How would you explain this Beatles chord change: And Your Bird Can Sing?

[dead of night]

Hi. There's a very interesting chord change in the Beatles' song, And Your Bird Can Sing. The song is in E major.

The bridge begins with a G#m chord, the iii. Then it moves to a G augmented fifth chord. Then it moves to B major before returning to the I. All chords are for an entire measure each.

The curiosity is the G augmented fifth. How to analyze this chord? I feel that Lennon is using a pedal tone, the Eb note, that is common to the G# minor, the G augmented fitfth, and the B major chord. Either that or he just learned about the augmented fifth chord and was determined to use it any way he could.

I've read a quote where Lennon said he would, " build an entire song around a new chord" he'd learned. Anyway, what is your take on this interesting chord change?

[thor666]

My own take, without referring to conventional music theory:

G#m - G# B D#
Gaug5 = Gadd13? - G B D D#
B major - B D# F#
E major - E G# B

Looking at the breakdown of the notes in the chords, the B note is featured in all 4 chords. There's also a descending note sequence - G#, G, F# on the 3 measures.

My personal theory is that as long as a chord contains the root note of the key, it tends to sound odd, yet "correct". Or using notes from the previous chord will also bring authenticity to the progression.

I think you are also right about the D#. There's a quirky pattern going on in this progression.

[gennation]

I'd have to go listen to the tune again, but just with the chords you mentioned, the Gaug works more like a G#m/M7 chord.

So you'd have: | G#m | G#m/M7 | B |

That B could even be a G#m7. Then you'd have nothing but a G#m chord with a chromatically descending line starting on the root. IOW, the voice lead would be G#->G->F# but play over nothing but a G#m.

Like:

E---4--4--4--
B---4--4--4--
G---4--4--4--
D---6--5--4--
A---6--6--6--
E---4--4--4--

Does that make sense? It's more like melody/voice leading than chords per say. Sure they make chords but the melody movement is the important part.

Again, I'm not listen to the tune right now, I'm just using the chords you posted.

[dead of night]

Thanks for the replies so far. I guess in essence, I'd like to know what was in Lennon's mind. If we can find out what Lennon, one of the greatest of all songwriters, if we can find out what makes him tick, then we can take his concepts and use them in our own chord progressions and melodies.

I think in this case Lennon saw a chromatically descending line going from G# to F#, so essence we can say he used the concept of a melodically changing line over a static chord, or as Thor stated, a pedal tone from a previous chord in a non-diatonic chord.

Either way, we have seen deeply into Lennon's mind.

[trazan]

The G#m is not the iii, as they modulate to G# minor (or B major if you prefer).

G#m - D#aug/G - B/F# - C#/F - E - F#m - F# - B

Which could be interpreted as:

G#m - D#aug/G: i - v [key G# minor]
B/F# - C#/F - E: i - ii(major) - iv [key B]
F#m - F#m - B: ii - ii - v [key E]

Or maybe:

G#m - D#aug/G - B/F# (G#m/F#) - C#/F - E: i - v - iii (i) - iv - vi [key G# minor]
F#m - F#m - B: ii - ii - v [key E]

[JonR]

For Beatles analysis, I always refer to the master - Alan Pollack. Here's what he has to say about the bridge:

Harmonically, the bridge fakes us out for a moment, as though it were going to modulate to the key of g# minor. Ironically, the downward chromatic scale leisurely played out over the first four measures of this section takes us straight back to the home key. This scenario, in which initial resolve to move elsewhere is belied by the inertia to stay at home, is uncannily in synch with the song's subtext; see "Final Comments" below.

Chords: |g# | |- |- |E |f# |- |B |
Bass: |G# |G |F# |F |E
E: iii I ii V


(He uses lower case to indicate minor chords: "g#" = G#m)

IOW, he sees that sequence - G#m - D#aug/G - B/F# - C#/F- as all essentially a G#m chord, just with a descending bass line - which merely implies the other chords on the way (Gaug or D#aug, B/F#, C#7/E#)
This descending line on a minor chord is a common device in jazz and pop and sometimes in rock. You get it in the intro of Stairway to Heaven, eg.

Personally I definitely hear the 4th bar as C#7/E#(F), not G#m/F, but there's little difference. Pollack is right it leads chromatically back to the original key - and what I like is that the sequence actually makes that E major chord sound like something new, a modulation, when in fact it's the old key chord.

If you want to check out Pollack's "final comments" (and the rest of the analysis) go here:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/aybcs.shtml

[Structo]

The Lennon McCartney team were IMHO one of the best if not the best song writers of all time. ( I did say IMHO)

I think typically (in Beatles songs) Paul came up with the melody and John the lyrics. But apparently this one is Johns.
I remember when that song came out, I thought, wow, the bar is set pretty high on that one.
That was a great analysis Jon.

[JonR]

The Lennon McCartney team were IMHO one of the best if not the best song writers of all time. ( I did say IMHO)

I think typically (in Beatles songs) Paul came up with the melody and John the lyrics. But apparently this one is Johns.It was more common for one to write the verse or A section and the other to write the bridge or chorus (music and lyrics in each case). That was until they ended up writing songs on their own anyway, which was quite early on. You're right this is one of John's. His were usually distinguished by more modal grooves, while Paul's used more traditional harmonic movements. (And of course, they generally sang lead on their own songs, which is the easiest giveaway.)
The book "Revolution in the Head" by Ian McDonald is a great reference for all this - the genesis, background, recording and brief analyses of every song they ever wrote.
I remember when that song came out, I thought, wow, the bar is set pretty high on that one.The whole album (Revolver) was a masterpiece, their best IMO.
I still remember the first time I heard "Tomorrow Never Knows", in 1966, blasting out across my school stereo PA system (stereo was a new thing then too!). Wow.... (My school could be pretty cool occasionally...)
That was a great analysis Jon.Well, most of it was Alan Pollack's...

[trazan]

I must say I strongly disagree with Mr Pollack then. It would be a very typical/standard movement in g# or B, and to me there's no doubt that the tonal center has shifted until the f# (ii in E) comes in. The individual chords can be interpreted in different ways but sayin' that the first four are all "iii" is to me a weird interpretation of their function.

[dead of night]

It's interesting that the descending bass line is accompanied by the lyrics "weigh you down," another instance of prosody.

[Old Tele man]

...it's a chord-wise descending cliche' line, same as used in Summertime, Taste of Honey, Chim-Chim-Cheree, Sonny ...and in Michelle!.

[rockinrob]

Hi. There's a very interesting chord change in the Beatles' song, And Your Bird Can Sing. The song is in E major.

The bridge begins with a G#m chord, the iii. Then it moves to a G augmented fifth chord. Then it moves to B major before returning to the I. All chords are for an entire measure each.

The curiosity is the G augmented fifth. How to analyze this chord? I feel that Lennon is using a pedal tone, the Eb note, that is common to the G# minor, the G augmented fitfth, and the B major chord. Either that or he just learned about the augmented fifth chord and was determined to use it any way he could.

I've read a quote where Lennon said he would, " build an entire song around a new chord" he'd learned. Anyway, what is your take on this interesting chord change?

Lennon was a genius, but he wasn't a scholar. He probably had little idea what an augmented chord was. They might of used them here and there, but they didn't really know how they worked (in the theory sense), they just found a guitar or piano voicing they liked and found a way to use it. So when you're figuring out Beatles stuff you can look at it very basically- all that part is is a minor chord with a descending bass. But you add the vocal, the lead guitar counter melody, etc and then you can hear the other sounds in there (for instance I agree the 4th bar definitely sounds like C#7). That's what can be so hip about good pop music and The Beatles especially- you can get to some more complex sounds but you do it in the arrangement, it's a combination of everything that's going on. No one instrument is playing the complex chords/harmony. IMO, that's how most good music is.

[thor666]

Just to add a bit to what rockinbob said, I find that in songwriting, sometimes things "just work", however counterintuitive they may seem from what has been learnt about music theory. I try not to dwell too long on such stuff - I think it's just a matter of "i haven't learnt it or understood it well but it works".

[JonR]

I must say I strongly disagree with Mr Pollack then. It would be a very typical/standard movement in g# or B, and to me there's no doubt that the tonal center has shifted until the f# (ii in E) comes in. The individual chords can be interpreted in different ways but sayin' that the first four are all "iii" is to me a weird interpretation of their function.Well I don't think there's only one right answer. There's various ways you can interpret it.
It's certainly a common sequence in a minor key (as others have pointed out too), so I can see the sense in saying it's modulated to G# minor, rather than being the iii chord in E major. (Maybe you're right Pollack has over-simplified it.)
There's no preparation for the G#m, however, so we only hear it as a (possible) key change after the event, when the bass goes to G (Fx), implying - arguably - the V of G#m. But it never goes back to G#m, and moves elsewhere. We're kept guessing, IOW.

I can see what you meant about the B major key, but I don't really hear a clear modulation there. I do agree, in that context, you can see (hear!) the C#7 as II and E as IV. But this is only one of a few optional "right" answers to what's going on. And the ambiguity is, of course, part of the appeal of such a chord sequence.

The C#7 is definitely there in bar 4, but that's an inevitable result of playing an F bass on a G#m chord. Players can choose to emphasise the dom7 sound or not (eg the "D7" effect of descending to an F# bass under an Am chord). But it doesn't represent a dominant chord function. Typically (as here) the bass continues its descent to the E root position chord. Normally it would go on down past E to G#m/D#, so they're breaking with tradition here - but then (I guess) that's because they see the key as E major and want to get back there without further ado (via F#m-B).

I'm with rockinrob on this one - we don't need to get too fancy here. (Unless it entertains us to do so, of course... ;) )
Eg, I think it's interesting how they keep those little guitar lines going in the background through the bridge, as if they want to make the sequence even fuzzier harmonically, blending it in with the overall sound.
I like the prosody mentioned by dead of night, and also think Pollack is right about Lennon's state of mind, the ambiguous mood (unintentially) informing the song. Apart from the chord changes, it's there in the burbling harmonised guitar line - verbose and pretty without really going anywhere, like a magician waving his hands in a bit of stage "business" to distract you. This backs up the deliberately obscure lyrics. He's saying, in effect, you're pretty clever but "you can't see me" - because I'm going to confuse you, even if I don't really know myself what I want to say. "Whatever you think I am, I'm not" (to quote a contemporary rock band).

This is where Lennon's genius lay - in being able, quite unconsciously, to express a mood or state of mind through his music, not just through the lyrics. He did it with chord changes, and with the structure of his songs too.

[dead of night]

What I find interesting is that "extra step" that Lennon found between the lines in this chord progression, giving him some extra field to run on.

[trazan]

Well I don't think there's only one right answer. There's various ways you can interpret it.

Definitely :cool: Probably depends on how much or for how long the tonal center has to shift for it to be called a modulation too?


There's no preparation for the G#m, however, so we only hear it as a (possible) key change after the event, when the bass goes to G (Fx), implying - arguably - the V of G#m. But it never goes back to G#m, and moves elsewhere. We're kept guessing, IOW.

But it does actually go back to G#m (G#m/F#). The tonal center and scale has definitely moved from E to g# (E major scale wouldn't sound very pleasing on top because of the A), so wouldn't this be enough to call the harmonies by their functional names even if it's only for a short period?

Yeah, I'm sure Lennon just used his ears, which is the way music should be made methinks, but understanding systems gives ya an even greater vocabulary.
:RoCkIn

[rockinrob]

This is where Lennon's genius lay - in being able, quite unconsciously, to express a mood or state of mind through his music, not just through the lyrics. He did it with chord changes, and with the structure of his songs too.


+1!

McCartney was/is a great tunesmith and could write a song out of anything, but Lennon was on another thing. I can't think of anyone whose lyrics fit the song so well- perfect combination of the lyrics fitting the melody, the arrangement fitting the lyric, the sounds fitting the tune, etc. The stuff sounds so honest, where as McCarteny, well.... :D