Strange guitar arrangement on "Here Today"

[prettycity]

Hello, did you note that guitar arrangement on "Here Today" at about 1:52?

First, it goes Bm - A-Bm  and the guitar doing a A note.

and then A - E/G#-A  and the guitar doing a G note (!!!!)

That doesn't sound very nice.
Maybe it was planned.

[Jukka]

I wasn't there, but I assure it indeed was planned. Thanks by the way, this made me listen to it with new ears...

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

It would help if you analyzed the chord in a better way, maybe.  Plus, it's the Fender bass playing the note, for what it's worth.

E/G# with bass doing G is not necessarily the most coherent way to describe it, because the G is the bass note in the chord, not G#.  So it's at least E/G.  The notes in the chord are then, bottom to top, G, B, E, G# (or possibly better, Ab).  So what this chord is could be described as, I don't know, an e minor with a flat 4 in first inversion.  Just a little dissonance.

[prettycity]

Yes, you're right, it sounds like a Fender bass played with a pick.

Doesn't matter if it's E/G# or E/G . The chords are basically Bm, and A.

Bm --> A-note on bass
A --> G-note on bass

They could be Bm/A and A/G chords , however that breaks "CHA -CHA-CHA" tends to make you think that they are Bm and A chords.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

That doesn't sound very nice.

These bass dissonances happen a few times throughout the entire album. I think it sounds great. Some great harmonic writing.

[prettycity]

They are great. I would open a thead about the harmonies on Pet Sounds. We would be talking for years too.

There are lots of chords progressions that sweetly fits with the lyrics.

This song, Here Today, is a masterpiece... the part that begins with "it makes you feels so bad... and ends with "you've got to keep in mind love is here today and it's gone -tomorrow- is here and gone so fast" with that bassline going up and that organ there , really blow my mind.

[SMiLE-addict]

You're right, I never (consciously) noticed that before, it does sound simultaneously out-of-place, and yet deliberate. Good find!

Now and then I read comments on BB songs on Youtube or elsewhere by bass players practically having orgasms over some of Brian's bass lines. Not a bass player myself so I wouldn't know, but after you read a few of these you start to wonder.

[LetHimRun]

Deliberate? Yes. Fantastic sounding and perfect? Yes.

[Micha]

They are great. I would open a thead about the harmonies on Pet Sounds. We would be talking for years too.

There are lots of chords progressions that sweetly fits with the lyrics.

This song, Here Today, is a masterpiece... the part that begins with "it makes you feels so bad... and ends with "you've got to keep in mind love is here today and it's gone -tomorrow- is here and gone so fast" with that bassline going up and that organ there , really blow my mind.

"Here Today" is actually my favorite BB song. I have warmer feelings for the Mike&Bruce show since I found out they played it live a few years ago. And a great version it was. I can't find it on YouTube anymore, though.

The dissonant bass doesn't bug me. I interpret it as saying musically "there's something out of place in this relationship".

[AndrewHickey]

"Here Today" is actually my favorite BB song. I have warmer feelings for the Mike&Bruce show since I found out they played it live a few years ago. And a great version it was. I can't find it on YouTube anymore, though.

Yeah, they sounded absolutely stunning on that song. I was very surprised they didn't include it in the setlist last year, actually.

[the captain]

Just a few comments to add, some of which were already mentioned.

First, there is zero doubt that the dissonance was intentional: you don't have that set of musicians performing that part--a featured, repeated segment with nothing around it to clutter it up--and have nobody say "hey, does anybody else notice this note is a bad one?" Definitely intentional, zero doubt.

It is interesting as to how it's used and why. Generally, when the 7th is in the bass position of a chord, it is a transitional chord, not the first or last (or even a featured) chord. Let's say we're in C major. Often, if you were to get a chord like that, it might be on the V chord, making a V7, with the F (the note that is the 7th of the V chord, a G major) a passing tone in the bass voice to lead either to the I in first inversion (C/E) or to the IV (F), either of those being a resolution either, but moving on into other chords before the eventual resolution.

Here, the opening chord of the segment is built over the chord's 7th note (a Bmin7 in the third inversion--7th in the bass), with the middle chord of the figure a "passing" chord, almost like when you go from chord into sus. chord back to chord, but in the inverse (instead of up, you're going down). (No doubt this has a name in theory, but for the life of me I don't recall it at the moment. But basically it's behaving as the opposite of a plagal cadence.)

Then in the second sequence, you get that crazy note pairing. Again, the dominant 7th chord with the 7th in the bass (A7 chord, G in the bass, or an A over G if you prefer not to think of it as a dominant chord, but rather a chord over just the note) into that weird cadence effect again, but this time a strongly resolving one, a I-V-I progression (A-E-A), with the G# over the G. There are a few circumstances in the tonal system where that kind of interval (notes a half step apart in the same chord) makes good sense ... but this isn't one of them.

In a major 7th chord, you can have notes that are a half-step apart, but they would be reversed so that the interval is that, a major seventh, as opposed to this, which is a minor ninth.

Another example is in blues where it is extremely common to have a minor third in a melody or solo over a major chord. So in this case, if you were in E major, you would absolutely expect to hear a G natural in a solo or melody despite the G# in the chord. But that has nothing to do with this context, despite the same chord and notes, because it isn't functioning that way at all. You'd rarely-to-never see the (major) third in the bass, and again, this isn't acting that way anyway--it isn't the fundamental chord we're focused on, but a passing chord.

I hear that segment as two chords, each with the middle "passing" chord within it for color. And in that context, it remains unusual because of that a) construction of the 7th in the bass and b) the dissonance between the G of the bass and G# in the passing chord in the second sequence.

That kind of temporary dissonance is extremely common in "classical" music--with the dissonances becoming increasingly difficult to the ear and slow to resolve throughout the centuries--because chasing the resolution is what western harmony and tonality are all about. But even in that context where it makes sense, this specific use is pretty weird. In a good way. But weird. That said, 1966 is a time by when atonal free jazz is in grade school and atonal classical music is old enough to be its dad and have a mid-life crisis. So challenging musical ideas were nowhere near new overall, they were just interesting and somewhat unique in pop music.

Sorry if this rambles incoherently a bit, I just liked the topic and started writing without organizing my thoughts much.

[Micha]

"Here Today" is actually my favorite BB song. I have warmer feelings for the Mike&Bruce show since I found out they played it live a few years ago. And a great version it was. I can't find it on YouTube anymore, though.

Yeah, they sounded absolutely stunning on that song. I was very surprised they didn't include it in the setlist last year, actually.

I would have been surprised had they played Here Today. I was surprised however they didn't play more often that other song I love so much, what was its name again...

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Nice post, Luther.

[prettycity]

Thanks Luther. Although Brian wasn't thinking that

[Freddie French-Pounce]

loves me a bit of dissonance I do

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Thanks Luther. Although Brian wasn't thinking that

Of course not, he's just an idiot savant, a vessel, it all just flows through him. God forbid he actually understood what he was doing!

[the captain]

Thanks Luther. Although Brian wasn't thinking that

Of course not, he's just an idiot savant, a vessel, it all just flows through him. God forbid he actually understood what he was doing!

prettycity -- No, he wasn't thinking that. His formal music study was pretty limited. But that said, his ears--ok, ear--worked pretty damn well. Formally studying and having the names for what happens in music is a secondary type of understanding; Brian's understanding is the primary type, meaning he heard, understood, absorbed, and created.

And that's why (Stephen Newcombe)'s post is dead-on, too. As much as people like the wunderkind, the holy fool, the dumb angel, etc. because of the mythological underpinnings, Brian Wilson knew what he was doing as a working musician. Maybe not as a schooled, formal musician, but as a working, practical musician. Brian Wilson did not formally study music theory to any advanced level, but we know he worked out vocal jazz arrangements during his high school years at home. The result of this was (obviously) a thorough understanding of chords, progressions, and arrangements. A talented, diligent worker can combine notes, chords, structures, forms, either within or beyond existing norms regardless of whether he knows their names. Wes Montgomery is another example, said to have been very poor in terms of music theory and reading music, yet his understanding of it was tremendous, which allowed his solos to go beyond single lines (which most good musicians could pick out) into soloing with chords, which of course requires a thorough comprehension. Whatever bit of that comprehension is a gift or talent, a lot more of it is (formal or informal) study and hard work.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Exactly, but Brian doesn't help matters by playing up to the dumb, innocent thing he has going.

Never doubt it, Brian is very intelligent.