonant sound. But when listening to this song, it doesn't sound dissonant to me. Does it to you? That's because it follows an alternate system of consonance. This alternate system combines elements of both traditional Major and minor intervals where the rigid line of demarcation between the two is blurred. It's why Roland is able to sing what is effectively a D minor pentatonic melody over these changes, and it actually sounds really cool. The piano solo in the bridge, likewise, is entirely based in the D minor blues scale. I think it's fun when artists adopt idioms that break old rigid rules, and I wish they did it more. And it's encouraging to see formal music theory courses discussing blues tonality -- something that was more rare in previous generations.

Richard Marx self-deprecatingly calls himself a hack guitar player, but I think he's actually not so bad. In 2006 Marx was part of Ringo Starr's All-Starr Band, and he did an admirable job playing rhythm guitar on Edgar Winter's "Free Ride." If you listen to this video with stereo speakers (or headphones), you can hear his guitar playing pretty clearly (it's the Strat panned hard left). He's playing a simplified version of the part, but it's clean and tight. Most importantly, Marx's time is really in the pocket -- much more than Billy Squier, who's playing the dirtier rhythm guitar part and lead part (panned right). I don't know how much sweetening they did in post production, or if they fixed/replaced any of the parts... But if that's what Richard Marx actually played live, it sounds fairly decent to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yGgQfpgDI&t=14s As an aside, that particular lineup also included Hamish Stuart (Average White Band) on bass, Rod Argent on Hammond organ, and Shiela E. on drums.

I've never much liked Richard Marx's treacly ballads, but I've found his mid- and up-tempo rock tunes to be pretty well crafted. Shall we take a look at the underlying musical architecture? (1) In the song's verses, the chords alternate between F and Eb, which function as the I and bVII chords in the key of F. Astute observers may recognize that this is very similar to what Madonna does in the verses of "Open Your Heart" (a song Tom previously rated as a 10). Madonna's song uses the same key signature, same F Mixolydian mode, same chords, and even almost the same tempo as today's song. ("Satisfied" is around 108 bpm, and "Open Your Heart is slightly faster at around 112 bpm). Listen to the verses of the two songs back to back, and you'll hear that they're quite similar. (2) The chorus of "Satisfied" (as well as the intro) uses the same harmonic structure as the verses (I to bVII), but it's a whole step down. The chords are Eb and Db, with a melody based on the Eb pentatonic (5-note) scale. One curious thing about the melody is that in the opening phrase of the chorus ("Don'tcha know-oooh") Marx climbs up to a C natural, the note an octave above middle C -- which is the 6th degree of the Eb scale. It's an unusual choice because the 6th is a "weak" scale degree over a major chord. It's great for adding color or as a passing tone... but why would you weaken the tonic chord with a Major 6th for the big hook in your song? In this case, it actually works because the C is the 3rd degree (a very strong interval) of the Ab Major scale... and the implied mode in the chorus is Eb Mixolyidan, which has the key signature of Ab Major. In other words, Marx is using a kind of harmonic sleight-of-hand to deliver the bold flavor of a "Major 3rd" interval, but disguised as a 6th in a different key. Further, the next chord is a Db Major, so the lingering impression of that C natural gives us an implied DbMaj7 chord immediately afterwards, which has its own distinctive flavor. Surprisingly, all of this works pretty well. (3) How does Richard Marx go from F Mixolydian in the verse to Eb (quasi-Mixolydian) in the chorus? The 8-bar pre-chorus contains the following chords: Cmin, Eb, Fmin, Bb9, and it's a crafty little sequence that makes the transition from F to Eb smoothly. Here's how: the Cmin is the v (minor 5) chord in F, but it doesn't sound like a chord borrowed from another key because it happens to be the ii chord in Bb Major (which has the same key signature as F Mixolydian). The Eb is the bVII in F Mixolydian, but also the IV chord in Bb. And the third chord in the sequence, the Fmin, is the secret sauce: it's not just the parallel minor in the key of F, but also the ii in the target key center, Eb. So when Marx plays this chord, he has already transitioned to the new key center in a stealthy way -- before the listener even realizes there's been a key change. Next we get Bb9 (or Fmin/Bb if you leave out the 3rd) -- which is the V chord in Eb, and it's what we expect to hear following the ii chord. So Marx has accomplished the key change in a manner that not only feels natural, but inevitable. It's a kind of novel way to execute the classic ii-V-I turnaround as a key-change pivot point. Well done, Richard. (4) If I may be so bold: I have a suggestion that I think would make the song better. Simply modify the chords in the verse and chorus from plain Major triads to Major 9 chords. Check out the song "You Get What You Give" by the New Radicals for a perfect example of what I'm talking about. That song uses the same alternating I-bVII chords as a Marx's "Satisfied," but with the upper extensions (Maj7 and 9)... and the result is a much richer, more open sound. You can even leave off the third, which is what I think Gregg Alexander does in "You Get What You Give" (A/D rather than DMaj9, and G/C rather than CMaj9) -- and it works beautifully. Try it out with Richard Marx's melody and see what you think. Other thoughts? -The commenter formerly known as Steely Dan Halen

"Feel It Still" is fun to listen to -- and you're right that the production is really dialed in. It uses a combination of retro and modern techniques in a very appealing way. You can hear the spring-reverb-and-slapback-delay effect on the electric guitar which reminds me of 1960s Philly and Detroit soul. And clearly the vocals are channeling early 70s Curtis Mayfield, which is awesome. The brass and wind section -- with the prominent baritone sax imparting a gritty, reedy sound reminiscent of Doc Kupka from Tower of Power -- is also a marvelous ingredient. When you juxtapose all of those tasty retro flavors with the song's modern dance beat, it effectively brings these decades-old aesthetics into the new century. Compositionally, it's very simple -- but that's not a bad thing. The entire song is essentially three chords (Dbmin, E, Gb5), but there's a kind of inherent ambiguity in that simplicity that I find alluring. [Marvin Gaye's "Inner City Blues" is, arguably, even simpler -- only two chords in Eb Dorian mode -- and I absolutely love it.] One of the cool things about "Feel It Still" is that third chord -- which I'm calling Gb5. The "quality" (i.e., whether it's Major or minor) is ambiguous. It's like a piece of fabric that can look like one color or another depending on how the light catches it. At times, I think I'm hearing Gb Major, at other times, it seems like Gb minor -- depending on the context of what's going on around it. That inherent tonal vagueness really appeals to me -- and I suspect it does to others as well -- because it invites the me to imagine what I think I should be hearing (but am not actually hearing). The song's melody is all based on the Db minor pentatonic (5-note) scale, and it alludes to the main hook of the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman," so there's something quite familiar about it. I get why people like the song. There's nothing compositionally groundbreaking about it, but it does combine familiar elements in an engaging way.