electric avenue (1982)

Eddy Grant. Pop/R&B, UK.

spotify link — none!

key: A mixolydian
mode: A B C# D E F# G A
melody: M s l t d r m 
form: intro - verse - chorus - verse — chorus — chorus extension — chorus — verse — chorus — breakdown — chorus — outro
meter: duple

English function names:     tonic     subtonic
Tagg (modified):            home      counterpoise (away)
Riemann:                    T         dP
Scale degrees:              I         VII
Chords:                     A         G

intro
 A                  
|/ / / / |/ / / / |
  A              G
|:/ / / / |/ / / / :| 3x

verse, breakdown
  A
|:/ / / / |/ / / / | 3x
 A              G     
|/ / / / |/ / / / |

chorus, extension, outro
  A              G
|:/ / / / |/ / / / :| 4x

 With tonic-subtonic cadences, we start to really push against the bounds of Classical Music Theory, which was not really designed to deal with European folk music or any other folk music. In very strict, overly orthodox traditional terms, this is not a viable cadence, simply because it doesn't really happen in Common Practice Classical Music — unless, of course, you want to signify something of the common man. But the whole point and process of theory is really to look at what is happening in a repertoire and try to explain its patterns, its raison d'etre, its inner workings, its dramatic shape. The point is not, as some would have it, to prove the superiority of some musics over others. 

Part of my goal is to present and advocate for a pedagogy and practice that includes the ways in which musicking in the western world and beyond does what it does, and not only what is considered "correct" in very strict, overly orthodox traditional terms. Kids these days (and for a very long time now, just read about John Zorn's influences) hear a wide variety of traditions in a wide variety of contexts. It has long been silly to teach a basic music theory course that only focuses on Common Practice repertoire. I went to music school in the early 1990s. My colleagues included people focused on classical and people focused on jazz. The jazz-focused people were required to do classical theory and history as well as jazz theory and history; the classical-focused people only had to do the former. Since most of the classical-focused people were doing music education, why limit it so strictly? It was weird then, it's weird now.¹

One of the other things that was weird was that the jazz-focused people learned to hear chord progressions as part of their ear-training and improvisational practice. The classical folks not so much. There was one point in music history class where the amazing Dr. Masha Whaples said, "Consider Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony"² and proceeded to play it from memory/by ear at the piano. She stopped at the end of a phrase and said, "Now what chord is this?" Everyone slunk down in their seats. "Come on, now! What chord is this?" Being one of those people who feels it's better to be wrong and move the pace of the class along, I half raised my hand and volunteered, "Five of five?" "Yes!!!" she exclaimed, and things moved on. But I wasn't actually sure. It was more of a lucky guess. It sounded dominanty and maybe not in the original key. So a somewhat educated guess, but it wasn't like I knew in my ears (in the way that I know now, after much practice — learning guitar helped a lot). Did the jazz kids hear it and just not say anything? Did people think she wanted the absolute pitch name and not simply the function? Who knows?

All of this is to say that a) we should learn to hear chord progressions as early as possible, and b) that we should include harmonic progressions common across Western Classical, Euro-Amero-Afro- diaspora musics, and today's common practice which encompasses all of those histories and repertoires. We can include tonic-subdominant and tonic-subtonic cadences as common cadence types. All of these cadence types eventually show up in Western Classical music anyway, particularly with the Nationalism-influenced composers in the latter half of the 19^th century. Even if you have a dyed-in-the-wool American concert band program — nay, especially if — so much of the basic band repertoire includes these cadence types. 

What does Eddy Grant have to do with all of this? Well, he's got this banger of a hit that's only got two chords, which makes it a lovely vehicle for getting the sound of mixolydian tonic-subtonic in your ears and the rest of your body too. 

This is one of those songs that Tagg might say is a one-chord song that isn't really a one-chord song (and I would add that it's possibly a two-chord song that isn't really a two-chord song). The use of the subtonic here is more like punctuation than another place to be, since its appearance is always so brief. Riemannian theory gives us a reason why this works in classical terms. Not that we desperately need it, but it's a bit of curiosity. In Riemannian theory, if a triadic chord shares two  pitches with another triad, then those two chords can substitute for one another. In this case, the Dominantparallele — the relative of the dominant³ is a substitute for the "true" dominant. The idea is that the common pitches is what makes this substitute work. 

Of course, simple use and repetition also make things work. Repetition creates norms. And then someone else hears it, thinks it's cool, uses the idea with or without modifications, and that's repetition and norm-creation, too. But also: if you're barring chords on a guitar, it's really easy to play A on the fifth fret then G on the 3^rd fret, and it sounds good to boot. There are so many ways to theorize about how things happen and why they work.

Flex-band arrangements courtesy of me and Sheet Music Direct:
C
Bb
Eb
F (I haven't done this one. Let me know if you need it.)
bass clef
Everything

1. It makes more sense to make basic theory the stuff that applies to the wider common practice of today — that Venn diagram where classical, folk, and Afro-diaspora musics intersect. Then the next level of theory would focus on your repertoire/tradition of choice.

2. Actually, I don't remember which number it was, but it was definitely Tchaikovsky.

3. In German, Parallele is what we call relative — confusing, I know.