You make good points. The D/E chord (in the key of A), for example, is such a classic and recognizable sound. It always reminds me of Carole King or other piano-based songwriters. I basically think of it as a sus4/sus9 chord with a 7. In pop notation, though, it’s more efficient to just write D/E than Esus4/sus9-7. It’s a problem with pop notation in general: it does not really ascribe function to the chord, it just tells you how to play the chord. That’s fine for a performer, but does it really impart any theoretical insight?

I’m getting off topic, though. I think your examples of the Bm/E and Bm7/E are good points regarding chords “without thirds”, but my point is that those chords you posit are all over a bass of E, or at least should be. Counterpoint theory and our best theory of tonal music (as described by Schenker) all express just how important that bass part is in our hearing of chordal function. So I think a Bm/E chord is much, much different than an E/Bm chord or whatever you would label the situation in this Beatles song. If the bass note through this whole section had been an E, then OK, I would buy it. But once again, I think it’s dangerous to take a completely pitch-class approach and ignore the voicings in this style of music. I mean, I really hear that G as a G chord.

I think perhaps I should simplify my original argument. Instead of viewing the note “B” as the focal point through the chorus, it might be more accurate and theoretically correct to view the note “D” as the melodic hinge. That “E” sung over the Bm chord is really just an unprepared suspension (i.e. appoggiatura) to the note “D” that is sung at the end of the verse. The “E” gets embellished a bit with some lower notes but eventually resolves when he sings “Down.” In other words: “HELP me if you can I’m feeling DOWN-ow-own”, where the words in capital letters reflect the location of the structural notes. The E-D appoggiatura works for both the Bm and G chords. Once the E7 chord comes around at the end, the E-D melodic motion is reinterpreted to something more harmonically consonant.

So, to conclude, I don’t think there is any disjunctness or “divorce” between the melody and harmony (as some other folks may have implied). In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The melody and harmony are working very closely together to produce a very characteristic and explainable tonal phenomenon.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Thanks for your response. I’m a music director at a Catholic church and a long-time performing keyboardist/vocalist, and I find these types of discussions very interesting. Your site is quite impressive—along with your accomplishments—and I’ll try to contribute more. I’m wondering, though, what the copyright ramifications are of posting short audio excerpts like you do. I’ve wanted to do this occasionally, myself, but have been reluctant to do so. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Yes, it’s clear that the Beatles didn’t think in terms of my analysis, and I’ll admit the E7#9 is a stretch, since the #9 chord is usually defined by the dissonance between the 3rd and 9th. I’ve used the extended chord analysis only because it gives a clearer picture than the Chord/Bass Note paradigm, especially when the actual bass note differs from the model. However, you’ll have to admit that in pop music today chords frequently aren’t defined by the lower triad, especially the V chord. Examples (in the key of A) are: Bm/E, Bm7/E, and D/E among others; nary a third is to be found though the chord functions intrinsically and exclusively as a dominant chord.

By that standard—though I don’t believe it wasn’t all that common in the mid-sixties—I immediately hear V chord when I hear the repeated E melody against the Bm chord. Now here’s the stretch: you could, of course, think of the G triad as bVII, but why do it since the exact same melodic phrase is again being pounded out, the chord differs by only one note a half-step higher, and the third chord is the traditional dominant triad? It would be incorrect to call the chord an Em7, I think, because the major 3rd is not really being replaced but rather omitted and superseded. If you play an E note either above or below and along with the chromatic line F#, G, G#, the concept is clearly audible.

I believe this is one example among many of the Beatles anticipating a device that was to become commonplace a few years later. George Martin at times must have sat in the studio incredulous and stupefied by what he was hearing!

GR

That’s a very interesting take you have (kind of jazz-inspired perhaps). I think I agree with you on one level, but I also disagree with you on another.

Your method takes kind of a post-tonal pitch-class-collection approach to the chords. You are correct that – were we to just put all those notes from each chord into a bag – we could rearrange them to get the chords you’ve labeled. But is that how the Beatles conceived of the song, and more importantly, is that how those chords are actually perceived? It’s hard to argue definitively one way or another without more proof. I would agree that all of these chords are extending the dominant harmony in some way; that’s where I’m on your same page.

However, I’m not sure that we hear chords as bags of pitch-classes (in spite of post-tonal theory), especially when other musical factors exist that give strong evidence otherwise. For one, the bass line is really strongly thumping out “root-fifth” on each chord. We can try to turn off our associations with the bass line, but the bass is not just another voice-leading member; the bass is a big deal: it’s one if not “the” major factor in how our ears reckon harmonies I would say.

Moreover, if you listen closely, you can hear the acoustic guitar in the right channel strumming pretty straightforward chords – Bm, G, E. If you play along with a guitar, it works. Also, you’ve cleverly dropped the third from your first two chords (no3) which, while correct with regard to your labels, kind of argues against any sort of recognizable triad. It’s one thing to have a sus4 (no3), but to have a #9 (no3) kind of redefines how chords are categorized. Why aren’t all major chords #9 (no3)? There are a lot of ways to label chords, but some I think are more true to our hearing.

I think maybe you’re overcomplicating the analysis at the expense of the compositional insight. However, I think you’ve taken an amazingly original approach to explaining how this whole section sounds like it’s basically in/on the dominant. My underlying point was to argue against my friend who was saying the melody and harmonies were not coordinated. So, in fact, you’ve given me yet another way to look at the song that comes down against my friend’s theory. Thank you!

Cheers,
Trevor dC

GR

There is a good quote from Paul McCartney in the 1995 documentary that I am going to steal here. This quote shows, I think, that the Beatles were, in fact, doing a fair amount of calculation (as well as feeling of course):

McCartney: “We were just trying to improve all the time, and we’d listen to something that somebody else had done, and we’d just try and beat it a bit. We’d try and beat what we were doing. And, I mean, by the time we got to something like ‘From Me to You,’ it was nice ’cause the – I remember being very pleased with the chord in the middle, which was different from what [plays piano]. Going to that minor chord there was like, ‘Ooh, you know this is something we haven’t done before.’”

Theory’s goal isn’t necessarily to divine the writer’s compositional processes – it also helps us understand what exactly we’re listening to. The main question here isn’t “Is this why he wrote what he wrote?” but “Is this why we hear it like we hear it?”

Also, I doubt you could really say that writers don’t “calculate” – good songs rarely just pop fully formed out of the guitar. Good songwriting is a continual process of reinventing and reimagining (for a good example, check out Wilco’s Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and then find the YHF demos that are floating around the interweb, and see how much the songs evolved…)

I think if you follow through my discussion of the chorus in “Help” closely, you’ll find that I am actually showing how simple the structure is. The musical terms may appear complicated to someone not versed in music theory, but they represent simple concepts that any musician can inherently learn and feel without knowing the terminology.

Lennon assuredly may not have consciously constructed this song using the description I have provided. However, Lennon at this point in his life obviously had a highly trained ear, i.e. a refined sense of “feeling” and “hearing.” I am thus arguing that unconsciously, through probably trial and error as well as experience, Lennon can be seen using simple yet elegant musical devices in this song.