Sandy Denny's use of modes

[Philip W]

Hi Maart

I’m the proud owner of a copy of the Sandy Denny Songbook. Fabulous job of transcription which is a godsend for her fans.  

As you may know, I’ve published a bit about Sandy’s songwriting. Having been asked to contribute to something else now, I’d like to touch on the technical aspects, which no one ever talks about. In the past I suggested that, while her use of modes was typical of a folk-based artist, her use of the lydian mode was unusual and a distinctive feature of her style. (Cecil Sharp, 1907: “The English folk singer, to judge by his tunes, is very sensitive to the harsh effect of the tritone, which, of course, is the characteristic interval of the lydian mode”.) Am I barking up the wrong tree here in claiming some distinctiveness for, say, ‘Bushes and Briars’ as being a composition in “G lydian”?

Philip

[Maart]

Pass.

Actually I never learned the names of the modes. I learned my scales, so it was much easier to say something like "as if the scale started on the E of a C major scale". I feel there's a lot of tommyrot spoken of the theory of music which gets it a bad name. I love the theory of music and revise regularly, but talk of modes and such is I feel verging on the trainspotter mentality. Sorry Pugwash, I know you're harmless

I'm quite sure that Sandy's music came not from any study but from the more osmotic influences of other singers, which is probably just why nobody ever talks about the technical aspects. My impression is that Sandy was a free spirit musically, with open ears, open mind and open heart. I work with some of the best ever songwriters, and I know that hardly any of them know any theory, which maybe why their music is so special as it is tapped directly from within the spirit, not from within a book.

Thank you for your kind words about my book though. It was very hard work for those very reasons...

Maart

[Edthefolkie]

Thanks for that Maart, you hit the nail on the head. And thanks a million for the songbook, God alone knows how you managed it!

The thing with Sandy seemed to be that the osmosis worked better than with just about any other singer of her era - I suppose it's called art, or genius, or summat.

I said this somewhere else, but the first time I heard her in 1968 I actually thought "I've known this all my life".

[Philip W]

talk of modes and such is I feel verging on the trainspotter mentality. Sorry Pugwash, I know you're harmless

Ouch! That’s me told. Actually I haven’t “spotted” a train since I was ten but old habits die hard, I suppose.  

To be serious: I disagree. When a music critic or musicologist applies technical vocabulary to popular music, he’s not assuming – unless he’s incredibly naive – that the artist he writes about designed that feature into their music, having studied music theory from books. He knows that the act of creation is a sum of mostly unconscious decisions taken by the artist, influenced by their personal taste and response to what they’ve heard around them. He’s just seeking a shorthand way of describing or classifying what he hears in order to compare it with other music. In an ideal world the only response to music would be to make other music, or jump up and down, or listen in silent awe, but these bl**dy critics will insist on verbalising.

I think we must agree to differ on this one, Maart!  

Philip (no relation to Pugwash)

[Jan_]

I'd like to add that it isn't a black and white situation either: it's a spectrum and we all sit somewhere on it.  Some of us are closer to the 'respond with our heart' end, some of us are closer to the 'respond with our head' end, and some of us are nearer the middle.

[Peter H-K]

For what it's worth, I put "Bushes and Briars" on for my wife (who earns her living as a musicologist) yesterday, and asked her if it could be described as in G Lydian. She was rather distracted at the time, but her response was "Yes, sort of". If you want a clarification of the "sort of," I could always ask when she's less busy!

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, looking at your question again, I'm not sure that's what you were asking--you were asking about the distinctiveness of its being in G Lydian, were you, rather than whether it was in that mode?

[Peter H-K]

I'd like to add that it isn't a black and white situation either: it's a spectrum and we all sit somewhere on it.  Some of us are closer to the 'respond with our heart' end, some of us are closer to the 'respond with our head' end, and some of us are nearer the middle.

And I'm sure it's possible to do both, isn't it? Sorry to use my better half as an example again, but as a Purcell scholar, she has a pretty darn good understanding of how, say, Dido's Lament functions on a nuts and bolts level, but that doesn't mean that she's not tremendously moved by hearing a good performance of it ....

[Edthefolkie]

On reflection I think everybody's right.

I'm coming at it as a very bad piano player whose sight reading abilities are pretty naff and whose compositional abilities are nil. I'd say that Sandy's tunes vary depending on whether she sat down at the piano or picked up the guitar. I suppose this is inevitable to a certain extent. "Bushes and Briars" was always performed to a guitar accompaniment, mostly using a twelve string. (If she used the twelve string when writing the song I bet she didn't try any exotic tunings!) Now, might it not be easy to slip into something resembling the Lydian mode when using a guitar to compose? I genuinely don't know, but surely the instrument you use determines the way your music is shaped to an extent.

I will ask my old mate Graham who knows a lot about the theory and practice of music. He actually composes orchestral pieces on paper as well as using Sibelius, conducts, sings, plays etc. A veritable David Munrow. The only man I know who managed to blag a Steinway grand for nowt!

[Jan_]

I'd like to add that it isn't a black and white situation either: it's a spectrum and we all sit somewhere on it.  Some of us are closer to the 'respond with our heart' end, some of us are closer to the 'respond with our head' end, and some of us are nearer the middle.

And I'm sure it's possible to do both, isn't it? Sorry to use my better half as an example again, but as a Purcell scholar, she has a pretty darn good understanding of how, say, Dido's Lament functions on a nuts and bolts level, but that doesn't mean that she's not tremendously moved by hearing a good performance of it ....

So your wife would be in the middle - able to respond with equal measure of head and heart.  Personally, I respond with more heart than head because I'm a fairly emotional person and my music theory is pretty limited.  

The biggest problem I have with the polarised views is that there is sometimes a snobbery implied with one and an inverted snobbery with the other, when really it's just about enjoying and appreciating music in our own way.  And respecting the ways of others.

[James SftBH]

Is it time for the famous adage "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"?

[Peter H-K]

So your wife would be in the middle - able to respond with equal measure of head and heart.  Personally, I respond with more heart than head because I'm a fairly emotional person and my music theory is pretty limited.  

Oh, I see what you mean--yes, that makes sense. I was thinking that maybe people like her constituted another category, of existing at both ends of the spectrum at once.

Me, I'm a heart man, since I'm not a musician, and my knowledge of music theory is non-existent!

[Philip W]

I was thinking that maybe people like her constituted another category, of existing at both ends of the spectrum at once.

Yes, I’m sure your good lady wife – obviously a person of taste if she is a Purcell specialist – does constitute another category. I like to imagine I’m in the same category, able to respond viscerally to  a piece of music but also interested in knowing how it’s put together and whether there’s any adequate way of expressing in words why it acts on me as it does.

To go back to the example I started with... Maybe I’m wrong to suggest ‘Bushes and Briars’ is in “G Lydian”. Maybe it’s simply “in” D major but the tonic chord is so rarely sounded (except at the end, if I remember rightly) that the ear hears the centre of gravity as G. Pompous as it may sound, I’d suggest that such analysis could be a legitimate basis for discussing the song, since in the harmonic elusiveness you have a close parallel to the habitual evasiveness and ambiguity of Sandy’s lyrics, the two going together to contribute to the glory of her music.  

[Jan_]

I have just had a look at your blogspot for the first time, Philip, and I think maybe you are in a category all of your own (and I mean that in a good way )

Your comments about Autopsy interested me:  I like the idea that the song is about Sandy herself, a sort of introspective dissection.  It also satisfies my initial uneasiness with the lyrics - a sort of "ouch!" for the poor guy on the receiving end.

[Dan O.]

I have just had a look at your blogspot for the first time, Philip, and I think maybe you are in a category all of your own (and I mean that in a good way )

Your comments about Autopsy interested me:  I like the idea that the song is about Sandy herself, a sort of introspective dissection.  It also satisfies my initial uneasiness with the lyrics - a sort of "ouch!" for the poor guy on the receiving end.

Philip's blogspot is indeed excellent - thoroughly recommended for anyone with a more in-depth interest in SD

[Steve with the black dog]

I was thinking that maybe people like her constituted another category, of existing at both ends of the spectrum at once.

Yes, I’m sure your good lady wife – obviously a person of taste if she is a Purcell specialist – does constitute another category. I like to imagine I’m in the same category, able to respond viscerally to  a piece of music but also interested in knowing how it’s put together and whether there’s any adequate way of expressing in words why it acts on me as it does.

To go back to the example I started with... Maybe I’m wrong to suggest ‘Bushes and Briars’ is in “G Lydian”. Maybe it’s simply “in” D major but the tonic chord is so rarely sounded (except at the end, if I remember rightly) that the ear hears the centre of gravity as G. Pompous as it may sound, I’d suggest that such analysis could be a legitimate basis for discussing the song, since in the harmonic elusiveness you have a close parallel to the habitual evasiveness and ambiguity of Sandy’s lyrics, the two going together to contribute to the glory of her music.  

Don't apologise for being interested in music theory - this is a music forum and if you can't express your interests in the technical make up of the music you like here, where else can you?

I knew nothing about modes until a couple of years ago.  The new knowledge opened a door which led to much more natural and intuitive improvisation.