Rolling Music Theory Thread

Yes, I agree.

And I go further and say that None Of These Critics Are Actually Off-Base. Pedagogical institutions, in my experience, have been excessively dismissive of any work that does not ascribe to these nefarious metrics of "quality". I fought with very "cool" teachers who just entirely wrote off pop/rock genres as being "lowbrow", even as they were appreciators of those genres. It was always so shocking-- one of my comp teachers would get this smug look in her eye anytime John Cage's name was mentioned, ugh.

Part of the problem is that you can't expect an art (in the broadest possible sense of the term) teacher to fully embrace every aesthetic variant within their field, no matter how valid. Subjectivity doesn't simply disappear once an academic institution grants you its imprimatur and blind spots are bound to subsist.

So yeah, when I see a video that says "parallel fifths are OK!" I'm like dude you are missing the point of learning about parallel fifths, being trained to avoid them when you're writing your chorale exercises, etc. Nobody is trying to teach you that they're "bad". They're just inappropriate in a certain pedagogical context

Now that I think about it, when I first met/knew Adam, he was not quite fresh out of Berklee, was looking at Chord Scale Theory in the rearview mirror and not liking what he saw and considering other ways to think about these things. Although I saw him in another video recommending Mark Levine's Jazz Piano Book so perhaps he has come full circle of fifths on that topic. Maybe he felt now that he put paid to the excesses of CST he was going to go after bigger game, to come locked and loaded for the dancing Viennese or at last German-speaking bears.

Ha that's what I was wondering, actually. I didn't think his own theory education at Berklee would have been limited to the harmonic language of 18th century Europeans.

He also got an MM in Jazz Composition from Manhattan School of Music after that, but yeah same thing.

Ooof. I watched the video.

Was my tone in those Slate articles really that illegible? I remember being so deliberate in my usage of "the excellence and supremacy of Western music theory", like, I thought that the classism of the entire exercise was telegraphed pretty clearly.

LIKE WHO WOULD WRITE THAT SENTENCE WITH ANY SERIOUSNESS AT ALL, UGH

I'm telling you just contact Adam about it. I'm sure there is something he would like to pick your brain about and then in return you can be in (another) one of his videos.

I don't think they were obviously sarcastic fwiw, that sentence possibly excepted. Looking over the "Teenage Dream" essay now, idk why you would have meant it sarcastically? It seems like a very good analysis to me!

If anything, I thought Neely was unfair bc you were clearly NOT judging this song by the standards of 18th c Euro harmony.

Ha I did write him-- the video went up on my birthday, and I was alerted to it while drinking and dining, and sent him a message saying "ha um I was being somewhat clearly sarcastic? maybe not sarcastic enough"

Ted Gioia wrote an article for The Daily Beast https://www.thedailybeast.com/music-criticism-has-degenerated-into-lifestyle-reporting that was discussed on a Facebook thread. On that thread, I argued that "applying the language of Western music theory to pop music was fun but also inherently useless, that the 'lifestyle reporting' that Gioia decries is actually a more important commentary on pop singles". A friend challenged me to unpack a single with that language, and I did "Teenage Dream" with a tone that I hoped would telegraph heavy irony, but also honour both the beauty of the song and try and keep things entertaining and informative.

By the time the third article was being written, I was concerned that people were taking these articles at face value, and I hoped that "the excellence and supremacy" line would make it quite, quite clear that these articles were meant to be somewhat ridiculous

I agree with Neely's (and Ewell's) theses so deeply that it seems unnecessary to even express my differences of opinion with what Neely was saying, but here goes:

- I don't think continuo is taught outside of the context of Baroque performance instruction, but I could be wrong,

- in my own education, the basics of North Indian classical music were compulsory 101 for all streams of music undergrad-- gamelan, Tibetan and African traditions were taught in an elective capacity,

- "Western music theory", which Neely desires to reframe as "the harmonic language of 18th century classical musicians" is off-base-- although he is correct in its roots. I argue that "Western music theory" is a living and developing language, and the work of 20th c. jazz theorists is included in this language.

I absolutely do agree that certain streams of Euro-centric musical development are over-taught. I would personally argue that Fux (and Jeppesen etc.) is highly relevant to contemporary musicians, and worthy of continued inclusion. I would argue, however, that we can effectively strike Scriabin's quartal exercises from the canon, and reduce the inclusion of twelve-tone-row theory to a mere passing mention, as it has little-to-no relevance outside of being (in my view) one of the most glaringly Euro-centric moments in music history. Having students write tone rows and invert and reverse them is probably the least-useful pedagogical exercise I can imagine.

But ... the analyses work and I do think they are valuable commentary on pop songs. That made me appreciate "Teenage Dream" more than lifestyle pieces do.xp

I put my row down, flip it and reverse it
Sweiv yttihs laer emos desuopse zeloub
Sweiv yttihs laer emos desuopse zeloub

xp yeah I suppose so

I thought the Daft Punk and Gaga analyses were overwrought-- even if the general Gaga thesis was interesting, i.e. that she effectively "branded" a sound by using similar musical materials for the bulk of her early singles.

"Why Fux is still relevant" would be an interesting investigation, imo! Considering that session players are hired to "write top lines" and "write bass lines" it might be interesting to point out that Fux devised some still-relevant systems, centuries ago, to help write "good top lines" and "good bass lines"

. I would argue, however, that we can effectively strike Scriabin's quartal exercises from the canon, and reduce the inclusion of twelve-tone-row theory to a mere passing mention

Fwiw, I don't even know what the former are. I don't think most music programs still spend that much time on the latter in compulsory core theory classes? I don't know if it was ever part of the Royal Conservatory's theory curriculum but it hasn't been for the 20-odd years that I've been paying attention.

(I have also never taught figured bass.)

I personally DO use 12-tone theory and find it valuable tbc but def don't think it's necessary for all students. Again, there are schools where a lot of the students will work with that repertoire, though.

In performance even— I played Webern Vier Stucke and Berg concerto— I didn’t feel it knowledge of rows was necessary? I don’t think it’s useful, personally, in basic appreciation of anything really except some of the end-of-the-line Boulez works (where he serializes every element, Deux Structures for example)

Hm, yeah, it's interesting - with most 12 tone music, row structures are just a system for generating pitch material; they don't play the role in form that scale degrees and harmonic function do in tonal music. So when bringing out the phrasing in Smith Brindle, I'm not primarily thinking about rows, it's true. I do when composing certain pieces. I was actually startled once when I found that a performer had done a full row analysis of a piece I had written for him! I think it did help him.

I put my row down, flip it and reverse it
Sweiv yttihs laer emos desuopse zeloub
Sweiv yttihs laer emos desuopse zeloub

this is an all-time classic post

I signed up for the free month of Scribd so I could read the JSS issue that was responding to Ewell: https://fr.scribd.com/document/471711685/Journal-of-Schenkerian-Studies-responses

The Jackson piece starts out making some potentially interesting points about how Schenker's views changed over time and then... it really gets as bad as described in the video. "Ewell's scapegoating of Schenker, Schenkerians, and Schenkerian analysis occurs in the much larger context of Black-on-Jew attacks in the United States" (topic sentence for a whole paragraph) is mindbogglingly appalling.

Whoa

I had no idea that this went this far. I really want to investigate this. Or maybe I don't? Feels like a lot of emotional investment into something that I wouldn't feel comfortable forming (let alone expressing) an opinion about.

I had this feeling before! I remember Audra McDonald was rewriting "Porgy And Bess", calling it "The Gershwins' Porgy And Bess" and changing the plot elements to make it less offensive to Black people. I remember Steven Sondheim writing an open letter to McDonald decrying what she was doing. Then I attended a Daphne Brooks lecture at PopCon about this whole dispute.

Brooks obviously thinks Sondheim is an asshole and I'm inclined, on this topic, to agree. But then I remember Brooks arguing that Gershwin himself could claim no authorship over "Porgy And Bess"-- this opera's authorship belongs entirely to the African-American community. I remember feeling Extremely Challenged by this viewpoint-- as somebody who has studied a lot of Gershwin's scores, I'm privy to his genius, the guy was a monster-- and as somebody who writes scored music, I'm aware of the insane amount of work it would take to create something as monumental as "Porgy And Bess"-- and furthermore, you're literally talking about the greatest American opera ever written? But OK, I'm still listening, Daphne Brooks! (I think my ego was somewhat slighted, thinking of how I've spent most-of-my-life-at-this-point with digital pen-to-score, feeling like Brooks might not have fully grasped how much WORK composing an opera actually involves)

Brooks went on to describe the genesis of Gershwin's compositional process, collecting hymns from Black churches in the Carolinas. I remember the moment that Brooks said, as an aside, paraphrased, "Gershwin writing Porgy And Bess-- this is just another example of Jewish-Americans using anti-Black racism to ingratiate themselves to the white urbanites", and I felt like the entire chalkboard in my brain got erased. "I am not allowed to have an opinion about this topic," my brain screamed, and I don't. I kind of feel the same way about Ewell vs. Schenker. Very interested, but trepidatious to get so emotionally and intellectually involved in something I probably won't allow myself to form an opinion about.

I watched the Q&A about parallel P5s and, although the answer is fine, I guess the things I would want to elaborate on are that: i) yes, avoiding these is part of the sound of 18th century chorales and not part of the sound of 60s garage rock but it's not just a random choice. There's a reason why it's part of the sound of Baroque and Classical four-part writing, which is that a balance of melody and harmony is sought such that the independence of each voice is preserved while they also form vertical harmonies; parallel perfect consonances make the voices sound fused together, which works against this. If you want a similar balance in a different style, this could still be a good way to achieve it, which you can see in e.g. some softer Beatles songs. Conversely, fusing multiple voices together in parallel perfect consonances makes them sound more forceful and unified, which is why it works in heavier styles of rock, for instance. ii) Whoever told you that parallel fourths are poor even in 18th century counterpoint was wrong wrong wrong.

I am not nearly as well versed in music history or more than cursory music theory compared to you guys but as an African-American classical baritone who has sung selections from Porgy and Bess in small concerts, I would like to say that the idea that Gershwin has no authorship over Porgy and Bess is 200% horseshit regardless of your ethnic background.

I'm interested in more examples of pop songs with clear tonics that avoid or significantly delay the I chord.

Got this from a Drew Nobile paper but - "Jane Says": the melody is 100% centred around D and largely arpeggiates the D triad. The harmony cycles between G and A (IV and V) for the entire song. (In the video version, there's a D chord at the very beginning before they get to the song.)

A's don't even land more frequently over the A chord, nor do Ds land more frequently over the G chord, I don't think.

Weirdly, the bridge is centred melodically around A in the studio version but stays in D in the video version.

I feel like the arpeggiating of D is basically happenstance. That it doesn't give any sense of D as something you anticipate or as an underlying key. The A and the F# seem to be more about the ninth and the major seventh harmonies on G. And then the lines that end on E (which is not part of the D major triad) toward the end of the verse as an emphasis on an added sixth harmony.

That blue note in the bridge, the C natural, is really cool. He hits a C# right before it - "She gets mad/And she STARTS to CRY"

Hey, welcome back!

The two lines that end on E put the E over the A chord so idk how you'd hear that. And Ds and F#s appear over the A chord as often as the As and F#s appear over the G chord. Any time there's a G in the melody, it is a dissonant 7th above the A chord that falls downward to F# and then to D - if there is a centre or resolution in "but if he comes back again"/"tell him to wait right here for me", it is surely not on the Gs on "he comes" and "wait right". Those are tensions. I don't see anything at all in the melody to indicate a G centre.

2xp

Sorry, don't mean to be snippy. The sense of tonality and anticipation is definitely blurred because of the disconnect between melody and harmony so I see what you mean but I really can't hear most of the melody as chordal extensions when there's never any resolution to G and the arpeggiation is so clearly the main structuring principle. The F# never functions like a leading note.

This thread led to an imo great discussion with a former ilxor btw, about this song and "Dreams" (and "Man on the Moon"):

Only clicked today that the melody is in D and mostly arpeggiates the D triad but there is no D chord (I) in the song. The harmony just cycles between the G and A (IV and V) chords, w no real connection to the melody.#musictheory #altrock #janesaddictionhttps://t.co/KuI5kGOd32

— Sundar Subramanian (@SundarSubrama13) September 25, 2020

Oh, I definitely do not think there's any sense of G being the center. I could see ending the song on A if you had to end it on something, lol.

The two lines that end on E put the E over the A chord so idk how you'd hear that.

No, the first one anticipates the A chord.

I wasn't saying As and F#s only happen on the G chord, just that when they do, it sounds like an emphasis on a non-chordal tone much more so than anything to do with anticipating D or spelling out that non-existent D major triad as an underlying center. And yeah, you're absolutely right that there are notes like F# and B that are emphasized over the A chord as well.

You know how there are ragas where you have a scale and then you have important tones that aren't necessarily tonic/third/fifth? I think this is like that, mixolydian mode on A with an emphasis on the sixth in particular and the fourth a little too.

Oh, that's interesting. bVII-I definitely could be a Mixolydian cadence but the metrical placement makes it hard for me to hear A as the I, since G is always on the downbeat.

Right!

Not that Rob Thomas's ears should be dispositive regarding anything but it is interesting (if unpleasant) to consider his version. He wimped out and sang it a fifth lower (so the chords are, or should be, C-D and the melody is built around the G triad in my hearing) - but look what he does to the first chord. He plays the C chord in second inversion (with G in the bass) and adds a 9th (D) as the highest voice, making it similar to a Gsus chord (with an add6). I think that suggests that he probably heard G as a centre.

https://youtu.be/6BPgTkuDU-0

I guess, as with the Corrs's version of "Dreams", the cover is imo less interesting because it is more conventional - but the conventionality does indicate something to me.

Ha, in this live version, Jane's played it a semitone lower but they not only introduce the song with a vamp on the Db chord but actually end the song with a cadence on the Db triad, making it clear that the Gb and Ab chords were IV and V!

https://youtu.be/-PzoKyv9fvk

Wait, I was getting too excited about my thesis. They ends it on the Gb, which supports the Lydian hearing.

Clearly I need to watch TV and let my ears rest.

Dreams is in A natural minor. They resolve to the A minor chord twice in the instrumental bridge before the see-saw from F to G resumes.

Yeah, A minor is what I was saying - thanks for spotting that in the bridge, though. Also, welcome if you're a new poster and hi if you're a new name for an old poster!

Yeah, welcome!

They ends it on the Gb, which supports the Lydian hearing.

tbf every band was ending songs with a ringing IV chord in '97

I hear "Jane Says" as IV-V as well and not Lydian. it's hard for me to feel any piece of music as truly Lydian though

Helen Reddy recently passed away, and it reminded me how much I love the chord progression in 'I Am Woman'. It feels like a classic country music modulation when the verse goes to a flat 3rd to set up the chorus in F. At least that's how I hear it playing, with the song being in G.