The Moonlighting Theme

[MackTuesday]

Lately I've been studying the chord progression from the Moonlighting theme. As far as I can tell it goes like this, with DMaj7 repeated because it lasts for two measures:

Code: Select all

GMaj7 Bb Am B7 Em A7 DMaj7 DMaj7 Bb C7 Am Dm7 Bb Eb6 Dsus4 D

There are some things that don't make sense to me.

1. Why does Bb make sense between GMaj7 and Am? Is it kind of like a passing chord supporting the transition from the B in GMaj7 to the A in Am? Is there a more technical way of describing it?

2. Why does the landing at DMaj7 make such a solid resolution when the previous use of the secondary dominant B7 to Em doesn't? Is it because DMaj7 lasts for two measures and rounds out an eight measure sequence? Is there a harmonic reason?

3. The last eight measures seem to be in the key of F. It definitely *sounds* like it and the chords fit. It seems we got there because of the melody, which goes F#-G-A-Bb at that point. So why the key of F and not Bb? Is it because of the chords that come *afterward*? Could we have predicted the key of F from just the Bb in that context, without seeing what comes next?

4. Why does Dsus4-D make sense after Eb6? The added 6 helps lead to D but isn't really necessary. I know D leads back to G but it seems to make sense by itself. Maybe it makes sense because deep down I know where it's going? Maybe it's a substitution for Bb, which is where Eb as a secondary dominant would have led, with the difference between Bb and D being the F#, which is the leading tone to G?

EDIT: Er, Eb would have led to Ab. Hmm...

EDIT: Fixed the link.

[jancivil]

2. Why does the landing at DMaj7 make such a solid resolution when the previous use of the secondary dominant B7 to Em doesn't? Is it because DMaj7 lasts for two measures and rounds out an eight measure sequence? Is there a harmonic reason?

D is the goal: B7 as a secondary dominant, to ii., so V/ii, ii, V, I. ii isn't a goal, hence secondary dominant, it wouldn't be complete by design, no problem there.

It looks like a turnaround back to G at the end, implied to me by sus4-3 and you imply the G is the goal. I don't recall the tune and your link is 404/defunct, so I don't have the voice-leading; but you have a very common IV, V, iii, vi in F, then a (colorful, dramatic) pivot chord that I would think of as iv7 in first inversion, Vsus4, V, I in G.

Eb is DEFINITELY not any dominant in that progression. It has a subdominant function per G, iv7 or if you like bVI. 'Add sixth' chords are quite often really a minor 7th in first inversion and that's my opinion here.

[MackTuesday]

Thanks for your response. I fixed the link if you're still interested.

2. Why does the landing at DMaj7 make such a solid resolution when the previous use of the secondary dominant B7 to Em doesn't? Is it because DMaj7 lasts for two measures and rounds out an eight measure sequence? Is there a harmonic reason?

D is the goal: B7 as a secondary dominant, to ii., so V/ii, ii, V, I. ii isn't a goal, hence secondary dominant, it wouldn't be complete by design, no problem there.

I thought Em was vi. Don't we start in the key of G? And how do we *know* D is the goal and not Em?

...then a (colorful, dramatic) pivot chord that I would think of as iv7 in first inversion, Vs4, V, I in G.

How can Eb be a pivot chord between keys F and G?

By the way, I listened again and I think the following is a better transcription:

Code: Select all

GMaj7 Bb Am B7 Em A7 DMaj7 DMaj7 Bb C Am Dm Gm EbMaj7 D D

Thanks again for your input.

[jancivil]

Thanks for your response. I fixed the link if you're still interested.

2. Why does the landing at DMaj7 make such a solid resolution when the previous use of the secondary dominant B7 to Em doesn't? Is it because DMaj7 lasts for two measures and rounds out an eight measure sequence? Is there a harmonic reason?

D is the goal: B7 as a secondary dominant, to ii., so V/ii, ii, V, I. ii isn't a goal, hence secondary dominant, it wouldn't be complete by design, no problem there.

I thought Em was vi. Don't we start in the key of G? And how do we *know* D is the goal and not Em?

I know it by ear, number one. I thought you did. Why with more information are you second guessing yourself now? What about my explanation is unclear to you?

I played it. That is a completely reliable argument for ii of D, which is the target. It's completely obvious and totally common practice. if Em is the target key, any explanation for D^7 is going to be particularly tortured is it not? ii, V, I. The most common thing in the world.
G is a key for a moment and it begins to move strongly to D. I am assuming from your words it turns around at the end in a cadence to G, which makes sense as far as I can tell.

...then a (colorful, dramatic) pivot chord that I would think of as iv7 in first inversion, Vs4, V, I in G.

How can Eb be a pivot chord between keys F and G?

primarily by the note G, which as you gave it before went G, F#, G as though a cadence, turning it back around to G.

as you gave it to me, it to my mind is what is called a iv6/5 in G. If it's an Eb^7, it's still the same function, subdominant to G. In F it may as well be IV of IV, which is common in pop music. If you need an explanation that's as good as any IME. It isn't really important to have a classical explanation for every move, that would put the cart before the horse. This worked for the person that wrote it and I can give you bases for that kind of thought out of my experience; similarly, your question about the Bb following the G^7... Your guess is fine by me; what it's called is only so important.

In trying to understand chord progressions it's useful to look forward to goals, to where things resolve. There are extremely common things going on re: G, D, F.

[MackTuesday]

You're being so helpful. I really appreciate it.

Thanks for your response. I fixed the link if you're still interested.

2. Why does the landing at DMaj7 make such a solid resolution when the previous use of the secondary dominant B7 to Em doesn't? Is it because DMaj7 lasts for two measures and rounds out an eight measure sequence? Is there a harmonic reason?

D is the goal: B7 as a secondary dominant, to ii., so V/ii, ii, V, I. ii isn't a goal, hence secondary dominant, it wouldn't be complete by design, no problem there.

I thought Em was vi. Don't we start in the key of G? And how do we *know* D is the goal and not Em?

I know it by ear, number one. I thought you did. Why with more information are you second guessing yourself now? What about my explanation is unclear to you?

Accepting that these things just work leaves me in the position of having to study and memorize what others have done. I want to be more self-sufficient than that. I assume it's possible to know scientifically, for lack of a better word, why our ears "understand" and "accept" certain progressions better than others. I know it has to do with music we've already heard, which would make this pursuit more empirical and less theoretical than I would like, but on the other hand there must be some underlying rules because novel progressions can sound perfectly natural and pleasing if they're constructed properly.

Or maybe not? Maybe anything that sounds good does so because there's nothing really novel about it?

as you gave it to me, it to my mind is what is called a iv6/5 in G. If it's an Eb^7, it's still the same function, subdominant to G. In F it may as well be IV of IV, which is common in pop music.

So Eb is a substitution for the minor subdominant Cm? I think I can see that. Interesting that it gets away with making the subdominant minor when it's usually major. It seems like more advanced harmonies can do that because the tonal center becomes so fluid, and there are so many ways of leading one way or another, flatting or augmenting some tone somewhere can still sound reasonable.

[jancivil]

Accepting that these things just work leaves me in the position of having to study and memorize what others have done. I want to be more self-sufficient than that. I assume it's possible to know scientifically, for lack of a better word, why our ears "understand" and "accept" certain progressions better than others. I know it has to do with music we've already heard, which would make this pursuit more empirical and less theoretical than I would like, but on the other hand there must be some underlying rules because novel progressions can sound perfectly natural and pleasing if they're constructed properly.

Well, I can give you the principles I did, but I don't have anything more than you do on that Bb, it's as good a theory as any out there IMO. The progression to D and the little passage in F accord to strong, cycle of fifths-related motion, which isn't novel. There are physical as well as cultural reasons this is prevalent*.
Bb and Eb are there to keep from being utterly same ol'/same ol' I guess.

as you gave it to me, it to my mind is what is called a iv6/5 in G. If it's an Eb^7, it's still the same function, subdominant to G. In F it may as well be IV of IV, which is common in pop music.

So Eb is a substitution for the minor subdominant Cm? I think I can see that. Interesting that it gets away with making the subdominant minor when it's usually major. It seems like more advanced harmonies can do that because the tonal center becomes so fluid, and there are so many ways of leading one way or another, flatting or augmenting some tone somewhere can still sound reasonable.

I mean that in terms of function, there isn't any notable difference between Eb and C minor there, it's like vanilla vs vanilla with a touch of almond. You speculated on Bb, which it belongs to, and Bb is right next to F, so why not call it in F.

A lot of pop, and this is derived more or less from Gospel music, likes falling 4ths, eg., bVII, IV, I. 'Double plagal', ie, IV of IV I call it. Eb is that as regards key of F, AND is a setup for a cadence in G, and explaining it in G isn't a stretch.

a lot of people post things here surprised by the fact of chords that are 'out of key', as if that's a problem. Theory isn't anything in and of itself, it isn't a set of rules with exceptions, it's a way to describe what happened in a consistent manner.

(*: when the tunings of strings were explored by the ancient greeks, first an octave was found, 2:1 relationship, then 3:2... by divvying up string lengths. So the perfect fifth is shown to have physical simplicity. When, later out of this scalar relationships were hit upon, they were based on transposing down these 5ths into a single octave. However one culture may adhere to this differently than another and the ramifications might be different. Western Europeans found they liked vertical harmonies and to move the bases around over time, Arabs or Indians liked other complexities instead. But both are based in these fifths, which on this planet makes simple sense.

[jancivil]

Interesting that it gets away with making the subdominant minor when it's usually major. It seems like more advanced harmonies can do that because the tonal center becomes so fluid, and there are so many ways of leading one way or another, flatting or augmenting some tone somewhere can still sound reasonable.

Yeah. Mixing modes like that has been around forever. Minor iv in major particularly.

When I speak of function, subdominant isn't just IV. Eg., bII can be subdominant, particularly when the bass is 4 per the tonic ('neapolitan 6th') . bVI can be subdominant, eg., C Eb G and Eb G Bb aren't real different. If you like the term substitute I wouldn't object.

To my thinking, there is tonic, subdominant, dominant function, which includes secondary dominants or you can make it its own category. 'mediants' tend to be related by thirds to the tonic; in jazz parlance this is a kind of substitute, to give you a touch of flavor or variance. Other people like that as a function but I like simplicity in these matters.

[MackTuesday]

Interesting that it gets away with making the subdominant minor when it's usually major. It seems like more advanced harmonies can do that because the tonal center becomes so fluid, and there are so many ways of leading one way or another, flatting or augmenting some tone somewhere can still sound reasonable.

Yeah. Mixing modes like that has been around forever. Minor iv in major particularly.

When I speak of function, subdominant isn't just IV. Eg., bII can be subdominant, particularly when the bass is 4 per the tonic ('neapolitan 6th') . bVI can be subdominant, eg., C Eb G and Eb G Bb aren't real different. If you like the term substitute I wouldn't object.

To my thinking, there is tonic, subdominant, dominant function, which includes secondary dominants or you can make it its own category. 'mediants' tend to be related by thirds to the tonic; in jazz parlance this is a kind of substitute, to give you a touch of flavor or variance. Other people like that as a function but I like simplicity in these matters.

Well, I'm pretty much out of questions for now, and you've already been very helpful, so thanks. I listened to the piece linked in from your signature, by the way. It sounds like it's somewhat outside all this talk of tonality, very interesting. It reminded me of the theme the Grateful Dead did for the second Twilight Zone series, the one in the 80s or 90s.

[jancivil]

hmmm. there are ~20 pieces on there. I think the one you land on off the link is Calculate This.

Yeah, I'm not that interested in tonality. .

Calculate This begins kind of modal, doesn't it. It was a score for someone and I had to work with an extant audio track, with those machines, it went out there soon enough.

That Dead theme is I guess Phil Lesh's direction, he was a 'modern composer' before getting involved with those guys.

[jancivil]

(I was looking back, for something and... necro af but for the general population this is a good oldie)

Accepting that these things just work leaves me in the position of having to study and memorize what others have done. I want to be more self-sufficient than that. I assume it's possible to know scientifically, for lack of a better word, why our ears "understand" and "accept" certain progressions better than others. I know it has to do with music we've already heard, which would make this pursuit more empirical and less theoretical than I would like, but on the other hand there must be some underlying rules because novel progressions can sound perfectly natural and pleasing if they're constructed properly.

Or maybe not? Maybe anything that sounds good does so because there's nothing really novel about it?

The changes in this are pretty conventional actually, sort of jazz functionality (momentary tonicization) in a pop vein; tried and true concepts.
At the end Eb^7 to D is essentially an appropriation of the age-old Neapolitan chord, albeit I should note the classic iteration of that has the chord in first inversion so the bass fully illustrates its subdominant nature.

It's not so much novel, everything can actually be explained in normal tonal function terminology,

[MadBrain]

Playing along with the video, I hear different chords (note: transposed by ~1.7 semitones)

Code: Select all

D11

Gmaj7
C11 Fmaj7
B7sus4 Balt7 Em7
A7b5 A7 Dmaj9

(Dmaj7 Em7 F#m7)
Gm7 C7
Am7 Dm7
Gm7 Abmaj7 Dbmaj7 D11

Gmaj7
C11 Fmaj7
B7sus4 Balt7 Em7
A7b5 A7 Dmaj9

This makes some questions a lot easier to answer:
#1 - C11 leads to Fmaj7 pretty fluidly
#2 - The A7 to Dmaj9 cadence is just a lot more final than the Balt7 to Em7 one in the overall song structure
#3 - The key is a little ambiguous but you can hear it in G minor as well
#4 - The D11 makes sense if you consider that section to be in G minor