Songs with the 'I Wanna Be Your Dog' chord progression

Pop Will Eat Itself "Def Con One".

The guitar break after the chorus always sounded a lot like the intro to Proud Mary to me.

Pop Will Eat Itself "Def Con One".

Well, yeah, the original version actually samples I Wanna Be Your Dog

Hanoi Rocks, "Lost In The City" (I assume this one is intentional.)

wtf

Almost none of these songs have the same chord progression.

― billstevejim, Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:41 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark

bIII, V/V, I)

I haven't spent a lot of time with it, and there's a fair bit of distortion on the recording while I'm using an acoustic, but I'm not sure I'm hearing a third in any of the chords (especially the third chord, the tonic chord): I'd just as soon call it G5-F#5-E5 over a pedal point on E (which effectively turns the first chord into Em7). I actually don't see a reason to analyse it in a major key, assuming that's what you meant by calling the third chord "I". The other person who has tried to analyse it here seems to have analysed the same way, though, so maybe I'm missing something. If I had to put Roman numerals under it, right now, I'd probably just write "e: i[7]-ii-i (over tonic pedal)". It's basically a tonic prolongation, not that it's functional anyway.

Like, this is what I'm hearing:
http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/i/iggy_pop/i_wanna_be_your_dog_tab.htm
http://youtu.be/yeTjztRmGkc

Actually, you could even just write "i-----" and call the F# and C# embellishing notes.

Starting to listen to other examples: in the Mazzy Star, it's even more clearly just a riff or melodic gesture over a drone/pedal.

otm. In a way it is a variant of "Venus In Furs" which is, I think, a droning C# minor going up and down C#,D#, E, D#. Obviously a different key and slightly different pattern but the idea and vibe are certainly related.

I think "Phoenix" is mostly the bassist playing the pitches (not chords) G-F#-F-E while the guitarist improvises in E blues minor, sometimes playing a power chord on the tonic?

xpost

And the riff in "Two Beads at the End" sounds like A5-G#5-E5, which is pretty different.

OK, listening to the Boston song now, billstevejim OTM.

The "Venus in Furs" comparison makes sense to me.

Actually, you could even just write "i-----" and call the F# and C# embellishing notes.

The C# reinforces the idea that it's E major to me. In general, I just think major key even if I'm not hearing the thirds in the guitar just because of so much tradition of rock and roll songs that are in major keys but have blue notes and/or bIII and bVII chords.

(Minor pentatonic guitar solos over major key songs, etc.)

The C# reinforces the idea that it's E major to me.

Borrowing ^6 from the parallel key is really common practice and doesn't really prove much on its own. Besides, you get C natural in the only other real riff in the song. There's really nothing else to suggest E major. Any time ^3 appears in the song, it's G natural, as far as I can tell. It's not just a case of blue notes over a major-key chord progression.

When you get C, though, it's another rock and roll chord - the bVI. I think you're right that there's no evidence that it's E major, but the presence of G and C chords doesn't make me think it's in a minor key either.

where's the C#?

It's the fifth in F#5. It has no real structural weight.

I'd just as soon call it G5-F#5-E5 over a pedal point on E

this is the only thing that makes sense. why feel the need to add thirds that clearly aren't there? if you play power chords up high on the 4th and 5th strings and let the 6th string ring open, it's pretty obvious that's how the song was written.

It's the fifth in F#5. It has no real structural weight.

It doesn't? I think it's crucial to that progression.

Almost as a dissonance (which might reinforce the idea of the song tending more toward minor modality).

To me the whole point of playing power chords is that it's tonally ambiguous. Doesn't make any sense to try to nail it down like that.

I agree, wk. I was just saying what I would do if I were forced to write Roman numerals.

tim: That riff (it's barely a 'progression') is really just prolonging the tonic. As such, the F# and C# are important parts of the melodic gesture but they don't carry structural/functional weight.

yeah, I was agreeing with you

To me the whole point of playing power chords is that it's tonally ambiguous

Yes and no. When you play a G power chord and E is the tonic, no one is going to think it's G minor.

If the bass just stayed on E, I might agree more with the idea that it's just a prolongation of the tonic and not a progression, but I'm not sure I do as I hear it.

As for functionality, you could just say both the G and the F# chords are movement away from the tonic (or back towards the tonic without any cadence with the F# chord).

Sund4r and wk otm.

Also, since when did C# over an E chord imply major, have you heard of the Dorian mode, Tim?

I think we've even had a thread or two dedicated to that mode.

Warning: undergrad theory below

To clarify my terminology: I'm using terms from common-practice theory but I don't think they're too inappropriate in this case. Take this progression (assume this is a single phrase):

I-ii[6]-V[4/2]-I[6]-IV-ii-V-I [PAC].

Here, I-ii[6]-V[4/2]-I[6] is all what we call the tonic area of the phrase. IV-ii is the pre-dominant area. V is the dominant area and I is a return to the tonic after V (with cadence). Even though I-ii[6]-V[4/2]-I is a chord progression, because of its position in the phrase and the inversions that are used, all the progression is really serving to do here is to expand or elaborate on tonic harmony, so I call this a tonic prolongation. And then, I would say that this V[6] carries less structural weight than the V at the cadence.

All I'm saying with this is that wrt the main riff of "I Wanna Be Your Dog", it doesn't even matter whether you think of it as a chord progression or a melodic gesture: it never really departs from the area of tonic harmony and so I say it is prolonging the tonic. (There is more movement during the other riff.)

There are no G or F# (major) chords in the song! They are G5 and F#5 and always presented with a tonic pedal. There is a difference. If you include the bassline and count the tonic pedal as a chord member each time, you could analyse the main riff as i[6/5]-ii[7]-i if you really wanted to do a Roman numeral analysis. This is actually a very standard tonic prolongation pattern: you find variants on it all over Schubert, for example. (Tbh, an ostinato bassline that goes G-F#-E should provide enough confirmation that this is not E major.)

this V[6]

V[4/2], sorry

Yeah, I understand the premise of that analysis of different areas of that progression. And I understand the premise of saying the three chords in this song are all just tonic prolongation. But where would I draw the line?

Take the Sonics' version of "Louie Louie" as an example. They don't play the regular chords of the song - they play I-bIII-IV instead. I'm not sure why I would want to say that the chord in this song is any less of a bIII (or III chord if you want to say that we're in a minor mode) chord than the one in their "Louie Louie."

(Other than, yes, I know, you don't hear the third in this song. But like I said, no one's going to guess that it's G minor.)

since when did C# over an E chord imply major

Yeah, that's a decent argument. I mean, of course, it's a major sixth. I suppose it doesn't really reinforce my thinking of it as being in E major, though.

It would be interesting to know if Ron Asheton had his index finger on G# when he played E (even if he didn't actually play that string when he hit the chord).

My point with the "Louie Louie" argument is this - that song's only three chords, too. One of them's a subdominant. Are those three chords all tonic prolongation, too? If not, I don't think this song is either (because I'm not sure there's a significant difference).

I'm slightly drunk and never listened to the Sonics song before tonight but listening to it now, I'd be fine with saying it's an extended tonic prolongation too, yes. In fact, I think that was probably part of the point of their changing the chords: to reduce the sense of harmonic movement/progression. There's a greater sense of tension in the Sonics' version compared to the Kingsmen's.

The pedal point is another difference between the Stooges' song and the Sonics'. Even if you analyse it as an inner voice, it still makes that 'III' chord seem more like an inverted i. (I would normally try to analyse mediant triads as tonic or dominant harmony when possible anyway.)

I think that was probably part of the point of their changing the chords: to reduce the sense of harmonic movement/progression.

Yeah!

I agree with all that other than to maybe make a case for mediant triads as just really significant things in their own right in rock and roll, distinguishing them from inverted and embellished tonic or dominant chords.

What about I-IV-V songs? I was trying to think of examples and came up with a couple - "Do You Love Me" by the Contours and "Gee" by the Crows. In both songs, you have passages where the chords are moving quickly through the cycle and then there are passages where it clearly builds slower toward a cadence. Are the passages where the chords are changing quicker all tonic prolongation, even though there are IV and a V chords?

Almost none of these songs have the same chord progression.

― billstevejim, Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:41 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark

― wk, Saturday, August 3, 2013 1:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

OTM, in any transposition. Not in any stretch. Not even with theory snobbery removed. All the songs xhuxk has mentioned go I-bVII-vi or I-V-IV or something like that, which makes me wonder if some people hear "I Wanna Be Your Dog" (basically G5 - F#5 - E5 with a high E drone) as being in G instead of E?!? i.e. the same chord progression as "Oh Yoko". Is that possible?!

Oh, "Venus and Furs" and "Phoenix" obv excepted :)

I think people were mistaking riffs that have a vaguely similar rhythm and contour as having a similar 'chord progression'??

(Btw, "G5-F#5-E5 with a pedal point on E" was the first thing I said. 'Theory snobbery' only came in when I had to argue the point.:P)

nah man I wasn't calling you a snob at all, your breakdown has been interesting. Just trying to point out that when people are saying "not the same chord progression" it's not because of some subtle difference, it's because they are completely different. Did you try singing I wanna be your dog along with Oh Yoko yet, btw? Kinda fun

It's cool, fgti. Was feeling defensive, I guess.

This revive turned out to be pretty interesting. Enjoyed everybody's comments.

Just started burning that massive history of female punk. Don't much care for this, but it clearly belongs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VxILA32Nd4

Buzzcocks, "Something's Gone Wrong Again" has not only the riff but the exact same one-note piano as the original.

Hmm, this thread - most of these songs are nothing like I Wanna Be Your Dog chord progression! Bela Lugosi's Dead and the end of Mudhoney's Halloween definitely are though.

Was wondering about this...would some of those curious examples be given if thread title asked for 'riff' instead of 'chord progression'?

Ty Segall - Manipulator

Chrisma, "Black Silk Stocking"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DY-MYND-zg