minor chords attract teenagers - what else ?

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:50 am

aqualand666 wrote:

beethoven did use minor tonalities. bach didn't.
.

Astounding. Now that is solid comedy.

aqualand666 wrote:

how did pythagoreas do this, i thought fixed tuning instruments were barely around by the medieval period? .

Was Pythagoreos Medieval? I thought he was an ancient Greek. Weird.

aqualand666 wrote:

quite interesting the mathematical representation of the tones. and the development of accidentals thereof. i'm sure you're aware that further solidification of accidentals were created out of avoidance for the tritone in gregorian church music. .

Oh … I get it! You’re a lecturer, aren’t you? Royal Academy? Juliard?

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. .

It is as well know fact that theoreticians, who also happen to be tuba players, are very expressive on their instruments and, in fact, quite funny. This is because they sound like they are, in fact, farting as they play. In the vast orchestral literature, there is little more comical than their nasty B-flatulance.

aqualand666 wrote:

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.

Well, no, he read that in a book, or a number of books, not in a fact sheet that one’s ancestors had hopefully read, which stated, “never, ever drink this substance, especially during pregnancy.”

aqualand666 wrote:

sorry about being wrong about what keys bach used. like i said i think of minuet in G and light and fluffy baroque music when i think of him.
.

If you’re thinking of the one from the Anna Magdalena handbook, he wrote that for his little kid. To mention a few, not-so-fluffy ones, you may want to listen to the "Great G minor" Fantasia and Fugue, BWV 542 or if you're a guitarist you might enjoy BWV 1000. I could play it at one time - its a b*tch. (Well, it was written for the lute.) Oh yea, and there's also the 2nd Prelude in C minor, from the Well-Tempered Klavier. Anyway, I would guess over 50% of Bach's music is written in the "minor" key, though one of his clever little tricks was this thing called modulation where you start in one key and then go to another, major OR minor key... But don't worry, you come back again. (Then some of the later, classical composers started NOT coming back to the same key. That's just RUDE… And as Romanticism gradually declined into atonality,…God, quick, I pry’thee, send me the dulcet tones of Paganini Caprice No.5 to liberate me from all that is vile.)

As for the original topic: teens and minor chords, required listening:
Stravinky's L'Sacre de Pretemps
Berlioz's Final Movement, Witches’ Sabbath, from Symphony Fantasique (No.5)
Listen to the above LOUDLY enough to piss-off your parents.

"In the beginning... there was Rhythm”

Paul Hindemith

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:08 am

TuBlairy wrote:

As for the original topic: teens and minor chords, required listening:
Stravinky's L'Sacre de Pretemps
Berlioz's Final Movement, Witches’ Sabbath, from Symphony Fantasique (No.5)
Listen to the above LOUDLY enough to piss-off your parents.

Let's not forget Shostakovich 5, 7 and 9, Mahler 2 and 6, Bruckner 4 and 5, and of course Firebird (Infernal Dance)!

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:12 am

TuBlairy,

Quote:

this thing called modulation where you start in one key and then go to another, major OR minor key... But don't worry, you come back again.

Was this where "The circle of 5ths" came from?

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:29 am

bigtree wrote:

TuBlairy,

Quote:

this thing called modulation where you start in one key and then go to another, major OR minor key... But don't worry, you come back again.

Was this where "The circle of 5ths" came from?

Not really. In fact, it was not all that popular to modulate in 5ths during the baroque era.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:31 am

Cucco wrote:

Oh, but my definition of music theory DOES indeed cover the blues scale and furthermore the principles of acoustics! I mean no disrespect to any musician when I say this, but to be truly a well-rounded, good classical musician, one must study ALL aspects of music - jazz, avante garde, Cage, Cowell, Mozart, Bach, Miles Davis. You don't have to LIKE the music (I don't like much of Cowell's stuff, nor do I like much Hovannes (sp?)), but I appreciate it.

You say "all aspects of music" and then go on to name a rather limited selection in my opinion. Where is the folk music in that list, or the country or the blues? What about reggae? Minimalist techno? You don't have to LIKE the music... Wink

The important thing is that you continue to develop as a musician, not that you study any specific "music theory". Nobody could ever really study "all aspects of music", so personally I will settle for "as many aspects as I can cram into my all-too-human skull" and if that happens not to include any more of the "theory" that you refer to than I osmosed as a child, thats fine by me.

My maths lessons equiped me to understand microtonal tunings better than my music lessons did, as an example. Thats another thing that classical musicians have all but done away with, in the west at least!

<edit> I see you specified classical musician. Your list will probably do fine in that case... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:14 am

My list was not intended to be all inclusive, merely examples. in fact, I do believe that ALL types of music should be noted, listened to and perhaps even studied if even on a rudimentary level.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:32 pm

After 40 some years of playing with people...........
I've clearly noticed that people who have some sense of theory are easier to communicate ideas with, especially in rehersal. This is a good thing !
I've also noticed the musicians who put to much creedence into theory tend to be un-stylistic. (I'm not speaking for classical or jazz players) Because they tend to approach their music with a sense of theory not style.
For example, generaling speaking now, I know there are exceptions, theory/scale type players don't make good blues players, they tend to play blues scales, their playing seems to lack a repitore of standard blues licks or how to build around them. It's like they memorized the dictionary but they don't know how to put the words together to saying anything meanfull, for the novice blues listener they can be very impressed by these scale type players, with their fingers flying up and down the board, but for seasoned blues players/listeners.....they want to hear you play the blues not run your fingers over blues scales.
Is it good to know all the theory ? You bet...........but I've seen to many people get to steeped and side tracked with it, to the detrement of their own playing. Once again were taking, blues,country,folk, rock type music, I'm not speaking to classical, jazz, I can't it's not my background, well actually I did study classical music, and actually I do remember my teacher say........."at some point you have to forget all that stuff and just play"............and he was of a carrnige hall, world class player.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:48 pm

I think this conversation has gotten off track. Do teenagers like minor chords? Yes!! I think people in general like minor chords although kids seem to loathe in self pity. It's as simple as that.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:00 pm

Cucco wrote:

Let's not forget Shostakovich 5, 7 and 9...

Caution: Before listening, put AWAY the vodka and hide your sharp cutlery!

IIRs wrote:

You say "all aspects of music" and then go on to name a rather limited selection in my opinion. Where is the folk music in that list, or the country or the blues? What about reggae? Minimalist techno? You don't have to LIKE the music... Wink

Ya, I keep thinking how ‘Bitches Brew’ and 4’33” are so similar! It's cool how you demean someone's broad illustration of musical styles by offering an extremely small selection of music which is all derived from the same roots: folk and liturgical. Is this a new reductionist approach?

IIRs wrote:

My maths lessons equiped me to understand microtonal tunings better than my music lessons did, as an example. Thats another thing that classical musicians have all but done away with, in the west at least!

Scriabin, I mean, pardon? Ever heard of this thing called the 'string quartet' where a G-sharp is not the same thing as an A-flat? (Don't even mention double flats or sharps). The use of "microtonal tuning" is so standardized it's not even mentioned as such. Its simply referred to as 'tuning', playing 'in tune' or, more often than not, 'out of tune.' Almost every instrument needs to tune based on key and alter tunings during a performance. It takes years of practice train one’s ear to hear the tunings and the psycho-motor reflex involved in pulling it off as a successful execution in performance.

JoeJoeMan wrote:

I do remember my teacher say........."at some point you have to forget all that stuff and just play"

Amen, but, as he or she mentioned, “at some point.” My opinion is that the process is cyclical: learn, practice, play. I think the ‘play’ part should be in public – even if it’s for friends and family. Having said this, I find that many guys I’ve ‘jammed’ with refuse to do steps one or two and as a result can offer very little. If you can’t play, please, get the hell off the stage.

In fairness to the original question, “Do teenagers like minor chords?” I think it is intentionally open-ended can only lead to a meandering argument such as this one. I think that people ‘like’ minor tonality at a fundamental level. Not sure whether this is purely either learned or innate. I wrote a shitload of kids songs a while back. Tried to make the songs as diverse as possible, used classical, jazz, blues, latin, rap, etc., styles. The kids’ favorite of the 73 songs is “Jungle Animals” which has a similar groove and harmony to “Dirty Deeds.” Pure 8ves and 5ths in the natural minor. Come to think of it, is there anything as sweet as a big Am power chord feeding back through the stack of your choice with your favorite guitar?

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:56 am

TuBlairy wrote:

Ya, I keep thinking how ‘Bitches Brew’ and 4’33” are so similar! It's cool how you demean someone's broad illustration of musical styles by offering an extremely small selection of music which is all derived from the same roots: folk and liturgical. Is this a new reductionist approach?

You missed my point completely!

Had I gone on to list "all aspects of music" the thread would be 1000 pages long and I still wouldn't have finished!

"if one could adequately render in conceptual language what music expresses directly, one would have an instant and complete explanation of the universe" - Schopenhauer

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:04 am

IIRs wrote:

TuBlairy wrote:

Ya, I keep thinking how ‘Bitches Brew’ and 4’33” are so similar! It's cool how you demean someone's broad illustration of musical styles by offering an extremely small selection of music which is all derived from the same roots: folk and liturgical. Is this a new reductionist approach?

You missed my point completely!

Had I gone on to list "all aspects of music" the thread would be 1000 pages long and I still wouldn't have finished!

"if one could adequately render in conceptual language what music expresses directly, one would have an instant and complete explanation of the universe" - Schopenhauer

So let me get this right....

I list only a few genres as examples and you suggest I'm being close minded.

You list a few genres as examples and someone suggests you're being closed minded...

Then you defend yourself with the statement that if you listed all genres, you would take up the whole page.......

Hmmm....now, why was it that I only listed a few MAJOR genres again????

I think the point here is....before you jump all over someone for something that trivial, bear in mind that they might have actually been right in the first place.

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:51 am

Ok, so all this talk of "theory" but you are all speaking in the "classical" sense. what about the theory behind indian music.
now i may be wrong but i believe they have like 2-3 more notes in their scales,

how can you tell me your 'classical' training is superior? WTFMATE?

I say this to bring up the point of these other "thoerys" out there that are sometimes ignored.
i suspect most people dont know the theory behind a lot of the more worldly musical styles. i certainly dont. anyone care to clarify this Indian style 'theory'?

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:26 am

JoeJoeMan wrote:

For example, generaling speaking now, I know there are exceptions, theory/scale type players don't make good blues players, they tend to play blues scales, their playing seems to lack a repitore of standard blues licks or how to build around them. It's like they memorized the dictionary but they don't know how to put the words together to saying anything meanfull, for the novice blues listener they can be very impressed by these scale type players, with their fingers flying up and down the board,

I call people like this........Musical Masturbator's, they like to play with theirself!

With that said, I do know people that if you put sheet music in front of them. They can play the crap out of their instrument. But put that person with other people and their timing goes to hell.

Peace................Scoobie

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:00 am

Cucco wrote:

Hmmm....now, why was it that I only listed a few MAJOR genres again????

Inadvertant snobbery perhaps? Wink

I picked you up on the fact that you called your list "all aspects of music"... my list was merely meant to point out a tiny fraction of what you missed!

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:37 pm

scoobie wrote.

Quote:

I call people like this........Musical Masturbator's, they like to play with theirself!

That's funny, I had a friend call it that too, while we were watching these two bluegrass pickers do their show-off routine.

BUT Getting back to the topic at hand,

Quote:

I've been told that teenagers seem to like songs with minor chords. When I think back, I think I was like that too. Maybe these are the years we start thinking about life more. Minor chords have a mystery to them... yes?

With all due respect, I'd say you whole thesis is, shall we say misplaced. It's true that they do like minor chords, afterall they do listen to such songs.....but they are certainly more attracted to major chords, as is evident by how many more songs they listen to in major keys, probably by a factor of 10 to 1, ...... so what is it that attracts them largely to major chords I think would be a more pertinent question to ask.
As a side question, we have a tendency and an easy time of it, associating minor keys with sadness, mystery, etc. And we like to think that music expresses an emotion or feeling. Then to put that assumption to a test, I ask........... what mood or emotion would you associate with a major key ?
If there is something in a teenages life that attracts them to minor chords there is something even more deep and profound that attracts them to major chords. Once again, as evident by the overwhelming number of songs written and listened to in major keys.

This topic sponsored by: