O Holy Night - Adolphe Adam.

This is a busy time of year for musicians, but I wanted to find time to make a Christmas-themed post. I am often asked what my favorite Christmas song is, and it is difficult to choose. I love the whole Charlie Brown Christmas album, but when pushed for a favorite I feel inclined to go back further.

Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas is an easy pick for me; it has great chords (especially for jazz musicians), a good form and its dynamics, from the beginning to the climax, almost play themselves. It would be my bronze medal choice.

I have a soft spot for Silent Night. It is so simple, so serene, and yet so evocative. When I hear, or sing it, I feel as though I'm in the 19th century, watching snow fall by candlelight. Silent Night is my silver medal choice.

I think my gold (and I admit that my choice could change depending on the day) is O Holy Night. Done well, it gave me goosebumps when I was ten, and gives me goosebumps now.

A little history on the piece: it was written by French composer Adolphe Adam to the poem Minuit, chrétiens by Placide Cappeau. The song was supposedly written in 1847, but the earliest score I could find (from the Library of Congress) is dated 1871. It appears to be a score by Adam himself - or at least a faithful reproduction. The score is stamped "1ST.COPY." and says "Only Correct Edition." over the title, so I believe it to be as close to the original source material as we can get.

One point that interested me about the piece was finding out what the original key was. It seems that even in the 19th century it was transposed to a variety of keys, presumably to accommodate different singing ranges. Because it covers over an octave and a half, the piece really needs to sit in the sweet spot for whomever is singing it. I found versions in C, D, A and Eb published before the turn of the century. Most versions were in Eb. The original score said that there were versions in Eb for sopranos and tenors, and in C for altos and baritones. (I'm not sure many altos and baritones would be excited about the high G near the end)

Looking over the score, it is surprising that the chords have gone largely untouched over the last century and a half. Some modern interpretations might reharmonize it a little, but the original chords are pretty much as you know them today. The melody, on the other hand, has a has seen some variation over the decades. For one thing, while the accompaniment is all triplets - basically in 12/8 - the melody contains no triplets.

In many modern versions the song is just written in 12/8, with the melody in triplets as most people sing it. Also, it seems that Adam was a fan of melodic variation, as can be seen in the score above. Each verse in the original scores is a little different, but most are close to the melody as we know it today. I was surprised to see many of the common modern variations and embellishments in the earliest scores.

Why it's Great

Now on to what I like about this song. The number one reason is intangible; like many carols, it evokes early childhood memories of Christmastime. I'm sure we had this song playing in the background every year during the holidays, as I hung stockings and decorated the tree with my family. It has a calm, stirring warmth to it that I can't explain.

From a theory standpoint, there are a lot of curiosities that make the song stand out. The use of a melody that is in straight 4/4 over an accompaniment that is in 12/8, while common in the Romantic era, is unusual in popular music. Also, the dynamic range is quite large, with Adam's score jumping from pp to ff at the "Fall on your knees" section.

Then there is the issue of form. This song can mess with a lot of singers because, like me, they tend to hear the first line ("O Holy Night") as the downbeat. In actuality this phrase is a pickup. That means that, between stanzas and verses, the singer must wait a measure and a half before coming in, though the impulse will be to start on the downbeat.

It also means that the first two stanzas are 5 measures long. I enjoy that such an unusual length flows so naturally. The full form is: 1 (one measure intro), 5 (verse stanza 1), 5 (verse stanza 2), 4 (pre-chorus), 8 (chorus), 4 (chorus tag). That's definitely unique.

I also like the slinky way the verse moves from Eb to Gm by turning the I chord into an augmented sixth chord in Gm. (curiously, Adam, a Frenchman, used the German augmented sixth, not the French!):

Last, what really sells the song is the climactic "Fall on your knees" section that builds to the high note. It is a great vocal showpiece and I especially like how the high note is first "mi", then the very high (Bb) "sol" is at the end. The way it carries into the following measure is beautiful. As "mi" it becomes the 9 in a 9-1 suspension over the ii6 chord. Then as "sol" it becomes the 4 in a 4-3 suspension. I would argue that the former is actually prettier, as it creates the sound of an unexpected IV chord with a 7-6 suspension. As I mentioned in my Ode to Joy post, there's just something about the IV chord.

I'm not sure that I would want this to be the only Christmas song I listen to for the rest of my days. If I had to pick just one, it would probably be Silent Night. But when I'm in the right mood, nothing beats O Holy Night. Because of its popularity, the song has been covered by countless artists. If I have time before Christmas, I'll review a handful of them.

Prince - Kiss. Two Things.

It is difficult to find Prince songs online, as he seems to be quite aggressive and litigious about copyrights and online distribution of his material. Nevertheless, I have found a video for reference below. Enjoy it while it lasts!

I wouldn't say I'm a huge Prince fan, but I have to give credit where it is due. He is pretty talented and "Kiss" is one of the more interesting treatments of the I-IV-V chords. There are a couple things I particularly like about this song:

1. The Bass

I know I always turn to the bass, but in this case it is the lack thereof that interests me. I can't think of many other (any?) pop/rock songs that have drums, but no bass. As always I am a fan of "Less is More" production, and I give extra points for subtractive decisions that are particularly counterintuitive. Somehow this one works. There is a very heavy synth bass drum and some lowish synth parts, but other than that there is very little low end in this song.

2. The Chord...

...the opening chord, that is. There are a lot of notes in that chord, so I couldn't resist figuring it out. As it turns out it is more or less impossible on the guitar. This is what I hear:

There may be some very creative ways to achieve this chord on the guitar for those with especially dexterous hands, but I doubt they would sound right and would be difficult to land in the middle of the a performance. On a second pass it is obvious that there are (at least) two guitars here. This is how I would break them down:

The first guitar is a lot cleaner, almost a completely dry sound. There are some major wah/phase effects on the second part. I did a quick and dirty recording of both parts:

Guitar 1:

Guitar 2:

Both Parts:

If you don't have a couple guitarists in your band, I would just go with the voicing that seems to be most popular on the internet:

You're only missing the C#, which is barely audible to begin with. That's good enough for live shows,  but it is fun to go back and dig into the original recording to see what makes it so unique. Hats off to you Prince, you ridiculous, talented weirdo.

John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman - My One And Only Love. Back to its Roots.

The collaboration of John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman might easily make my top 10 jazz albums. If I need to relax, this is the one to put on.

What makes it so mellow? The rich baritone and calm sax are a big part, but I believe the answer is in the rhythm section. For jazz musicians, My One And Only Love is standard repertoire and, while I might be a little tired of playing it, I never tire of the Coltrane/Hartman recording. So I put on my headphones to try to see what made that version So Great.

The answer is in the bass, as it often is. Most musicians learn this song from The Real Book, which looks like this:

Note the crowded walk-down in the first measure. It's a nice contrast to the ascending melody, but also maybe a little busy; it seems to distract from the melody a bit. There's also a series of inverted chords in the following measures. There's nothing wrong with them, but I feel that maybe it sounds a bit too clever for the subject matter.

The Coltrane/Hartman version uses far fewer chords, with a more straightforward I-vi-ii-V in the first two measures. As I listened I realized that not only were the chords simpler, but the bassist never plays an inversion. This is unusual for jazz bassists. Every chord is in root position, except for the short pedal in between the sax and the vocal sections. I don't think I've ever heard another bassist give the song that treatment. It was clearly something Jimmy Garrison was doing deliberately. 

I also enjoy that they use the raising 5th progression in the bridge, versus the descending 7th that always seems to clash with the melody. It is refreshing to find new ways to play old songs, so for those interested, below are the Coltrane chords to My One And Only Love. I tried to use simple chords rather than McCoy's thicker voicings and alterations, so look to the recording if you want to build on it*.

Get the PDF here.

* A few hints on McCoy's voicings: he plays an A13 on the second chord, plays a 13(#11) on the D7 chords (upper structure, think guide tones in the left hand, E triad in the right) and usually alters the B7 in the bridge. (again, upper structure - try guide tones in the left hand, F or G triads in the right)

Beethoven - "Ode to Joy." One note.

First, a quick intro on the piece that most people know as "Ode to Joy": The familiar melody is actually the prevailing theme in the fourth (final) movement of Beethoven's 9th (final) symphony. Its lyrics come from a poem by Friedrich Schiller. The theme occurs throughout the movement in a variety of ways, but is most commonly known for the triumphant moment that occurs at 12:55 in the video above. It is interesting to note that the theme does not occur until late in the piece, and that it neither opens nor closes the movement.

Because of its wide popularity, it is common for beginning students to learn the "Ode to Joy" melody on the piano. I understand that these beginner arrangements are often simplified for easy consumption, but it is striking how much of the impact is stripped out. Here is one example of a basic arrangement:

and another in C:

I will explain why these reductions fail, but first, what is it about this music that gives us goosebumps? There are many obvious reasons: the melody is simple but stately and revolves over the tried-and-true I, IV and V chords; the combination of a chorus and an orchestra is hard to beat; it is familiar, having been shared from generation to generation, featured in commercials and movies and holiday concerts.

Often goosebumps can't be explained through music theory. This is probably one of those times. But there is one note that really makes the piece work for me, that is often neglected in simplified versions of the piece. The harmony uses the flat seven, shown here in the orchestral score:

I have no idea why that note is so powerful, but I have a couple soft theories. For one, it is a bit unusual. We often gravitate to diatonic harmonies, like the parallel thirds in the first example above. There is a novelty to the dominant I chord. It also leads to an excellent double suspension in the soprano and alto parts. Listen to the difference:

First the piece with regular parallel thirds (this does create a double suspension over the IV chord that is quite pretty): 

Now with the flatted seven:

My other theory about why this note is so powerful is that it leads to the IV chord. There's just something about the IV chord. The I chord is home, and the V chord leads you home, but IV is neither of those; IV is the meat. It is where the drama happens. That's my best guess as to why it gives so many people goosebumps. I and V establish the key, but IV is the action. All I know is that I love that "C" in the altos.

There are a handful of other important/interesting details that are missed in the arrangements above, all things I think one should look for when playing an arrangement:

• It should be in D Major. Not G, not C
• It should go to the IV chord in the 5th measure, not V
• The bridge (not shown above) should have two secondary dominant chords, V/ii and V/V
• Despite the straight rhythm of the melody, it is actually in 6/8

Of course there is nothing wrong with simplifying a piece for beginners, but I think at some point in one's career they need to start getting it right, and this is a piece that deserves to be done right.

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama. Nuance.

Any working musician who has been at it for more than a few years has probably gotten their fill of Sweet Home Alabama. After playing it a couple hundred times it loses its luster. I myself could probably go the rest of my life without playing or hearing it again. But when I go back and listen to the original, it is striking how many tiny details there are, and how few cover bands seem to play them. This is 3-chord rock done right, and I have a special appreciation for the little nuances that make this song a classic.

A quick note from my soapbox: so many musicians today grew up playing in jam sessions, winging it, and have a background in jazz. (like myself) It is easy for us to treat a rock song like a set of chords to make things up over, like a typical lead sheet. But rock music is often much more carefully composed than that, and the details can be what sell it to the listener, whether they realize it or not. If a specific bass part is repeated throughout the tune, that is part of the song. If the drummer plays a very specific groove, that is part of the song. If the rhythm guitar plays a very consistent strumming pattern, that is part of the song.

It's one thing if you're just learning the song well enough to get by, or just taking a quick request. You can play D, C and G chords, nail the chorus and 99% of your drunken audience will be thrilled. But if you're going to be playing Sweet Home Alabama more than occasionally, and you really want your band to stand out, it's worth digging a little deeper.

To that end, I have created a checklist with points (0-100) for all of the cover bands out there. This list assumes you're getting the basics already - groove, tempo, form, lyrics, etc. High points are given to the details that are a) obvious and b) integral to the song. See how you do!


20 points - The Chorus Groove

This is the first part that every band should make sure they get. The verses have a simple eight note + dotted quarter rhythm in the bass, but there are offbeats in the chorus that almost everyone in the band should be hitting:

20 points - The F Chord

If you're playing a 3-chord song and there is a fourth chord that shows up only a few times, you sure as heck better play it! Don't make muffins and forget the blueberries. The F chord occurs at the end of the first chorus, going into the (first) guitar solo - another crucial part. The second time it occurs is very similar, with the "ooh, ooh, ooh" after "love the governor." People will sing that part, so you should be playing it. Don't be lazy! The third time it occurs is just like the first time, but near the end as they go into a second chorus.

15 points - The Pre-Chorus Lick

A lot of bands miss this because it is a little tricky and less overt than the main guitar riff, but the whole band plays it, which is a good sign that you should too:

15 points - The Guitar Interlude

This interlude occurs between the first and second verse, before you've reached the chorus at all, and after the guitar solo. It is mostly guitar-driven (make sure to get the harmonics!) but the best bands will include the piano support during this section. The bass doubles part of the riff on the second pass. The drummer starts hitting the snare in this part, then goes back to the cross-stick during the verse.

10 points - The Piano

Speaking of the pianist, not every band has one, but for those who do it plays an important part in this song. They may sound capricious, but the following riffs occur the same way during every verse. Riff One comes after the first and third stanzas, Riff Two after the second.

Piano Riff 1

Piano Riff 2

10 points - The Bass under the Solo

The bass part gets a lot busier under the guitar solo, and because it is the same every time, I know that he is not just making things up. It is part of the song. Here it is:

10 points - Other Guitar Parts

I'm not going to transcribe every guitar part in this song, but the rhythm guitar part during the verses is really interesting. (with good headphones you can hear it very clearly on the right side) It is quite syncopated and provides an interesting rhythmic counterpoint to the very straight lead part. The guitar part during the chorus is also very specific and nearly as important as the opening riff.

Extra Credit 1 - The Backup Vocals

It is beyond the scope of most bands to have the time and personnel to cover all of the backups throughout this song, but there are a lot there for the ambitious cover band. There are responses to the lyrics, thick harmonies and backups during the solo. At the very least, bands should harmonize the chorus.

Extra Credit 2 - "Alabama"

It's very subtle, but at the end of the second chorus, before the guitar solo, the singer says "here I come, Alabama" and the band hits the syllables in "Alabama" with him. It's the tiniest of details, but it would blow my mind if I saw a cover band actually do that part.

That's my checklist. To be fair to musicians everywhere, getting all of these things right would require a lot of time spent on a song on which many of us are, as I mentioned, more than a little burned out. I listened to an old recording of my band playing this song and I doubt we'd have scored much over 50. But for people who really love Skynyrd, or who just love the thrill of getting things right, there is a lot to sink your teeth into.

John Williams - The Imperial March. Harmonic Minor?

I was 5 years old when my dad took me to The Magic Lantern to see Return of the Jedi. Probably a bit too young for the movie, I recall being quite terrified. (they had a plastic breathing Vader head in the ticket window) While I am proud to be able to say that I saw part of the original trilogy in theaters, in truth I remember very little other than the haunting menace of Darth Vader.

John Williams' score is, of course, one of the great works of the 20th century. I don't think it is hyperbolic to say that without it the film might easily have been a campy cult classic, known but not legendary. Each theme is perfectly evocative, and perhaps none so much as The Imperial March. The piece just feels dark, haunting and mysterious.

What makes it sound that way? I believe that the difference between good and great in this piece was one note choice. On the first pass it might sound as though the harmony goes between the i and the VI chord. If you asked a musician to play it from memory, they might do something like this:

These aren't the chords you're looking for.

Not quite right...what makes The Imperial March distinct is that the VI chord (the Eb) is actually minor. This becomes more obvious a couple measures later when the flatted third is in the melody. The minor chord sounds like it is from a different key, only for a moment. Meandering from minor chords to other minor chords in unrelated keys is not rare in film scores; there is no easier way to make the music mysterious and dramatic. Williams uses this technique exhaustively in the Harry Potter movies, for example.

It is interesting to note that it is possible the minor VI chord may not be a real departure from the key. The minor third of the VI chord exists in the harmonic minor scale (kind of), so the music may actually have been written from more of a melodic, rather than a chordal perspective. (I'd expect the prior from Stephen Sondheim, the latter from, say, Randy Newman) If Williams wrote an F#, it would suggest that he was thinking of the melody and harmony as based in G harmonic minor. Gb would suggest that he thought of the song temporarily going to an Eb minor chord. For answers, we turn to the original score. "my only hope!"

Aha! Note the F# in the violas. It would seem that the piece is based in the harmonic minor scale. There is, of course, no such thing as a harmonic minor key that I know of. That is, I've never seen a key signature with both flats and sharps. In World Music there are many scales and modes that contain both, but it gets hairy fast. Most (Western) music is written in diatonic keys, including many that sound atonal or deviate heavily from the key. Harmonic theory is taught to beginning students like so:

The same method can be applied to a harmonic minor scale:

It is relevant to The Imperial March to point out that the VI chord is still major. A minor VI chord in the key of G "harmonic" minor would be spelled Eb, F#, Bb. Because the Eb and F# are a second apart (albeit an augmented second) I would technically call this an Eb2 chord, even though it sounds like Eb minor. And that, kids, is why we avoid mixing sharps and flats.

Williams throws a curveball only a few measures later, however:

The brass, playing the melody, have a Gb. What? It gets worse. In that one measure, the strings no longer play F#, but switch to Gb. "It's a trap!"

This kind of thing makes violinists go crazy.

I believe the most likely reason for this change is that John Williams, like all good composers and conductors, wants his music to be read and performed as easily as possible. There is no theoretically correct way to write this, so he chose the way that made it easiest to read. In the first example, he used F# because it was easier than making the Violas jump back and forth between G and Gb. They would be used to seeing F# in G minor. When the trombones have a Gb, it is because an F# would make it look like they are using the fourth (Bb to F#) but it sounds like a third. "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them." It is a bit confusing and jarring to play, and no one wants that. A happy orchestra is a good orchestra.

The last example, where it changes from F# to Gb over the bar line happens for two reasons. 1) He wanted the chord to be consistent across parts in that measure so the conductor could look at the page and not see an enharmonic mess, and 2) who cares what the violins think? This is a case where pragmatism trumps theoretical purity.

Delving into the theory behind this piece my vain attempt to explain why it is so deeply and indelibly impactful for so many people. Undoubtedly the music is enhanced by the visuals on screen, but the reverse is also true. The music paints the character, masterfully in this case. Musicians make tiny compositional decisions all the time, and often a little choice can completely alter the tone. Williams' choice of Gb (or F#) makes all the difference in this one.

Billy Joel - Leningrad. Why Billy Joel is Great.

I was at the Portland Symphony Orchestra's outstanding performance of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major, Op. 35 last Tuesday and I heard a melody in the first movement that I recognized:

It didn't take me long to place it. Listen to the main theme to Billy Joel's "Leningrad" and compare:

An unsourced Wikipedia article supports my hunch that the violin concerto inspired Joel's theme. It would make sense to pay homage to Russian composer Tchaikovsky in a song about the Soviet Union.

These days I find myself defending Billy Joel more often than not. Since the turn of the century Joel has been artistically unproductive, struggling with alcoholism, balding and gaining weight. He is a far cry from the superstar who once topped the charts dove off pianos and married a supermodel.

But it is important, I think, not to conflate Billy Joel the man with Billy Joel the legend. We all grow old and fight our demons. Joel's legacy is a fingerprint on pop music so ubiquitous that it is easy to miss. Very few musicians have a single hit song, let alone 33 Top 40 hits (and 13 Top 10), spanning three decades. There are only a handful of artists with as many universally recognizable songs that continue to inspire and entertain new generations. I have taught the chords to "Big Shot" to a budding young piano student and recently played "Just the Way You Are" for an elderly couple's 65th anniversary.

I speak as someone who practically learned to play piano from Billy Joel. I spent much of my teens transcribing and learning every Joel song I could possibly learn. And because of the diversity in his writing, I was indirectly exposed to a wide variety of chords, techniques and styles. Billy Joel draws from many different sources and is able to synthesize and compose in the styles adeptly - from fast bebop with Freddie Hubbard to his impressively convincing romantic-style piano works.

Which brings me back to Tchaikovsky. It wouldn't be the first time Joel borrowed from the masters; the chorus to "This Night" (one of my favorites) is quite transparently based on Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata Op. 13, second movement. Some might make the case that Billy Joel is derivative, to which I would argue that all art is derivative. He may not be stylistically consistent, but Joel's songwriting talent is undeniable and his songs are unique. If anyone can name another artist who has successfully merged Doo-wop and Beethoven, I'm all ears.

So what is to like about Leningrad? For starters, it is refreshing to see a pop artist tackle geopolitics. While I doubt many would call Joel "edgy," the Cold War was a hot topic in the 1980s. (before it Rocky Balboa personally ended it with his fists in 1985) Soviet-US relations were big deal at the time and Billy Joel jumped right in. I find it respectable that he looked outward for meaningful subject matter in his songs rather than being self-absorbed like so many other pop stars.

Musically speaking, the opening theme is the best part of the song in my opinion. The parallel minor bridge is also interesting and dramatic. But perhaps the best moment is the big ending, where the song unexpectedly modulates from D to A Major to repeat the Tchaikovsky-inspired theme. There is no logical reason to do this, but it certainly sounds bigger for the finish. It also brings the theme up to the key (A Major) where it is originally stated by the orchestra in the Tchaikovsky. So both pieces are in D, and both state the theme in A. I doubt that was an accident.

I also very much enjoy the counterpoint in the main theme. There's something very satisfying about the way the inner voice moves in the 4th and 5th measures here, and how the melody becomes a Bach-like series of suspensions and resolutions:

It's easy to make jokes about Billy Joel crashing cars, and I will concede that some of his material has not stood the test of time. But his contribution to pop culture and musicians everywhere is hard to overstate. I feel that most people don't truly appreciate the breadth of this impact, but will really miss him when he's gone. I know I will.

Imogen Heap - Hide And Seek. Clusters!

I feel that I don't really have to explain why this song is great - it is easily is one of the most original pieces I have heard in the last decade, at least. The use of a vocoder to produce an eerie digital a cappella sound, the effects, the form and arc of the song; all these things are packaged together to create a uniquely brilliant piece, from start to finish.

At its core, the song revolves around four chords - I, V, vi, and IV in A Major. Remember how I described these chords as a "guaranteed hit single" in my analysis of Aerosmith's "Cryin'?" Here they are again, in the same key no less. There a couple slight discrepancies, and I had to adjust the timing, but here is a mashup of both songs to demonstrate:



So these are tried-and-true chords. You would think that people's ears would tire of this progression but it keeps coming back, song after song. I have have no artistic gripe with this - diatonic chords are the foundation of Western music - but it is nice when musicians find new and interesting things to do with them.

So besides the obvious digital effects, what makes Imogen Heap's treatment so special? Mostly it is the thick harmonies. She uses a mix of simple triads and very close cluster voicings. Some of these chords happen by accident; one note will carry, by delay or reverb, into the next chord. Other times she is simply playing a big fat chord on the keyboard. Resisting the urge to transcribe and dissect every chord in the song, I'll do a play-by-play of some of my favorite moments.

00:00 The opening chords set the tone of the song - futuristic sounding major chords, almost metallic.
00:05 The word "what" has an added 9, making a very crunchy disonnance - apparently this is a dystopian future.
00:07 The word "hell", a D Major chord, has a B and an E in it, making it a 6/9 chord - pretty unusual already...
00:11 This chord is an accident, but I love it. The word "on" is an E chord, but the "A" from the word "go" carries into it by delay, so it has both the major 3rd and the suspension at once. Great sound.
00:36-1:11 This whole stanza has fantastic chord voicings throughout. Put on some good headphones and listen to what she does with the word "heavy."
1:12 "Hide and Seek" - this is one of the best moments of the song, and the first part that really wowed me. The D# in the V chord is so unexpected and vivid:

1:30 She does something similar on the second pass, this time swooping up to a half-diminished D# chord on the word "those."

1:40 On "they were" she uses almost every note in the scale, tightly clustered, making some kind of DMaj13 chord.

2:16 On "still life" she does the same thing, but thicker and louder, and with more effects. Great moment.

2:20 Interesting that she does not use the D# as she does in the first pass. (1:12, transcribed above)

2:36 This might be the best moment of the song. It gives me chills every time. I love the way she pulls the rest of the voices out and lets that high "B" sit by itself. It sounds like you're listening to the song underwater.

2:46 More thick, saturated IV chord here. I especially like how she clashes the C# right against the D in the melody on "were." Sounds like things are about to get real.

2:52 "Mmm, what you say?" This is the most famous part. The chords are less dense, the rhythm less rubato, but it is just a reworking of the original four chords. Instead of I, V, vi, IV she uses IV, I, vi, V.

3:23 From here to the end it goes back to the original four chords, with more dense clusters and interesting inversions.

As much as I would like to analyze every note and digital effect in this song, what really makes it great is the way it still gives me goosebumps, years and hundreds of listens later. I don't think there's one note I would change.

The Eagles - Take It Easy

I am not a huge fan of the Eagles. I have nothing against the group, I just don't own any of their records and would prefer to never play Hotel California again. But to those who would dismiss them as banal adult contemporary elevator music, I would argue that they are undoubtably a great classic rock band with solid musicians. In a time when most popular music is made on a computer by a lone engineer, I have a soft spot for competent singer-songwriters. And the closer I look at the Eagles, the more there is to like.

"Take It Easy" seems to offer, at a glance, what the title implies: a no-frills, laid back, medium tempo country rock song in 4/4. But, as usual, there are subtle nuances that give it character. The first of them comes on the first beat.

Have you ever heard a song wrong? That is, have you realized that you heard the beat in the wrong place? I have to admit that I never realized I was hearing the intro to Take It Easy incorrectly just now as I started writing this post. I think I sensed that something was off, but never looked closer than that.

I always heard the opening chord, and the ensuing chords, to be on the downbeats. Everybody hits them together and the guitar rhythm supports this. The problem arrives when the full band comes in at 00:13. If you count very strictly, you'll realize that there is an extra 8th note. What? Is there a measure of 9/8 in there?

If you look for some sheet music online, you'll find that the extra 8th note is not there. Take a look at this chart:

This is how I've always heard the song - accents on the downbeats with two 8th notes in the bass to set it up. To be fair to whomever wrote this chart, it is possible that they deliberately simplified the piece. It is not uncommon for sheet music to be sanitized for popular consumption. There are other signs of sloppiness in this chart, though; the Am7/G chord should have a D in it and no E, so a D7sus/G would be more accurate. Also, the last notes in measure 5 need a stem. (oops!)

But I am getting off track - what is up with that extra 8th note? Is it possible that the entire intro is actually an 8th note earlier, so that all of the accents are anticipated? YES. This is exactly what is happening. That means the guitar rhythm is completely different, too. It took a while to wrap my head around it, but this ukulele chart gets it right (with the more-accurate Dsus chord, too):

Note that, even though the rest of the band squares things up as the song gets going, the rhythm guitar (way back in the mix) keeps playing the anticipations, confirming that this is the intended rhythm. Near the end of the song, at 2:38, the band hits these anticipations together, in a nice call back to the intro.

So that solves the mystery of the extra beat. But that was not why I wanted to write about this song. There are many other little gems to enjoy, starting with:

THE BANJO! Most people don't think of or notice the banjo in this song, but it's there! The busy, 16th note-heavy part comes in at the guitar solo and keeps cranking until the end, picking it up after the "save me" break. The impressive banjoist appears to be Bernie Leadon, and a cursory glance at his bio suggests that he was a driving force behind the band's success. The busyness (like the anticipations in the rhythm guitar) completely belies the song's laid-back message. Couple that with some dark minor chords scattered throughout the song and I think you could make the case that this song is more than a Buffett-esque call to chillax.

Speaking of harmony, there are some moments that I particularly enjoy. I like that the bassist stays on E as the band (or at least the vocals) move to a D in the chorus, making a kind of Em11 chord. More strikingly, there is a moment that gets me every time: on the last verse, at 2:15, over "world of trouble on my mind," the band goes to an Am7 chord instead of C, as they do in the rest of the song. It's a very subtle touch, and while most people don't notice, it really adds weight to that line. It's amazing how a simple change from the IV chord to the ii can make the song palpably sad in that moment. That is one of the reasons that I believe harmony is such an important part of songwriting. The chords are everything!

If I have not already made my case that this is not a Jimmy Buffett song, the final chord in the relative minor key seals it; this is a song full of agitations and pensiveness, there for those who look closely enough. I could come around on the Eagles.

Bonus tidbit: the chorus in the middle of this song has completely different lyrics than the first and last chorus. Unusual!

Aerosmith - Cryin'. It's All About the Bass!

This song is something of a masterpiece. None of the chord progressions are especially groundbreaking - the verse is a variation on Pachelbel's Canon in D - but the way they are put together and the numerous fine details really sell it. There are many little things to enjoy:

• The opening riff and the bridge have nothing to do with the rest of the song, harmonically, but each section flows to the next seamlessly.
• Though not in your face, there are horn parts scattered throughout the song. Listen carefully!
• At 1:50 Joe Perry not-so-subtly plays the melody to Pachelbel's Canon, as if there were any doubt as to what they were going for.
• During that section, Steven and Joe can't seem to agree on whether the iii chord is Major or minor. Joe's guitar says minor, Steven's backup vocals say Major.
• Steven's raspy "Dying" as the band cuts out is my second favorite part of the song. It's always nice when there is a big moment early in the song, with much more to come!

Those parts aside, what really makes the song for me - as is often the case in Aerosmith songs - is the bass. The bassist is often overlooked in rock bands, but a good bass line can give a song character, groove, and emotional flow. Tom Hamilton is an underrated rock bassist, in my opinion. He mostly stays out of the way, but plays creative licks that help make Aerosmith songs so great.

His first "nice touch" is in the opening verse, when he chooses not to play. It's always refreshing to hear musicians and producers take a "less is more" approach. While the intro tells you this song is going to get big, this moment says "but first, have a seat; we're going to tell you a story."

The chorus of the song centers around the über-cliche I-V-vi-IV progression in A. It always works, and if you want a near-guaranteed hit single, these are the chords for you. But Aerosmith wants to build at the end, and Tom takes the wheel. Starting at 4:00 he plays different notes of the chords to create a line that walks up the major scale to the eventual build-up on the IV chord. Notice how much this adds to the intensity; we're no longer jumping from chord to chord but we're driving somewhere.

My favorite moment of the song comes in the final seconds of the song. Following the second big build-up to the IV chord (around 4:58), Tom plays a descending line (with some interesting note choices) that feels like it's taking you back to the I chord for a big finish...except he doesn't land on the downbeat. He keeps running with it, over the bar line, for three more eight notes and spikes the ball on beat 2 with a big cymbal crash. The whole moment is perfectly timed with Alicia Silverstone's bungie jump in the video. While playing the root on beat 2 is a common gimmick for jazz bassists, you don't hear it so much in pop songs. It's one of those little things that make Aerosmith stand out.

So here's to you Tom Hamilton, and all rock bassists, as you quietly and so subtly drive the bus from the back seat.

First Post!

Welcome to "Why This Song Is Great!" This is a place for musicians, nerds, and gleeful combinations of the two. (regular music fans are welcome, too!)

You know those magic moments in a song - the ones that give you chills, excite you or move you to tears? This blog is the product of my endless need to explain why that happens to friends, family and coworkers, only to receive glossed-over stares and eye rolls. Finally, and to the relief of many, I am turning to the internet as an outlet for my geeky obsession with the inner workings of pop songs.

There are those who believe that analysis strips the magic from the arts. I beg to differ. Every great song, while superficially enjoyable, has layers of treats under the surface for those willing to listen. My goal is to find these quirks, happy accidents and clever moments that make the songs so special. Put on your headphones and read on!