Jump to content

davd_indigo

Members
  • Content Count

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About davd_indigo

  • Rank
    Rookie
  1. And if the current legal ignorance existed circa 1967, the Beatles could be cleaning up legally. Anyone old enough to remember all the harpsichords in pop songs after Sgt. Pepper ? And harpsichords with tambourines ? Harpsichords combined with tambourines. Any musician would spew out his coffee if it were suggested to be copyrightable in 1967. It's not remotely laughable these days, legally speaking.
  2. I believe this is partly a consequence of people who only know loop based music and Hip-Hop. A musical fragment or motif in their minds becomes a full fledged composition - especially if this little musical fragment is repeated over and over. I think someone should employ a team of knowledgeable musicologists to pore over music by Bach, Schubert, Mendelssohn, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Perry Como, Robert Johnson, and so on and so on. Then find corresponding patterns in the form arrangement ideas and little motifs like the Katy Perry/Flame. Then illustrate these things to the ignorants who are bringing bogus litigation. As a lifelong musician who's still working at cultivating my musical skills, I'm frustrated by the level of ignorance in the legal puppet masters. I listened to about 2 minutes of the Katy Perry and 2 minutes of the Flame - I heard a repeated motif - in the key of Bb minor Db C Bb in the Katy Perry. In the Flame song I heard C B A. This constitutes a copyrighted composition ? Some more fodder below for some scum-sucking lawyers. With a little thought , others could come up with more examples using the "compositions" (i.e. tiny musical idea). Boogie Chillin Boogie Riff "Spirit In The Sky"/Multiple Canned Heat songs/ ZZ Top "La Grange" Hang On Sloopy I IV V "Guantanamera"/"Louie Louie" (with a minor V chord) Pink Descending accompanying motif similar (but not the same) to Katie Perry "Dark Horse" What About Us
  3. I Googled "Bolton UK open mics" and found several venues. I also checked "Manchester open mics" (Google said Manchester and Bolton are about 12 miles from each other). I'd be more inclined to attend some sort of jam session or open mic night. The difference between someone calling themselves a musician and hearing them actually play music can be huge. I need to hear a musician to know if their playing strikes my fancy. Some do. Many don't.
  4. We agree. I had a music theory teacher once make a BTW comment. He said that composers created their music, and theorists came along later and analyzed and labeled/codified things. Sometimes people study and learn traditional music theory or jazz music theory and they believe they are learning rules that are NOT to be broken. Problem. But, I'd say that music theory has value. Let's take "My Funny Valentine"and the intro to "Michelle". "Valentine" has (in the key of C) chord changes in Cminor with descending half steps C, B, Bb and A . The intro to "Michelle" descends (in F minor) F, E, Eb , D, Db, and C. The other notes in the tonic chord are static. About five years ago I discovered that someone gave the name, "line cliche" to this movement. Someone somewhere observed and labeled it with a name. What use is this gibberish ? Communication. I could tell someone that the intro or verse of a song uses line cliche and they'd have a clue about playing the song. This is probably of little interest to most. But if you play pickup gigs with another musician and don't get to rehearse, any common language is useful. I basically think learning theory along with learning to play by ear can open up bigger worlds to a growing musician. Growing, learning, cultivating music.
  5. A largely neglected but valuable skill, by my observations at least, is playing by ear. Maybe that's partly what you're getting at by "learn the instrument". I was schooled in music theory. And played Bach and Beethoven, Brahms in college. But a few years later, I was having lunch with a gigging guitar player in a pizza joint that had a juke box. He played a few current popular songs on it (this was circa 1979 maybe) and pointed out the bass line. The bass, in large part (but not exclusively) is key to being able to play songs by ear. Of course, in 1979 there was still some pop music with harmonic movement - chord changes. This pizza joint juke box experience was eye opening - actually ear opening for me. Add to the bass line, chord inversions and chord voicings, complex altered chords (often called jazz chords). These are the tools of making music beyond the simplistic pop music that passes my ears in public spaces. Current mass music seems to be harmonically semi-literate. More concerned with synthesizer "tones" and loops and such. Anyway, I've come to believe that the tools necessary for playing by ear should be taught. Whether formally, as music theory, or practically , as in "this is a I chord. This is a (minor) vi chord" and applying these to actual songs. And BTW, the Beatles were no slackers when it came to interesting and sometimes pretty sophisticated harmonies. Erroll Garner (a legendary jazz pianist) never learned to read music. He was called an "ear player". But he composed "Misty". Of course he started playing around 3 (IIRC) and had pianists around him to learn from.
×
×
  • Create New...