Classical Music Forum banner
581 - 600 of 641 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
I do, and given what I know in combination with not only the lack of arguments to the contrary from anyone in this thread but also the many irrational non-arguments, the validity of OP's statement is cemented further by it.
It's always nice for someone with a grand total of 3(!) posts to appear in a forum and tell everyone they're wrong because they know so. And in response to this we are supposed to bow down to your alleged expertise? Well, two can play at that game: you're wrong because of what I know. There. That was easy, wasn't it?

Also, perhaps you don't know how discussion works but the burden of proof is on the people making the claims, not the people attempting to refute it. We could simply sit back and say "prove it" and the inability of the OP (or yourself) to demonstrate your claim with anything remotely approaching objective, rigorous evidence could (and should) be met with the same skepticism that all such claims are met with. You have no reason (other than your say-so) that the OP's claim is sound in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Sibelius, Beethoven, Satie, Debussy
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
^ Thanks. It crossed my mind to reply just as you have done, but having been round the block with the OP already on this point, I felt disinclined (on this occasion) to repeat the exercise for the benefit of a newcomer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I don't fault you for assuming I want to convince you since most people would. I don't consider either of you someone willing to be convinced though and hence don't care to.
My messages here are solely meant for those opposed to your opinions to let you know that you are indeed right and not to let this thread frustrate you too much, since it's merely the baseless opinions of a bunch of obviously uneducated people, as is the norm on the internet. There are plenty of people who agree with you and see through the nonsense of these people as well. They just don't generally waste their lives trying to gain self-worth over the number of posts they have or the time they spent on an internet forum and hence usually aren't here or else know better than to spin in circles with these peoples' non-arguments.
The fact that they would not only actively gloat about the time they wasted here in response to me but respond to my earlier accusation of using ad hominem by declaring a low number of posts on an internet forum as some sort of character flaw somehow impacting the discussion or validity of arguments only makes the situation all the more obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
To reiterate: yes, Chipia, you and anyone else noticing this very obvious trend are indeed correct. Some laymen falsely claim otherwise, a handful of which are in this thread and whose bizarre arguments can be as safely ignored as those of a flat earth conspiracy theorist, particularly after they have made as many and ignored as many good ones as in this thread. Ignoring them and moving on will save you a lot of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
I don't fault you for assuming I want to convince you since most people would. I don't consider either of you someone willing to be convinced though and hence don't care to.
Quite the contrary: I'm always willing to be convinced by good evidence, but the evidence has been in incredibly short supply in this thread. In fact, I even said that, based on my own experience with pop music past-and-present, that my intuitions tell me that what the OP says probably has some validity at least if we restrict his definition to Top 40 pop. The only difference between him, you, and me is that I'm not willing to declare anything approaching certainty based on my limited experience and intuition, and cherry-picking examples doesn't (or shouldn't) impress anyone. Claims like the OP require a healthy, representative sample size and a solid methodology for analyses of those samples. There is no such thing that's been presented in this thread.

...since it's merely the baseless opinions of a bunch of obviously uneducated people...
:LOL: Not sure anything more needs to be said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
Well folks, forget the death of pop harmony, how about the death of hard earned creativity....

I have seen the future of music. It’s scary, and utterly brilliant. - Music Business Worldwide
The article portrays the app's success much more like an advertisement than analysis. The idea that you could sing "a verse and a chorus into your phone, uploading this vocal to a platform, and that platform wrapping an entire professional musical production around it, all in the style of your choosing" seems to be a rather rosy prediction. I don't really foresee any brilliant songs coming out of this. There will be no Bohemian Rhapsody, no Carry On My Wayward Son, no All You Need Is Love, no Whip It.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
Since the primary proponents appear to be movie production studios and other large providers of content, it seems that their hope is that this app will be a way for those entities to create content cheaply and quickly with little concern for creative excellence.

This has nothing to do with the most gifted and best songwriters and other music creators who will continue to do what that have always done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
The article portrays the app's success much more like an advertisement than analysis. The idea that you could sing "a verse and a chorus into your phone, uploading this vocal to a platform, and that platform wrapping an entire professional musical production around it, all in the style of your choosing" seems to be a rather rosy prediction. I don't really foresee any brilliant songs coming out of this. There will be no Bohemian Rhapsody, no Carry On My Wayward Son, no All You Need Is Love, no Whip It.
Goodbye Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan, or Bruce or even No Doubt..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
can always cherrypick counterexamples, but harmony has declined as a feature of popular music since the GASB days, hard to argue otherwise. Of course, harmony is not the sole metric, and if you emphasize groove or production or other aspects naturally harmony becomes less important.
You might find this interesting. I agree with most of it. A long article goes on to explain what they're talking about.

“Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. Often there are more and sometimes the chord sequences even come close to endangering the songs' musical comprehensibility. There is, however, some kind of harmonic structure beneath these remarkable chord progressions, preventing this to happen. In the Beatles' songs each of the basic chords can be replaced by several other types of chords. Separated by minor third intervals, the tones of these stand-in chords show a diagonal relationship. This principle of diagonal substitution helps the listeners to understand the songs musically. Closer study of the early Beatles' songs reveals yet another point of support. In each song there is a tight relation between the clusters of these stand-in chords and the semantics of the lyrics. As the meaning of the words in a song does shift along two dimensions, the chords will shift along the same lines. This correlation between words and chords offers a flexible way to shift emotional meanings in conversational contexts.”

 

·
Banned
Bernd Alois Zimmermann
Joined
·
592 Posts
The Beatles give Lil Ludi faith in masses, at least the Boomer masses. They knew from the get go that John, Paul and George (three working-class Scousers of Irish heritage) were game changers. Their first single, “Please, Please Me”, is a work of unparalleled pop genius. Only Roy Orbison and the Beach Boys from this era in the early 1960s are in the same stratosphere…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
The Beatles give Lil Ludi faith in masses, at least the Boomer masses. They knew from the get go that John, Paul and George (three working-class Scousers of Irish heritage) were game changers. Their first single, “Please, Please Me”, is a work of unparalleled pop genius. Only Roy Orbison and the Beach Boys from this era in the early 1960s are in the same stratosphere…
It wasn't my experience. Is it an exaggeration growing out of so much that's been written and hyped?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
You might find this interesting. I agree with most of it. A long article goes on to explain what they're talking about.

“Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. Often there are more and sometimes the chord sequences even come close to endangering the songs' musical comprehensibility. There is, however, some kind of harmonic structure beneath these remarkable chord progressions, preventing this to happen. In the Beatles' songs each of the basic chords can be replaced by several other types of chords. Separated by minor third intervals, the tones of these stand-in chords show a diagonal relationship. This principle of diagonal substitution helps the listeners to understand the songs musically. Closer study of the early Beatles' songs reveals yet another point of support. In each song there is a tight relation between the clusters of these stand-in chords and the semantics of the lyrics. As the meaning of the words in a song does shift along two dimensions, the chords will shift along the same lines. This correlation between words and chords offers a flexible way to shift emotional meanings in conversational contexts.”

I find this interesting.

I've always thought that between the two of them (Lennon & McCartney) (and later, Harrison) that they were brilliant and intuitive songwriters. They did this without any formal training in music theory.

And this only addresses "these remarkable chord progressions"; some of their songs are pure wackadoodle when it comes to time signature changes. They would often shift time signatures effortlessly midstream, and sometimes it's so seamless that you don't even notice. They were kings of "messing with time signatures".

Happiness Is A Warm Gun is an obvious example, although it's basically a medley of four song fragments. It flows from “4/4” to “5/5” to “9/8” to “10/8,” to name a few.



There's Across the Universe, where the time signature changes depending on what's needed to make the lyrics fit. Still, it flows quite naturally.



One of the quirkiest might be Good Morning Good Morning, where the verses are apparently in an alternate universe:

3/4 | 5/4 | 2/4
3/4 | 5/4 | 4/4
3/4 | 4/4 | 2/4
3/4 | 3/4



One of the most famous is All You Need Is Love. Again with the verses being somewhat off kilter, with the first two lines being either in 7/4 (or, perhaps, alternating 4/4 & 3/4 measures). This makes it the only song with a 7/4 meter to reach the Top Ten (Money, from Pink Floyd, only got to # 13)



And the wickedest of them all, from George Harrison in 1969, Here Comes the Sun, with the bridge being in several iterations of an 8/8 | 7/8 | 6/8 | 5/8 repeating pattern (or perhaps a 6/8 | 5/8 | 8/8 | 7/8, or maybe it's 6/8 | 5/8 | 4/4 | 7/8 . . . or perhaps you might be hearing it as a repeated pattern of 3/8 | 3/8 | 3/8 | 2/8 | 6/4 | 3/8).


Oddly enough, all but one of these examples are from John Lennon, although McCartney contributed his share of subtle oddball meter changes, like in Martha My Dear, with an added half measure in the middle of the verses, or a single insert of a couple of 3/8 bars before the end of the 2nd chorus of Back In the USSR. You might not even notice it in Blackbird - the verses start with in 3/4, continue with a few bars in 4/4, a single bar of 2/4, then back to 4/4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
The author of the video in the thread had a very nice discussion with Ted Gioia, though the discussion is more about the influence on the state of the music industry, particularly streaming, on music.



One thing I agree with Gioia on is poo-poohing the idea of inherently lower attention spans in children, something I've been hearing since about the 1990s. I think there may be indirect reasons for this (children having less leisure time than prior generations, and more competition for that time) but it certainly isn't something that's just inherent to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
not that it should matter much given that throughout history it was rare for performing artists to also be the authors of whatever text they were setting to music. It was even a rarity in 20th century pop prior to Dylan and The Beatles normalized it because of their immense popularity.
one of the most astonishing facts i learned about the charts was the first woman to top the UK charts with a song she wrote herself was Kate Bush, all the way in 1978.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
one of the most astonishing facts i learned about the charts was the first woman to top the UK charts with a song she wrote herself was Kate Bush, all the way in 1978.
Kate Bush is a great artist. Very quirky, original, and creative, always trying to find ways to combine genuine artistry with pop craftsmanship. Her Hounds of Love had a first half full of hit singles (especially Running Up That Hill) while the second half was a conceptual suite. Even the track you refer to as the first #1 by a solo female artist (Wuthering Heights) is an utterly unique pop song. I'm particularly fond of her Aerial, which is a more recent release, especially moving tracks like A Coral Room:
 
581 - 600 of 641 Posts
Top