#1
Hey UG

So, I've been getting into music theory a lot. Recently I had to play 'Come Together' bij The Beatles. The progression is; Dm, A(7) and G(7). Which, to me, would be a I V IV progession, with Dm being your I. But, at the end of the chorus, there is a Bm. How could this be? Bm doesnt fit in Dm. Could it perhaps bij de VI of D (major) scale?

thanks
Gear:

Fender American Strat, texas specials
Fender Tele Baja
VOX AC15
Ibanez Analog Delay
Boss Keeley Blues Driver
Katana boost
Dunlop Wah
#2
the Bm can be in there because the Beatles wanted it there. I know a lot of music theory myself, and sometimes people get locked in a "This HAS to be 100% theoretically perfect" mindset. You can break rules anytime you want, as long as they aren't incredibly drastic and they sound well. The Beatles broke a lot of theory rules during their musical career. If it eases your mind at all, the Bm is there most likely because the band thought it would fit.
Quote by willT08
Quote by HowSoonisNow
How was Confucius death metal?
You've clearly never read any Confuscius.

As I wait on the edge of the earth,
I can see the walls being torn down again
Only to be rebuilt in another name,
On a different day
#4
sometimes it's done as an accent...really, music doesn't need rules all the time...

also sometimes it is the mode/scale that you are playing in...en harmonic Minor is a good example.

but as for come together, simply a pointless accent...
ADVERTISING SPACE FOR SALE!
I don't charge much...

If you don't click this , you'll die :/
#5
Quote by thePTOD
the Bm can be in there because the Beatles wanted it there. I know a lot of music theory myself, and sometimes people get locked in a "This HAS to be 100% theoretically perfect" mindset. You can break rules anytime you want, as long as they aren't incredibly drastic and they sound well. The Beatles broke a lot of theory rules during their musical career. If it eases your mind at all, the Bm is there most likely because the band thought it would fit.


Also, this. I myself am guilty of thinking that a song has to 100% comply with the rules, but as the saying goes..rules are made to be broken
#7
#1. While the chord appears to be Dm, the "blues riff" sound of the verse suggests it is really a D7#9. (( #9 and b3 being the same tone ))

#2. Many blues tunes have 3 dominant chords. No key has that...

#3. Lots of songs "borrow" chords from other keys, or play the "wrong" chord. "Sittin' On the Dock of the Bay" ||: G | B7 | C | A7 :||
|| G | E7 | G | E7 | G | A | G | E7 ||

Most jazz tunes play chords from several keys.
Songs don't have be in one key all the time, or diatonic in nature.
That's what makes it interesting......
#8
Don't think of theory as rules. Think of it as something we use to explain why things sound the way they do. We gain a compositional tool as well by understanding how things sound and work together.

Also, the above answers.
Quote by DiminishedFifth
Who's going to stop you? The music police?
Last edited by FacetOfChaos at Sep 13, 2010,
#9
The Bm you mentioned is a good example of the Beatles' creativity and thinking outside the box.

And also, there is a B major in the key of D major (the parallel major for D minor), so it's not like it's a massively dissonant chord.
#10
Quote by thePTOD
the Bm can be in there because the Beatles wanted it there. I know a lot of music theory myself, and sometimes people get locked in a "This HAS to be 100% theoretically perfect" mindset. You can break rules anytime you want, as long as they aren't incredibly drastic and they sound well. The Beatles broke a lot of theory rules during their musical career. If it eases your mind at all, the Bm is there most likely because the band thought it would fit.


This is pretty much the answer you want.

Also, think of it this way: maybe it's not in spite of the Bm not being in key that it works, but rather it is *because* of it that it works?
#11
D7#9

So would that be 1 D, 3 F#, 5 A, b7 C, #9 F?

(sorry, new to 9th chords)
#13
There are times that you need to throw the theory out and just listen.

EDIT: by the way it's i V IV
Parker PDF30
Vox VT40+
Last edited by OldRocker at Sep 14, 2010,
#15
Quote by Sean0913
D F# A C and E#

Best,

Sean


E#? Is this to do with each note only being used once?
#16
Quote by Calibos
E#? Is this to do with each note only being used once?


Not really, the 9th is an E so the #9 is E#.
Parker PDF30
Vox VT40+
#17
In D a ninth is E.

A sharped ninth then would be...E♯.

And yeah to the D7♯9.

After reading your opening post I would like to share a Beatles anecdote with you. It's about the "middle 8".

The middle 8 was originally part of a specific 32 bar song structure in the form AABA where section A is repeated followed by section B which contrasts in some way with section A providing a variation or point of interest. Song would then return to section A for the final 8 bars. Section B became known as the "middle 8". They transferred over to pop and rock in the fifties and another section a chorus was introduced resulting in a form such as ABABCB where A is the verse B is the chorus and C is the middle 8. The middle 8 would be 8 bars long.

The Beatles had come across middle 8's and knew what the middle 8 did for a song but didn't know much more than that. Paul McCartney explains:
"We used to call everything a middle 8 even if it had 32 bars or 16...we didn't get the significance of the number 8."

They often wrote songs that had a middle 8 of varying lengths other than 8 bars.

Even so the Beatles were not indvertantly "breaking the rules of theory". They were inadvertently "breaking the rules of convention" two quite different things.

It was a matter of convention that the break or bridge was 8 bars in a 32 bar song.

The theory behind the middle 8 was that it could create interest and add depth to a song. It would do so by introducing a new section after a repeated verse, or repeated verse/chorus, format. It was particularly effective when that section provided some contrast with the already established sections of the song.

If you think about it this is not really something that can be "broken". It's not a rule, it's an observation about the effect a good middle 8 has on a song.

The Beatles would have observed the effect of the middle 8 in the songs they loved listening to and covered early in there career. They would have recognizing what they thought made those songs work, they applied it to their own songs.

In this sense the Beatles were using theory but disregarding convention.

Sometimes theory seems like rules, much of learning theory is about learning the language i.e. why a sharp 9 in D major an E♯ and not an F, chord construction, scales, circle of fifths, etc. But that's not theory as much as it is the tools you need to enable you to discuss music theory, the nomenclature.

Theory is the ideas and observations about what happens when you do this or that, like the way in which voices or chords lean toward each other in different contexts, identifying patterns and relationships, or figuring out what it is that makes a piece of music work.

Theory might provide insight into a specific technique that works. But when that idea is used over and over and over it can become the norm or an idea/observation about something that works can be refined to the point where it becomes a formula or a set of rules - a convention. The difference is that theory is open and it allows for more than one effective strategy. A convention is settling upon one strategy and drawing a box around it.

Conventions can be useful and have their place they are often grounded in sound theory but it's important to recognize them for what they are not only so that you can be aware there are options outside the box, but also so that you can ensure you spend time exploring those areas as well.

I've kind of gone off topic a way but I hope it helps anyway.

Great song by the way, best of luck with it.
Peace
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Sep 15, 2010,