http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/seconds/hermans-hermits-no-milk-today.htm
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 22 June 2006 21:19 (twelve years ago) Permalink
"A person would not necessarily notice the ambiguity of the opening seven-second solo guitar part either."
...should have read as "metric ambiguity." That was changed in the editing and is, I think, unclear.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 22 June 2006 21:28 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 23 June 2006 05:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink
If you look at it that way, it's simply Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus.
― everything (everything), Friday, 23 June 2006 15:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― A Study In Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Friday, 23 June 2006 16:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink
But the point is, I guess, that even though there's a more complicated structure going on than verse/chorus, the interplay of the verses and "verse extensions" and choruses is still somewhat regular.
Still it's a good analysis.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 23 June 2006 17:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink
The Ramones/Hermans Hermits connection is an interesting one to explore. Gouldman later produced the Ramones album Pleasant Dreams. Try singing the lyrics of Rockaway Beach over “I’m ‘enery the VIIIth I Am”, which is also the source of “second verse same as the first”. Is “Leaning On A Lampost” the inspiration for “53rd and 3rd”?
― everything (everything), Friday, 23 June 2006 18:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink
1-2-C-33-4-C-11-2-C-3
Actually, looking at it that way is interesting because you notice that the second unit starts by repeating the last section of the first and the third unit starts by repeating the last section of the second.
Still, I don't hear it as a ten line verse. I think the C section functions more as a chorus.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 23 June 2006 21:29 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 23 June 2006 21:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink
Actually, BBC makes for a twelve line verse. BBCB would make for a sixteen line verse. I don't see it!
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 23 June 2006 21:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink
No milk today, my love has gone away The bottle stands forlorn, a symbol of the dawn No milk today, it seems a common sight But people passing by don't know the reason why How could they know just what this message means The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams How could they know the palace there had been Behind the door where my love reigned as queen No milk today, it wasn't always so The company was gay, we'd turn night into day
Chorus:
But all that's left is a place dark and lonely A terraced house in a mean street back of town Becomes a shrine when I think of you only Just two up two down
Verse 2:
No milk today, it wasn't always so The company was gay, we'd turn night into day As music played the faster did we dance We felt it both at once, the start of our romance How could they know just what this message means The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams How could they know a palace there had been Behind the door where my love reigned as queen No milk today, my love has gone away The bottle stands forlorn, a symbol of the dawn
Chorus: But all that's left is a place dark and lonely A terraced house in a mean street back of town Becomes a shrine when I think of you only Just two up two down
Verse 3:
No milk today, my love has gone away The bottle stands forlorn, a symbol of the dawn No milk today, it seems a common sight But people passing by don't know the reason why How could they know just what this message means The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams How could they know a palace there had been Behind the door where my love reigned as queen No milk today, it wasn't always so The company was gay, we'd turn night into day
Chorus/outro: But all that's left is a place dark and lonely A terraced house in a mean street back of town Oh all that's left is a place dark and lonely A terraced house in a mean street back of town Oh all that's left is a place dark and lonely A terraced house in a mean street back of town
― everything (everything), Monday, 26 June 2006 21:25 (twelve years ago) Permalink
Ambiguous, even.
― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 04:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 07:15 (twelve years ago) Permalink
It's surprising that it's really so straightforward without sounding boring or repetative. Compared with "Your Mother Should Know" for example - it's not that much different as it really only consists of a verse and a chorus, yet YMSK sounds pretty turgid, as if it's missing something.
Still, Herman's Hermits were pretty often really basic. Their cover of "Henry the Eight" dispensed with ALL the original verses and just kept the chorus, repeated three times. Pretty rad.
― everything (everything), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 17:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:16 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:18 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:22 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink
On the other hand, perhaps even pop masterpieces could use improvement:
"A contrasting bridge will almost always improve a song. The more minimalist and repetitive the song, the better a contrasting bridge. -- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), March 18th, 2005"
― everything (everything), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 19:24 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 19:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink
Dunno if that makes sense, and it's a bit of a tangent from musical theory, obviously. But this occurred to me while writing a Mojave 3 review a while back, and I'm still stuck on it. (E.g. Mojave 3's versions of country and now rock are deliberately simplified to the point of being "dreamy," I think in ways similar to how the Beatles would also reach back toward mother's music to make it ever-so-vaguely unfamiliar and "dreamy" and drugged.)
(Alternately, think of Ween's pop songs, the way they're so pop that something seems imaginary about them.)
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 20:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink
The White Album is totally a Ween record, really.
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 20:10 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 20:18 (twelve years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I guess the instrumental bit in YMSK does function as a bridge. The song still feels like it lacks something though. I take Nabisco's point that it's kind of like an endless singalong like you might have on a old fashioned bus trip of the type depicted in Magical Mystery Tour. That makes total sense. I still think I like it the least of Paul's jaunty music hall numbers.
"Your Mother Should Know" one of those half measures at the end of the second verse. I realise that isn't very unusual for the Beatles (Cry Baby Cry, I'll Be Back, All You Need Is Love, Strawberry Fields Forever etc), but this is usually a Lennon trick, rather than something that Paul does.
― everything (everything), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 20:20 (twelve years ago) Permalink
Gonna plug my blog because I've got some recent stuff up:
http://thisiheard.blogspot.com
Nothing on pedal points.
― timellison, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 22:10 (five years ago) Permalink
ten years or so into being a guy who does music and stuff I figure it's time to get some vague sense of what I'm doing. Does anyone have any website or book recommendations for the real basics of theory, e.g. knowing chord construction and keys and stuff? For guitar and keyboard, but especially the latter, as with the former I know how to play in some unconventional way whereas with the latter I'm roughly at the point of knowing that pressing these things makes sounds.
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Monday, 13 May 2013 02:34 (five years ago) Permalink
Wrote on appoggiaturas and an instance of something being a hook versus something being less of a hook:
― timellison, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 01:00 (five years ago) Permalink
I found this useful:http://www.outsideshore.com/music/educational-materials/primer/basic-theory/
― 29 facepalms, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 13:09 (five years ago) Permalink
Wrote on structure of "P.S. I Love You" on blog linked to above if anyone's interested.
― timellison, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 04:15 (five years ago) Permalink
OK, changed it around because I made a mistake. Tell me what you think if you're into this stuff at all.
― timellison, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 04:16 (five years ago) Permalink
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
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 00:53 (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
what I'm trying to say is: musicology is awesome but musicologists need to take an atavan or fifty
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 00:55 (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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.
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.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 07:05 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Sorry, the Dixie Chicks thing was an article.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 07:06 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Blind drunk when typing those last two posts, sorry to any musicologists
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 07:59 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:01 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Was wondering about that. What would you say is the difference?
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:03 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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”’
)― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:14 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:18 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
@ 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.
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:20 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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.It's way easier to parse something that i) is written on paper and/or ii) is played on acoustic instruments, not to mention something that follows CPP harmonic or formal conventions (or is far simpler in those terms than Radiohead is).― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:31 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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?
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:32 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
My eyes glazed over too but I hadn't put together where the title "Paranoid Android" came from so I learned something.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:34 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
*moves to the other thread*
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:36 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:36 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
(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*
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:39 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
(Something about tyranny of theory, blah blah blah)
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:45 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I want to continue this discussion just in the more specific "talking about articles" thread instead of the "lol at this guy" thread
― continually topping myself (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 30 March 2014 08:54 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 15:18 (five years ago) Permalink
HI DERE
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 15:39 (five years ago) Permalink
Anyway, this is definitely true and I think any sensible theorist would agree:
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.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 15:43 (five years ago) Permalink
so what is the difference between "technical discussion" as in guitar player magazine (or some better representative mag, or any of them, i don't know them very well) and "technical discussion" in an academic context? do they discuss the same sorts of things? are there lacunae in either that the other addresses? or is it just audience and intent?
(my guess is that trade mags care _way_ more about equipment, partly because they exist as part of a complex whose purpose is to sell equipment, but my question is, does the lack of attention to equipment hurt academic writing? also i know some academic writing cares about the craft and production of instruments v. much. also a guess would be that the academic and the trade approach both don't address the social as much as some [we?] might desire, but fail to address it in radically different ways.)
― eric banana (s.clover), Sunday, 30 March 2014 17:59 (five years ago) Permalink
guitar mag discussion is often looking at playing technique rather than the music in itself, but there is definitely overlap discussing innovation, phrasing w/e
― ogmor, Sunday, 30 March 2014 18:45 (five years ago) Permalink
Couple thoughts on Owen's pieces:
Sympathetic to the premise that "Get Lucky" is in the Dorian mode.
When "Teenage Dream" switches from the I chord in the intro to rooting that harmony on the fourth, it creates a major seventh chord on the IV. The softness of that chord is sort of the consolation for the song's weightless state of flux.
― timellison, Sunday, 30 March 2014 19:13 (five years ago) Permalink
Yes, exactly. Theorists are more concerned with the larger-scale questions of what the vocabulary and syntax of a music are, how pieces of music can be understood structurally. Ogmor is definitely right that there can be some overlap, and in these areas, I would think that the difference is comparable to the difference between the academic and popular versions of any field of discussion (Psychology Today vs academic psychology journals, CNN or Fox vs a political science symposium, etc): the level of training that is usually expected and the peer-review process do imo tend to promote a certain level of rigour and originality, if not always readability. Honestly, discussion of theory in guitar magazines is often even riddled with incorrect terminology even for basic things. Doesn't mean (at all) that there's nothing useful there.
Where fgti and I might be on the same page is that its not always entirely clear to me what the ultimate goal or purpose is with a lot of academic analysis of popular music, aside from sheer scholarly interest (and lines on the CV, ha). With guitar mags, it's usually clear that the articles are there for people to learn specific techniques from. With the analysis of art music, it's easy for me to see how the work is useful for people who want to compose and/or play art music (who are the usual audience for these journals). While I still disagree with him that Radiohead (or, say, "Close to the Edge") is too easy to parse for someone with art music training, it's not 100% clear to me what the readers are going to gain from the exercise: it does not seem that this is going to have the direct benefit of helping (most) people learn how to write and play rock music. There can still be some value in understanding how the music 'works' or is put together, though, and it is actually possible for it to influence art music composition tbh (because those artists have probably influenced mine!).
xpost
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 19:15 (five years ago) Permalink
(xp!) Don't know what academic discussion you might be referring to, s. clover. You should realize that a good part of academic music studies- Sund4r can correct me if I am wrong- consists of professional programs offering Bachelors or Masters degrees in performance and education. Of course as part of this they teach composition and give instrumental instruction. The purpose of this is to give the students the skills -and accreditation - to enable them to hopefully make a living as player/teachers, so these institutions are not necessarily doing academic research as the word theory might lead you to believe. The theory as such is supposed to aid the awareness of students as composers and improvisers of what notes and chords are available to them at any given point. I haven't read any guitar mags in a bit, but in between the gear articles and the player interviews they always have transcriptions of tunes and, more to the point, regular columns where somebody explains that if you want to play in a certain style these are typical chord progressions and typical things you might play, with a little theoretical gloss thrown in. For instance, Bass Player magazine might have an article entitle "Funk 101: Dorian Octaves." This kind of thing is a bite-sized version of what you might get in one of those programs. Actually one of the authors of a long running popular and useful column in Bass Player was (don't know if he still does it) none other than everybody's favorite Daft Punk bassist, Nathan East.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 19:16 (five years ago) Permalink
well if you look at english departments, their main (or at least one main) social role is really to produce people capable of teaching undergrad level reading and composition, but also by dint of being part of the "academic world" one also produces analyses of rhetoric in milton or what have you, and one can argue that this is a good or a bad thing or was a good thing but now is in some ways a bad thing (by obscuring the labor function of academia as a way to explain away low salaries 'for the love of the discipline' or etc), but in any case, is this somewhat the situation in music/musicology depts?
― wat is teh waht (s.clover), Sunday, 30 March 2014 19:46 (five years ago) Permalink
Yes, but the majority of the guys I'm talking about don't have to publish anything like the equivalent of Milton Studies you mention. They are part of the professional side of academia, not the research side, and don't have to go through the same hurdles: orals, writtens, postdoc, maybe another postdoc, tenure track, etc, they just have to come out of a program like the one they end up teaching in, more or less.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 19:55 (five years ago) Permalink
That's only true of instrumental teachers (who are generally contract instructors), surely? Neither University of Ottawa nor University of Toronto will even consider someone for a sessional (adjunct) teaching position in composition, music theory, or musicology if he or she does not have a PhD in hand.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 20:35 (five years ago) Permalink
(I'll have a lot more to say later on. This is a big question, far bigger than a 'Rolling Music Theory' thread can support if we're going to really get into it.)
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Sunday, 30 March 2014 20:37 (five years ago) Permalink
Interesting. From what I know in NYC a PhD is not required to teach at the Aaron Copland School of Music at Queens College, nor at the Columbia University Department of Music, The New School, or the Manhattan School of Music. A music professor with a PhD, such as Chris Washburne, is the exception not the rule.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 20:51 (five years ago) Permalink
Anyway I wanted to ask what people thought of Chord Scale Theory, it's uses and abuses, but maybe we've already bitten off more than we can chew on this thread.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 20:53 (five years ago) Permalink
Link to Sund4r's new thread: Music Academia
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 21:07 (five years ago) Permalink
Still trying to get some eyeballs on this interesting, original idiosyncratic work: http://www.modalogy.net/. I was thinking about it in the context of the mother thread to this one, where the guy talks about the harmonic trick. Not so tricky when you realize that the resolution of modal cadences at weaker than those of a major/minor tune.
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 22:01 (five years ago) Permalink
Also interested in the question of
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 22:08 (five years ago) Permalink
― Bristol Stomper's Breakout (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 30 March 2014 22:10 (five years ago) Permalink
I just consulted my spreadsheet and it tells me that for homework you had to call Richard Davis’s answering machine and sing scales (but did you have to chop wood for him?) . Do you remember what scales those were?
― Spirit of the Voice of the Beehive (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 7 January 2019 15:46 (three months ago) Permalink
There's also where the chord falls within the progression. Like, the Emin7 at the end of the first A section going back to the Amin7 has a different feel than the one going into the bridge, and that one has a different feel than the first one *in* the bridge, and that one has a different feel than the one played for two beats at the beginning of the descending progression. I mean you technically could play the same thing "over" each of these Emin7, but your solo is going to sound a lot better if you think about where you are in the song and where that particular Emin7 is leading (and where it came from).
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:03 (three months ago) Permalink
Definitely.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:43 (three months ago) Permalink
Haha James.
(they were just major scales, maybe minor too, but it was more about identifying my weak point of having never used my voice to sing pitches, and even more so doing it at 5 a.m. to show that I was serious about being in the class)
― change display name (Jordan), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:45 (three months ago) Permalink
I get IA when I think about the years I spent struggling with wrongheaded approaches to teaching jazz.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:45 (three months ago) Permalink
You should have skipped school and just bought that book Sund4r mentioned instead.
― Spirit of the Voice of the Beehive (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:59 (three months ago) Permalink
Tbh I already knew the melodic and phrase structure principles from classical theory so I skip those chapters myself.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Monday, 7 January 2019 18:18 (three months ago) Permalink
Can anyone recommend any books/essays/articles on the music theory of later Coltrane?
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 17 January 2019 21:44 (three months ago) Permalink
I was listening to "Don't You Want Me" by Human League while ordering coffee and it occurred to me that I didn't actually know what the tonal centre of the song was. The hook is minor-key, but the verses/chorus sound more like an alternating IV-V to major (which never appears) rather than an alternating bVI-bVII.
So I came home and listened to it and examined the lyrics and it's really interesting how the pre-chorus goes (if we're in minor): I (major!)-ii?-IV-V ... (chorus) bVI-bVII, but that "ii?" contains both raised and lowered thirds so it's this kind of spicy ii? II? chord.
The lyrics over the verses are entirely nostalgic and reminiscent toward what both singers consider a happier time in their life, but the pre-chorus is present-tense and is in a more threatening minor-key.
I had some bizarre theory that the implication of a major-key tonal centre was entirely affiliated with "past-tense reminiscence" in the lyrics, and the minor-key tonal centre was entirely affiliated with the male singer's "present-tense creepy threats". The fact that the alternating IV-V (or is it bVI-bVII) chords over the chorus never resolves to major is a nice compliment to the unanswered question ("Don't you want me, baby?") in the lyrics. The fact that the song doesn't answer the question but returns to the minor-key hook essentially answers that question-- present-tense, minor key, this relationship is over.
― flamboyant goon tie included, Saturday, 26 January 2019 17:00 (two months ago) Permalink
Is that ii a diminished chord?
My first thought is that it's all in A, minor throughout and the parallel major in that pre-chorus (but maybe not throughout the pre-chorus - if that's a diminished chord on B there, then that's suggesting it's going directly back to the minor key on that second chord in the passage).
― timellison, Sunday, 27 January 2019 08:02 (two months ago) Permalink
I think it might be Bdim? I thought I was hearing an F in one voice in the keyboard harmony. There's definitely a D in the melody line there. Also, is the last chord in this section E or E5? I wasn't sure I heard a third there. I'm pretty sure the third chord is C, btw, which would be III not IV if you analyse the key as A minor (bIII if it's A major).
I see fgti's point. The melody in the verse suggests C major: it starts on C, the first line ends on E, and the second ends on G. So the F-G movement in the verses and choruses does feel like it makes sense as IV-V in C, esp since the chorus heads straight back into the verse, although you never get a resolution to I. The first pre-chorus section ("Don't, don't you want me?/You know I can't believe it...") seems like it could be a deceptive resolution to vi in that context.
Given that there's no cadence on a C chord but there are resolutions to Am (on a title hook), the song begins and ends on Am, and the main riff is an A minor pentatonic figure, Occam's razor probably favours Tim's analysis: mostly A minor with some modal mixture in the second pre-chorus?
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:15 (two months ago) Permalink
That's the same analysis I had, it's minor key (with that surprise major in there)
Sorry I guess I should really check what key we're in before typing, my mind just never goes that way ugh
― flamboyant goon tie included, Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:19 (two months ago) Permalink
Oh, I thought you were hearing the verses and choruses as IV-V in C. Then we're all on the same page, cool.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:21 (two months ago) Permalink
I am hearing them that way, they imply that. I'm suggesting that the duality of the tonality (verses and choruses in C, prechoruses and hook in a) reflects the indecision and dual-voices of the lyrical narrative
And the final repeated resolution to the a-minor hook at the end not only confirms the song is in a-minor but also that this love affair did not resume
― flamboyant goon tie included, Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:24 (two months ago) Permalink
Oh, yeah, totally. That's a v good analysis imo.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:27 (two months ago) Permalink
"Livin' on a Prayer" does almost the exact reverse of this.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:31 (two months ago) Permalink
I mean, it's not exact but Em-C-D in the intro and verses feels like i-VI-bVII in E minor (when we're hearing about Tommy's and Gina's woes), only becoming recontextualized as vi-IV-V when we get G in the pre-chorus and chorus (when there's the message of hope), which is what the song ends on (after a couple of truck-driver modulations). No modal mixture, though (unlike "Wanted Dead or Alive").
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Sunday, 27 January 2019 15:55 (two months ago) Permalink
my New Year's resolution is to spend less time on the IV chord
― ⅋ (crüt), Thursday, 31 January 2019 01:34 (two months ago) Permalink
Lol
― Only a Factory URL (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 31 January 2019 01:38 (two months ago) Permalink
Discussion of tonality and pitch organization in a Sonic Youth deep cut here: Time takes its crazy Poll... Sonic Youth: Washing Machine
― silent as a seashell Julia (Sund4r), Thursday, 14 February 2019 02:48 (two months ago) Permalink
(a song that's never been a favourite for me btw, but which I'm getting more out of because of this)
― silent as a seashell Julia (Sund4r), Thursday, 14 February 2019 02:51 (two months ago) Permalink
Here is a theory questions I have been pondering/arguing about with respect to a different tune with a similar progression: https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theory/21273-theory-question-night-day-key-c-what-function-f-7b5.html
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 01:07 (one month ago) Permalink
After reading the thread, looking at the chart, and listening to Sinatra's recording once, this response seems pretty good:
I like to think of it as IVmaj to IV min. The F#-7b5 is basically an Fmaj7 with an F# as the root. So whenever I see this #IV-IVmin device it's much easier to think IV maj to IV min....
If I saw something like this written out in a classical score, I would probably read the F# in the lowest voice of the harmony as a chromatic incomplete neighbour to the F in the next bar. You could read the F#m7b5 and the Fm7 as two altered IV chords - basically this is all IV with two apparent chords produced by chromatic voice-leading movement. I would also probably analyse the Ebdim7 as a voice-leading chord produced as a result of passing note movement in the two lowest voices (E-Eb-D and G-Gb-F) between iii7 and ii7. I don't really know that there would be a problem with applying this kind of analysis to this tune.
― All along there is the sound of feedback (Sund4r), Monday, 4 March 2019 02:21 (one month ago) Permalink
Thanks. Makes sense and I liked that analysis too. In the tune in which I first came across this sequence, Emily, the Eb7 is an A7, so I think you can safely think of that Eb7 as tritone sub for that A7.
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 02:46 (one month ago) Permalink
Multiple jazz guys have said it is a tritone sub for the one. There is indeed some trick of subbing a diminished or half diminished I chord for the major I- “Stella By Starlight” is some kind of canonical example of that, I think- but I don’t care for that explanation with this sequence.
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 02:53 (one month ago) Permalink
I would have definitely analysed Eb7 as a tritone sub for A7 but I believe that the chord is Ebdim7 in "Night and Day", not Eb7? At least it is on the chart I saw: F#m7b5-Fm7-Em7-Ebdim7-Dm7-G7-Cmaj7. As such, I think it is easiest to analyse it as an apparent voice-leading chord.
xp
― All along there is the sound of feedback (Sund4r), Monday, 4 March 2019 02:58 (one month ago) Permalink
Oh yeah, you are right.In “Emily” the tune has modulated to D minor before this, with an A7 leading back at the end of every four bars. So it is interesting that in this case the A7 leads to an F#7b5, which can be used as a D9 no root, so you perhaps you might think there is just some minor/major trick going on.
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 03:01 (one month ago) Permalink
I usually like this guys explanations: http://brunojazz.com/vt-half-diminished.htm
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 14:12 (one month ago) Permalink
Guy’s
― Theorbo Goes Wild (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 4 March 2019 14:40 (one month ago) Permalink
I guess there are times with songs that ostensibly have key signatures where...you're just not in any key at all. That seems to me to be the case with parts of "Incense and Peppermints." I think it certainly starts out in E minor (with a Dorian aspect), but I'm not so quick to say the chorus - E minor/Eb minor/D/A - is still in that key.
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 02:53 (one week ago) Permalink
The bridge, to me, seems to start out with a V/I in G, but then goes to an F# minor chord, which strikes me as phrase modulation. Then, it happens again, but seems to resolve on A major.
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 03:02 (one week ago) Permalink
It still feels like E minor/Dorian at that point to me. The chorus hinges on the chromatic descent E - D# - D - C#. I think the D# minor is subbing in for B major (the V chord).
― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Wednesday, 10 April 2019 03:06 (one week ago) Permalink
bridge is in D imo
― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Wednesday, 10 April 2019 03:09 (one week ago) Permalink
the F#m - A "should" resolve to D
― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Wednesday, 10 April 2019 03:11 (one week ago) Permalink
But that A in no way feels like a dominant chord to me!
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:03 (one week ago) Permalink
I can't hear the D to G as being I to IV either. It settles on the G.
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:05 (one week ago) Permalink
It does to me, too, when it's on the E minor chord and even the chromatic chord, but I can't help feeling that it, again here, seems to rest on that A chord.
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:09 (one week ago) Permalink
that is strange — I don't hear it resolving on the A chord at all!
― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:53 (one week ago) Permalink
Plagal cadence on A.
The melody does go to A (over the D chord before it and the A chord).
How would you number that chord? I know it's different because it's modal, but is it a IV chord because E is still the root?
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 06:06 (one week ago) Permalink
Yikes! Why does chromatic harmony in a pop song move one to question the tonal centre?
Versei - IV - i - VI
Bridgei - vii - bVII - IV
There’s no question the bridge remains in e-minor, the song is defined by i - IV - i movement and the cycle of the bridge continues to reflect that
What I wanna know is what happens on the last bridge into the outro! That part of the song always mystified me
― flamboyant goon tie included, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 13:31 (one week ago) Permalink
Hm well on another listen, that farfisa’s overtones are just complicating my perception of everything about this song. This actually might be the most subtly complicated song I can think of and it’s weird I don’t know any other songs by this weird band
― flamboyant goon tie included, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 13:36 (one week ago) Permalink
sorry, when i said "chorus" earlier i meant bridge and likewise "bridge" meant middle 8
― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Wednesday, 10 April 2019 13:43 (one week ago) Permalink
Yeah I figured “bridge” meant “chorus”... the actual bridge (or middle 8) is v confusing! The ending too! I don’t have a piano on me rn
― flamboyant goon tie included, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 14:31 (one week ago) Permalink
Why does chromatic harmony in a pop song move one to question the tonal centre?
I was responding above that I wasn't questioning it relating to the chromatic chord. The D to A that follows it feels like it settles on A to me, though, and there's zero pull back to E minor.
I'm calling that part the chorus, by the way.
The bridge (if that's what it is) - D to G to F# minor - those chords repeated once and then, likewise, feel like they LAND on the A chord to me.
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 14:33 (one week ago) Permalink
(And I realize it would be A mixolydian)
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 14:34 (one week ago) Permalink
Ya I get you. I’m hesitant to fall into modal descriptions in chromatic music like this BUT the prevalent open fifths in the vocal harmonies did make me think there was some compositional desire for that manner of interpretation
― flamboyant goon tie included, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 14:47 (one week ago) Permalink
Alternating E major 7 and D major 7 with that movable bass in the outro?
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 15:04 (one week ago) Permalink
So, Picardy!
― timellison, Wednesday, 10 April 2019 15:50 (one week ago) Permalink
Speaking of this weird band and their other songs, this is their masterpiece:
https://thisiheard.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-strawberry-alarm-clock-pretty-song.html
― timellison, Thursday, 11 April 2019 06:09 (one week ago) Permalink