minor chords attract teenagers - what else ?

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:17 pm

Right you are it's about 1:50 or so. Still, I'd like to hear it.

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:02 pm

aqualand666 wrote:

cucco, when i ask questions its not like you just asked this one. you want to prove you know a thing or two about music theory? then reflect it on an instrument. too many big music theory buffs can express so little of what they know on their instrument that its not even funny. if this isn't descriptive of you then i am sorry. besides its not even as if the historical aspects of the development of music theory are any more than looking up a quick little fact sheet like this guy just did.

i thought you weren't about spec sheets? express these things on your instrument in a musically melodic fashion and discuss the psychoacoustics of the matter, hell you should be good at that. maybe just not so good at the reflective playing part? is that why you cling to institutions like music theory and engineering so tightly?

Okay....

You're welcome to pick on my engineering skills or call me a hack in that department all you'd like. I have no fragility to my engineering ego.

But........
let me make this clear.

Don't fuck with my horn playing.

If you would like to hear me perform and "apply" some of that music theory and "reflective playing" as you put it, you are welcome to attend ANY of the concerts that I perform in the DC metropolitan area. Hell, I'll pay your admission.

Up until this point, I have remained civil. Don't piss me off.

PS -
Sorry Dave...feel free to edit me if you'd like. Embarassed

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:02 am

someone wrote (can't remeber now who)

Quote:

Joe:

You shouldn't bite the hand that provides your forum. I think the topic's intent was to promote conversation. Which it has.

Well it certainly promote some (conversation) from me.......mission accomplished, just happy to do my part.

And I never bite anything unless I intend to eat it, and I would offer that up as advice, but I think it's pretty much common sense to most people by now.

And personally I haven't played a minor chord since I left puberty, but I wouldn't recommend that for everyone.
I heard diminished chords are for old people. Majors are for college students, and augmenteds are for the demented, but that is all just speculation and theory on my part presently.
I once wrote a song and offered a $10,000 reward for any person that could find the correct chord that would turn it into a master piece, to date no one has found the 'missing chord' and the work is still unpublished, I suspect it will be found someday after I am dead and I will be put in the same league as Beethoven or Frank Zappa. But I'm not going to wait around for that to happen. So I have now set about on a new challenge, I have written an A major chord and I am offering a $10,000 reward for anyone who can come up with a million dollar melody. Of course I will have to pay you after I sell the song for a million, to prove that indeed you did write a million dollar melody. I know that doesn't seem right, but those are the rules.
And of course only a fool couldn't guess why kids like minor chords....................because, because, altogether now because THEY ARE MINORS...get it, it's a joke.... Laughing

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:31 pm

"I once wrote a song and offered a $10,000 reward for any person that could find the correct chord that would turn it into a master piece, to date no one has found the 'missing chord' and the work is still unpublished"

well perhaps it was because the chord was already there... just poorly executed or perhaps the other chords were wrong....

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:39 pm

dementedchord wrote:

Quote:

well perhaps it was because the chord was already there... just poorly executed or perhaps the other chords were wrong....

Dude you are a genius, I think you are on to something there.

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:45 am

well all of my friends and i completly disagree with that. we like bands like Four Year Strong, Hellogoodbye, Sherwood, pretty much any thing that isnt dark and metal. We like to be uplifted when we listen to music. check out Sherwood to understand what im talking about

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:01 pm

JoeJoeMan wrote:

Dude you are a genius, I think you are on to something there.

why so nice of you to acknowledge it...lol...

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:30 pm

FWIW: Most power chords have no obvious third interval in them....they're usually just root and fifth and octaves, all to get that proper "sound". (This way, it's neither major nor minor; the overtones rack up to something almost in-between, and combined with distortion, it's why they sound as ballsy as they do.)

As for well-tempered tuning, it's something any musician (2-minute wonders or not) should know about....it's about as basic a theory/revelation of the ages as the printing press was, or the invention of the electric light bulb.

Thankfully, the Water-boy is gone, and soon to be forgotten....good riddance, as well.

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:30 am

JoeH wrote:

FWIW: Most power chords have no obvious third interval in them....they're usually just root and fifth and octaves, all to get that proper "sound". (This way, it's neither major nor minor; the overtones rack up to something almost in-between, and combined with distortion, it's why they sound as ballsy as they do.)

Thank you Aaron Copland for popularizing the Quintal and Quartal harmonies so sought after by the likes of Poison, AC/DC, and Def Lepard! Laughing

JoeH wrote:

As for well-tempered tuning, it's something any musician (2-minute wonders or not) should know about....it's about as basic a theory/revelation of the ages as the printing press was, or the invention of the electric light bulb.

Amen Joe! Preach on...

A musician not knowing the foudnations of music as presented to us by JS Bach is like a Christian not learning about Jesus Christ! (Not to equate music to a religion, nor to impose any such religion as that's not my bag baby...)

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:16 am

JoeH wrote:

FWIW: Most power chords have no obvious third interval in them....they're usually just root and fifth and octaves, all to get that proper "sound". (This way, it's neither major nor minor; the overtones rack up to something almost in-between, and combined with distortion, it's why they sound as ballsy as they do.)

I would say that all power chords have no third. If it has a third, then it is just a good old fashioned major or minor triad. Good point about the overtone build-up. I learned that power chords were ambiguous in quality, and this explains why.

JoeH wrote:

Thankfully, the Water-boy is gone, and soon to be forgotten....good riddance, as well.

He was a Mr. Mxylplk if ever there was one.

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:25 pm

cuccho wrote :

Quote:

A musician not knowing the foudnations of music as presented to us by JS Bach is like a Christian not learning about Jesus Christ! (Not to equate music to a religion, nor to impose any such religion as that's not my bag baby...)

You might want to rethink that statement. Some of the most influencial musicians of our time, we're complete void of music theory. Who can show use their music prowess and name some ?

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:46 pm

JoeJoeMan wrote:

cuccho wrote :

Quote:

A musician not knowing the foudnations of music as presented to us by JS Bach is like a Christian not learning about Jesus Christ! (Not to equate music to a religion, nor to impose any such religion as that's not my bag baby...)

You might want to rethink that statement. Some of the most influencial musicians of our time, we're complete void of music theory. Who can show use their music prowess and name some ?

Hey JoeJoeMan...

1st, it's not TOO hard to spell my name right. At worst, you could highlight and hit ctrl-c then ctrl-v.

2nd, I stand firm by my statement. The following artists all are "influencial" (arguably the MOST influential of the 20th century) and all of them had music training to some degree.

Miles Davis
Ramsey Lewis
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
James Brown
John Lennon
Billy Joel
Aretha Franklin
Sting
Paul Simon
Paul McCartney
Elton John
Freddie Mercury

Furthermore, the folks responsible for recording most of these individuals are well versed (pun kind of intended) in Bach. He is the FATHER of music as we know it. (When the angels listen to music, they listen to Mozart. When God listens to music, he listens to Bach.)

Personally, I don't consider an individual "talented" or "influential" without the credentials of at least some background. In fact, I would refer to them as lucky hacks if they are so fortunate as to land a record deal without it. (Or more specifically in this day and age - GOOD LOOKING, untalented hacks.)

I test your musical knowledge and ask you to identify someone who is strongly influential in music who did not have a background which included some education on Bach. BTW - neither the Pussycat Dolls nor the Spice Girls count.

J

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:57 pm

JoeJoeMan wrote:

cuccho wrote :

Quote:

A musician not knowing the foudnations of music as presented to us by JS Bach is like a Christian not learning about Jesus Christ! (Not to equate music to a religion, nor to impose any such religion as that's not my bag baby...)

You might want to rethink that statement. Some of the most influencial musicians of our time, we're complete void of music theory. Who can show use their music prowess and name some ?

TGIF, folks.

I wanted to go about this somewhat systematically, since there are so many.

I Googled up the info for most influential artists (I am using the all-encompassing term "Rock" to describe quite a few styles).

http://www.concertlivewire.com/top10in.htm

Using the above list, and Wikipedia entries, etc. as bio information, we see that out of the top ten,

The Beatles - John - no; Paul - yes - son of pro musician, minimal classical training; George - no; Richard (Ringo) - hell, no

Bonus:

Stuart (Stu) - uh, no. He was a gifted artist, and was Hollywood in his looks, but no serious musical threat.

Peter (Pete) - I don't think so! His momma owned a basement club in town, so it may have been a "pick me 'cause it's my ball/PA thing."

Bob Dylan - no, unless his guitar lessons in college included classical
Jimi Hendrix - No formal music education, but you know what's up. Don't mess.
Kraftwerk - YES - two of them met at an arts school
The Velvet Underground - surprisingly, no. Read up on Lou's Wikipedia, though. It is interesting.
The Sex Pistols - hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahahahahahhaha
Elvis - think Justin Timberfake, but with more talent. He was the first to make serious money on that type of hustle. No classical music training. He hung out on the other side of the tracks at the clubs and joints, and respectfully learned the craft.
Dr. Dre - Read the Wikipedia if you don't know anything about hip hop's history. Only then will you be able to appreciate his contribution, and place on this list. He is studying classical NOW, because he has some film projects lined up, and he wants to do some scoring.

Eddie Van Halen - YES. The most solid out of any of the top ten, or second to Kraftwerk's members. He WON classical piano competitions as a kid, and only devoted himself to guitar later. The old bass player in his group studied music in college.
David Bowie - did his love and original choice of vocation, the sax, include classical studies? hmmmm

Did you know? - Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones, his son by first wife, Angie, went to the same undergrad as I did, but two years later (The College of Wooster). I feel privileged to have attended a school were people who have the money to pay for any school in the world would go. *sniff*

Anyway, there you have it.

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:13 pm

NOTE: I was specifically looking for formal classical music training.

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:45 pm

You might want to rethink that statement. Some of the most influencial musicians of our time, we're complete void of music theory. Who can show use their music prowess and name some ?

Perhaps.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, and each case is different.

Some of our greatest musical treasures have had no reading or theory ability (Paul McCartney for one) while others are a double or triple threat, in that they were schooled as well as cosmically inspired. (Duke Ellington comes to mind...ever try to cut some of HIS charts???) I'm a die hard Beatles fan, and I doubt they'd be what they ended up being if they were forced into schools. But McCartney certainly knows what he's missing, and he had no qualms hiring an "Interpreter/scorer" for his "Standing Stone" Oratorio. (Which admittedly, sank pretty quickly not long after its release....) Others like Sting and Billy Joel, even Elton John, are musicians who know both and flip between the two when it's needed.

I CAN tell you from my own personal experience, that it's often two separate and distinct parts of the brain that work when reading music vs. feeling it, or playing by wrote. There are advantages/disadvantages to each.

I prefer to play by feel, but I can also sightread, (or at least read, nowadays - I'm a little rusty!) and I'm classically trained on piano. There have always been moments when I flip between the two systems in my head - memory vs. reading, and it can be tricky...kind've like the way a car feels when you're driving on a street with old trolley tracks. The tracks can pull you along automatically (like sight reading) but it takes a little effort -a pull on the steering wheel, let's say - to get you out of the tracks and onto the street on your own path (playing by feel). Either one will get you there, but you have to be careful during difficult music to navigate the two.

Many classical musicians (not all of course!) sight-read only, and cannot - even with a gun to their heads - play off-the-cuff or improvise by ear. (Tell them they've got the solo in the middle section of a twelve bar blues in E, and they're liable to sh*t a brick, asking you: well, where's the score?!?!?!)

Many other musicians only play by feel: Boogie bands, blues, rock, pop, and just about anything else you can name. Those people always have plenty of reasons (excuses?) why they don't read, or don't want to, or never learned to read - something about it messing with their "Feel" or whatever, but I don't necessarily buy into that. (I think it's more fear or laziness, but that's just me....) It's true for some, maybe 25% or so, but certainly not all.

Reading music & knowing the theory helps diverse musicians connect much more quickly in professional environments. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Sure, you can take a week to learn a band's repertoire by memory - all in order to play one pickup gig with them, or you can read from a book in a 3 hr rehearsal the day of the gig. (In Jazz, pop, etc., plenty of folks do just that!) And what happens the night that your lead vocalist suddenly decides to drop his or her signature hit song (The one with all those complex changes) a half step lower, because their vocal chords aren't cutting it anymore? Want to tell them you don't know the theory involved in THAT process?

I've been on countless gigs where a soundcheck doubles as a rehearsal while new players - or day hires - learn the charts, and the bandleader simply tweaks the little things, like sight cues, tempo, etc. Many many Jazz ensembles these days touring the college circuit and 500-1000 seat venues are all playing from charts. (The Berkley crowd and the "Uptown" Jazz crowd are fiercely competitive, and very heavy-hitters. You don't read? You won't work...) I just recorded a live gig with the Brian Blade Fellowship, and everyone (Brian included) was reading charts for this particular gig.

I don't think the learning process ever stops for the truly talented, and all but the most closed-off folks still want to refine their skills and learn new things.

Yeah, Well Tempered, indeed. That's just the start, kiddo. Anyone out there in "The biz" who doens't know what this term means, or where it came from, should really shut the help up and go - as fast as you can - to the nearest research engine and woodshed on the term.

Seriously, you oughta be embarassed otherwise.

This topic sponsored by: