OK, is this the worst piece of music writing ever?

Like something about the voice leading maybe doesn't work for me but I can't nail down what it is. xp

I totally get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but it really is incredibly interesting, so I can't work out if you're sort of failing, or if the modulation b/w "of course this is bullshit" and "here's a genuinely helpful music primer" is included in the point.

I deliberately omitted mentions of added-7’s in my chord descriptions because of an inconsistency in notational unity between classiclers and jazzers, omitted also for irrelevance.

I mean actually, most chord progressions don't fall entirely along a single mode, maybe it's the fact that does that bothers me.

i kinda think you should get a shouts and murmurs page with one of these just to make it clear what the deeper intent is

I mean actually, most chord progressions don't fall entirely along a single mode, maybe it's the fact that does that bothers me.

But then when somebody called "Giant Steps" and counted it off, well...

Another thing I really dislike about Get Lucky is the way the "We've come too far to give up who we are" hits the same degree of each of the four chords (the third), i.e. parallel motion/voice-leading. This is a really boring way to write a melody, especially where each third lands squarely on the first beat of the bar.

are you competing for the worst piece of music writing?

@ Marcello, yes, I thought I was being sufficiently tongue-in-cheek with "supremacy" to tip people off that though this is fun, and I hope instructional, it's not meant to form any basis of criticism. I'm going whole-hog next week so people aren't mislead

@ Hurting 2 that "parallel movement with the third in the upper voice" trick is the basis of a hundred Zimmer / Horner / Newton Howard scores, "The Thin Red Line" immediately springs to mind. People really like the sound of it, esp. in that brand of 00s indie music (whatever is the first song on Sufjan's "Illinoise" but also every other Sufjan song, The National "England", every Joanna Newsom song).

these are p great

As a black person, whenever I see someone taking about music theory in terms of race I get unreasonably angry.

the one Miranda July cd i heard was decidedly un-twee...super harrowing scary stuff not for nighttime listening.

DJP me too

I really like Miranda July for the record - the films I've seen and her short story collection. It's a shame she's lumped in with all that Little Miss Sunshine stuff.

which is why musicological criticism only takes you so far.

What is the *place* you're referring to that musicology cannot attain (and that, presumably, something else can)?

place: flavor town
something else: donkey sauce

i fear the troll is too subtle. also i think i mentioned elsewhere, its u&k when talking about teenage dream to talk about Bonnie McKee.

but otoh these articles are great!

Thanks s.clover. I'm not experienced enough of a writer to trust myself, and so far the troll-signifiers have just been pissing off people who think I'm taking digs at "academic writing as a whole" which is, y'know, unfortunate. I'm writing an explain about "why all Gaga's songs sound the same (and why this is a good thing) and why Bad Romance will be a longtime radio staple" but after that I think I'm gonna get out while I'm ahead

Owen, I love these two articles. I think there is a place for academic analysis of pop culture (it's sort of why I joined ILX in the first place). Wished more people were going that way instead of down the Buzzfeed style route.

was going to post those owen reviews here; glad there's discussion about them. they are great. i don't get why there aren't more like it. sports fans crave hyper-complex analysis about offensive formations in football; defensive strategies in basketball; the nuances of pitchers' approaches to particular batters. i don't see why music fans wouldn't want similarly hyper-complex analysis of new records. plus, it's good to learn things, and these reviews are good teaching tools. anyway, they are great to read, and i hope there will be more.

srsly.

Yeah I really like musical analysis and enjoy the pieces overall. Even if you can't explain why a piece is good or not good or why one person loves it and another is bored by it, it's still interesting to examine what the song is doing and how.

people complained that the steely dan 33.3 was too dry - which it was - but they attributed that dryness to how it focused mainly on what was going on musically, which was a breath of fresh air for me

I know it sounds a bit assholish to say this, but I feel like a lack of musical education is a big part of why that kind of reaction happens. Being able to analyze what's going on formally in a song is actually a great pleasure. Obviously it's going to be boring as shit to read that if you can't follow it though.

Even if you can't explain why a piece is good or not good or why one person loves it and another is bored by it

I would completely disagree that this is a shortcoming of musicological analysis, if that's what you mean.

I am not at all afraid to be the asshole who says that ppl don't know enough about musical analysis to be talking about music, esp since I know exactly enough music theory to get through my various musical endeavors

This is kind of turning into a subthread that has nothing to do with the thread anymore, but I also feel like music itself would be better if both artists and audiences had broader musical knowledge. I mean there's lots of great really simple pop music, but today compared to, say, 1965, or 1975, or 1985, I feel like there is so little that ISN'T simple. I just feel like there's less harmonic and melodic variety and imagination in today's pop music. Formal musical education isn't about playing or writing "right" imo but about opening up possibilities -- how to find 12 other chords I could go to from this chord that would also sound good, how to write a melody that doesn't just follow the root or third, how to do stuff that isn't obvious to the ear but actually might sound cool anyway.

And I don't want to get into the whole "there are other kinds of musical knowledge" thing, because of course there are. There's knowledge relating to rhythm and texture and feel and style and all that stuff is really important, so I guess I'm just saying "knowledge" in terms of harmony and melodic writing.

It's a frustrating exercise for me, because like "I have so much to say about Lady Gaga!" but at the same time I cannot, actually, get through reading a single fucking wikipedia page breakdown of any Sibelius symphony, they have been dissected so irrelevantly and uninterestingly by musicologists who, instead of identifying the innovative features in the orchestration or handling-of-material, just throw their "it's in b-minor and then goes to G-major" dicks around. Seriously if you want to see "worst piece of music writing ever" just look at a wiki for a Tchaikovsky symphony, I'll be over here slitting my wrists

what I'm trying to say is: musicology is awesome but musicologists need to take an atavan or fifty

I think there is a place for academic analysis of pop culture (it's sort of why I joined ILX in the first place). Wished more people were going that way instead of down the Buzzfeed style route.

If you're interested, fwiw, academic music theorists have been doing plenty of analysis of popular music over the last couple of decades (especially considering that it's hard to come up with something new to say about Bach). You could start with Music Theory Online maybe, which usually runs a piece on popular music, is a top journal in the field, and is usually relatively readable: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/issues.php

This issue was completely devoted to rock music, for example: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.3/toc.17.3.html

This is something of a 'classic' book: http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Rock-Essays-Musical-Analysis/dp/0195100050

Kyle Adams's work on rap and Lori Burns's work generally (http://www.music.uottawa.ca/faculty/burns.html, has a few MTO articles, has written book chapters on Lady Gaga, Dixie Chicks, and Rihanna if you're concerned that the pop being analysed isn't always pop enough) are usually great.

Sorry, the Dixie Chicks thing was an article.

What is the *place* you're referring to that musicology cannot attain (and that, presumably, something else can)?

― timellison,

Well, let me return to the example I used about versifying. I can argue that Frost's use of iambic tetrameter in "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening" enforces the mind-numbing regularity of the speaker's mission, most notably in the line "And miles to go before I sleep." But I could also argue that the unyielding beat of that tetrameter reduces the poem to a greeting card. Frost's choice of meter is a fact; what you and I deduce from those facts is an opinion.

I'm not at all suggesting a musicological approach is flawed, only that mentioning a series of facts about clusters and time signatures and chord sequences still adduce opinions.

Blind drunk when typing those last two posts, sorry to any musicologists

Ha, I mean, Wikipedia is probably not the best source for quality musicological writing. I suspect that people are confusing musicology and music theory on this thread though.

Was wondering about that. What would you say is the difference?

Ime, on this side of the Atlantic at least, a simple explanation would be:
music theory = formal/structural analysis of music (which includes model composition at the undergrad level)
musicology = humanities or social science approaches to the study of music

I think that in Europe, what I would call music theory can be included as a sub-discipline of musicology, actually, which would weaken my original point.

(Grove on musicology fwiw (they don't have a "music theory" article!):

The term ‘musicology’ has been defined in many different ways. As a method, it is a form of scholarship characterized by the procedures of research. A simple definition in these terms would be ‘the scholarly study of music’. Traditionally, musicology has borrowed from ‘art history for its historiographic paradigms and literary studies for its paleographic and philological principles’ (Treitler, 1995). A committee of the American Musicological Society (AMS) in 1955 also defined musicology as ‘a field of knowledge having as its object the investigation of the art of music as a physical, psychological, aesthetic, and cultural phenomenon’ (JAMS, viii, p.153). The last of these four attributes gives the definition considerable breadth, although music, and music as an ‘art’, remains at the centre of the investigation.

A third view, which neither of these definitions fully implies, is based on the belief that the advanced study of music should be centred not just on music but also on musicians acting within a social and cultural environment. This shift from music as a product (which tends to imply fixity) to music as a process involving composer, performer and consumer (i.e. listeners) has involved new methods, some of them borrowed from the social sciences, particularly anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, sociology and more recently politics, gender studies and cultural theory. This type of inquiry is also associated with ethnomusicology. Harrison (1963) and other ethnomusicologists have suggested that ‘It is the function of all musicology to be in fact ethnomusicology; that is, to take its range of research to include material that is termed “sociological”’

In the US/Canada, ime, I think it would more common for theory/composition to be combined in a department or 'area' within a department as for theory/musicology to be combined, although the latter is definitely not unheard of.

@ Sund4r I keep up with that journal but have learned to skip the articles about pop rock and rap. My ish is that those pop articles seem intended for an audience of no-one. The language is too academic for people who're interested in Radiohead, and Radiohead is too easily parsed for people who can comprehend an academic theoretical approach. I mean:

“Paranoid Android” was composed and recorded by the alternative rock band Radiohead and appears on their widely acclaimed album OK Computer (1997).(9) As Radiohead critics and fans point out, the title of the rock song references the fictional character “Marvin the Paranoid Android” from Douglas Adams’s 1978 BBC radio comedy series The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which was later adapted into a series of books. Unlike Adams’s comedic portrayal of the depressed robot Marvin, however, Radiohead’s “Paranoid Android” appears to depict a socially alienated and anxiety-ridden persona surrounded by a society consumed by the trappings of capitalism––one of several themes that the album explores. Power (“When I am king”) and materialism (“gucci”; “yuppies”) generate self-importance (“Why don’t you remember my name”) and excess (“piggy”), threatening to consume, impair, and silence (“With your opinions which are of no consequence at all”) in the desire for more (Example 1a). The fear and realization that the capitalist machine has participated in the formation of the subject and created, as a condition of possibility, the potential to equate the valuation of material goods with identity and self-worth, provokes a split subject––a “paranoid android” who recognizes that its individual thoughts and ambitions may also be a product of the capitalist machine (“Please could you stop the noise . . . from all the unborn chicken voices in my head”).(10) The plea to be cleansed (“Rain down on me from a great height”) from the markers of a capitalist identity proves futile in the song’s final section; the potential for grace and intervention is met with a cynicism that God may be passive (“God loves his children, yeah!”), leaving the persona no escape from Pandemonium. That all of the individuals in “Paranoid Android” are condemned to the same fate, regardless of social status or wealth, lends an ironic twist to the song’s ending.

My eyes glazed over there too but that's just like an introductory paragraph about the song more generally, though, right? The meat of the piece is the actual musical analysis.

I totally disagree with this!:

Radiohead is too easily parsed for people who can comprehend an academic theoretical approach.

Even under the rubric of Theory, don't different people use it to mean different things at different times? An old school classical guy might be referring to something out of the common practice period, particularly the law as laid down by Rameau in 1722, whereas a recent Berklee grad is walking around with his head stuffed up with Chord Scale Theory?

My eyes glazed over too but I hadn't put together where the title "Paranoid Android" came from so I learned something.

*moves to the other thread*

Even under the rubric of Theory, don't different people use it to mean different things at different times? An old school classical guy might be referring to something out of the common practice period, particularly the law as laid down by Rameau in 1722, whereas a recent Berklee grad is walking around with his head stuffed up with Chord Scale Theory?

Sure, but they're both doing structural/formal analysis of music. They're just working with different repertoire. They could still present at similar conferences, etc. Anyway, I better go mark some counterpoint.

(Xp)I guess what I am trying to say is if you define theory as something like "the study of what chords go together and what melodies go with them" then there are different approaches to theory and some explain certain things better than others. What is surprising or not done in one theory is not surprising and done all the time in another. If you don't take this into account then theory is kind of a strawman.

*ok I'm leaving too*

(Something about tyranny of theory, blah blah blah)

I want to continue this discussion just in the more specific "talking about articles" thread instead of the "lol at this guy" thread

Should we start a new thread for theory and pop or take it here?: Rolling Music Theory Thread

(I don't think math & music would be the right place.)

Yes, the math & music thread is too specialized, but that rolling theory thread looks fine. Plus I'm sure it will makeTim happy.