Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

bambax

The obligatory video is of course "Four Chords" by Axis of Awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

Rick Beato has kind of the opposite video about "the most complex song ever":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRxTW8GxT8

The song in question is Never Gonna Let You Go by Sergio Mendes; plenty of videos exist of it; here's one live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOPh3bTglak

View on HN

It's worth noting that the "4 chords of pop" observation reference in TFA (which is about how few chords you need to learn to be able to make songs) is a bit different than the 4-chord cycle progressions discussed in that Axis of Awesome video (which is about specifically using 4-chord-long progressions that repeat in a cycle) — but it is still a fun thing.

If you do enjoy that, be sure to check out Patricia Taxxon's video on the subject, which is a very worthwhile analysis of that idea. It might be my favorite youtube video in the music theory genre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XSTSnqXxo

Three chords and the truth. Usually attributed to Harlan Howard [1], an early country music songwriter. A lot of early country music sticks to just I, IV, and V.

[1]: (PDF) https://countrymusichalloffame.org/content/uploads/2019/05/W...

Thank you, fixed. That phrase flew right out of my fingers carelessly.

No problem. In country and bluegrass jamming circles, there's definitely a faction that prefers simpler songs with fewer chords (true to Howard's quote), so I was amused to see his words distorted. Thanks for fixing it.

> Axis of Awesome video (which is about specifically using 4-chord-long progressions that repeat in a cycle)

Well yes the Axis of Awesome thesis is a bit disingenuous and the critique at the beginning of Patricia Taxxon's video is justified; just because the chords are the same doesn't mean the songs are the same! And the analogy is quite true that in visual arts all colors can be formed from the three primary colors.

Actually, I'm currently trying to make songs based on this simple 1465 progression, in that order; here are my first two attempts (the titles are a hint ;-)

Alp 1465 https://open.spotify.com/track/5TxVfIf9JUAhCEL3O5cWXT?si=86c...

Bet 1465 https://open.spotify.com/track/2ghJN1EtQwXAZZj91B5yqs?si=f16...

The interesting thing about the Axis of Awesome four chords is that they are the same four chords that were in the stereotypical 1950s/early 60s pop song (Heart and Soul, Teenager in Love, Up on the Roof) but the order has changed. In the key of C the 50s version was C, A minor, F, G (or sometimes G7 instead), and in the Axis of Awesome / Adele version it's C, G, A minor, F. Of course Axis of Awesome cheats a little bit because they play the 4-chord parts of those 30-odd songs (though in fairness those tend to be the best known parts).

Yes, and this is the crucial difference that make new songs sound "modern". The Beatles were one of the first to use the 1,5,6,4 sequence (Let it be). Since then the 1,6,4,5 sequence has consistently lost ground, while 1,5,6,4 sounds modern. The chords are still the same.

I'm a big fan of the Pachelbel Rant as a sibling to the Axis of Awesome video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxC1fPE1QEE

That Mendes song makes all sorts of twists and turns that your brain doesn't expect (want?) it to. Personally I find it deeply uncomfortable to listen to, it might as well be four songs playing at once.

I'm now watching the Rick Beato video about it and I'm so glad it's not just me whose brain recoils at the chord progressions. Thank you.

This kind of stuff is fascinating to me, that we can react so differently to music and specifically to various chord progressions. Of course personal taste is inscrutable in some sense, but could it also be about conditioning? E.g. if you listen a lot to certain types of jazz you might get used to some stranger chord movements. I have a lot of friends who cant stand Steely Dan progressions for example, though I love them myself. Here's an example of strange chord movements that I personally like a lot more than the Sergio Mendes song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXnUa6SNJFQ (Video showing the chords more clearly) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIaw-MgNzM (Original song)

I do think conditioning must be a big part of it. I hadn’t ever listened to this song since getting a little familiar with music theory but it was certainly on the types of playlists my parents listened to when I was a kid. Listening to it now, I can see what’s unusual about it but it never would have occurred to me to consider it hard to listen to. Repetition legitimizing and all that. My parents weren’t jazz listeners so it took work for me to appreciate it as an adult, and now I can’t help but wonder if the better path for my kids is to get them used to it early or to let them have that same “whoa” experience later. (Only partially serious; of course they should be exposed to it. :D)

You could give them access to instruments and let them make their own "whoa" moments. Also, Sun Ra's music exists well beyond most jazz, especially mainstream jazz, as he tried to create jazz that's not catering to white tastes.

For me a big part of what makes this song great is that it sounds so innocuous. It’s a nice, catchy, easy-listening pop ballad. As Rick says incredulously at several points “this was a number one song!”

For me, the difference between that Steely Dan song and the Mendes song is like the difference between a seemingly-inscrutable really thick scottish accent and an ESL speaker trying to affect a native accent and kind of flowing between several different accents.

However uncomfortable the Steely Dan song might be, it has a nice consistent construction to it, and, once you get into the groove, it becomes straightforward. Almost all music I listen to that I'd call complex, from classical to prog metal to jazz, can be described like that too.

The Mendes song, however, sounds disjointed to me. It sounds built out of all sorts of fairly standard bits and pieces, but thrown around completely haphazardly.

> It sounds built out of all sorts of fairly standard bits and pieces, but thrown around completely haphazardly.

I found a similar feeling in Shostakovich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDeJeBvln6E But I enjoy this challenge. It's a beautiful yet strange and twisted music.

Hmm, I disagree. That Shostakovitch piece (nice one, thanks for the link, btw!) feels to me more like trickery and misdirection. It builds up your comfort then throws you off, and it gets more and more off-kilter the longer you go. It's very deliberate and purposeful about where it's going.

Wow, I have completely the opposite reaction! I’m not saying you’re wrong, of course; it’s just fascinating how reactions differ.

To me, the jazzy changes in the Steely Dan song are very in-your-face -- the song is built around them. It’s pleasant enough but feels very random and meandering to me.

The Mendes song, as you say, is “built out of standard bits” -- it feels like a “proper” soul ballad. For me the unusual changes work because they’re used a bit more sparingly, and each one comes as a little jolt, either to elevate the emotion (in the conventional “go up one key at the end of the song” way) or alternatively to ease off the pedal a bit for a change in lyrical tone. It’s like the whole song consists of final choruses and bridges, which are often the best bits of a good song. :)

After accidentally abandoning my likes/dislikes and disengaging disgust, my experience of music viscerally changed. I can enjoy all music now.

So much of it is conditioning, maybe all of it. There's conditioning around chords, progressions, dissonance, harmony, repetition, subjective ideas of what constitutes music, and so much more.

The only way to prove it isn't mere conditioning is to remove the conditioning and then evaluate.

This is so true -- to a point. One can still have likes and dislikes, provided it's their own.

"Provided it's their own"

What would be an example of if it's their own or not, and would it actually make a difference?

Love to hear this. How did you accidentally abandon your likes and dislikes?

Here's instructions for the practice I adopted. Note: how it's executed makes a difference. The initial acknowledgment of opposites (this will make more sense after reading the instructions) needs to be done compassionately, and not dismissively. There may need to be more steps at the beginning to, otherwise it's a little gaslighty. It worked great internally as is, and I think it may have trained callousness in me in the long-term when applied in relationships with other people.

So I did it by choosing to abandon all judgment and then reframing perspectives I heard using the words "like" and "dislike." The reframing always had in it "I can learn to enjoy everything."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29764591

Jazz sounds too complicated, but it is not. More than 90% of it is just a set of 2,5,1 sequences disguised in clever ways.

I agree with the sentiment but not the 90% figure here.

Again, it may not look like it, but if you analyze the chords and their substitutions, that's what you get. The genius of jazz is to make everything look more complicated than what it really is.

While I also agree with the sentiment, I do think it's a little bit like saying "90% of all programming is flow control and assignments"--it hinges on wide definitions that can be contextually helpful, harmful, or both. Resolving to those chords from tones that are outside of the key? Tritone substitutions? Modulations that change what chords exactly ii, V, and i are? &c.

I think it also depends on what jazz is actually being discussed -- it applies well to most jazz standards, but a lot of modern jazz and jazz-adjacent (or perhaps just what I'm familiar with) seems to gravitate heavily towards nonfunctional harmony.

Ha, I don't think I've ever heard that song before and I love it. Usually increasing the complexity of music makes it less comprehensible. I really respect those rare songs that are technically impressive to musicians while also being comprehensible (and sometimes downright catchy) to "normal" people. And I think Never Gonna Let You Go nails it. But of course, it is totally subjective.

And they called it "easy listening", haha. But it's really typical of lounge to do lots of weird complex things and still make it sound like it's no big deal. I believe Girl from Ipanema has a couple of YouTube videos about its weirdness as well.

> The obligatory video is of course "Four Chords" by Axis of Awesome

The original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s13sASS5F4

Rick Beat is trying to deceive you. If you really believe that this Sergio Mendes song is complicated, you need to listen to some older pop songs. For example, Stevie Wonder is a good composer to start.

Yes and no —- it’s definitely pretty far out there for a mainstream 80s pop song, and a bit more fiddly at first glance than your average Stevie Wonder song.

I think the trick is that it’s bossa nova, which tends to have a lot of those semitone shifts that Rick highlights. The Girl from Ipanema is the classic example.

I love that they seem so complex when you look at the individual chord movements, and yet the melody flows very naturally (to my ears, anyway!)

The effect in Never Gonna Let You Go feels a bit like the dramatic key change you often get right at the end of those 80s ballads, but smoothly integrated throughout the whole song. I can well imagine some hate that, but I love it!

Not that anyone cares, but noticing that this song is a cover rather than a Sergio Mendes original, I was curious whether the earlier recordings had the same tricky structure or if Mendes (being a Bossa Nova guy, among other things) added them in.

And they do! The Dionne Warwick and Stevie Woods versions have the same chords (and nearly the same arrangement); so it comes from the original songwriters (Cynthia Weil and Barry Mann), although it’s a perfect fit for Mendes’ style.

That reassures me that the chord structure is really integral to the song (as I’d like to believe) and not just tacked on afterwards to make it sound cooler.

I find it hilarious that he concludes the Sergio Mendes recording is "the most complex pop song ever" rather than the obvious takeaway that when a song is simple enough, most of the specific notes being played aren't important. You could easily rearrange the song to be easier to play on guitar without losing "the song" (unless you're a music theorist and the ornamentation is "the song")

I don’t think that’s the obvious takeaway. The specific chord voicings are complicated, sure, but the complexity he’s talking about are the key changes and unexpected tonal choices. You can’t remove those without fundamentally changing the feeling of the song.

When I was learning the guitar, I frequently would skip passing chords and simplify voicings I didn’t know how to play. As a result, my covers were pretty boring and lacking the impact of the originals. That’s fine for beginners, but a pro musician is going to take pride in either faithfully recreating a cover or intentionally putting their own stylistic spin on it, not just skipping over stuff that’s hard.

How complex is a song that can be played on entirely different instruments without re-interpretation?

When I think of complexity I think of unreconcilable elements that force the transposer to make tough decisions ("intentionally putting their own stylistic spin on it").

I don’t really understand that idea of complexity, but Rick Beato is addressing this song from a music theory perspective, and I think this song would meet anyone’s definition of complex when it comes to theory.

There's no one 'music theory perspective'. Why not analyze it on more axes?

- Rhythmic patterns and variation

- Interplay between instruments

- Instrumentation and arrangement

- Structure

- Vocal style

- Lyrics

- Recording and mixing

By these metrics (and the ears of 99% of its listeners) it's a more or less generic 80s adult contemporary song. Yes it has a weird chord progression. Would it be more complex if it couldn't be boiled down to a series of chords?

By these metrics (and the ears of 99% of its listeners) it's a more or less generic 80s adult contemporary song.

That’s what the word “pop” is being used for in “the most complex pop song ever”. Rick Beato is giving an example of a literally popular song, one that somebody suggested they perform an impromptu concert because it was in the charts at the time, and which sounds totally mainstream, and yet has a very unusual chord progression.

And I think “music theory” in this context is basically jazz theory, where a song is boiled down to what you’d see in the Real Book - melody line, chords, and a description of the tempo and groove. Unless you’re doing big band, instrumentation is one of the standard small combos, or just whatever musicians you have to hand. Which again is reasonable in the context of “here’s a song we tried to busk in a scratch group, and it turned out to be crazily complicated”.

He’s not claiming it’s Schoenberg or anything!

I agree it's a good anecdote. It clearly still resonates with professional instrumentalists. But popular music has progressed so much since then that 'jazz theory' is unequip to grasp the complexities of modern recorded music. Beato in the video says modern pop music is getting simpler, but he's just using the wrong tools.

I guess he really means "less complex harmonically". You're definitely right that a lot of modern music has features that would be unimaginable or impossible to achieve 40 years ago when this song was written, both through new tech and stylistic innovations. But I think his view is still very defensible if you focus on pop songs, singable vocal-led pieces that you might attempt in karaoke.

There was a long period where jazz influences were very big in popular music -- jazz itself was actually popular! -- so there were a lot of very harmonically interesting pop songs. I agree with him that that seems generally less true nowadays (thinking of big mainstream singer-songwriters like Adele and Ed Sheeran). But I'd be interested to hear of good counterexamples.

>or intentionally putting their own stylistic spin on it, not just skipping over stuff that’s hard.

Rick Beato interviews (acoustic guitarist) Tommy Emmanuel - https://youtu.be/PLIZZ9lIlwg

Most of the notes do give it that vitality though. Here's a John Mayer example where the simple version "works" but the full version is pure magic

https://youtube.com/shorts/navD83-aLYs

Reply on news.ycombinator.com