Pink Floyd: Money - A songwriting arrangement analysis

Ok I just had to sit down and write this one down after David's effort because I've always like the way this song kicks into overdrive when it drops into 4/4 for the guitar solo..

 

Pink Floyd

"Money" - Dark Side of the Moon

(Roger Waters & Dave Gilmour)

 

(Song Starts in 7/8)

 

(A 4 bars) - Cash Register

(A 4 bars) - Guitar Riff

(A 4 bars) - Guitar Riff + Drums

(B 8 bars) - Verse

(C 4 bars) - Chorus (?)*

(B 8 bars) - Verse

(C 4 bars) - Chorus (?)*

(A 2 bars) - Guitar Riff + Drums

(A 16 bars) - Guitar Riff + Drums + SAX solo

(A 3 bars) - End solo / Bridge / Joiner

 

(Song goes into 4/4)

 

(D 24 bars) - Guitar Solo

(D 24 bars) - Quiet Guitar Solo Breakdown

(D 24 bars) - Guitar Solo

 

(Song goes back to 7/8)

 

(A 2 bars) - Guitar Riff + Drums

(B 8 bars) - Verse

(C 4 bars) - Chorus (?)*

 

(Song goes into a 2/4 swing type timing and fades out over 24+ bars)

 

* I wouldn't call it a Chorus really its just the "B" part to the verses. The song's repeated hook is actually the beginning of every verse.

 

I'm sure I've made some mistakes.. I guess the 3 bar thing at the end of the first 7/8 section is to keep the groove as 4/4 kicks in, but what we end up with is something like :

 

AAA

B

C

B

C

AAA

DDD

A

B

C

 

... ahh 72 bars of guitar solos.. they don't make em like they used to

It's not symmetrical, or elegant or conventional, but its one of the most successful songs of all time.

Great! And if someone doesn't remember the song (although I doubt it...)

 

 

The song's repeated hook is actually the beginning of every verse.

I agree the second part is not really a chorus. In fact that song does not have a chorus, and like many songs that don't have a chorus, notice the lyrics start with the name of the song (Like Yesterday, Like Every Breath You Take....).

 

I would also have mentioned the tempo change.

Plus, it's in 7! That's big, few #1s are anything other than duple meter.

I like this exercise thanks for starting this ball rolling David!

actually - from the top - it goes :

cash register

 

(A) guitar riff 4x

(A) guitar riff with vocals 4x

(B)....

you can't count vocals, with the same rytm/melody/key as different part - me thinks.

Don't want to seem too nitpicky here, but the time signature is actually 7/4, not 7/8.

 

I've heard several people call it 7/8, but I believe 7/4 makes more sense when you consider the tempo of the 4/4 section, along with that you rarely hear a drummer play 3 snare hits in a bar of 7/8, all on the up-beat no less. 8)

 

Just my 2 cents.

It is 7/8.

It's 7/4

 

15 all.

Sorry but I can't resist putting in my two cents' worth on this.

 

To be sure, the answer to this little "debate" may already be known: perhaps some published sheet music clarifies whether this is notated as 7/8 or 7/4. That aside, I will insist that one cannot say with certainty, the basic beat unit of any song based on its sound only. One can designate sixteenths, eighths, quarters, halves -- or whatever -- as the basic rhythmic unit. There is no audible difference between 7/16, 7/8, 7/4, or 7/2.

 

That said, I would hazard a guess that most "popular" music uses the quarter as the basic unit, but that doesn't have to be the case. (Actually, I find it mildly annoying that DAWs tend to define tempos in terms of quarter-notes only, but that's just my little quirk).

 

So, I don't know who's right here, but either assertion (7/8 or 7/4) -- from a sound perspective -- is 100% valid and plausible.

 

 

If you want, check out my attempt to notate the opening meters in Toto's "Falling In Between". While (I think) I account for all the beats and stress groupings, I could have easily used a different note value as the basic beat unit. I happened to choose eighths as the basic subdivision; quarters as the larger unit. If I didn't want to use meters like 6/8, I could have used quarters as the "small" beat and halves as the "big" beat.

 

You could also argue with how many beats I put into single bars. Some of those could easily be broken out into multiple bars.

 

How would you notate this?

True,but there are conventions which have evolved through the ages,and readability issues.

If you wanted a bunch of session musos to sight read this example then 7/4 is the one.

It's way the most obvious too.

True,but there are conventions which have evolved through the ages,and readability issues.

If you wanted a bunch of session musos to sight read this example then 7/4 is the one.

It's way the most obvious too.

I agree. There are definitely better choices than others with respect to readability. (Now if only those silly Baroque composers -- with their slow movements in 12/8 and such -- would just read this board. )

Well, someone needs to call Mr Gilmour up and tell him he made a mistake, 'cause he says it is 7/8.

 

This song is commonly mistaken for having a 7/4 intro time sig; even the Wiki for it wrongly cites the intro as 7/4. I can see how people might mistake this, as 7/4 may "feel" more natural as the pulse, but personally, after playing over both, 7/8 is it. If I wrote this and had studio guys in, this would be a simple case of sitting with them and running thru it. It is also a decent example of how what is written might not seem obvious in feel. I despise this about written music, in that the original composer's emotive substance CANNOT be translated to pen and paper. However, at the same time, I love hearing interpretations based upon written music! No one alive today knows, for instance, exactly how Mozart would have directed people to play what he wrote...and if he would have been able to get the players to play each piece exactly as he would have done himself, could he have played each and every instrument simultaneously.

 

Oh- and the 7/8 thing? Watch the DSOTM "Making Of" DVD. Argue, try to make 7/4 be the more logical choice, whatever...in the end, they wrote it as 7/8. Then again, they could be wrong...

 

EDIT: yes, I realize that Roger wrote it (essentially), and it is possible Gilmour imposed his own perception of meter, and that Roger might have intended or "felt" it was 7/4. I have not seen any word from Roger stating his definitive "this is what meter it is..." For all we know, David might simply claim 7/8 to piss Roger off...lol.. Til Roger states otherwise tho...horse's mouth and all...

A lot of guys from the rock side refer to 6/8 when they usually mean 12/8.

Anything triple or odd becomes something 8.

It's far more readable in 7/4 ,and is a piss easy sight readfing job at that.

I do not regard Mr. Gilmour as a well trained musician in the conventional old fashioned sense.

He's from that 60s generation who half did it.

Not a criticism,just an observation.

In those days there were the rock school who believed reading would destroy your soul,and the old school bigband pro/session types who were into different values.

And some in between.

As I remember it the beat is 7 then 4 at the same meter,so if it were 7'8 it would go to 8/8 (or 4/8 ).

Back to the baroque chaps with 16/2 and 12/16.

 

If I had been confronted with a 7/8 part when it would clearly have been simpler to do and read in 7/4 I'd probably just have frowned,shook my head and mumbled something about half baked amateurs,and played it anyway.

Better than no dots at all,I suppose,depending on the gig.

 

Just my perspective.

As Orsanct already said,nothing is absolute.

 

Oh! And I think music notation is much more adequate at representing that which it notates than the Roman alphabet we are using here.

The language is the key,it's representation must be learned,

Music has a much less abstract link to the sound it represents.

You get out what you put in ultimately,I suppose.

 

Sorry if this post sounds a bit stroppy and argumentative or whatever but I am absoluteley knackered,so please bear in mind at not at my most diplomatic 8)

Seriously need to get some sleep.

Nikki wrote..... No one alive today knows, for instance, exactly how Mozart would have directed people to play what he wrote...

 

I've often wondered what Mozart/Beethoven, etc., would think of something like Logic and VI's ...not the 'orchestral emulation' sided of it, but the 'synthesizer' side of it. Bet Mozart would have had a field day with an ES2

Wow. Seems like I upset a bunch of you with my remark.

 

Well, someone needs to call Mr Gilmour up and tell him he made a mistake, 'cause he says it is 7/8.

 

Yup, heard him say this as well. David is a fantastic player and a huge influence on me, but I still stand by my opinion.

 

This song is commonly mistaken for having a 7/4 intro time sig; even the Wiki for it wrongly cites the intro as 7/4. I can see how people might mistake this, as 7/4 may "feel" more natural as the pulse, but personally, after playing over both, 7/8 is it.

 

Hm... Don't know if I should be offended by this remark as it reads as an assumtion that I posted my view, based on what Wiki says? I'm simply following the tempo and the drum beat, and it definitely seems like 7/4. What would be the benefit of counting it as 7/8? I'm not trying to be a prick by asking that, I'm really curious.

 

 

Oh- and the 7/8 thing? Watch the DSOTM "Making Of" DVD. Argue, try to make 7/4 be the more logical choice, whatever...in the end, they wrote it as 7/8. Then again, they could be wrong...

 

Yes, they could.

 

EDIT: yes, I realize that Roger wrote it (essentially), and it is possible Gilmour imposed his own perception of meter, and that Roger might have intended or "felt" it was 7/4. I have not seen any word from Roger stating his definitive "this is what meter it is..." For all we know, David might simply claim 7/8 to piss Roger off...lol.. Til Roger states otherwise tho...horse's mouth and all...

 

I'm guessing we'll have to wait for that one.

 

In the end, does it really matter? Absolutely not. We could discuss this forever and it wouldn't change anything. So, maybe we'll disagree, but surely we can agree that it's a great tune?

 

All the best,

Wow. Seems like I upset a bunch of you with my remark.

Nah, you just gave us something better to do on a Saturday than frying ants with magnifying glasses or teepeeing our neighbors' houses. All in all, a satisfying exercise.

Oh no- the Wiki remark was just one point showing that the song is commonly said to be in 7/4. I have seen numerous transcriptions with it, and articles referring to it. But, I have seen articles and transcriptions with it as 7/8 as well.

 

I have worked out songs before, felt a section was one sig but the band says it is another. Dream Theater, Yes, Rush, etc type stuff. Often it is a section that has multiple sigs, maybe changing every bar over a short period of time. The drums might carry right thru, and thus one could feel the meter is more simple; or, maybe the feel is fine, and the drummer happens to play with time. "Math rock." Hehhee- loads of fun....

Let's chart out the drums/gtr from 'Zepplin's Black Dog' next. We might need some LSD tho.

 

 

 

oh..and I recently saw Heart...Ann Wilson sings the living s#!+ out of that tune!!!! God, she's a goddess.

i don't see why it has to be such an issue if money is 7/8 or 7/4...

as someone already noted, gilmour himself has said it's 7/8 so that's good enough for me.

anyway this is a nice way of charting a song...

there's loads of songs we should get done this way, starting with some pink floyd tracks, and yeah - led zeppelin too!

Johnny from guitars101

I'm in with the "I hear it as quarter notes" camp. For me the clinchers are the off beat snares, the fact that the 4/4 section seques right out of that with the same basic pulse and that the whole song swings, (or shuffles if you prefer.) And that my foot taps on all those beats. It's a body thing. I'm fine with Gilmour's 7/8 assertion, I just don't believe that's the best way to look at it!

just 2 make the point

7/8-5/4-6/8/-3/4

simple... count every 1 as the 1

now it makes no diff.

i luv odd meter

3/4 is my fav tho

hahahahaha...my comment from da peenut gallerie

 

carry on!...

& i think that tune by kansas had a odd meter part too ; ]

It's not symmetrical, or elegant or conventional, but its one of the most successful songs of all time.

 

In my view, this is actually one of the most conventional songs floyd made. Not a bad thing, but the form and construction predates even the verse-chorus verse-chorus of tunes like like comfortably numb etc

 

The song is simply a blues.

 

albeit, a blues with some "modern" changes,

1. In the main verse, the most notable difference is that we don't travel to the IV chord in bar 5.

2. Odd time signature. Not that "odd" actually. old blues guys such as Robert johnson would alter their progressions and riffs a little here, or a little there to fit a melodic guitar or vocal line.

 

The big argument/signifier that we are bluesin' away is this;

 

3 4-bar sections=12 bars

It also follows the classic blues construction of

[statement 1 <4bars>]

[statement 1 a <4bars>]

[statement 2(answer) <4bars>] * here we see the V chord for the first time, and it lasts 2 bars and then we again return to the I.

 

with that evidence, there is no doubt that this song is a blues, and and you might even call it a simplified one at that.

 

Deconstructing the 12 bar, is what they did, taking out the IV chord in measure 5 no doubt disguises some blues influence, but most likely it's inclusion would have seemed a little cliche.

 

Some times thing are not as complicated as we think.

 

Let's keep this thread rolling, with new songs. This is the most healthy exercise for our composing hearts and minds.