The Musical Credibility of Drummers and Rappers... and other things.

[Lee Knight]

 

Of course did Paul McCCartney knew, other wise he would have sung a C natural. You can sing any note in a melody in the key of C on the second degree of the Dm. If that would not be possible, then all ornamentation, altered and/or additional melodic notes, as well chromatic passing tones would not exist. Singing a C# at the time of a IIm (Dm) second degree in the tonality of C major is possible. Even both simiultanous is possible, i.e. Dm7/C and then singing a C# at this place in time. Just because some people do not know what that is, and how it is called, doesn't mean it does not exist, or that it can not be explained in proper terminology. There is no musical event, harmonic or melodic wise which can not be explained in the terminolgy of the harmony language.

 

 

yes

[blue2blue]

Guitarist are pretty good at the different ways. In harmony/melody relationship, there is always only one way to analyze it correctly, and about half a dozen enharmonic cases when the material can be named in tonality or degree of the designated key, or in the key of the enharmonic tonality or degree. That any segment can be analyzed correctly in two different ways, that is impossible.

I like the lack of equivocation there, but, of course, it's often hard to judge the irony factor in your posts.

 

But assuming you're being serious...

 

• Would you say that that the notion that there is only one pertinent, correct analysis possible for any given piece of music is widespread?

• And, if so, would you say that applies to rhythmic analyses, as well?

• Finally, that leads me to one more question in that vein -- is there only one possible correct way to denote music in 'standard notation' format?

[A. Einstein]

 

Would you say that that the notion that there is only one pertinent, correct analysis possible for any given piece of music is widespread?

 

 

For Western traditional music only one analysis can be correct. This in the sense using the terminology of Western music analysis as it developed over centuries. For example words like "secondary dominant", or "direct modulation", or "immediate modulation" or "altered dominat" are typical teminology describing precisely a particilar musical phenomena.

 

When you invent your own music which is not in any known tradition, then you very likely also have to invent your own terminology on order to explain your music to an outsider.

 

 

 

And, if so, would you say that applies to rhythmic analyses, as well?

 

 

No. Rhythm notated in Western standard notation is an approximation. But for example matrix notation will show a more precise graphic picture of where the rhythmical events takes place. Each culture use other methods of notating rhythm and melodies.

 

 

 

Finally, that leads me to one more question in that vein -- is there only one possible correct way to denote music in 'standard notation' format?

 

 

In Western standard notation with ledger lines, clefs, sixteenths, rests, accidentals and so on, yes.

 

But we have several different notation already in the West which totally differ from the kind called "standard notation". Also many composers write down music in personalized short hand.

 

Other cultures use other forms of notation. For example the notation of the musical instrument Qin, this notation didn't change much for thousands of years and the oldest notation can still be read and the music can be performed off this antique notation. Each musical traditions have other principles, and therefor also use other signs, fall into specific kinds of semiotics.

 

And almost all music traditions also use philosophical terminology, or mythical desciptions of music. When a Guqin player says fire, he means the lowest string, when he say "heavenly notes" he means harmonics. In another culture when a musician says "four door" then he means that we play at the start of the next form four time the same phrase in four different tempi and the last beat of the last phrase falls on one at the start of the next form cycle. There are are thousands of words which precisely decribe musical events.

[Lee Knight]

So... back to Skrillex. The bits I've heard a few weeks back have intrigued me but certainly not overwhelmed me. Still, I was curious so I picked up his CD. You know what? It's effing great. I now officially love it. Crank the crap out that in your car and... I'm smiling. I particularly love this collaboration with the surviving members of the Doors, some faux Jim samples and an awesome and timely very real Jim monologue.

 

I'm sure several will have some very convincing reasons why I shouldn't like this, but that would be like trying to convince me I don't like candy corn, cotton candy or Rocky Road ice cream. I might get tired of them and of course I do but... yummy.

 

Come on baby light my...

 

[video=youtube;nUA8OzQxGxE]

[blue2blue]

Thanks, A. Einstein. Makes sense.

[RockViolin]

I absolutely wish I could sight read. The value is clear to me. I can -- slowly -- parse standard notation (for the most part, some of the tiny little extra marks slip past me sometimes) but it's always an ordeal. I'd say it probably takes me about five minutes to parse two bars of classical guitar of medium complexity -- and by the time I've got to the end of the second bar, I've forgotten the first. But every time I look at notation on first sitting down, it looks like total gibberish and I have to go to memory and reconstruct the whole thing all over again. I don't have any real problems thinking about the underlying music, for the most part. But the notation system flummoxes me every time. And the more time I spend with it, the more it seems to get blurrier and more confusing. (But I've already seen what happens when the topic of alternative notation systems arises around folks who have an investment in standard notation. I've never seen such fury from normally pretty reasonable folks.)

 

It was years from the time I started reading music till the time I was able to effectively read music. I mean read like you're reading my post right now. Add to it that I'd been playing by ear for 4-5 years before I started trying to read, and once my ear had grabbed it I was sort of just looking at the notes and pretending to read for quite a while.

 

It takes a lot of repetition. It's not unlike the process of learning to read the language in scope.

 

I'm a bit the same as you when it comes to improv while reading a chart. I got to where I could do it to some degree, but it was never comfy and I was never me doing it. And of course, 99% of the violinists in the world don't have to be able to do that. I guess I'm sorta well rounded though.

 

I think it's great that there are some that are exploring alternatives to the notation system. But implementing it...whoa. Maybe those you mention that were in a fury were being reasonable. I know it's a stretch, but a steering wheel might not be the best way to steer a car, but there are lots of reasons to stick with it. Imagine the furor that would come from declaring that all cars from here on will have a type of game controller instead of a steering wheel.

[RockViolin]

I just wanted to thank you for understanding why I was frustrated because so many were defending or supporting a false statement ("it's odd how most piano teachers especially in those days were only focused on teaching you to read music"). Previous to that, people had related negative experiences with music teachers, and I never commented because I think that's perfectly valid. I totally understand that, having had negative experiences with a music teacher myself. I only got cheesed off when people began supporting a completely false statement. Again, thank you for understanding that. And yes, I was the only one who "freaked out" because I'm quite frankly the only one stupid enough to do that anymore, given the other thread. You can be sure I won't be doing that any more!

 

You're welcome!

[blue2blue]

 

Here's what I 'like' about Skrillex's pop: it's not as insanely boring as a lot club music. Yes, it is extremely repetitive, but the element mix keeps changing up, even if the tracks come back around over and over to the same signature elements (people like anchors and here they pass for hooks).

 

But, most of all, I'm deeply amused that he has been able to get so much mileage out of his signature pneumatic wrench sound. More power to him on that.

 

Would I have liked Skrillex better 12 or 15 years ago before I was sick to death of club music sounds and actually still engaged with some electronic dance music? Maybe. I was a lot more forgiving then, judging from looking back on some of my favorites from the era.

 

And, at least on this track, I'm glad to have little or no autotuned vocals to screw with my ears. But the mega-squashing remains a problem for me.

 

And, probably the real deal-breaker: I really learned to hate sound drops back in the late 90s. It seemed like almost all the electronica 'producer' who could string together a few loops -- unsurprisingly, perhaps -- could nonetheless never think of anything good to put in the foreground. Since most of them were unfamiliar with the construction of melodies and/or had apparently been bottle fed while listening to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts on endless repeat, all they could seem to think of to do was to drop 'found' sound bits in front of their constructions. Although their imagination with regard to sources for the finding seemed pathetically tradition-bound.

 

Happily, on some level, in some sense, the labels started figuring out that remixes, et al, were the new folk music [for 15 minutes, anyhow] and started releasing 'acapellas' of pop stars, finally giving us a little respite from the endless procession of newscasters, sleep learning hypnotists, and hi fi/stereo demonstration record announcers.

[blue2blue]

It was years from the time I started reading music till the time I was able to effectively read music. I mean read like you're reading my post right now. Add to it that I'd been playing by ear for 4-5 years before I started trying to read, and once my ear had grabbed it I was sort of just looking at the notes and pretending to read for quite a while. It takes a lot of repetition. It's not unlike the process of learning to read the language in scope. I'm a bit the same as you when it comes to improv while reading a chart. I got to where I could do it to some degree, but it was never comfy and I was never me doing it. And of course, 99% of the violinists in the world don't have to be able to do that. I guess I'm sorta well rounded though. I think it's great that there are some that are exploring alternatives to the notation system. But implementing it...whoa. Maybe those you mention that were in a fury were being reasonable. I know it's a stretch, but a steering wheel might not be the best way to steer a car, but there are lots of reasons to stick with it. Imagine the furor that would come from declaring that all cars from here on will have a type of game controller instead of a steering wheel.

Ah, that makes me feel a little better, actually, knowing that learning to really read standard notation wasn't overnight or easy for you.

 

And I do know that, however much harder it might be for me than for someone else (we all have stuff that comes easy and other stuff that doesn't), with an appropriate discipline, I could eventually master sight reading. (Given enough time, mind you. Which at this point, is far from a given. )

 

With regard to alternative notation systems, I would never try to get others to 'give up' standard notation. If something is not 'broken' for a given individual, I see no reason to beat on them to 'fix' it. But it is tempting to consider what benefits might be derived from educating new students in alternative notation systems. (That said, I think you'd want to be able to demonstrate some real benefits. If one was just exchanging one seemingly arbitrary, logic-obscured system for another one that was no easier to learn for the majority of would be musicians, what's the point?

[blue2blue]

It was years from the time I started reading music till the time I was able to effectively read music. I mean read like you're reading my post right now. Add to it that I'd been playing by ear for 4-5 years before I started trying to read, and once my ear had grabbed it I was sort of just looking at the notes and pretending to read for quite a while. It takes a lot of repetition. It's not unlike the process of learning to read the language in scope. I'm a bit the same as you when it comes to improv while reading a chart. I got to where I could do it to some degree, but it was never comfy and I was never me doing it. And of course, 99% of the violinists in the world don't have to be able to do that. I guess I'm sorta well rounded though. I think it's great that there are some that are exploring alternatives to the notation system. But implementing it...whoa. Maybe those you mention that were in a fury were being reasonable. I know it's a stretch, but a steering wheel might not be the best way to steer a car, but there are lots of reasons to stick with it. Imagine the furor that would come from declaring that all cars from here on will have a type of game controller instead of a steering wheel.

Ah, that makes me feel a little better, actually, knowing that learning to really read standard notation wasn't overnight or easy for you.

 

And I do know that, however much harder it might be for me than for someone else (we all have stuff that comes easy and other stuff that doesn't), with an appropriate discipline, I could eventually master sight reading. (Given enough time, mind you. Which at this point, is far from a given. )

 

With regard to alternative notation systems, I would never try to get others to 'give up' standard notation. If something is not 'broken' for a given individual, I see no reason to beat on them to 'fix' it. But it is tempting to consider what benefits might be derived from educating new students in alternative notation systems. (That said, I think you'd want to be able to demonstrate some real benefits. If one was just exchanging one seemingly arbitrary, logic-obscured system for another one that was no easier to learn for the majority of would be musicians, what's the point?

[Folder]

I just wanted to thank you for understanding why I was frustrated because so many were defending or supporting a false statement ("it's odd how most piano teachers especially in those days were only focused on teaching you to read music"). Previous to that, people had related negative experiences with music teachers, and I never commented because I think that's perfectly valid. I totally understand that, having had negative experiences with a music teacher myself. I only got cheesed off when people began supporting a completely false statement. Again, thank you for understanding that. And yes, I was the only one who "freaked out" because I'm quite frankly the only one stupid enough to do that anymore, given the other thread. You can be sure I won't be doing that any more!

 

There are two "basic" things that a music teacher can teach. Reading music and or music theory.

 

Technique, timing, key signatures, phrasing, rests, rhythm, tone, using the pedals, staccato, legato, dynamics (pianissimo, piano, fortissimo), interpretation of the music, feel and backgrounds on the composers is all supplementary information that may be useful for a music student.

 

But none of it will explain to a piano student "what a chord is".

 

I have never known anyone who took piano lessons who was taught what a chord was by "their piano teacher".

 

Your experience may be different but after reading a months worth of comments and repeatedly being accused of making a false statement, I hereby officially rescind my apology for offending anyone.

 

If you don't get it that's your problem.

[Ernest Buckley]

But none of it will explain to a piano student "what a chord is". I have never known anyone who took piano lessons who was taught what a chord was by "their piano teacher".

 

I`m not insulted at all by your posts but I guess my teacher broke the mold with me...

 

After around 3 years of piano studies she pulled out a lead sheet and gave me a lesson on chords. I understood it pretty quickly because I had all the theory to back it up and 3 years of lessons. I came in the next lesson and played what I had for her then she gave me other ideas to make the chords interesting instead of just hitting them out in root position: C-E-G, G-B-D, F-A-C, C-E-G... she introduced inversions, rolling in the left hand and some other nifty moves that I still use to this day. After a few lessons of that, I decided that was all I needed so I stopped taking lessons, got a Church job immediately after that, here I am 22 years later.

[flemtone]

I'd just like to chime in here and say I'm surprised Blue hasn't accidentally locked the thread yet. Way to go, Blue! :phil:

[Ernest Buckley]

I'd just like to chime in here and say I'm surprised Blue hasn't accidentally locked the thread yet. Way to go, Blue! :phil:

 

LMAO... thats hilarious.

 

Now when I see that a thread was closed, I scroll to the bottom of it to see who the last post was and sure enough... there he is.

[A. Einstein]

blueIIblue has an extremly complex character and mind,

 

all of Woody Allen's characters are junior league compared to him.

[blue2blue]

I'd just like to chime in here and say I'm surprised Blue hasn't accidentally locked the thread yet. Way to go, Blue! :phil:

High fives?

[blue2blue]

I`m not insulted at all by your posts but I guess my teacher broke the mold with me... After around 3 years of piano studies she pulled out a lead sheet and gave me a lesson on chords. I understood it pretty quickly because I had all the theory to back it up and 3 years of lessons. I came in the next lesson and played what I had for her then she gave me other ideas to make the chords interesting instead of just hitting them out in root position: C-E-G, G-B-D, F-A-C, C-E-G... she introduced inversions, rolling in the left hand and some other nifty moves that I still use to this day. After a few lessons of that, I decided that was all I needed so I stopped taking lessons, got a Church job immediately after that, here I am 22 years later.

See now -- that's why most of them won't teach you theory!

[RockViolin]

High fives?

 

Noooooo. You get a gold star sticker right next to your name so everybody can see you've made progress.

 

Maybe you'd prefer the nice shiny blue star?

 

 

[blue2blue]

I'm the only guy whose resume has a happy face and two gold stars from teacher on it. Always impresses the suits.

[workstation M.I]

 

Probably not...seems like everyone pretty much agrees credibility, or lack thereof, lies with individual artists.

 

 

I prefer the term "musician" as to gather all of my skills under one roof-much easier that way.

[A. Einstein]

A few days ago meet a songwriter who also makes music sheets of his compositions.

 

To make it easy for people reading his songs he notated all his songs in C major and A minor tonality, because he thinks when music is notated without accidentals, then it is easy to read the music as Do Re Mi Fa So, or La Ti Do Re Mi.

 

Love the guy.

[LordBTY]

 

A few days ago meet a songwriter who also makes music sheets of his compositions. To make it easy for people reading his songs he notated all his songs in C major and A minor tonality, because he thinks when music is notated without accidentals, then it is easy to read the music as Do Re Mi Fa So, or La Ti Do Re Mi. Love the guy.

 

 

As a composer, I'd hate writing that.

 

As a singer, I'd love reading that.