Rock music and theory
SMick82230
Got a couple songwriting/theory questions. How hung up do you get on theory
when writing a rock song?
If you had a melody and riff/progression worked out and a chord or note does
not fit into the key but still sounds good to you, would you try to change it?
What percentage of popular or classic rock songs do you think follow music
theory completely?
Do the most popular (hard)rock songs of all time...(.ie:stairway, freebird etc)
Follow theory completely?
????????????????????????
Lynn
it. I don't think there are many "Rock" artists that do ... leastways, not
intentionally. No matter what you do in music there is bound to be some
theory or other that covers it. Theory, IMO, is only an explanation of how
something sounds. There aren't any "rules" in music. Sure, stick to a key if
you want, but stick in a few odd notes, 7ths, 13ths, ...whatever, and it
just becomes a little more like Jazz!
I just wrote a solo to one of my songs and used a few odd notes. They
sounded great on the piano sound, but sounded "wrong" on a different sound.
So perhaps, the difference between "right" & "wrong" is not the note...but
what plays it!
--
Lynn
==============
Listen to my music...
http://www.soundclick.com/wobbly
http://www.soundclick.com/lynn
http://www.soundclick.com/johnmckeon
http://www.soundclick.com/dickosboogieband
http://212.158.208.95/gallery1.asp?ID=47
"SMick82230" <smick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040816124341...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Michael
chord. There is such a thing as dissonance, and some composers can play
on it very well.
But I'm the wrong person to ask, being a lyricist. One thing I will say
by way of comparison, though, is that I'd never let grammar stand in the
way of a good line.
Mark Stevens
In short, if it sounds good, then leave it as it is...!!
Regards.......Mark
BlueWaveStudios
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004
dt king
news:20040816124341...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Do the most popular (hard)rock songs of all time...(.ie:stairway, freebird
etc)
> Follow theory completely?
All rock music follows theory in every aspect.
That's because we can change the theory every time something else seems to
work.
That said, we do see I IV V changes with a pentatonic melody quite often.
--
dt king
www.thoughtdog.com
Music, in Theory
MLINYHI
>
>That's because we can change the theory every time something else seems to
>work.
>
>That said, we do see I IV V changes with a pentatonic melody quite often.
>
>--
>dt king
>www.thoughtdog.com
>Music, in Theory
I know the I IV V is one of the more popular progressions and the song im
working on is using it. Its in the key of G but i got a few notes in there (F
instead of F# and Bb instead of B) that dont fit theory wise.
I was just wondering how concerned other people get with this stuff-and- how
easy it is for someone who has a very well trained ear to hear.
snabbu
>
> I know the I IV V is one of the more popular progressions and the song im
> working on is using it. Its in the key of G but i got a few notes in there (F
> instead of F# and Bb instead of B) that dont fit theory wise.
> I was just wondering how concerned other people get with this stuff-and- how
> easy it is for someone who has a very well trained ear to hear.
They do fit theory wise. Looks a bit like the key of Bb to me unless it
has a lot of E naturals in it. If it is in G then they are accidentals.
If it is actually in Bb then your I IV V is going to be VI ii iii. (I
think) which may sound weird.
I would use it just to see what different sounds I could get.
Just to know what is likely to work.
I mean trying a sequence like Bb Cm F Gm Eb F Bb or whatever if you
decided to try it Bb. Ive done this writing melodies and changed the
cadence notes to suit the key because it sounded better to me.
Theory can help you work faster.
I mean imagine for a minute if your tune was in Bb and you thought it
was in G your chords would not sound the way they should and you
wouldn't know why and could waste a lot of time figuring it out when
someone has allready done it for you it seems silly not to use that
knowledge.
But there are a lot of successful illiterates in this world so that is
OK as well.
Cheers
Gary
--
--semper sume remedium casum--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/garyyeomans.htm
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=11367
http://members.optusnet.com.au/snabbu/home.html
Michael Anthony
says...
> But there are a lot of successful illiterates in this world so that is
> OK as well.
I'm writing something just now and putting in chords for it whose names
I don't even know. I'm just putting my fingers where they sound good. I
like music. It is good. My name is Michael.
Michael Anthony
My music @ http://ma.fihs.net
snabbu
See there you go. And when you've finished someone can use theory to
explain what it is you did.
MLINYHI
>has a lot of E naturals in it. If it is in G then they are accidentals.
>
>If it is actually in Bb then your I IV V is going to be VI ii iii. (I
>think) which may sound weird.
>
>I would use it just to see what different sounds I could get.
>Just to know what is likely to work.
>I mean trying a sequence like Bb Cm F Gm Eb F Bb or whatever if you
>decided to try it Bb. Ive done this writing melodies and changed the
>cadence notes to suit the key because it sounded better to me.
>
>Theory can help you work faster.
>I mean imagine for a minute if your tune was in Bb and you thought it
>was in G your chords would not sound the way they should and you
>wouldn't know why and could waste a lot of time figuring it out when
>someone has allready done it for you it seems silly not to use that
>knowledge.
>
>But there are a lot of successful illiterates in this world so that is
>OK as well.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Gary
I checked out the Bb progression. I see what you are talking about. The I, IV V
become minor chords. Thats drastic but I could make it work. I think its more
likely they F and Bb are accidentals (as you described) because the are really
just touched upon. I was under the impression that if you are in a certain key
all notes had to fall within that key-to be true to theory. I dont always write
that way but sometimes do make an effort.
I didnt realize that if a note is not in the key I can just call it an
accidental and be done with it!!
That makes things easier :)
I guess all music truly does follow theory in that regard.
I try to stick to the correct notes/chords but sometimes something just sounds
good so I dont get that deep into it.
Thanks for the reply.
Ben Bradley
>Hello all...
>Got a couple songwriting/theory questions. How hung up do you get on theory
>when writing a rock song?
>If you had a melody and riff/progression worked out and a chord or note does
>not fit into the key but still sounds good to you, would you try to change it?
Almost certainly not. I can't imagine a case where I WOULD change
something that "sounds good" just so it would fit in a key or scale.
Not that I'm any more than a hack songwriter myself.
>What percentage of popular or classic rock songs do you think follow music
>theory completely?
Perhaps a larger percentage than one would expect, but it probably
happens "by accident" a lot, rather than by design. If I understand
what music theory tries to do (I probably don't, but that won't stop
me), it tries to say in a formal manner what sounds good.
Look in a hymnal. I suspect those hymn have roughly the same amount
of accidentals (for just one statistic) as modern rock/pop songs.
>Do the most popular (hard)rock songs of all time...(.ie:stairway, freebird etc)
>Follow theory completely?
I dunno - how important is it?
>????????????????????????
As Mark said:
>In short, if it sounds good, then leave it as it is...!!
In the same spirit, Peter Shickele used to always quote Duke
Ellington on his Shickele Mix radio show: "If it SOUNDS good, it IS
good!" Peter may still say that for all I know, but it's been a lot of
years since WABE carried that show.
snabbu
I just had a thought, if it were In G minor (melodic or harmonic I can't
remember) then all the notes would work, Including the E. You can mix
both. Like the relative minor for Bb is Gm so you can play the verse in
Bb and switch to Gm for the chorus. Or I suppose vice versa if you
wanted too. You can also borrow chords from other keys.
If you go here http://members.aol.com/chordmaps/mapG.htm
and print out this chart. The chords in the green bubbles are chords you
can borrow from other keys. If you do use one of these chords for
example say Dm ( which has your natural F in it) it is important that
you resolve it back to a chord from the key quickly otherwise you will
loose your audience :-)
The chart works like this you can jump any where from the G then follow
the arrows back to the G again at anytime on the way back to the G you
can jump out to one of the green chords but you have to resolve back to
where you jumped from following the arrows. Happy strumming :-)
Gadget Wizard
>I think its more
>likely they F and Bb are accidentals (as you described) because the are really
>just touched upon
Yup. That's exactly it. Common as someone else pointed out with a pent. scale.
Accidentals can be great when they occur at the right time. ;)
Speaking of minor progressions though. I've recently written a turn that uses
Verse: Am->Dm->Am->-G->F
Chorus: G->F->Am->G->C->G-Am->G->F
Check it out and see how it sound to you. There are lot's of options in rock
rather that the I IV V. Don't be afraid to change keys and modulate either. Use
other modes besides major and minor. Mix related modes for interesting
progressions. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Upstate Forums Discussion Boards
Vist http://www.upstateforums.com
South Carolina Community Forums
Carol Carrot
music theory.
snabbu
> I don't think there is a single beatles song that doesn't break or stretch
> music theory.
>
>
All Beatle song can be described and rationalized by music theory. If
not they would have rewritten the theory as it would have been proved
wrong however I am unaware of one amendment to music theory that came
out of Beatles Music. I picked a complex one John's day in the life I
could have been lazy and picked Paul's "I saw her standing there" Which
can be succinctly described as a slightly modified cover of "When the
saint go marching in" with new words. Actually if you listen to Johns
harmony on that track he is actually singing the melody to "The Saints"
A day in the life
Begins in the key of G changes to the Parallel minor Key of Em then
changes again to the key of E. The time signature is 2/4
The intro is 8 Bars the chord sequence is I vi IV V.
There are three variations to the first three verses. All the verses
first 16 bars are the same with the variations being in the way the
verses end. The song modulates to em during the verse. The different
endings are devices to get back to the key G from the key of em.
Starts in G
I v vi IV ii V I v vi
Modulates to em
i vi IIb i
Paul's bit in the middle is in E
and goes
I VIIb I V I V this sequence is repeated twice.
Then you have 20 bars of orchestral bridge which starts out in G and
modulates to em in about the same place as the verse does. I think the
chord sequence is pretty similar to the verses.
Then there is a last verse then the bridge is repeated except there is a
variation at the end which is much used classical music ending E Chord.
The only thing I can possibly see in this song that stretches anything
is when they stitched the parts together they stuffed up the down beat
so the stuck an alarm clock over the top to hide it.
Having thing in several keys with several motives was OK by Mozart and
it's OK by me except in his case when he takes 48 bars to resolve his
chord sequence I get a bit bored.
Honcho
????????????????????????"
_________________________________________
When I read your question I went looking for the site that listed 1862
(approx) different scales, I couldn't find it, but I found another site
that said there were 2900 plus different scales, then I found another site
that said sharps were about 6 cents out - which probably means guitarists
should retune the guitar after every note - which in some cases wouldn't
be a bad thing ;-))
So I endorse the sentiment, "if sounds good, it is good" A little academia
in your songwriting won't go amiss, but there have been musicians who
couldn't string two words together coherently, but have created some
wonderful pieces of music.
For myself, I have been *trying* to harmonise a melody line without
sticking to the key signature. Good fun.
Richard
Paulo Gomes
the right progression? Not to me, it's a matter of culture, if you rely too
much on theory you might destroy your feeling. Besisdes that you're talking
about western theory wich doesn't reflect the way human kind feels the
surrounding sounds. I'm not telling you to solo in G while the key of the
song is D, I'm not telling you to forget about theory wich is very
important, I'm only telling you to let it flow, all in all if it sounds good
to you then it's OK.
Music like everything else is experimenting and what you're used to listen
these days was completely wrong not so long ago... The dissonant harmonies
introduced by the Blues, Jazz and those who followed these roots were not
understood easily... When Mozart came up with a single violin not playing a
few bars on top of the harmonie it looked ridicolous, but HE had this vision
and now you have it on all kinds of songs.
Respect
Paulo
"SMick82230" <smick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040816124341...@mb-m22.aol.com...
OSSONGS
>From: snabbu sna...@optushome.com.au
>Date: 8/17/2004 2:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4121D619...@optushome.com.au>
>
>Carol Carrot wrote:
>> I don't think there is a single beatles song that doesn't break or stretch
>> music theory.
>>
>>
>
>All Beatle song can be described and rationalized by music theory. If
>not they would have rewritten the theory as it would have been proved
>wrong however I am unaware of one amendment to music theory that came
>out of Beatles Music. I picked a complex one John's day in the life I
>could have been lazy and picked Paul's "I saw her standing there" Which
>can be succinctly described as a slightly modified cover of "When the
>saint go marching in" with new words. Actually if you listen to Johns
>harmony on that track he is actually singing the melody to "The Saints">
That was John's way of having a go at Paul, which was a hobby of his ;-)
I think they worked with an 'unusual' approach, as in Hum the melody, sounds
good? right, let's keep it.
All this theory/chord usuage sidebars are like admiring the frame around a
picture.
Dolores
Honcho
<snipped>
"All this theory/chord usuage sidebars are like admiring the frame around
a picture."
I know where you are coming from on this and I understand and appreciate
that - but it also appears as if you are saying "I like the picture of the
Mona Lisa because it's framed in mahogany." The arrangement, chording and
production do make a difference, otherwise there wouldn't be words like
"jazz," "country," "rock" etc. The frame is vinyl/cd or lack of frame in
the case of mp3 ;-))
Richard
OSSONGS
>Date: 8/17/2004 8:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><9fb7c83729799445...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com>
But too much emphasis on the mechanics is missing the 'big' picture.
Dolores
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Honcho
"I know where you're coming from, Rich :-)
But too much emphasis on the mechanics is missing the 'big' picture."
___________________________
Yep, it's the big picture tacked up on the bedroom wall with the singer
pouting (as usual).
;-)
Richard
John Robin Devany
Which theory?
I have a theory that music is our brains representation of our innate
understanding of the n dimensions of the universe.
I also have a theory that [the performance of] music is a way for young
men to present themselves to young ladies as sensitive, potentially
caring, but dangerous, mates. (I have a similar theory about women, but
am not qualified to present it here.)
I have another theory that music company executives like to foister long
boring, er, meaningless, songs (stairway, freebird etc) on a young male
audience so that they build a belief system that you get more sex if you
present yourself as a sensitive, potentially caring, but dangerous, mate.
This theory means that the record company executives become richer.
Since they do (become richer) (mp3s not withstanding), this is the
theory I think is most likely.
However, I guess I have another theory that if I just play what I like,
and they come, they will come.
--
still waiting
John Devany
http://www.devany.com
snabbu
>
> I think they worked with an 'unusual' approach, as in Hum the melody, sounds
> good? right, let's keep it.
> All this theory/chord usuage sidebars are like admiring the frame around a
> picture.
>
> Dolores
>
I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
work.
Cheers
Gary
dt king
news:4122857D...@optushome.com.au...
> I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
> background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
> in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
> work.
Actually, that works really well. Lots of famous paintings contrast the
colors in the foreground and background.
Just saying....
--
dt king
www.thoughtdog.com
Ah! My Giraffe is on Fire!
Seth Jackson
Songs aren't meant to "follow theory". Theory is meant to follow
songs. Theory isn't intended to prescribe and constrict what you
write. It's intended to explain what has already been written.
- Seth Jackson
Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
snabbu
> "snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4122857D...@optushome.com.au...
>
>
>>I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
>>background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
>>in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
>>work.
>
>
> Actually, that works really well. Lots of famous paintings contrast the
> colors in the foreground and background.
>
> Just saying....
>
Does it. Interesting. You do mean the heat of the colour not just
light and dark or strength of hue. Do you have an example of say a hot
subject with a cold background I would be interested to see how it
works. Thanks.
Cheers
Gary
--
snabbu
> Songs aren't meant to "follow theory". Theory is meant to follow
> songs. Theory isn't intended to prescribe and constrict what you
> write. It's intended to explain what has already been written.
>
> - Seth Jackson
>
> Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Well said. Good post.
OSSONGS
>Date: 8/17/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4122857D...@optushome.com.au>
>
>OSSONGS wrote:
>
>>
>> I think they worked with an 'unusual' approach, as in Hum the melody,
>sounds
>> good? right, let's keep it.
>> All this theory/chord usuage sidebars are like admiring the frame around a
>> picture.
>>
>> Dolores
>>
>
>I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
>background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
>in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
>work.
>
>Cheers
>
>Gary
>
Hey, you Aussies are swimming up a storm in the O - way to go.
Dolores
OSSONGS
>Date: 8/17/2004 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ql55i0tbmahmvf74h...@4ax.com>
That's the one, Seth.:-)
Dolores
dt king
> dt king wrote:
> > "snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:4122857D...@optushome.com.au...
> >
> >
> >>I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
> >>background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
> >>in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
> >>work.
> >
> >
> > Actually, that works really well. Lots of famous paintings contrast the
> > colors in the foreground and background.
> >
> > Just saying....
> >
>
> Does it. Interesting. You do mean the heat of the colour not just
> light and dark or strength of hue. Do you have an example of say a hot
> subject with a cold background I would be interested to see how it
> works. Thanks.
They do it in all those ways. Heat of color, light and dark, strength of
hue, detail and blending, are used to contrast the proximity to the viewer.
Parish, O'Keeffe and Dali loved contrasting cool and warm colors. Compare
Dali Meditative Rose with O'Keeffe White flower. I especially like the
Parish prints, because they often include naked women.
dtk
OSSONGS
>Date: 8/17/2004 7:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MRyUc.315479$JR4.274899@attbi_s54>
>
>"snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
>news:41229C64...@optushome.com.au...
>> dt king wrote:
>> > "snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:4122857D...@optushome.com.au...
>> >
>> >
>> >>I don't think this analogy is right I think chord usage is more like the
>> >>background of the painting than the frame. If you have painted a subject
>> >>in warm colours and do the background in cool colours it isn't going to
>> >>work.
>> >
That doesn't work for me.
Unless you intend to always have a fixed background with your song.
One can change the 'frame' of a song, introducing a fresh set of chords and so
coloring the song in differing hues.
In your painting you're stuck with the background you're given.
Although I can't imagine you wanting to alter the background of the masters,
there has been many an old song that has been given a new lease with a new
arrangement.
Play on.
Dolores
Cl.Massé
news:20040816124341...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Hello all...
> Got a couple songwriting/theory questions. How hung up do you get on
> theory when writing a rock song?
> If you had a melody and riff/progression worked out and a chord or
> note does not fit into the key but still sounds good to you, would you
> try to change it?
>
> What percentage of popular or classic rock songs do you think follow
> music theory completely?
>
> Do the most popular (hard)rock songs of all time...(.ie:stairway,
> freebird etc) Follow theory completely?
>
> ????????????????????????
Rock isn't intended to be musical, it is intended to be LOUD and
rebellious. It's audience is teens in their adolescence crisis,
challenging the adults and marking their territory. Musical value may
incidentally arise, though, which confuses the issue somewhat.
So:
If it sounds good, it is good. But how do you know it sounds good?
When it follows the rules!
--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
http://jude.iuma.com/
snabbu
Thanks I will have a bit of a look.
Gadget Wizard
>Rock isn't intended to be musical, it is intended to be LOUD and
>rebellious. It's audience is teens in their adolescence crisis,
>challenging the adults and marking their territory. Musical value may
>incidentally arise, though, which confuses the issue somewhat.
You have a very limited view of what rock music is my friend. While a small
percentage of it is as you describe, rock does a tremendous amount of musical
value and it isn't always load and rebellious. The only conclusion I can draw is
that you haven't listened to a broad enough spectrum of the genre.
Seth Jackson
wrote:
>If it sounds good, it is good. But how do you know it sounds good?
>When it follows the rules!
No. You know it sounds good when your ears tell you it does.
- Seth Jackson
MLINYHI
>rebellious. It's audience is teens in their adolescence crisis,
>challenging the adults and marking their territory. Musical value may
>incidentally arise, though, which confuses the issue somewhat.
This is probably the reason why I concern myself with this. Im not a teenager
anymore and I think aspiring to a deeper understanding of what im doing and why
i am doing it is a good thing. Knowledge about what you do can't be harmful
unless it inhibits you in a negative way. That was the original purpose of my
question...How many of you consult theory in your writing and would change
something if it doesnt fit? I have changed things that don't fit only to find
something else that does-and probably better. Your ears can tell what is right
and wrong for the most part but there are things that my ears are not trained
enough to pick out.
I agree that music came first and then people studied it to find patterns which
evolved into (western?) theory but this is like almost all arts and sciences.
The groundwork has been laid out and we can use it to expand our own writing or
just start from scratch.
Cl.Massé
news:20040816185147...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> I know the I IV V is one of the more popular progressions and the song
> im working on is using it. Its in the key of G but i got a few notes
> in there (F instead of F# and Bb instead of B) that dont fit theory
> wise.
It all depends on which chord you have them. They may represent a short
modulation to a neighbouring scale. For example, if you have a F on a
G chord, it becomes a G7, which modulate to C, the following chord.
snabbu
I think it takes time to get to this stage. There is a fascination with
why things work and there are so many ifs and buts. So you are
constantly thinking what if I do this or that. Or you read something and
think OK now I see why that works. It is amazing to me that something
on the face of it so simple can sometimes be so complex. It is far more
efficient to know what is likely to work and why than to cast about
blindly until something sounds OK. I too like to know what I am doing
and why. I sometimes get the impression that some writers fear theory
will restrict them creatively. For me it's a bit like it was when I was
learning to play the guitar. I'd learn a new chord and immediately
write a song using it. So now when I discover some new aspect of theory
I have to try it out on the next thing I do.
Cl.Massé
news:nkr7i0tatq8hrils6...@4ax.com...
> No. You know it sounds good when your ears tell you it does.
And how do you know your ears are well calibrated? There's a lot of
people who think they are writing awful music, which is really awful,
while some people write music that sound good to them, and they have
much success.
Actually, theory doesn't say what sound good, but what *doesn't* sound
good.
Cl.Massé
news:1iq7i01e9uv8dpket...@4ax.com...
> You have a very limited view of what rock music is my friend. While a
> small percentage of it is as you describe, rock does a tremendous
> amount of musical value and it isn't always load and rebellious. The
> only conclusion I can draw is that you haven't listened to a broad
> enough spectrum of the genre.
Are you challenging me? I'm well able to distinguish between good and
bad rock. Yet, what incidentally comes off isn't genre specific. Bach
could have written it.
Seth Jackson
wrote:
>"Seth Jackson" <a...@mindspring.invalid> a écrit dans le message de
>news:nkr7i0tatq8hrils6...@4ax.com...
>
>> No. You know it sounds good when your ears tell you it does.
>
>And how do you know your ears are well calibrated? There's a lot of
>people who think they are writing awful music, which is really awful,
>while some people write music that sound good to them, and they have
>much success.
If you can't depend on your ears, you're in big trouble. Even if you
do follow theory, there's no guarantee that your composition will
sound good. Perhaps it won't be jarring to the ears, but if may very
well be trite and boring.
>Actually, theory doesn't say what sound good, but what *doesn't* sound
>good.
Actually, theory says what sounds like X and what sound like Y.
Cid Muse
that makes me want to get up and kick butt on a dance floor. And I'm 55.
And ya gotta have it loud to feed on the power.
Think Iggy Pop "Search and Destroy."
Or Spirit's "I Got A Line On You" or "Pushin' Too Hard" by the Seeds or
"Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen.
For more recent stuff, I like the new single by the Donnas.
But rock and roll will always have an attitude, a strut and a pout.
Which is why rock and roll will never die. Sometimes it gets bloated and
overblown and then it needs to go underground and gets lean and mean
and hungry. But it always comes back -- and with a vengance.
Great rock and roll will always have rebellious raw edge, a rockin'
beat, a good rhythm and a killer melody.
That is all imho, of course.
Cid
In the heart of every dove lives a phoenix bright
to rise in joyful song beyond the ash of endless night.
~ CHS 4-10-04 ~
http://community-2.webtv.net/Cynthiangel/JustMySites/
Cl.Massé
> If you can't depend on your ears, you're in big trouble. Even if you
> do follow theory, there's no guarantee that your composition will
> sound good. Perhaps it won't be jarring to the ears, but if may very
> well be trite and boring.
Some people don't even realize what they write is lame or jarring.
By forcing their music to comply to theory, they can hear they get a
much better result, and they educate their ear to spot those weaknesses.
But I agree it isn't enough, and doesn't replace creativity, although it
is usefull for the beginner.
James B. MItchell
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:56:30 +0200, "Cl.Massé" <in...@optinbig.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If it sounds good, it is good. But how do you know it sounds good?
> >When it follows the rules!
>
> No. You know it sounds good when your ears tell you it does.
>
> - Seth Jackson
>
I'm not saying that I fully subscribe to the idea that rules will make
something sound good, but I'm curious about this "trust your ears"
concept.
I think "ears" develop over time, often by absorbing intuitive rules
from listening carefully to extremely successful music. Ears change;
what my son thought was great a year ago, he now thinks is simplistic
and bland. His tastes are more eclectic and more sophisticated than
they were 365 days ago. I guess you could say his ears have grown. :^)
Many of the people I know who have great ears now did not have such
great ears five years ago. To me that implies that an ear can be
trained, some way or other.
So what would you suggest if you ran into someone (which I have many
times) who says, "my ears tell me what I'm writing is great" while
everyone around him/her is cringing from the trainwreck issuing from
their instrument. How do you say an uneducated ear gets educated? Or
do you think "some people are born with good ears and some aren't"?
Just curious what your response would be, Seth, especially if this
person were to say "I'm trusting my ears because that's all you *can*
trust."
-- James
Cl.Massé
news:25678-41...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> I love love good rock and roll. To me the very best of rock is
> something that makes me want to get up and kick butt on a dance floor.
> And I'm 55.
Rock doesn't has much of that effect on me. I prefer some well thought
out rhythme, even in traditional music, to beating pans like a deaf.
Rhythm isn't an issue of power, but of "just at the right time." A good
triangle player can make quite a difference. Ternary rhythms are
usually better, but they are of little use in rock'n'roll.
> Great rock and roll will always have rebellious raw edge, a rockin'
> beat, a good rhythm and a killer melody.
A killer melody isn't what I would call "rock specific".
Seth Jackson
MItchell) wrote:
>Seth Jackson <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message news:<nkr7i0tatq8hrils6...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:56:30 +0200, "Cl.Massé" <in...@optinbig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If it sounds good, it is good. But how do you know it sounds good?
>> >When it follows the rules!
>>
>> No. You know it sounds good when your ears tell you it does.
>I'm not saying that I fully subscribe to the idea that rules will make
>something sound good, but I'm curious about this "trust your ears"
>concept.
>
>I think "ears" develop over time, often by absorbing intuitive rules
>from listening carefully to extremely successful music. Ears change;
>what my son thought was great a year ago, he now thinks is simplistic
>and bland. His tastes are more eclectic and more sophisticated than
>they were 365 days ago. I guess you could say his ears have grown. :^)
>
>Many of the people I know who have great ears now did not have such
>great ears five years ago. To me that implies that an ear can be
>trained, some way or other.
>
>So what would you suggest if you ran into someone (which I have many
>times) who says, "my ears tell me what I'm writing is great" while
>everyone around him/her is cringing from the trainwreck issuing from
>their instrument. How do you say an uneducated ear gets educated? Or
>do you think "some people are born with good ears and some aren't"?
>Just curious what your response would be, Seth, especially if this
>person were to say "I'm trusting my ears because that's all you *can*
>trust."
My intention was really to refute the idea that the rules dictate
whether it sounds good or not. A trained songwriter can trust his
hears a lot more than an untrained one. Still, even trained
songwriters get feedback from other trained people. So, it would
probably be more accurate to say that it sounds good when your ears
and the ears of other people tell you it does.
- Seth Jackson
Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Cid Muse
composer of many styles. Here is what he says ( he has promised not to
swear so I'm covering my tracks just in case. Cid to Joseph: BE NICE! )
The comments you made specifically about "rock music" were the most
asinine statements ever uttered by a wannabe musician. Melody and rhythm
all apply the same concepts and have the same aesthetic value in all
styles of music. You obviously are using your stylistic bias to cover up
a deficiency in your actual musicianship. Maybe you should try focusing
your lack of talent on an art that is less objective!
Joseph
PS from Cid
I was a solo dancer for 11 years and my favorite type of music to dance
to was/is melodic hard rock. If it DIDN'T have the things that I
mentioned previously then I would not have enjoyed dancing to it. We all
have different tastes in music. To some, rock is just noise. To me, rap
falls into that category. I don't care for it though there are millions
who love it. I also can't stand most MOR ( yawn ) music as I consider it
to be mediocre. But that is just a personal opinion.
James B. MItchell
>
> >Actually, theory doesn't say what sound good, but what *doesn't* sound
> >good.
>
> Actually, theory says what sounds like X and what sound like Y.
>
> - Seth Jackson
>
> Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
"Theory says what sounds like X and what sounda like Y". I love that
line, Seth, and totally agree.
-- James
Cl.Massé
de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> I think "ears" develop over time, often by absorbing intuitive rules
> from listening carefully to extremely successful music. Ears change;
> what my son thought was great a year ago, he now thinks is simplistic
> and bland. His tastes are more eclectic and more sophisticated than
> they were 365 days ago. I guess you could say his ears have grown. :^)
I guess, hard rock was great to him, and then he grew up and listened to
other styles, and really learnt to know (not rebellious) genuine music.
That's all usual. The ear calibrate on what it uses to ear, so that
about a half seem palatable. That's why some uneducated brat would
argue to death that their genre is a good one, with some hurting words.
Cl.Massé
> I am sitting here with a friend of mine who is a very good vocalist
> and composer of many styles. Here is what he says ( he has promised
> not to swear so I'm covering my tracks just in case. Cid to Joseph: BE
> NICE! ) The comments you made specifically about "rock music" were the
> most asinine statements ever uttered by a wannabe musician. Melody and
> rhythm all apply the same concepts and have the same aesthetic value
> in all styles of music. You obviously are using your stylistic bias to
> cover up a deficiency in your actual musicianship. Maybe you should
> try focusing your lack of talent on an art that is less objective!
That recall me my teen days when I was teased because I listened to
those excellent music such as Mozart, Edith Piaf, Renaud... That's not
a musical issue, but an identity one. I have that bad habit to listen
to the music "I like", and I can't make me like music I don't, and
vice-versa, whatever the pressure applied and the fashion.
As for talent (???) What's the matter? Do one need to have talent of
composition to enjoy music?
But seriously, in the large pool of rock songs, very few has a solid
melody. That can be realized only by listening to a lot of different
styles (I don't mean hard rock + R&R + funk + soul + metal + R&B, I
really mean "a *lot* of *different* styles.") Some folk song or chanson
doesn't need much more than a guitar and a bass, because they are "based
on melody". Rock music is build the other way around : first off the
shell rhythm, then harmony, usually poor, and finally some melody, if
there is room left. It must go along with the remaining (cluttered with
loud, saturated, and amplified instruments), so it is very constrained,
sometimes only the root and the fifth (_Stairway to Heaven_ for
instance), and without a real rhythmical structure that could jar with
the prominent boom-boom based main rhythm.
Of course, I'm not speaking about incidentally arisen musical value.
For example, the Beatles have good melodies, but some songs, like
_Eleanor Rigby_, aren't rock specific at all (even not a drum!), and is
more akin to baroque music.
That said, my taste and my opinion remain unaltered. I'm not listening
to music to please people, but to please myself. Oh, and I'm a very
good vocalist and composer of many styles, all is an issue of taste.
James B. MItchell
[snip]
>
> My intention was really to refute the idea that the rules dictate
> whether it sounds good or not. A trained songwriter can trust his
> hears a lot more than an untrained one. Still, even trained
> songwriters get feedback from other trained people. So, it would
> probably be more accurate to say that it sounds good when your ears
> and the ears of other people tell you it does.
>
> - Seth Jackson
>
I agree absolutely. Now the question is.. what trains the untrained
songwriter?
To me, it's a combination of things, probably the most important of
which is complete immersion in music to pick up what works by osmosis,
so to speak. I think what we call intuitive sense or "the ear" is
partly a very sophisticated process somewhere deep inside of us that
learns what works and what doesn't by listening. I think when artists
say "I was heavily influenced by X" that they have taken on X as a
sort of standard or guidepost for musical form and style.
Do you agree?
I also think that understanding music theory at a basic level - the
circle of fifths, chord progressions, related keys - gives you more
arrows in your quiver as an artist and can keep you from falling into
a narrow rut.
What else do you think helps to train songwriters, besides simply
writing and re-writing?
I'm just curious. And you're welcome to drop the thread if you like.
:^) I find discussions like this to be interesting, but I know that's
not the case for many people.
-- James
snabbu
> That recall me my teen days when I was teased because I listened to
> those excellent music such as Mozart, Edith Piaf, Renaud... That's not
> a musical issue, but an identity one. I have that bad habit to listen
> to the music "I like", and I can't make me like music I don't, and
> vice-versa, whatever the pressure applied and the fashion.
>
> As for talent (???) What's the matter? Do one need to have talent of
> composition to enjoy music?
>
> But seriously, in the large pool of rock songs, very few has a solid
> melody. <snip>
I don't agree with that. To my mind there is a genre called "Melodic
Rock". That's how I would describe the music of say "Uriah Heep"
for example.
snabbu
> I agree absolutely. Now the question is.. what trains the untrained
> songwriter?
University. The university of the radio.
Cid Muse
with you and I consider you to be wrong on the issue of whether rock and
roll is melodic. One of the things that I especially love about rock is
the melody line -- which is often from the British folk music influence
found in much of it.
Considering the fact that you obviously do not like rock music, it
appears that you can't "hear" any melody in it simply because you don't
listen enough to it to know whether it has any melody or not.
As I have stated, I used to ( ok, I occasionally still do ) dance to
hard rock. And it is the melody that moves me much more than rhythm or
beat.
As far as my musical tastes, both in listening and in writing/singing,
etc, they are very eclectic. I also enjoy Edith Piaf as well as Lady
Day. I also like India Adams and Julie London. I prefer Beethoven to
Mozart. I love the music of Big Mama Thorton and prefer her version of
Hound Dog to thaqt of Elvis. I like country and prefer Patsy and Hank to
the new country.
I feel Buddy rich was a better drummer than the vast majority of the
rock drummers. I am also influenced by the folk music of the late 50s
early 60s, especially Richard Farina and Chad Mitchell.
So touting off what you listen to as if you are so superior in what you
listen to is not going to make points with me.
I love music and melody has always been my favorite part of it. AND
outside of a few classical pieces such as Danse Macabre and Monlight
Sonata or gypsy violins, Spanish flamenco guitar, my favorite musioc to
dance to is and will always be MELODIC hard rock.
Cid
Flying Tadpole
Cid Muse wrote:
>
> We could argue this to death but let it imply be said that I disagree
> with you and I consider you to be wrong on the issue of whether rock and
> roll is melodic. One of the things that I especially love about rock is
> the melody line -- which is often from the British folk music influence
> found in much of it.
> Considering the fact that you obviously do not like rock music, it
> appears that you can't "hear" any melody in it simply because you don't
> listen enough to it to know whether it has any melody or not.
<snip>
There's room for "like/dislike" but not for "right/wrong" or
"agree/disagree". It comes down to familiarity, exposure and
particularly "training", and I will keep "training" in its
inverted commas because it's "training" in the sense of training
like a tree is trained, not as in going to trade school...
The ear and brain collude at a tender age in developing selective
hearing. Hence the difficulty someone raised in chinese society
has with the english "l" sound, which is heard as "r", or the
problems people raised in english society have with french
accents or hindi non-aspirated consonants, or the french have
with english "h" and other aspirated vowel sounds. The ear is
physically grown, "trained", to hear what is needful to hear.
The ability to do this automatically drops way off from middle
childhood on (which is why you want to start earlyearly on
languages!! like about age 3).
Now, to anyone grown under a particular music regime, music from
a different "culture" can be unrecognisable as music, probably
via exactly the same process as for speech. Most 19th Century
europeans regarded much of asian music as sheer cacophony.
literally "not what we're used to". Early jazz was seen as
primitivist work of the devil. So it goes.
One can to certain extent escape the childhood "training" by
technical training and study, involving listening and attempting
to reproduce. Most people are unlikely to bother though, eg me.
A friend is a whizz on a number of asian instruments--dam'
boy-genius even builds them himself, I'm told by knowledgeable
others is an expert player, no I don't begrudge him being a maths
and science whizz too, much--and the music leaves me totally cold
even while others are leaping to their feet and cheering. I'm
sure with a lot of work and effort and time I could come to
appreciate the music too, I just don't want to spend that amount
of time at this point.
The sum of this little homily? Music is a cultural and societal
output which varies hugely from culture to culture (and indeed
subculture to subculture) and is just simply beyond a simple
definition. So, while I loathe the cultural relativist
approach generally, I have to admit that when it comes to music,
it's all relative. No right/wrong, no agree/disagree, no
good/bad, just exposure, "training" and personal leanings. "My
music, right or wrong..."
--
Flying Tadpole
-------------------------
Henpecked? Harrassed? Harangued? Join the chorus:
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com
Irene Jackson
news:412D65B4...@hotmail.com...
A good read...thanks :-)
IJ
--
IJ
http://www.irenejackson.com
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
OSSONGS
>From: "Irene Jackson" ijno...@irenejackson.com
>Date: 8/26/2004 6:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <PJlXc.221664$gE.165643@pd7tw3no>
Yes, wasn't it though!
My son has married a lovely California born and bred lady, but her Grandfather
came from Madrid, Spain, and she was taught, as all her family were, Spanish
from very early childhood.
They now have a son - he is soooo cuuuute - and she will teach him Spanish.
They will use that, and English, at family gatherings.
I better learn it, fast!
My son has picked up some Spanish.
He says he understands just enough to know when they are talking about him ;-)
Good read, Flying...
Dolores
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cl.Massé
> We could argue this to death but let it imply be said that I disagree
> with you.
I don't discuss your tastes, but let's clarify to dispel any
misunderstanding.
When I speak about melody, it is really about *melody*, that is,
something different from rhythm and harmony. A melody contains
rhythmical and harmonic element, but the melody I speak about contains
more than that, unlike in rock. Here I mean other intervals than
unison, seconds, fifths and strident soaring octaves, and diverse note
lengths. The fact one has to append "melodic" to a genre speak much for
itself.
When I speak about rock, I don't speak about rock standards, but about
the bulk of what is shoved in the throat of teens with a pretence of
quality. If we look more closely, we see that "music" as they say is
only a little critter among eccentric outfits, obscene acts, forcible
drum shots, colour lights, weird make-ups, struts and pouts, instrument
smashing, hyper-powerful speakers, provocative utterances, drugs, in
short, all the rebellious vocabulary as a kind of purulent teen acne.
Music really seems subsidiary.
Finally, I often notice that the lovers of music for the young have very
disparaging words for all that don't fall in their small universe,
particularly for soft, slow, or perceived as adult music. But they are
very touchy when their "art" is addressed in less than flattering
terms, in abstraction to the fact that it is unrarely ludicrous and
laughable. To bad for them, I persist. If you feel offended by what I
wrote, perhaps is it because it contains some truth.
James B. MItchell
I said nothing about which styles he liked then and likes now.
Brats - uneducated or otherwise - talk in terms like "genuine music".
I thought I had made that point. It seems to have been lost on you,
so I'm making it more bluntly now.
I really cannot take comments seriously that include terms like
"genuine music". It is the same narrow-mindedness demonstrated by an
uneducated brat ("now that's REAL music") couched in slightly more
intellectual terms. The pretty wrapping doesn't change the content.
Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.
-- James
Cid Muse
do not consider you to be in any sort of position to decide what rock
music is. It has been around for several decades and it is more than
what you described. Those of us who truly love the genre know how
mulit-layered it is. And the minor things would be the colorful costumes
and stage shows ( and that isn't true of all rock music, mainly of
theatrical rock or pyschedelic rock of a certain time period ). That
goes double for the "obscene lyrics." Folk-rock is quite poetic. For you
to make the stupid statement about how most rock is not melodic only
shows your ignorance.
Rock music was initially the fusion of rhythm and blues and country ( or
what was known as "hillbilly" ) music. It has since embraced everything
from blues and jazz to opera to folk and the list can go on and on.
Since you don't LIKE rock music who are you to make a judgment on it?
This is especially true if you never bother to look below the surfuce of
what might be currently shoved down the throats of the public as the
flavor of the month.
In other words, you are not in a positon to judge the music.
I do not like rap. But I would feel that I would be able to tell someone
who is into trap the merits and intricacies of the music they love and
listen to on a regular basis.
Instead of putting down the music you don't like how about writing about
what you DO know --- the music you live and listen to.
David Hooper
> How hung up do you get on theory
> when writing a rock song?
I don't think you should get hung up on theory in anything...especially a song.
If it sounds good, it is good.
David
--
KR TIP SHEET - Film/TV Music Placement and more...
Flying Tadpole
One of the wonderful things about learning a new language fast is
the entertainment you can provide native speakers when you
totally muck it up. What a pity the same doesn't apply to toally
mucking up your music in front of an audience of musicians...
--
Flying Tadpole
-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com
OSSONGS
>From: Flying Tadpole flying...@ace.net.au
>Date: 8/27/2004 3:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <412F0EB1...@ace.net.au>
Ha!
I could try out both of those examples :-)
Dolores
James B. MItchell
> "Cid Muse" <Cynth...@webtv.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:15736-41...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > We could argue this to death but let it imply be said that I disagree
> > with you.
>
> I don't discuss your tastes, but let's clarify to dispel any
> misunderstanding.
>
> When I speak about melody, it is really about *melody*, that is,
> something different from rhythm and harmony. A melody contains
> rhythmical and harmonic element, but the melody I speak about contains
> more than that, unlike in rock. Here I mean other intervals than
> unison, seconds, fifths and strident soaring octaves, and diverse note
> lengths. The fact one has to append "melodic" to a genre speak much for
> itself.
Ok... we're talking in huge generalities here. Let's try specifics.
Let's take a song very familiar to most poeple, Queen's "Bohemian
Rhapsody". If you don't know it, listen to it before responding.
"Bohemian Rhapsody" falls well within the Rock genre, but we have a
piece of music Wagnerian in its scale and scope. There are multiple
complex key changes, tempo shifts, and polyrhythms throughout. There
are soaring melodies that rival any Puccini aria. There are vocal
quartet sections singing over full orchestra augmented by electric
guitar. If any piece of music written in the 20th Century deserves
the appellation "Rock Opera", this piece does. It outshines the
accomplishments of many of our so-called "serious composers" of 20th
Century Opera, who either degenerated into atonal "strident soaring
octaves" using twelve-tone or non-key-oriented techniques, or into
minimalist non-melodic harmonic-pattern-shifting pieces with wandering
lines only vaguely resembling what you or anyone would call "melody".
>
> When I speak about rock, I don't speak about rock standards, but about
> the bulk of what is shoved in the throat of teens with a pretence of
> quality. If we look more closely, we see that "music" as they say is
> only a little critter among eccentric outfits, obscene acts, forcible
> drum shots, colour lights, weird make-ups, struts and pouts, instrument
> smashing, hyper-powerful speakers, provocative utterances, drugs, in
> short, all the rebellious vocabulary as a kind of purulent teen acne.
> Music really seems subsidiary.
You have confused staging with music and drawn some sort of parallel
between them.
If you cannot separate the production from the musical content, be
sure to avoid the quintessentially over-the-top staging found at "Son
et Lumiere" events -- bombastic, overdone productions of
"traditional" music in exotic settings with "colour lights, weird
make-ups, hyper-powerful speakers, eccentric outfits", as you put it.
And be sure to shun most of the recent stagings of classic operas
worldwide -- sets that look like a prop room after an earthquake,
video screens the size of living rooms on either side of the stage,
fog banks that would swallow London, projections of hallucenogenic
images behind obscenely overweight people dressed up in weird outfits
singing in strident soaring octaves. Speaking of Wagner... ;^)
Wagner was the father of over-the-top productions, in my opinion.
Wouldn't you agree? Yet that doesn't affect my enjoyment and
appreciation of his musical accomplishments. Does it for you? Think
about it. The parallels in production techniques are numerous...
on-stage conflagrations, full-scale ships doing battle in a theatre,
buildings crumbling on-stage, characters rigged on wires to fly off
into the heavens. How is this different from the productions you're
disparaging?
Masse' -- If you cannot separate production from musical content then
you've stopped talking about music per se. This is a music forum, not
a stage production critiquing forum.
I get the distinct impression you don't know enough about Rock to
venture an informed opinion. I am not a great lover of, or listener
to, Rock music, but I've listened to, and studied, enough of it to
know that there is a vast range of music all lumped into Rock -- some
of it poorly constructed, some of it truly brilliant.
To condemn an entire genre without taking the time to study it is the
true mark of a dilettante - "a person having a superficial interest in
an art or a branch of knowledge". Surely you don't want to appear to
be a dilletante, now, do you?
-- James
James B. MItchell
> "Cid Muse" <Cynth...@webtv.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:28854-412...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
> those excellent music such as Mozart, Edith Piaf, Renaud... That's not
> a musical issue, but an identity one. I have that bad habit to listen
> to the music "I like", and I can't make me like music I don't, and
> vice-versa, whatever the pressure applied and the fashion.
>
Ah... this explains a great deal. I wish I had read this first before
taking the time to respond to your other posts.
All the noises you make that sound like you've actually reviewed,
analyzed or evaluated something all boil down to "I like it / I don't
like it." Now I understand how much weight I should give your
communications.
-- James
James B. MItchell
> "SMick82230" <smick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040816124341...@mb-m22.aol.com...
>
[snip]
>
> That said, we do see I IV V changes with a pentatonic melody quite often.
I had to look up "pentatonic" because the definition I was taught
would not make sense in this sentence.
In a classical music context, I believe pentatonic refers to a
five-note whole-tone scale, i.e., C-D-E-F#-G#, such as Bartok or Orff
would use.
But I looked it up in online Merriam-Webster and got this definition:
"consisting of five tones; specifically : being or relating to a scale
in which the tones are arranged like a major scale with the fourth and
seventh tones omitted". This makes perfect sense in the context of
your sentence.
Now I'm wondering if my memory of the usage of "pentatonic" is faulty,
or if it has multiple definitions, or if the accepted meaning has
changed over time.
Thanks for using the word - definitely got me to explore something new
today!
-- James
snabbu
> To condemn an entire genre without taking the time to study it is the
> true mark of a dilettante - "a person having a superficial interest in
> an art or a branch of knowledge". Surely you don't want to appear to
> be a dilletante, now, do you?
>
>
> -- James
Since the title of Rock dilettante has already been taken by Masse.
I would like to express interest in the silver medal. Yes the title of
jazz dilettante or Jazlettante as the fab and hip would call it :-)
James B. MItchell
>
> Now I'm wondering if my memory of the usage of "pentatonic" is faulty,
> or if it has multiple definitions, or if the accepted meaning has
> changed over time.
>
> Thanks for using the word - definitely got me to explore something new
> today!
>
> -- James
It was my memory... a little research shows that I had muddled
whole-tone scale and pentatonic. Thanks again for using the word.
-- James
Cl.Massé
de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> I said nothing about which styles he liked then and likes now.
That's why I said: "I guess" (with estimated 95% odds). Did I
unfortunately hit the sensitive spot?
I don't consider loudness and rebellion to have anything to do with
music. I thought I had made that point. Your bluntness is perhaps part
of the rebellious spirit, but I demand the right to express my opinion
without being belittled.
Cl.Massé
> Considering the fact that you obviously do not care for rock and roll,
> I do not consider you to be in any sort of position to decide what
> rock music is.
As you like only dance and rhythm, it's no wonder that in genres with
richer melody you don't hear anything else than rhythm in the melody.
So I don't consider you to be in any sort of position to decide about
the melodicness of rock, and I don't need your blessing to express my
opinion.
It happens I arranged a melody based chanson in the rock'n'roll style,
see _Le Pluriel_ at http://clmasse.online.fr/Brassens/
It goes without saying the lyrics are rebellious.
James B. Mitchell
> "Cid Muse" <Cynth...@webtv.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:29674-412...@storefull-3177.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > Considering the fact that you obviously do not care for rock and roll,
> > I do not consider you to be in any sort of position to decide what
> > rock music is.
>
> As you like only dance and rhythm, it's no wonder that in genres with
> richer melody you don't hear anything else than rhythm in the melody.
> So I don't consider you to be in any sort of position to decide about
> the melodicness of rock, and I don't need your blessing to express my
> opinion.
>
Blah...blah...blah... "don't like it".... blah-blah-blah...
Yup, translates perfectly. I think I've got the hang of this now.
-- James
James B. Mitchell
>
> It happens I arranged a melody based chanson in the rock'n'roll style,
> see _Le Pluriel_ at http://clmasse.online.fr/Brassens/
> It goes without saying the lyrics are rebellious.
>
Honestly, Masse', if that arrangement is representative of your
understanding of Rock, you have a l-o-n-g way to go before you have a leg to
stand on.
-- James
P.S. Loved "La Princesse et le Croque-Note". :^) Nice little piece,
especially the "B" section.
Cid Muse
sense into someone who is a complete idiot when it comes to what I love.
My favorite type of music is MELODIC hard rock. It is the type of music
I love to dance to. And it is not all "dance" ( dance is what I DO ) and
rhythm. It is beat and melody and rhythm. And for you to state otherwise
is insulting and says you don't have a clue as to what you are talking
about and that you certainly do not know what I am talking about or what
I listen or dance to.
I am a melody junkie. As a dancer, I feed on it.
You obviously have some sort of problem with the fact that other people
enjoy other types of music.
Btw, there is a type of music known as "dance" music. I do not call it
that because it isn't music I care for. Nor do I dance to it. I don't
know if that is what you were referring to but that is not anything like
melodic hard rock.
Have your own opinion but if someone says you are wrong ( not on what
you personally like but on what THEY like ) don't get your panties in a
wad and go boohoohoo and think they are picking on you.
And when it comes to the issue of your knowing anything about rock and
roll and whether some if it is melodic ( and I never said all of it was
) -- you don't know squat so your opinion, no offense and all that, is
worthless to those of us who love the genre and do know about it.
James B. MItchell
> "James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I said nothing about which styles he liked then and likes now.
>
> That's why I said: "I guess" (with estimated 95% odds). Did I
> unfortunately hit the sensitive spot?
>
> I don't consider loudness and rebellion to have anything to do with
> music. I thought I had made that point. Your bluntness is perhaps part
> of the rebellious spirit, but I demand the right to express my opinion
> without being belittled.
"Cl.Massé" <in...@optinbig.com> wrote in message news:<4130beed$0$1787$626a...@news.free.fr>...
> "James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I said nothing about which styles he liked then and likes now.
>
> That's why I said: "I guess" (with estimated 95% odds). Did I
> unfortunately hit the sensitive spot?
>
> I don't consider loudness and rebellion to have anything to do with
> music. I thought I had made that point. Your bluntness is perhaps part
> of the rebellious spirit, but I demand the right to express my opinion
> without being belittled.
Masse', I am a 47-year-old, classically trained pianist with a degree
in Music Education. I am a pianist in a Catholic church on Saturdays
and keyboardist in another church on Sundays. I listen primarily to
classical orchestral music and American Standards, but keep an ear
open for pretty much every other kind of music.
I am about as far from the definition of "rebellious spirit" as you
can get. But thanks for the mis-attribution. :^) You're the first
person to ever call me that.
You're right that I have been belittling you a bit, and I apologize.
There's something about the combination of arrogance and ignorance
that simply revs my motor, and when it's combined with lashes of
insulting comments towards others about their preferred music that
produces a reaction in me.
But... and it's a big but...
I cannot see how you can demand any sort of respect when you are so
disrespectful of others and their choices in music. Your comments
have been highly insulting: calling Rock music "beating on tin pans",
telling people who like that they have no sense of melody, making
ignorant declaration and assumptions about anyone who might see value
in Rock music and then spouting from that point, etc., etc., etc.
No one has much such sweeping pronouncements about your preferred
music anywhere. Have you noticed that? And it's not because it's
above reproach. No one has made a single comment about your mistakes
in English grammar, spelling, or punctuation, either. It isn't
because your posts are unassailable. It's simply that they're
exercising more restraint and civility than you are. And,
unfortunately, than I am.
From where I'm sitting, I honestly think you have no grounds on which
to demand respect. Respect is a two-way street, and I have seen no
signs of respecting others from you in this entire discussion.
-- James
James B. MItchell
> "James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I said nothing about which styles he liked then and likes now.
>
> That's why I said: "I guess" (with estimated 95% odds). Did I
> unfortunately hit the sensitive spot?
>
Sorry, didn't respond to this in my other post. No, I'm afraid you
shot way wide of any sensitive spot.
My son, I'm proud to say, has a more eclectic taste in music than
anyone I know. This part of his "ear" has not changed, only his
particular choices in each genre. Wish I had something to do with it,
but given the range of his interests, I really don't think so.
On a given day, I'll find him listening to things like Leadbelly,
Chopin, Duke Ellington, Sufgen Stevens, Bach, Gypsy Jazz (a la Django
Reinhardt), Jimi Hendrix, Heavy Metal, Ravel, Punk, Appalachian folk
music, etc. In general, he doesn't tend to listen to R&B, Rap, Pop,
or Country, although he keeps a tab on R&B and Pop. (Country is just
not for him.) The majority of his listening for sheer pleasure would
fall into Alternative Rock, I guess, but that's a vague category.
He has not changed the genres he listens to, rather the level of
sophistication of the music (for lack of better words) that he listens
to.
So, no... he has not "advanced" from Rock to "real" music. I wish that
you and I both had the range of music appreciation that he has.
You seem to be so sure of the personality and experience of anyone who
listens to Rock - rebellious spirit, lack of appreciation for other
styles, interested in volume for its own sake, no developed sense of
melody, no appreciation for traditional or Classical music, etc. I
don't know where you got this picture from, but it is very inaccurate,
in my experience. There are narrow-minded, style-centric musicians in
every genre - Classical, Rock, Jazz, Funk, Rap, etc. Fortunately,
they seem to be in the minority, as you can see if you look around
this place.
-- James
Cl.Massé
de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Ah... this explains a great deal. I wish I had read this first before
> taking the time to respond to your other posts.
>
> All the noises you make that sound like you've actually reviewed,
> analyzed or evaluated something all boil down to "I like it / I don't
> like it." Now I understand how much weight I should give your
> communications.
Did you noticed any ad hominem in my posts? Kid, don't be impudent!
Cl.Massé
de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Ok... we're talking in huge generalities here. Let's try specifics.
> Let's take a song very familiar to most poeple, Queen's "Bohemian
> Rhapsody". If you don't know it, listen to it before responding.
>
> "Bohemian Rhapsody" falls well within the Rock genre, but we have a
> piece of music Wagnerian in its scale and scope. There are multiple
> complex key changes, tempo shifts, and polyrhythms throughout. There
> are soaring melodies that rival any Puccini aria. There are vocal
> quartet sections singing over full orchestra augmented by electric
> guitar. If any piece of music written in the 20th Century deserves
> the appellation "Rock Opera", this piece does. It outshines the
> accomplishments of many of our so-called "serious composers" of 20th
> Century Opera, who either degenerated into atonal "strident soaring
> octaves" using twelve-tone or non-key-oriented techniques, or into
> minimalist non-melodic harmonic-pattern-shifting pieces with wandering
> lines only vaguely resembling what you or anyone would call "melody".
Here it is a rock standard, one of the very few I like. But as you
point out, it is not much rock specific, rather Wagnerian, Pucciniesque,
or opera-like. It hasn't a rock form. I think to remember Freddie
Mercury has a classical background, and Queen wandered in diverse
styles.
And I'm not an "avant-garde" music lover either.
> You have confused staging with music and drawn some sort of parallel
> between them.
>
> If you cannot separate the production from the musical content, be
> sure to avoid the quintessentially over-the-top staging found at "Son
> et Lumiere" events -- bombastic, overdone productions of
> "traditional" music in exotic settings with "colour lights, weird
> make-ups, hyper-powerful speakers, eccentric outfits", as you put it.
>
> And be sure to shun most of the recent stagings of classic operas
> worldwide -- sets that look like a prop room after an earthquake,
> video screens the size of living rooms on either side of the stage,
> fog banks that would swallow London, projections of hallucenogenic
> images behind obscenely overweight people dressed up in weird outfits
> singing in strident soaring octaves. Speaking of Wagner... ;^)
That's not music.
> Wagner was the father of over-the-top productions, in my opinion.
> Wouldn't you agree? Yet that doesn't affect my enjoyment and
> appreciation of his musical accomplishments. Does it for you? Think
> about it.
The musicians are playing music and not making a show, as far as I can
surmise. Volume, thickness, and richness isn't a drawback, as long as
there is some musical value. Yet, please note it doesn't come anywhere,
but according to a structure in which it is the climax. The intensity
curve is skilfully studied in order to achieve an effect, it isn't used
as brute force.
> The parallels in production techniques are numerous...
> on-stage conflagrations, full-scale ships doing battle in a theatre,
> buildings crumbling on-stage, characters rigged on wires to fly off
> into the heavens. How is this different from the productions you're
> disparaging?
Again, it is opera, not music.
> Masse' -- If you cannot separate production from musical content then
> you've stopped talking about music per se. This is a music forum, not
> a stage production critiquing forum.
I can. It is the young rock audience that can't. Strip from all that,
the rebellious character would be greatly reduced, and it will lose any
interest from teens. Bands that doesn't exhibit those attributes are
less successful, and are labelled "adult like". Now let's talk about
forcible drum shots, provocative utterances (usually beginning with an
'f'), hyper-powerful speakers...
> I get the distinct impression you don't know enough about Rock to
> venture an informed opinion. I am not a great lover of, or listener
> to, Rock music, but I've listened to, and studied, enough of it to
> know that there is a vast range of music all lumped into Rock -- some
> of it poorly constructed, some of it truly brilliant.
I'm afraid your impression is wrong. Actually, I'm more educated in
rock, and in my life I *heard* more rock than anything else. Which
prove your beautiful theory about liking is crumbling, if I can dare to
disagree with you. It seems their exist a musical taste, and
consequently intrinsic musical value.
As a composer, I tried to understand the meaning of rock, and got at the
terrible conclusion it has none, only loudness and rebellion. So much
for it.
> To condemn an entire genre without taking the time to study it is the
> true mark of a dilettante - "a person having a superficial interest in
> an art or a branch of knowledge". Surely you don't want to appear to
> be a dilletante, now, do you?
I leave you with the burden to prove I didn't take the time to study it.
Honcho
<snipped>
"Again, it is opera, not music."
___________________________
Would you like to run that past me again?
I have never understood why people who proclaim to not only like music,
but to spend time writing, analysing, earning money from music or wishing
to earn money from music to decry a musical style.
I would much rather hear somebody expound why a certain musical style is
good rather than all the "that is crap" comments.
What say you, Monsieur Masse?
Richard
PS I'm out of this thread.
Flying Tadpole
"Cl.Massé" wrote:
>
>
>
> Again, it is opera, not music.
>
Blink.
Blink.
As a once cutting-edge troll myself (in another place, I hasten
to add), this to me is starting to show all the hallmarks of a
better-class effort. In particular, the elegant shift of ground
at each challenge in a way calcualted to maximise enraged
responses without being openly offensive in itself.
To paraphrase "Queen is not a rock group". "Opera is not music".
Such a level of response can go on for post after post, until the
last layer of the onion strips away to reveal the core "the only
music is what I approve" (Aternatively, "I refuse to let facts
get in the way of a good story")
--
Flying Tadpole
James B. Mitchell
James B. Mitchell
> "James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > To condemn an entire genre without taking the time to study it is the
> > true mark of a dilettante - "a person having a superficial interest in
> > an art or a branch of knowledge". Surely you don't want to appear to
> > be a dilletante, now, do you?
>
> I leave you with the burden to prove I didn't take the time to study it.
>
LOL Hooked again - some day I'll learn.
Your posts aren'tintended in any way as discourse or debate; you're just
yanking chains.
End of game, at least for this player.
-- James
James B. Mitchell
wake-up call. I am easily suckered into assuming someone's seriously
interested in discussing something. I thought I was getting better at
disengaging, but it doesn't seem to be true. I'll work on it.
-- James
"James B. Mitchell" <jamesbm...@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:j_xYc.13690$tA7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Cid Muse
Can I quote that? :-D :-D :-D
TOOOOOO funny!!!!!
Cid
PS Btw, my it might be "operatic rock" but Queen was most defintely rock
and roll!
Blues-rock
country-rock
folk-rock
hard rock
soft rock
etc etc etc etc etc....
OSSONGS
>From: Cynth...@webtv.net (Cid Muse)
>Date: 8/30/2004 2:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4473-413...@storefull-3175.bay.webtv.net>
>
>"It is opera not music"
>Can I quote that? :-D :-D :-D
>TOOOOOO funny!!!!!
>Cid
>PS Btw, my it might be "operatic rock" but Queen was most defintely rock
>and roll!
>Blues-rock
>country-rock
>folk-rock
>hard rock
>soft rock
>etc etc etc etc etc....
>
Yeah!
Rock on. Tommy!
Dolores
Cl.Massé
> My son, I'm proud to say, has a more eclectic taste in music than
> anyone I know. This part of his "ear" has not changed, only his
> particular choices in each genre. Wish I had something to do with it,
> but given the range of his interests, I really don't think so.
I'm sure he has. Of course he is the more beautiful boy. Actually, I
was speaking rather generally. They are many reasons to pick a first
favourite genre, often on non musical grounds, it's easy to understand.
The one I described is the more usual. Yet, the subsequent evolution is
always the same, IMO.
You didn't taked about your son's first favourite genre. I second guess
it is the one his dad play or compose, the second usual case. I am
under the impression he is searching himself. Why not tell him it is ok
to listen to music only for sheer pleasure? Alternative rock is the
second degree in rebellion (rebellion against rebellion.)
If I can dare another opinion, genre isn't an issue other than for
identity. There is only good a bad music, one doesn't have to pick a
genre in the first place.
Cl.Massé
> see _Le Pluriel_ at http://clmasse.online.fr/Brassens/
> It goes without saying the lyrics are rebellious.
"James B. Mitchell" <jamesbm...@nospamplease.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:728Yc.13390$xj2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Honestly, Masse', if that arrangement is representative of your
> understanding of Rock, you have a l-o-n-g way to go before you have a
> leg to stand on.
Of course, it is based on a solid melody, virtually unsingable besides.
Did you notice the syncopation and the rhythmical tension and release?
That makes it lack the toe-tipping character, characteristic of the rock
style. Yet, the rhythm is used as an expressive device by the author,
which enriches the melody. In addition, there is a sophisticated
harmonic sequence: three modulations and an augmented 5th! very
different from the rock basis, although there is a I IV V.
Though, I'm very proud of it, it was a lot of fun.
Since my opinion is irrefutable, it's easier to attack the messenger by
making a fool of it. I'm waiting for more articulate arguments.
> P.S. Loved "La Princesse et le Croque-Note". :^) Nice little piece,
> especially the "B" section.
There's no B section, it's an AAAAAAA form. He uses both 7th and
successive minor 2nd.
Yes, Brassens is a melody master. As he says in _Le Pluriel_: "as much
a musician as you, you bunch of noise makers." He always didn't like
the orchestrated songs, and his wide success toward all generations
gives
him right. "When you sing a song to a friend, there isn't forty violins
in the cupboard." Ironically, he has never been considered a composer.
Cl.Massé
de news:6ee44b3d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> I cannot see how you can demand any sort of respect when you are so
> disrespectful of others and their choices in music. Your comments
> have been highly insulting: calling Rock music "beating on tin pans",
> telling people who like that they have no sense of melody, making
> ignorant declaration and assumptions about anyone who might see value
> in Rock music and then spouting from that point, etc., etc., etc.
Please, read my *initial* post, which satisfied the original poster, and
some responses. Here an anthology:
"You have a very limited view of what rock music is my friend."
"The comments you made specifically about "rock music" were the most
asinine statements ever uttered by a wannabe musician."
"Maybe you should try focusing your lack of talent on an art that is
less objective!"
I was speaking as a sociologist, and what I said make much sense among
competent people such as educators.
And please, read again my other posts carefully since all you write is
screwed up. Instead of calling me ignorant, teach me something, if you
can, it would be a more positive attitude.
I merely answer like I am talked to. I don't seem to know you and
conversely, so you aren't eligible to lecture me. I don't seem either
to recall having appointed you as a judge or as an expert.
I also don't appreciate when someone doesn't like the music I like, but
I never do such comments. I consider it is my legitimate freedom to
criticize any genre I feel like to (like you did with "serious
composers" besides), without attacking people of course. That's not the
first time I do, and it won't be the last.
And I apologies toward the tin pans, I swear to no longer insult them.
(May I say: "Circles of cow skin"?)
--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
http://jude.iuma.com/
PS: "arrogant" (calling others who express opinions) seems to be a usual
term in the mouth of musicians. Sociological investigation under way.
Cid Muse
consider this thread done and no longer feed it.
That said, even though I am tempted to reply ( I'm one of these "last
word" people but then I figure I have had my last word and will now move
on ), I believe I have proved my point.
Ciao, I'm outta this thread.
Cid
Cl.Massé
news:cb13cda78ca6a465...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
> I have never understood why people who proclaim to not only like
> music, but to spend time writing, analysing, earning money from music
> or wishing to earn money from music to decry a musical style.
I'll try to make you understand it.
Once upon a time, when I wanted to sing a song, an uneducated brat said
I was going to get a punch from him if I did. Of course, he kept his
player full blast consistently, pouring inane sounds (techno), and
called me names because I didn't like it. This behaviour is all usual
among the young, that's the rebellious one I described, in rock as well
as in techno and rap. Thus decrying a style is a self-defence.
> I would much rather hear somebody expound why a certain musical style
> is good rather than all the "that is crap" comments.
>
> What say you, Monsieur Massé?
But that thread is about rock, I just answer the question asked: the
theory in rock is rebellion. You can initiate a thread about another
genre, I'll have another opinion. Perhaps a day I'll review one of your
songs, balancing positive and negative points as is my custom. I think
you'll be more thankful for the negative ones.
Like you, I have never understood why people decry an opinion.
Cl.Massé
message de news:r6yYc.13695$zG7...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> End of game, at least for this player.
I didn't write something like "opera isn't music", but as you talked
about the production, I pointed out that you talked about the
non-musical part of opera.
I'll parse it for you:
"it": what you wrote about
"is opera": obviously.
"not music": what you wrote about isn't music.
"not music" refers to "it", not to "opera".
It is perfectly thinkable that a person go to the opera because of the
costumes, the scenery, the acting, the interlude, the girls on stage,
the drama, the music, or all of that. And that's exactely my point from
the beginning. The teens go to the rock concert for something else that
music, that is, rebellion.
If somebody goes to the opera for music, I would advice him to go to
a concert instead: cheaper ticket, better acoustics, adapted program,
no noise made by the backdrop change and so on.
Music is what you hear eyes closed, and is made of sounds only. Genuine
music is music for its own sake. Non-genuine music is for example music
(designed in ordre that) one listen not for oneself, but for others to
hear and get a message ("Here it's my territory", "I challenge you
rules", "I'm virile", "p... off", "look who I am"...)
I was singer in a rock band, and I was immersed in an all rock
environnement duting three years at the bording school. I studied many
scores of rock pieces. I didn't know I had to exhibit my credentials to
issue an opinion. And you, when did you study rock music? Had you the
time while studying classical music, and while working the piano eight
hours a day in addition to listening to classical music and American
standards? Classical music is very demanding.
Now, where is your proof I didn't take the time to study rock? You'd
better flee the debate where you arrogantly called me an ignorant.
Honcho
"I'll try to make you understand it.
Once upon a time, when I wanted to sing a song, an uneducated brat said I
was going to get a punch from him if I did. Of course, he kept his player
full blast consistently, pouring inane sounds (techno), and
called me names because I didn't like it. This behaviour is all usual
among the young, that's the rebellious one I described, in rock as well as
in techno and rap. Thus decrying a style is a self-defence.
But that thread is about rock, I just answer the question asked: the
theory in rock is rebellion. You can initiate a thread about another
genre, I'll have another opinion. Perhaps a day I'll review one of your
songs, balancing positive and negative points as is my custom. I think
you'll be more thankful for the negative ones.
Like you, I have never understood why people decry an opinion.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
http://jude.iuma.com/"
__________________________________
You "uneducated brat" incident should not be allowed to colour your
opinion of the music. Every genre has had it's adherents who weren't fully
paid up members of human race.
No, what i said was if you had given us a reason why you like a kind of
music, for instance why we should all listen to, say Piaf, that would have
served some purpose and maybe one or two might have gone out of their way
to listen to her. That is good.
Certainly rock and any other kind of genre has it's share of not
particularly good music, but you succeeded in writing off the very best as
well. I have no wish to change your mind about it, but you are never going
to change anybody else's mind with such negativity.
At that point this thread has been a waste of time.
You are welcome to review one of my songs any time you like, you needn't
bother balancing positive and negative, just how you feel about it will be
fine, even if that is complete silence ;-)
Richard
James B. Mitchell
Since you seem to be making an attempt to have a conversation, I'll give it
one more try.
I agree completely with you that people can go to a musical event for
everything other than the music. I have no problem with that. The problem
I have is when you step from that statement into drawing a conclusion that
the music that is presented at such an event lacks musicality precisely
because of the way it is presented.
What I said was that you were confusing production with musical content. I
believe you are doing the same here. What is worse is that it appears that
you're dismissing or ignoring the melodic content of Rock BECAUSE of the
production.
I agree with you - operas presented as concert readings can be much more
satisfying if you are there only to take in the music. The same is true
about listening to a Rock album rather than attending a concert, or going to
a Rock "unplugged" event. It can be very satisfying musically. The
production can be divorced from the musical content very easily. I've never
attended a Rock concert in my life - at least, not the spectacles we're
talking about here - but I've listened to, and studied, Rock through
recordings and radio.
You have spoken about Rock being all about rebellion. I can agree that the
staging and the posture adopted in a lot of Rock is one of defiance, in most
cases, an "in-your-face" attitude. But that is a far different thing than
discussing the content of Rock music. You have not spoken about the
sociological aspects of the music you promote. Each genre has its own
sociological aspect.
Most of us are here to speak about musical content, not sociological
context. Your comments are taken within that framework. When you say Rock
music is all about rebellion AND has no melodic content, it's as if someone
were to say Classical music is all about preserving a class separation in
the historical context of post-Renaissance patronage as a vestige of
inherited social status -- AND has no rhythmic content. The second
statement doesn't follow from the first, and is provably inaccurate in both
cases.
Now you and I both know that Classical music is not without rhythm, but from
the sense of "sustained groove" as defined in Rock, it is. Nevertheless,
for a Rock aficionado to declare Classical music totally devoid of rhythm
would be to dismiss an entire genre erroneously, simply because its
definition of "rhythm" does not match the common definition used in Rock.
Worse, to declare it devoid of rhythm because you objected to its
sociological niche would be to miss the music entirely.
This is precisely the impression your posts have left here - at least for
me, and I think for several others who have responded. It appears that you
are missing the music entirely because you are so wrapped up in your
objection to the sociological niche and attitude of Rock. To say that you
think the rebellion inherent is Rock is objectionable to you is perfectly
understandable; I personally find the attitude can be obnoxious and
self-indulgent.
Where it becomes a muddy mess is when you then declare that it is devoid of
a particular musical aspect ('melody') because it is rebellious. It is
inherently inaccurate and can be proven with examples, but not as long as
you are seeing the entire discussion through the filter you already have in
place.
I believe we can discuss this rationally, but it requires that everyone
involved allow the music to speak for itself, and to approach the topic in
the mode of scientist, proving through empirical evidence the validity or
invalidity of the hypothesis.
If you're honestly interested in such a discussion, please let me know. Do
you want to enter an exploration of the melodic content of, or lack thereof,
based on discussion of concrete examples, chosen by those who have both a
familiarity and love for the genre. From both our comments, I'd say that's
neither of us. :^) I'm sure we can open it up to requests for examples to
be listened to and analyzed.
Are you up to it? You'd have to play by the normal rules of discovery --
reserving final judgment until a preponderance of evidence, by a consensus
of those involved, leads to a conclusion based on fact rather than a
pre-formed opinion. I'm willing to risk that Rock is not melodic. Are you
willing to risk that Rock is melodic?
We'd need to agree on some basic groundrules - such as which of the dozens
of sub-genres of Rock are what we are referring to when we say Rock. But
I'm game, if you are. I'm actually quite capable of a civil discussion,
given the chance. :^)
- James
James B. Mitchell
> Music is what you hear eyes closed, and is made of sounds only.
Agreed. What I'm saying is that, up to this point, you have been discussing
what Rock sounds like with your eyes closed as if it could only be heard
with your eyes open - as if the venue determined the musical content.
> Genuine
> music is music for its own sake.
How would one determine the legitimacy of this claim about any piece of
music? The only music that would be guaranteed of meeting this definition
would be music composed by myself, performed by myself, in the presence of
only myself. Any other condition would have suspect motives. Once the
music was heard by anyone other than the composer, the music takes on the
taint of "messenger".
"Music for its own sake" was a very common theme in my college years in the
Music department. For example, music composed for a film was not considered
"genuine music" because it was written for a purpose. But this position
doesn't hold up well under inspection, and is already discounted in many
academic circles.
Handel's "Water Music" is considered to be genuine music, but it was written
for a very specific purpose - as a musical present to return Handel to the
good graces of the King. Much of Bach's music was music written for a
purpose - to meet the requirement of original music for Sunday Mass in order
to retain his post. That doesn't make it any less inspired, in my opinion,
but it does disqualify it as music for its own sake.
> Non-genuine music is for example music
> (designed in ordre that) one listen not for oneself, but for others to
> hear and get a message
("Here it's my territory", "I challenge you
> rules", "I'm virile", "p... off", "look who I am"...)
>
Can you actually name a piece of music that does not communicate a message
of some kind? If it communicates, its intentions are suspect, by your
definition above -- it cannot be incontrovertibly genuine. If I can point
to an example where the music communicated something to someone,
particularly in a public forum where the intention is obviously for having
lots of people listen to it, rather than for oneself, then the music might
be genuine or ungenuine.
If it doesn't communicate a message... then the emotions, pleasure, and
intellectual enjoyment of the audience can only be called "coincidental" --
not related to the music in any way, which makes the music intrinsically
meaningless, literally "communicating no meaning". In this case, why would
this be a goal to aspire to - meaninglessness in music?
I think all of us find music that communicates messages we find either
offensive or boring. That's a part of being human.
To declare that music categorically "ingenuine" is a form of thinly
disguised snobbery.
And so we appear to be back to a previous discussion.
-- James
Cl.Massé
news:15176-41...@storefull-3177.bay.webtv.net...
> I've come to the conclusion that those such as James are right to now
> consider this thread done and no longer feed it.
Yes, they shouldn't have participated in the first place. They didn't
contributed anything relevant, but only aggressed me.
Cl.Massé
> You "uneducated brat" incident should not be allowed to colour your
> opinion of the music. Every genre has had it's adherents who weren't
> fully paid up members of human race.
That's just an example epitomizing a more general behaviour, of the full
blast category.
> No, what i said was if you had given us a reason why you like a kind
> of music, for instance why we should all listen to, say Piaf, that
> would have served some purpose and maybe one or two might have gone
> out of their way to listen to her. That is good.
There is no way giving some reasons to a techno lover. Here I can, but
is there really somebody who don't know Piaf? On the other hand, there
is an unknown artist that deserves to be listened to. He has no
particular genre, but he tries and uses all the resources music offers
to put together meaningful pieces like stories. His web site is just in
the signature.
Cl.Massé
> How would one determine the legitimacy of this claim about any piece
> of music? The only music that would be guaranteed of meeting this
> definition would be music composed by myself, performed by myself, in
> the presence of only myself. Any other condition would have suspect
> motives. Once the music was heard by anyone other than the composer,
> the music takes on the taint of "messenger".
Of course. Music is an expression way. But genuine music is expression
of the compositor/performers to the listener. Non genuine music is for
example (designed in order that) the hearer send a message to others
unfortunate/involuntary hearers. There, the music needn't have musical
value.
> "Music for its own sake" was a very common theme in my college years
> in the Music department. For example, music composed for a film was
> not considered "genuine music" because it was written for a purpose.
> But this position doesn't hold up well under inspection, and is
> already discounted in many academic circles.
I don't think so either. Though its content is often simplistic, along
with the pictures it allows the author/actors/composer/performers to
express something to the spectator. It isn't "pure" music, though, but
it is genuine cinema.
> To declare that music categorically "ingenuine" is a form of thinly
> disguised snobbery.
Choosing a style by snobbery is another kind of inguenuine music ("I let
you know I listen to this music in order that you get the message I'm
superior to you. the proof is I have to pay the price of being bored to
death.") Thus, genuine music in that acceptance isn't genuine in mine.
Cl.Massé
> I agree completely with you that people can go to a musical event for
> everything other than the music. I have no problem with that. The
> problem I have is when you step from that statement into drawing a
> conclusion that the music that is presented at such an event lacks
> musicality precisely because of the way it is presented.
It may or it may not, depending.
But when it is about rock, since the purpose is rebellion, that has
consequences. As it is used to repel "uncles", it would fail if it had
musical value. As it challenges the adults, it should break all of
their rules, including the aesthetical ones.
The main market of the record industry is teens. That means most of
them don't keep interested as they grow up. Then, only a little of them
is interested in "pure" music. There are rather interested in all its
rebellious paraphernalia, and in the way to discover and assert their
personality, all of which quickly disappear. Those who keep a lasting
interest aren't all rock lovers.
> Most of us are here to speak about musical content, not sociological
> context. Your comments are taken within that framework.
Music can't be taken out of it's context, which help to understand it.
And sure the music industry care about the sociological context.
> When you say Rock music is all about rebellion AND has no melodic
> content, it's as if someone were to say Classical music is all about
> preserving a class separation in the historical context of
> post-Renaissance patronage as a vestige of inherited social status --
> AND has no rhythmic content. The second statement doesn't follow from
> the first, and is provably inaccurate in both cases.
The reason why there is a development in classical music, is that it was
intended to entertain lazy afternoons. There is no longer a development
in most commercial music because it would loose the listener's
attention. But given that back then, most of the people were sleeping,
they were given to two themes at the beginning, then a lullaby, and then
they were awaken by a cymbal or a timpani roll for the recap.
Searching for a meaning is a lost of time if one doesn't
understand the social surroundings. Even in the greatest pieces, the
development is tiresome, and that is the main cause why many people flee
classical music. Great pieces are usually recognized by their first
and/or last movements. So we could say, classical music is for the idle
AND is bloated by a boring development.
Similarly, in three centuries, maybe some people will try to find a
musical value to the hook, without knowing it had a commercial and
mnemonic purpose, and not a musical one. They should say instead, pop
music is for making money AND has a ugly tag at the end.
> I believe we can discuss this rationally, but it requires that
> everyone involved allow the music to speak for itself, and to approach
> the topic in the mode of scientist, proving through empirical evidence
> the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis.
The topic isn't scientific, and it is a big error to think of it so.
There is nothing more than subjective "I like/I don't like."
> If you're honestly interested in such a discussion, please let me
> know. Do you want to enter an exploration of the melodic content of,
> or lack thereof, based on discussion of concrete examples, chosen by
> those who have both a familiarity and love for the genre. From both
> our comments, I'd say that's neither of us. :^) I'm sure we can open
> it up to requests for examples to be listened to and analyzed.
I found so much melodic value elsewhere as in rock that it seems very
poor in that regards to me. As example I offer Chopin's first waltz in
Ab op69 (which has a rock structure and format), Beethoven's _Brief für
Elise_ or _Ode to Joy_, Brassens' _Les Copains d'Abord_ (that became a
popular jazz theme), Beatles' _Penny Lane_ or _Hey Jude_. They are
meaningful and stand by themselves. If you have an example in rock
matching them in value, I'll perhaps be convinced.
I could consider Eagles' _Hotel California_, but is it really rock?
Comparing with _Life in the Fast Lane_, which is unambiguously rock, we
see that we only have a boisterous riff, the melody is bland, verging to
dumb, and couldn't in any case stand by itself. As for counterpoint,
you'll have it at the next session.
There are pieces labelled rock with *incidental* musical value, but if
we look at what make them to be classified rock, what is the essence of
rock in general, the musical value is much more questionable.
> Are you up to it? You'd have to play by the normal rules of
> discovery -- reserving final judgment until a preponderance of
> evidence, by a consensus of those involved, leads to a conclusion
> based on fact rather than a pre-formed opinion. I'm willing to risk
> that Rock is not melodic. Are you willing to risk that Rock is
> melodic?
I willing to risk to learn the meaning of rock's essence. But I've not
much hope.
Honcho
"There is no way giving some reasons to a techno lover. Here I can, but
is there really somebody who don't know Piaf? On the other hand, there is
an unknown artist that deserves to be listened to. He has no particular
genre, but he tries and uses all the resources music offers
to put together meaningful pieces like stories. His web site is just in
the signature."
--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
http://jude.iuma.com/
______________________________
LOL. However, amongst this target audience more have heard the unknown
than Piaf.
Richard
Mike Morgan
> "Cid Muse" <Cynth...@webtv.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:15736-41...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
>>We could argue this to death but let it imply be said that I disagree
>>with you.
>
>
> I don't discuss your tastes, but let's clarify to dispel any
> misunderstanding.
>
> When I speak about melody, it is really about *melody*, that is,
> something different from rhythm and harmony. A melody contains
> rhythmical and harmonic element, but the melody I speak about contains
> more than that, unlike in rock. Here I mean other intervals than
> unison, seconds, fifths and strident soaring octaves, and diverse note
> lengths. The fact one has to append "melodic" to a genre speak much for
> itself.
>
> When I speak about rock, I don't speak about rock standards, but about
> the bulk of what is shoved in the throat of teens with a pretence of
> quality. If we look more closely, we see that "music" as they say is
> only a little critter among eccentric outfits, obscene acts, forcible
> drum shots, colour lights, weird make-ups, struts and pouts, instrument
> smashing, hyper-powerful speakers, provocative utterances, drugs, in
> short, all the rebellious vocabulary as a kind of purulent teen acne.
> Music really seems subsidiary.
>
> Finally, I often notice that the lovers of music for the young have very
> disparaging words for all that don't fall in their small universe,
> particularly for soft, slow, or perceived as adult music. But they are
> very touchy when their "art" is addressed in less than flattering
> terms, in abstraction to the fact that it is unrarely ludicrous and
> laughable. To bad for them, I persist. If you feel offended by what I
> wrote, perhaps is it because it contains some truth.
>
It seems to me that you're argument amounts to "Rock Music has no
melody, except when it does, but that's not the kind of Rock Music I was
referring to"
As a matter of interest, what is your opinion of Queen? How about Rush
or 10CC. Some of Randy Rhoads' Guitar work was fantastically melodic.
In the modern era you'd be looking at people like Dream Theater for
interesting melodic ideas, or a Rock Guitarist like Tony Macalpine. He
had an exceptionally good ear for melody, partly due to the fact that he
trained as a concert pianist before picking up lead guitar.
The stuff is out there it just doesn't always make it into the mainstream.
--
http://www.soundclick.com/mikemorgan
http://www.soundclick.com/mikemorganinstrumentals
James B. MItchell
> "James B. Mitchell" <jamesbm...@nospamplease.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news:1maZc.10345$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > I agree completely with you that people can go to a musical event for
> > everything other than the music. I have no problem with that. The
> > problem I have is when you step from that statement into drawing a
> > conclusion that the music that is presented at such an event lacks
> > musicality precisely because of the way it is presented.
>
> It may or it may not, depending.
>
> But when it is about rock, since the purpose is rebellion, that has
> consequences. As it is used to repel "uncles", it would fail if it had
> musical value. As it challenges the adults, it should break all of
> their rules, including the aesthetical ones.
No, it would not fail if it had musical value, it would fail if it did
not have different musical value compared to the music of their
uncles. Why else would C.P.E. Bach rebel against Baroque and embrace
Classical? This is an old, old pattern, long before Rock, and it does
not indicate the musical value of the music at all. The statement "As
it is used to repel "uncles", it would fail if it had musical value"
is a non-sequitur. It does not take a lack of musical value to repel
the previous generation.
>
> The main market of the record industry is teens. That means most of
> them don't keep interested as they grow up. Then, only a little of them
> is interested in "pure" music. There are rather interested in all its
> rebellious paraphernalia, and in the way to discover and assert their
> personality, all of which quickly disappear. Those who keep a lasting
> interest aren't all rock lovers.
I'm not sure of your English here. Are you saying that some of them
are not Rock lovers or that they all are no longer Rock lovers?
>
> > Most of us are here to speak about musical content, not sociological
> > context. Your comments are taken within that framework.
>
> Music can't be taken out of it's context, which help to understand it.
> And sure the music industry care about the sociological context.
What I was saying was that you were placing Rock within a sociological
context, but not the other music you were discussing.
I was hoping for a discussion beyond what "I like/I don't like". I'm
pretty clear now that this is your main purpose in continuing this
thread.
>
> > If you're honestly interested in such a discussion, please let me
> > know. Do you want to enter an exploration of the melodic content of,
> > or lack thereof, based on discussion of concrete examples, chosen by
> > those who have both a familiarity and love for the genre. From both
> > our comments, I'd say that's neither of us. :^) I'm sure we can open
> > it up to requests for examples to be listened to and analyzed.
>
> I found so much melodic value elsewhere as in rock that it seems very
> poor in that regards to me. As example I offer Chopin's first waltz in
> Ab op69 (which has a rock structure and format), Beethoven's _Brief für
> Elise_ or _Ode to Joy_, Brassens' _Les Copains d'Abord_ (that became a
> popular jazz theme), Beatles' _Penny Lane_ or _Hey Jude_. They are
> meaningful and stand by themselves. If you have an example in rock
> matching them in value, I'll perhaps be convinced.
>
> I could consider Eagles' _Hotel California_, but is it really rock?
> Comparing with _Life in the Fast Lane_, which is unambiguously rock, we
> see that we only have a boisterous riff, the melody is bland, verging to
> dumb, and couldn't in any case stand by itself. As for counterpoint,
> you'll have it at the next session.
>
> There are pieces labelled rock with *incidental* musical value, but if
> we look at what make them to be classified rock, what is the essence of
> rock in general, the musical value is much more questionable.
This is where I'm completely lost with you. Somehow it seems that you
classify melodic pieces such as "Hotel California" as not being Rock.
Why? I'm sure the general consensus is that it's a Rock song performed
by a Rock band. What may be at the heart of this is what you define
as Rock. Why do you say these songs are not Rock?
-- James