What key is the song "Low Rider" in?

[Lee Knight]

 

Then you should use you own notes! It's just a reference---a signature, as the case may be. And probably depends on the song as well. Is Sweet Home Alabama in D or G? I always assumed it's in G because the chords are D-C-G. And, to the degree the riff ever resolves, it resolves to "G" (at least to my ear.) Sounds like a V-IV-I riff to me. But are you saying if I wrote down "D" on the songlist, you'd start the song with an A chord?

 

 

Whoa. No... it's in D. I would not pass those notes out.

[3shiftgtr]

 

OK. But here's the question I've yet to have fully answered (not that I care THAT much because I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter in any practical sense of being able to play music well---at least not at my level) and this goes back to not getting a clear answer months ago when we were having the "Brick" discussion. IS there a definitive way to determine a song's ACTUAL key? IS there an ACTUAL key? I understand you can transcribe any song in any key you choose, basically. Is "Brick" in Dm or C major? Or something else? Or is the answer "it depends"? Is "Low Rider" in Gmaj or Gmin? Or something else?

 

 

I never got into to the Brick discussion so I can't speak to that. And forgive me guido if I sound like I'm going into teacher mode....it's the only way I can explain it....cuz U know I got respect for my man G and his skills...not talking down.

 

I think where your question is lies in a concept of what theory is supposed to do. Naming a key is just that....labeling and categorizing something that exists. And there are several ways to label it.

 

Written notation has it's own way of INTERPRETING the music and it's sound as well as it's theory. The key is getting the music "readable". I've been paid to do some transcriptions and the directives vary greatly from publisher to publisher and from project to project and from arrangement to arrangement. But always at the top of the list is "readable".

 

So when you get polymodal things going on as you do in 'Rider', the transcriptionist has some decisions to make. Notating the score in G and putting accidentals on F in the melody and Bb in the bassline would be a correct thing. So would notating it in C to imply a mixolydian tonality and using an accidental on the Bb in the bass line. In that case, the effect is that the reader sees the main chord that the song is in (G7) and sees the notation as C, he is supposed to go "oh, Mixolydian" if he's trying to sus out the approach theoretically.

 

Does that make sense? The written page is not an authority always. The author's score always is as it reveals the intention. If it is a transcription of a sound recording, there is interpretation involved by the transcriptionist.

 

And when you are talking about sound, then it can get really dicey. Especially when its kind of polymodal as 'Rider" is. Then it goes to how you want to think. I choose to see it as the melody in G mixo and the bass line in G pent minor creating the thing that happens when you combine the two. Which has no specific name (G pentomix? Minorpenotmix? Mixopentominor? ).

 

If I was asked to score the song I'd do it in G and use accidentals accordingly. Since the song is basically a G7 chord, I'd leave it up to the musician to decide if they want to "see" it as Mixolydian or not. And I'd be right. So would the guy who chose to do it in C.

 

The "F" modulusman was talking about? While one could notate it that way, there is no resolution, deceptive or otherwise, anywhere in the piece to an F. So a transcriber could do it in that key, but he'd be an idiot cuz he's making it harder to read and interpret.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I never got into to the Brick discussion so I can't speak to that. And forgive me guido if I sound like I'm going into teacher mode....it's the only way I can explain it....cuz U know I got respect for my man G and his skills...not talking down.

 

 

Nah. I'm ASKING to be schooled here. I have like, two years worth of theory behind me back when I attended college in 1979. The rest is all self-taught. This part I either never got to, since forgot, or was stoned in class that day.....

 

 

So when you get polymodal things going on as you do in 'Rider', the transcriptionist has some decisions to make. Notating the score in G and putting accidentals on F in the melody and Bb in the bassline would be a correct thing. So would notating it in C to imply a mixolydian tonality and using an accidental on the Bb in the bass line. In that case, the effect is that the reader sees the main chord that the song is in (G7) and sees the notation as C, he is supposed to go "oh, Mixolydian" if he's trying to sus out the approach theoretically. Does that make sense?

 

 

Yes. This part I already understood.

 

 

 

 

And when you are talking about sound, then it can get really dicey. Especially when its kind of polymodal as 'Rider" is. Then it goes to how you want to think. I choose to see it as the melody in G mixo and the bass line in G pent minor creating the thing that happens when you combine the two. Which has no specific name (G pentomix? Minorpenotmix? Mixopentominor? ).

 

 

So a song WITHOUT a key? Okay. I understand your explanation, but I guess I've still got to wrap my head around the idea that songs---especially something so simple as "Low Rider"---would exist in a place where a few hundred years of music theory really has no definition for.

 

As far as transcribing it... I guess because of the bass riff with the Bb, that song has always just sounded "minor" to me. So transcribing it in Gm would seem the obvious choice to me. But I suppose everyone hears stuff differently. I never, before this thread, considered the fact that the melody has the B natural.

 

 

The "F" modulusman was talking about? While one could notate it that way, there is no resolution, deceptive or otherwise, anywhere in the piece to an F. So a transcriber could do it in that key, but he'd be an idiot cuz he's making it harder to read and interpret.

 

 

Well, that was the old "Another Brick In The Wall" discussion from awhile back. A song based heavily on Dm. Which resolves definatively to Dm but, because it includes G, F and C in the chord changes, I was told was actually in the key of C because that's the key in which all 4 of those chords appear without the use of accidentals.

[tlbonehead]

Whoa. No... it's in D. I would not pass those notes out.

The solos are played in G.

[benzem]

Cute thread.

[wades_keys]

 

Nah. I'm ASKING to be schooled here. I have like, two years worth of theory behind me back when I attended college in 1979. The rest is all self-taught. This part I either never got to, since forgot, or was stoned in class that day..... Yes. This part I already understood. So a song WITHOUT a key? Okay. I understand your explanation, but I guess I've still got to wrap my head around the idea that songs---especially something so simple as "Low Rider"---would exist in a place where a few hundred years of music theory really has no definition for. As far as transcribing it... I guess because of the bass riff with the Bb, that song has always just sounded "minor" to me. So transcribing it in Gm would seem the obvious choice to me. But I suppose everyone hears stuff differently. I never, before this thread, considered the fact that the melody has the B natural. Well, that was the old "Another Brick In The Wall" discussion from awhile back. A song based heavily on Dm. Which resolves definatively to Dm but, because it includes G, F and C in the chord changes, I was told was actually in the key of C because that's the key in which all 4 of those chords appear without the use of accidentals.

 

David, in your zeal to find one truth you missed out on an opportunity to see firsthand how and why one piece can be seen as being in more than one key.

 

I never said your interpretation was incorrect, I merely pointed out valid reasons for another interpretation. Johns right on the money though: very well said.

[wades_keys]

another consideration the transcriber generally takes into account is expectations of the players in the genre. My teacher had a doctorate and taught jazz as well as classical, and we touched a little bit on differences in the jazz transcriptions.

 

I saw some of that in a discussion involving a country pianist and some jazz cats. Country guy favored slash chord notation as a way of conveying the inversion whereas jazz cats wanted the upper extension, stacked thirds interpretation.

 

Question for you John about modal transcriptions: would the transcriber avoid notating a key such that the V chord becomes the basis of the vamp? I know for me that would seem odd, to see the G mixolydian as the V in key of C just seems...wrong. Because now the dominat has been robbed of its function. But is this done to ease reading? What is the convention in modal jazz?

[wades_keys]

dupe post...

[Vito Corleone]

 

David, in your zeal to find one truth you missed out on an opportunity to see firsthand how and why one piece can be seen as being in more than one key.

 

 

I've always understood that, from a transcription standpoint. But what it can be "seen as" and what it IS are two different things. Or so you tried to tell me.

 

 

I never said your interpretation was incorrect, I merely pointed out valid reasons for another interpretation.

 

 

Uh huh.

[wades_keys]

David, get a copy of "Tonal Harmony with an introduction to twentieth century music" by Kostka and Payne.

 

It's got the requisite Bach examples but also Lionel richie's Hello and others are given attention. Packed with notation examoles.

[wades_keys]

 

I've always understood that, from a transcription standpoint. But what it can be "seen as" and what it IS are two different things. Or so you tried to tell me. .

 

There IS NO WHAT IT Is!!! Read johns post again and again until that sinks in!

 

Again, the only absolute is when it is a composition! Transcribers can and do use many considerations when they select a key signature, so in the absence of other parameters, there can be no WHAT IT IS. Make sense?

 

That said, some things have more weigh than others. In classical piano method, the skill level of the player is given much weight; I recall specific examples of this.

 

What you should concern yourself with is genre specific transcription conventionLs. Pop sheets by convention tended to favor the fewest accidentals. But again this could be tied to the difficulty level of the piece, which as you know from buying sheets is always a front and center piece of their marketing.

[Vito Corleone]

No, I'm not telling you. Those are the rules.

 

[wades_keys]

Quit arguing with me and get Kostka and Paynes tonal harmony, 5th ed.

 

Treasure trove of info in there

[Vito Corleone]

Quit arguing with me

 

Uh...you're arguing with yourself. I think you're the one who needs to read the book.

 

My position is the same as it has always been. You're the one who has gone from "That's Dead Wrong" to "I never said your interpretation was incorrect, I merely pointed out valid reasons for another interpretation. "

 

But I'm glad you've since learned that my interpretation is NOT 'dead wrong'.

[Vito Corleone]

Wades_keys arguing with himself:

 

Nope, the b note is the major third of gmajor, which by the way occurs frequently in the song. That sheet is wrong and would give the player the wrong notes to play. Or look at it this way: "The key sig has a Bb, but EACH AND EVERY TIME you see a B, play a B natural instead." WTF? At that point, you're in the key of C, really. Dm is jive-ass. To the transcriber's credit, maybe he was going for the "tone center". But I don't think so. I think he made a mistake. At any rate I'd rethink it in C: makes it simpler and gives you all the right notes to play on transitions, walkups and fills.

[wades_keys]

Okay look. I soften my position to accommodate another viewpoint. Sound good?

 

Here's a more thorough analysis, if you actually want to think about the subject instead of the argument:

 

Another Brick In The Wall presents an interesting case for interpretation. Tonal harmony rules discourage use of large intervallic jumps in a voice: that jump down a major 6th would be considered unacceptable in traditional voice writing. *

 

So, which is more correct according to rules of harmony? *

 

The options are: ii, IV,I,ii or vi, I, V,vi or i,III,VII,i.*

 

You might be surprised at the one I favor for tonal reasons.*

 

As a player I still like the C major interpretation because it gives me the right scale to use with no accidentals needed later in the progression.

 

The g major chord that appears later in the song puts a monkey wrench in things. *Tonally, I'm inclined to see it as a brief modulation to the key of C.*

 

Which brings me to my interpretation as a player; call this one out in D minor and your guys are going to play g minor instead of g major.

 

Call it in C and it's ALL GOOD, as long as they don't balk at resolving to the ii chord...which I pretty clearly stated in my little argument. I should have been more open to other considerations, but I wasn't hearing them from you.

 

The bottom line is that song with the large intervallic leap breaks a fundamental rule of tonal harmony right out of the gate. Crack your theory book and realize that NONE of the interpretations is in any way common!

[wades_keys]

Also show me how a V,IV, I progression is in any way common. Hint: it's not, but then neither is a bVII. Sweet Child Of Mine? Hmm...it ain't do clear cut David.

 

In fact, it's ALL GOOD.

 

Again, I stated clear reasons for calling the tune in c major: avoidance of accidentals. That's often a primary goal of the transcriber. So yeah, if you ginna go there I'll still say it would be wrong to call it in Dminor because of the g major! Make sure to tell your guys about that B! Because if you're gonna go for tonal correctness, then you either must modulate to key of C or use Bnatural every time. Seems to me that's a pain in the ass but have it your way!!!

[Vito Corleone]

Okay look. I soften my position to accommodate another viewpoint. Sound good? Here's a more thorough analysis, if you actually want to think about the subject instead of the argument:

 

I'm not arguing with you. You're only arguing with yourself. I never, in this thread or the other, took the steadfast "Your dead wrong" stance. That was you. I was the one both accomodating of your viewpoint and trying to get you to see there is more than one way to look at it.

 

But I'm glad you've finally come around to my point of view and I'm glad John helped bring you there. I just don't appreciate your condescending "read it until it sinks in!" and "buy a book and study it!" tone. Especially about a POV I've held from the beginning.

 

Which brings me to my interpretation as a player; call this one out in D minor and your guys are going to play g minor instead of g major.

 

??? Why would they. The 2nd chord is g major. Why would they play the wrong chord? Learn the song. That's why recordings and sheet music exist. It isn't some exercise in improvising a song nobody has ever heard before based on "rules of harmony". It's playing an old Pink Floyd tune everyone has heard a gazillion times.

[Vito Corleone]

Again, I stated clear reasons for calling the tune in c major: avoidance of accidentals. That's often a primary goal of the transcriber.

 

Except for the fact that you never see it in pop music, I suppose you'd have a point. You'll never find a score of "Brick" in C or of "Low Rider" in F, so I don't know which transcribers have this as their primary goal.

 

Seems to me that's a pain in the ass but have it your way!!!

 

It's the way it's done by everyone. The song is in Dm. No doubt it was written in Dm. No sheet music exists in any other key (except for some single-instrument stuff where chords aren't the concern anyway.) I'm pretty sure Roger Waters would think you're a nut if you tried to tell him the song is in C, but whatever. Call the song in C and everybody is going to play the song a step lower.

 

Except Wade, of course. Because he's doing it "by the book"....

[Lee Knight]

 

The solos are played in G.

 

 

No, they play to the changes. Because you can play the solo in G does not make it in G. The tonality is clearly in D.

[tlbonehead]

No, they play to the changes. Because you can play the solo in G does not make it in G. The tonality is clearly in D.

ok, I was simply referring to G maj fret position, not D pent. I've seen far too many players try noodling around in D blues scale and it sounds horrid. And of course the song does end on G (which has little relevance)

[Lee Knight]

ok, I was simply referring to G maj fret position, not D pent. I've seen far too many players try noodling around in D blues scale and it sounds horrid. And of course the song does end on G (which has little relevance)

 

A lot of players get fooled by the blues. They learn how a blues scale can work over a multitude of changes, and when that doesn't fly, they can make a small adjustment to a straight major scale and that works... and never get a chance to learn how to play the changes. Or hear the changes. SHA has changes, the soloists change the scale they're playing for each chord. To a certain extent. But when you listen to the melody of the vocal, and hear the soloists playing through the changes, the resolutions still point to D.

 

This is why a lot of bar bands suck. Cause who wants to hear a band where the soloist doesn't have a clear idea of the tonal center of the music. It's going to be a case of hearing a dunderhead without insight into the music he's playing, cranking it up and playing it anyway. LOUDLY. Great.

 

BTW, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to musicianship. Not physical dexterity, but a grasp of what's going on musically.

 

But I hear, "I don't need theory to play the keys part for Poker Face".

 

This is the downside to a strictly covers mentality. Aping parts is very useful, but if you don't learn why the part is like it is, you can only ape a part. You then can't write as well, or solo as well, or even interpret as well. You can only ape. The fact that this point is totally alien to a lot of guys who are now playing gigs, feeling like they got it all and the projector and backdrop take precedence over putting thought into the music...

 

...arrrgh.

[EightString]

That said, "Dunderhead" would make for a great band name.

[Vito Corleone]

[rsadasiv]

A lot of players get fooled by the blues. They learn how a blues scale can work over a multitude of changes, and when that doesn't fly, they can make a small adjustment to a straight major scale and that works... and never get a chance to learn how to play the changes. Or hear the changes. SHA has changes, the soloists change the scale they're playing for each chord. To a certain extent. But when you listen to the melody of the vocal, and hear the soloists playing through the changes, the resolutions still point to D. This is why a lot of bar bands suck. Cause who wants to hear a band where the soloist doesn't have a clear idea of the tonal center of the music. It's going to be a case of hearing a dunderhead without insight into the music he's playing, cranking it up and playing it anyway. LOUDLY. Great. BTW, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to musicianship. Not physical dexterity, but a grasp of what's going on musically. But I hear, "I don't need theory to play the keys part for Poker Face". This is the downside to a strictly covers mentality. Aping parts is very useful, but if you don't learn why the part is like it is, you can only ape a part. You then can't write as well, or solo as well, or even interpret as well. You can only ape. The fact that this point is totally alien to a lot of guys who are now playing gigs, feeling like they got it all and the projector and backdrop take precedence over putting thought into the music... ...arrrgh.

 

My favorite part of lurking in BSWTB is watching Lee morph into the Hulk.