"Dock of the Bay" harmony analysis

[neueliteratur]

Hi,

Otis Redding's "Dock of the Bay" is composed of these chords: G B C A E.

I can see that G is I, C is IV.

But how can you explain all the other chords being major, without sounding awkward?!



Share your wisdom.

Thank you.

[ViktorW]

But how can you explain all the other chords being major, without sounding awkward?!

Okay, let me try. It's all about the relationships.
I'm not too sure about English vocabulary here, sorry if I'm a bit off.

G major being the tonic (I), then (the second chord) B major 7 would be the dominant (V) of the minor parallel of G. Meaning, the ear might assumes an underlying modulation to E minor in that short moment.

The following C major is the subdominant parallel of E minor (the VI), which means the ear doesn't find it too strange coming after B major 7. The ear might feel a short confusion - are we in G major or in E minor? But C major also happens to be the subdominant (IV) of the original tonic G major, which puts our feet back on the ground about which key we're probably in.

The last chord, A major, is the double dominant of G major, meaning the dominant of the dominant (that would be D major), also hinting at a quick modulation towards D major as a temporary root key. Since there is no resolution towards that implied temp root D major, but instead a shift back towards the original root key G major, it might leave a slight tension for the listener, and for some this tension might in fact be pleasant.

Actually, I know someone who likes the song but told me that he finds this lack of resolution quite irritating.

Any questions so far?

Cheers,
Viktor

[jancivil]

For purposes of argument, if B is a secondary dominant, the C that follows is a normal deceptive cadence for E minor.

the figure for the progression in classical harmony class if you have to have it would be: [E Minor] III V/V VI IV III.

G isn't the tonic in this scenario but a substitute for i. I hear it as such, but it's ambiguous and I guess there are people who are entrained for it to resolve like classical to G, and II-I ain't it. I played the song out of a fake book when I was around 13, and it seemed like a normal thing to do to me. Proud Mary has another sort of rock 'progression' in the break that doesn't shoehorn into harmony class terms so easy.

For me this is kinda useless information, I do doubt that the person writing the song was using any such ideation as this. It's guitar-based and parallel barre chords, for one thing. It isn't really classical harmony and doesn't need to be shoehorned into that paradigm just to get more names for what the thing is. The complicated information about relationships you see above, isn't anything to be too concerned with IME, that's all naming, and it doesn't give you any base to work from, seems to obscure function more than reveal it.

You might find a chord progression that looks like this in say, Schubert ('mixed major and minor modes'), but there will be proper voice leading to get a result that wouldn't remind you so much of dock o' the bay.

[ViktorW]

For purposes of argument, if B is a secondary dominant, the C that follows is a normal deceptive cadence for E minor.

I agree.

the figure for the progression in classical harmony class would be: [E Minor] III V/V VI IV III.

I disagree, where does that E minor tonic come from in your example? It's nowhere to be seen in that verse chord progression. Well, assuming that E minor is in fact the base, you'd be right with III V VI IV III.
Why not assume that the chord that begins and ends the song, that'S always on the heavy first beat of the bar, is in fact the tonic, G major?
Then it would be I - III - IV - II - I.

For me this is kinda useless information, I do doubt that the person writing the song was using any such ideation as this. It's guitar-based and parallel barre chords, for one thing. It isn't really classical harmony and doesn't need to be shoehorned into that paradigm just to get more names for what it is.

I agree, this is nothing more but an exercise, and not to be taken seriously, just a game if you will. I don't think Mr.Redding had any of this in mind when writing this song, it's just not necessary.

[jancivil]

But how can you explain all the other chords being major?

You find some way that makes sense to you, is the bottom line. it doesn't matter beyond that. Theory is strictly from post facto.

[neueliteratur]

Thank you for your replies.

[jancivil]

the figure for the progression in classical harmony class would be: [E Minor] III V/V VI IV III.

I disagree, where does that E minor tonic come from in your example? It's nowhere to be seen in that verse chord progression. Well, assuming that E minor is in fact the base, you'd be right with III V VI IV III.
Why not assume that the chord that begins and ends the song, that always on the heavy first beat of the bar, is in fact the tonic, G major?
Then it would be I - III - IV - II - I.

Why not, indeed? Works for me, whatever works for halfstep to get a handle on what bugs him.

I played it on the guitar to remind me of the particular effect. For me, the tension your friend finds with A-G here owes to ambiguity of the tonic (even so, IV-III will be 'odd'). I don't find that the absence of E minor in the song means it isn't the tonic, not for purposes of discovery anyway.

I certainly agree that the placement and emphasis of G kind of makes it feel like the solid ground here. OTOH, my ear takes B-C as V-bVI. I sought kind of occam's razor in my naming. Major II to Major I, is a little problematic for me, not the sound, but to name it in classical terms.

[ViktorW]

OTOH, my ear takes B-C as V-bVI.

I know what you mean, but for me the B is in a weak spot and I hear it as a transition from tonic to subdominant.

Major II to Major I, is a little problematic for the terms of harmony class type analysis, unless it's second year 'chromatic' or something.

True.

Well, this was fun. And I learned the verb "to showhorn". I'm going to use that all day tomorrow, to everyone's annoyance.

[psenior]

This song has a very soulful feel to it; somewhere between country and blues. I hear the chords as being G B7 C A7 E7. I really don't think Steve Cropper is a music theory kind of guy. He was probably just concerned about sounding good and cranking out another hit record. If you listen to the arrangement on the recording, no one is really playing plain-old bare naked chords the majority of the time.

[llatham]

Hi,

Otis Redding's "Dock of the Bay" is composed of these chords: G B C A E.

I can see that G is I, C is IV.

But how can you explain all the other chords being major, without sounding awkward?!



Share your wisdom.

Thank you.

Okay, part of the issue is that using chord symbols and concepts designed for the analysis of CPP music isn't going to tell you very much about songs that deviate from the stylistic conventions of CPP as this one does.

But, if we must discuss it in CPP terms, here are some things to consider.

G is the tonal center, and if you must, the key is G Major.

G = I
B = V/vi
C = IV

the move of "III" to IV is called a "deceptive resolution of a secondary dominant".

Then there's the A
A = II?

It's certainly not V/V.

CPP Theorists call such "vagrant" chords "color" chords. They are non-functional, and appear simply for the sake of their sound.

So the progression would be I-V/vi-IV-II

But, there are some other interesting things going on here:

Firstly, there are a lot of Chromatic Mediant relationships. Chromatic Mediants are chords whose roots are a third apart (M3 or m3) and that both share the same quality (both major, or both minor) such as C-A, C-Ab, C-E, and C-Eb. These chords share one common tone, and the other is chromatically displaced, so while they sound "foreign" to each other, there is some logical continuity in moving between them

Here we have:

G up to its C.M., B

then C down it its C.M. A

Later, in the chorus, we have G down to its C.M. E

C.M. became more common through the Romantic Period, but they're also a staple of popular music as well, without any direct evolutionary connection in most places (major C.M. are common, minor C.M. were virtually unused until modern times, and now they're quite common (to the point of cliche) in sci-fi/fantasy soundtracks for films and games).

Another important thing to mention is that there is a certain logic in using chords of one quality, so no awkwardness is present - just simply not "predictable" by typical CPP expecations.

When all chords are the same quality* and move in parallel, the technique is called "planing". Again (like C.M. and the other terms above) these are CPP terms (or post-CPP terms) that really have little to do with what's going on here, but if we *must* analyze it those terms, these are the best equipped.

You will find many popular songs with chords moving in parallel, planing (all the same quality), especially major. One of the most common is to move those chords on pentatonic roots - take the example of "Proud Mary" by CCR - all major, C-A-C-A-C-A-G-F-D - Dm pentatonic.

*I've seen many people play this and they play all 7th chords, or some of them 7ths, and some of them not.

In the end, I agree with psenior in that it really is about them coming up with something that sounds good.

In a basic sense:
It establishes G.
It moves to B, which produces a need for resolution, and moves it forward "up"
The C resolves the B, and provides a traditional anchor as a diatonic chord and common destination for progressions in pop (and blues and gospel) and of course, not being the tonic, it's still filled with some tension.
It moves to A, which again produces a need for resolution, and coincidentally provides a reverse motion to the climb up to B (in some ways mirroring the classic I-IV-I-V-I balance).

That that tension is resolved by A moving back to G is certainly atypical of the music this evolved from, but it's kind of interesting: In folk (and ancient modal music) as well as pop, VII-I (like Bb-C) is a modal (mixolydian) substitute for a V-I authentic cadence.

II-I feels to me like a modal substitute (lydian) for a IV-I plagal cadence. In fact, V-VII-I is quite common, IV-II-I could be viewed as the opposite (just like iv (minor iv) to I is an interesting twist on old plagal, and the opposite of V-i (minor i).

Finally, the G-E moves in the chorus don't seem to be "functional" or "directional" at all. It's about "see-sawing" between two somewhat related harmonies.

Best,
Steve

[llatham]

You will find many popular songs with chords moving in parallel, planing (all the same quality), especially major. One of the most common is to move those chords on pentatonic roots - take the example of "Proud Mary" by CCR - all major, C-A-C-A-C-A-G-F-D - Dm pentatonic.

By the way, for an interesting take on this, check out "Bad Leroy Brown".

The chords are:

G-A-B-C-D-C-G

All major (or sometimes played as all 7ths, or as a mix) and in this case, diatonic roots.

Steve

[tapper mike]

Jan's right as usual.

However not all songs are based on diatonic harmonic relationships. You can also build chord progressions based on the pentatonic scale.
See - Eric Clapton-Sunshine of your love.
Also -
Ted Nugent Cat Scratch Fever
Rick Derringer - Rock and Roll Hoochie Ko
And countless other rock artists.

[wrench45us]

there are a number of songs written on or for guitar that make use of major minor and dominant chords in ways that traditional harmony and theory doesn't account for.

basically this arose since guitar players know those chords and they sit and mess around and come up with things that work with what they know. A lot of great guitar songs don't use minor 7th or major 7th or diminished chords but just work with a set of major and dominant chords. Rikky Rooksby discusses this in one of his songwriting books. (It may be a form of rootless chording or not -- depending how much one may want to stretch harmonic concepts)

[b4serenity]

A little off the OP's question...but how long would it take an average person to learn the stuff you guys are talking about? I know some of the basic theory of music but not well enough to feel confident discussing it in the same way you guys are! Could you learn the basics in a semester college level course, or reading a book?

[wrench45us]

yes
some books are more suitable for a given context and and backgound and learning style than others
but any Rikky Rooksby songwriting book gives a very useful background on pop 3 note chords and dominants theory and practice and then something like Mark Levine's Jazz Theory book goes from there into 4 note and beyond chords.

that's about what a semester would cover and it's really not that difficult

after that is when it can get trickier
with distinct schools and approaches -- The Berkleee chords and scales book whatever it's called is very good for some of the latest theoretical/practical academic, but useful concptual frame

and that's probaly another semester of deeper exploration
it doesn't help to rush it, as it's very good to learn to hear and play and play againstg what's going on