PDA

View Full Version : "Urban Appeal"


AbbeyRoad
01-27-2012, 05:15 PM
Okay, commercial executives. Stop it. Just stop it. When you say your product is "urban," or you want to attract "urban youth" or your "urban demographic," you don't mean urban* at all. You mean black. You know it. We know it. White people know it. You know that we know it, and we know that you know that we know it. Who are you kidding here? Why must we play this game?

Why can't you say it? Do you think it's racist to insinuate that black people are black? I assure you, you're not fooling anyone here; the fact that you are afraid to make it seem like you are advertising to a black demographic is far more racist than to simply advertise to blacks. We know we're black; it's okay. We're fine with it, and we're not completely retarded. But when you hire one young black kid amongst a host of white people to spout off "urban dialogue" that is obviously the most stereotypical slang a bunch of stuffy marketing executives heard their hipster kids say on the phone and think that it will get a bunch of black people to buy their products... well, it's unnecessary, alright? Just say what you're selling, and if we like it we'll buy it. Have a little respect, please.


*: pertaining to one living in a city or town (antonym: rural)

Tomp
01-27-2012, 05:30 PM
I saw a boxing match on the tv. There was one irish man fighting a man from Nigeria.

The tv commentator had severe problems when announcing them because both of them had the same colour on shoes, shirt, gloves and trunks.
He didn't remark on the fact that the irish man was transucently pale and he surely couldn't call the Nigerian a black person, that would make him a racist.

Fortunately they had different coloured socks. So he let the audience know that the Irish man was fighting in green socks and the Nigerian was the fighter in yellow socks. Finally we could clearly define the two fighters in a "clear" way. ;)

I don't know what nationality the tv commentator had, but he spoke english.

Davian93
01-27-2012, 06:30 PM
Well, its not the most racist thing I can think of in advertising...

http://www.carma-autoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/kia_soul_hamster_hip_hop_main.jpg

But yeah...

Tomp
01-27-2012, 06:34 PM
Well, its not the most racist thing I can think of in advertising...

http://www.carma-autoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/kia_soul_hamster_hip_hop_main.jpg

But yeah...


The one in the back is that...
Surely not...
I think it is...

It's Frenzys cousin.

No, oh my mistake... Sorry

Frenzy
01-27-2012, 08:36 PM
Hamsters... why did it have to be hamsters?

On a completely unrelated note, what advertising genius thought it'd be a good idea to promote an econo-box car by having commercials with it driven by hamsters? Does your car REALLY need more signs pointing out that it's tiny?

Davian93
01-27-2012, 08:52 PM
Hamsters... why did it have to be hamsters?

On a completely unrelated note, what advertising genius thought it'd be a good idea to promote an econo-box car by having commercials with it driven by hamsters? Does your car REALLY need more signs pointing out that it's tiny?

"urban" hamsters...

Terez
01-27-2012, 09:22 PM
Kind of on the same note...I was watching the last Republican debate, the CNN one in Jacksonville with Wolf Blitzer, and for a while there was a camera focused on a part of the crowd with two black guys sitting near the camera. And they didn't look happy about it, lol. One of them in particular had a 'you schmuck' look on his face.

PS - Maybe the whole 'urban' thing isn't so much a euphemism as a recognition of the fact that a lot of white kids today think it's cool to be black...er, 'urban'.

Sei'taer
01-27-2012, 09:48 PM
Okay, commercial executives. Stop it. Just stop it. When you say your product is "urban," or you want to attract "urban youth" or your "urban demographic," you don't mean urban* at all. You mean black. You know it. We know it. White people know it. You know that we know it, and we know that you know that we know it. Who are you kidding here? Why must we play this game?

Why can't you say it? Do you think it's racist to insinuate that black people are black? I assure you, you're not fooling anyone here; the fact that you are afraid to make it seem like you are advertising to a black demographic is far more racist than to simply advertise to blacks. We know we're black; it's okay. We're fine with it, and we're not completely retarded. But when you hire one young black kid amongst a host of white people to spout off "urban dialogue" that is obviously the most stereotypical slang a bunch of stuffy marketing executives heard their hipster kids say on the phone and think that it will get a bunch of black people to buy their products... well, it's unnecessary, alright? Just say what you're selling, and if we like it we'll buy it. Have a little respect, please.


*: pertaining to one living in a city or town (antonym: rural)


You and me gotta have a beer sometime. I know this place that has Colt .45 on draft so you should be comfortable there.




I'm gonna get bad karma from that ain't I?

Davian93
01-27-2012, 09:53 PM
I know this place that has Colt .45 on draft so you should be comfortable there.

Cloud City?

http://www.moviespad.com/photos/billy-dee-williams-colt-45-31536.jpg

Sei'taer
01-27-2012, 09:57 PM
Cloud City?

http://www.moviespad.com/photos/billy-dee-williams-colt-45-31536.jpg

Oh Lando, How far thou hast fallen.

Crispin's Crispian
01-27-2012, 09:58 PM
You might find Maddox's take interesting.
9 things I learned about the world according to anonymous stock photo models. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=stock_photos)

Sei'taer
01-27-2012, 10:10 PM
You might find Maddox's take interesting.
9 things I learned about the world according to anonymous stock photo models. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=stock_photos)

Hats off to you, Crispy!

AbbeyRoad
01-28-2012, 08:05 AM
You and me gotta have a beer sometime. I know this place that has Colt .45 on draft so you should be comfortable there.
Well, that's good, but I won't possibly go unless they serve fried chicken with hot sauce, and Kool-Aid. And we have to wear basketball jersies. And listen to rap, apparently, even though I don't classify rap as 'music.'

PS - Maybe the whole 'urban' thing isn't so much a euphemism as a recognition of the fact that a lot of white kids today think it's cool to be black...er, 'urban'.
I think it's more correct to say that white kids today think it's cool to have a couple black friends. Or as a 13 year-old patient told me a few months ago: "I'm glad your my doctor because now I won't look so wonderbread at school." Whatever that means...

GonzoTheGreat
01-28-2012, 08:51 AM
I think it's more correct to say that white kids today think it's cool to have a couple black friends. Or as a 13 year-old patient told me a few months ago: "I'm glad your my doctor because now I won't look so wonderbread at school." Whatever that means...
RAFO (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wonderbread)

Sei'taer
01-28-2012, 10:28 AM
Well, that's good, but I won't possibly go unless they serve fried chicken with hot sauce, and Kool-Aid. And we have to wear basketball jersies. And listen to rap, apparently, even though I don't classify rap as 'music.'




Abbey is not black. He failed to mention Jungle Juice or watermelon. He doesn't like rap music. I'm afraid all of you who have been pining for a black friend will have to look elsewhere.

Davian93
01-28-2012, 10:50 AM
Abbey is not black. He failed to mention Jungle Juice or watermelon. He doesn't like rap music. I'm afraid all of you who have been pining for a black friend will have to look elsewhere.

I was also disappointed by the lack of waffles and grape soda at this theoretical fried chicken restaurant.

Sinistrum
01-28-2012, 11:50 AM
Wait...you mean to tell me that not all black people listen to rap, eat at church's or mcdonalds, and don't dress with their pants sagging around their ankles?! Curse you Madison avenue for lying to me! Next thing you'll tell me is that drinking shitty american beer won't actually help me get insanely attractive women to sleep with me. Aside from politicians, ad agencies are the sleaziest groups of people I know and its why I thank the maker every day for dvr.

Davian93
01-28-2012, 12:11 PM
Wait...you mean to tell me that not all black people listen to rap, eat at church's or mcdonalds, and don't dress with their pants sagging around their ankles?! Curse you Madison avenue for lying to me! Next thing you'll tell me is that drinking shitty american beer won't actually help me get insanely attractive women to sleep with me. Aside from politicians, ad agencies are the sleaziest groups of people I know and its why I thank the maker every day for dvr.

I assumed that the only reason that AbbeyRoad doesnt fit that mold is because when he was a teenager, he would spend most of his times on the playground, chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool until some guys up to no good starting making trouble in his neighborhood. Then I assume his mom got all scared and said he was moving to his auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.

confused at birth
01-28-2012, 01:49 PM
I cant say that I would instantly connect Urban with black simply because the people I grew up seeing acting and dressing that way were mostly white kids and the only black family I knew had moved to England from africa to go to university

even though I don't classify rap as 'music.'



Hey its not that bad.

no wait 98% of it is crap but the little that is good, that has some real emotional expression in it can be great just like heavy metal(mostly crap as well).

You just have to find some that isnt about sex and trying to live like a muppet, sometimes it can fit really well with what I am feeling at that time just like any other genre of music it just has to be the right time and the right message.

Sinistrum
01-28-2012, 01:59 PM
You just have to find some that isnt about sex and trying to live like a muppet

Or shooting cops, or beating, prostituting, or using women for sex, or bragging about how much flashy gold jewelry you own, how many cars you own, how much alcohol you drink, or how much you use drugs, or how you're the bestest rapper ever and your cross town competition sucks. Wait, that pretty much covers all of rap music.

confused at birth
01-28-2012, 02:04 PM
Or shooting cops, or beating, prostituting, or using women for sex, or bragging about how much flashy gold jewelry you own, how many cars you own, how much alcohol you drink, or how much you use drugs, or how you're the bestest rapper ever and your cross town competition sucks.

I would consider those to all be things only a muppet could aspire to

Wait, that pretty much covers all of rap music.

So you think its 99% crap?

Cor Shan
01-28-2012, 02:20 PM
How dare you impugn the good name of the muppets good sir?

oh wait, they sing about smoking and drinking and women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVw96wzmZC8

Terez
01-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Well, that's good, but I won't possibly go unless they serve fried chicken with hot sauce, and Kool-Aid. And we have to wear basketball jersies. And listen to rap, apparently, even though I don't classify rap as 'music.'Amen. I can appreciate some rap as poetry, but since the vast majority of it is about bitches and hos... :rolleyes:

I think it's more correct to say that white kids today think it's cool to have a couple black friends. Or as a 13 year-old patient told me a few months ago: "I'm glad your my doctor because now I won't look so wonderbread at school." Whatever that means...
Well, of course it goes a little further than that, since white kids are adopting all things stereotypically black these days. (Pretty much everything you mentioned above.) If they don't, then they get called 'wonderbread'. I really hope the rap thing is a phase, though...

AbbeyRoad
01-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Next thing you'll tell me is that drinking shitty american beer won't actually help me get insanely attractive women to sleep with me
No, but have you tried Axe deoderant?

I really hope the rap thing is a phase, though...
There are 4-5 rap songs I've heard that I could possibly attribute to poetry put to rhythm. However, as a musician, it's hard for me to appreciate anything musical without musical elements.

Abbey is not black. He failed to mention Jungle Juice or watermelon.
Well, I do like watermelon. I guess that makes me mulatto, perhaps...

Terez
01-28-2012, 03:16 PM
There are 4-5 rap songs I've heard that I could possibly attribute to poetry put to rhythm. However, as a musician, it's hard for me to appreciate anything musical without musical elements.There are musical elements! Bass, some 1-2 bar whiny thing up in the high range, repeated over and over again with no variation whatsoever until the 'song' is done. (Kinda like the LH of Chopin's Berceuse, if not quite so profound.)

PS - I think we are all getting old.

Tomp
01-28-2012, 03:35 PM
Previous generations had the slang words: cool, groovy, dude and some others.

QI-bit about when they started to be used in popular culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6jP-b3bAY&feature=related

Sei'taer
01-28-2012, 04:19 PM
Or shooting cops, or beating, prostituting, or using women for sex, or bragging about how much flashy gold jewelry you own, how many cars you own, how much alcohol you drink, or how much you use drugs, or how you're the bestest rapper ever and your cross town competition sucks. Wait, that pretty much covers all of rap music.

About 95% of the above description covers country music too. I find that fascinating and hilarious all at the same time.

confused at birth
01-28-2012, 04:24 PM
About 95% of the above description covers country music too. I find that fascinating and hilarious all at the same time.

thats because they both aimed for the same level of stupidity they just attacked it from opposite sides and eventually met in the middle when tim mcgraw teamed with nelly

Terez
01-28-2012, 06:25 PM
About 95% of the above description covers country music too. I find that fascinating and hilarious all at the same time.I thought it was all about dogs and cheatin women and havin a good time. And alcohol, which is of course a legal drug. Important difference. Good ol boys aren't criminals. At least, I have yet to hear a country song about the joys of crystal meth.

Davian93
01-28-2012, 06:51 PM
I thought it was all about dogs and cheatin women and havin a good time. And alcohol, which is of course a legal drug. Important difference. Good ol boys aren't criminals. At least, I have yet to hear a country song about the joys of crystal meth.

Country music is the result of crystal meth...which is why its so "good".

Ivhon
01-28-2012, 11:02 PM
Wait...you mean to tell me that not all black people listen to rap, eat at church's or mcdonalds, and don't dress with their pants sagging around their ankles?! Curse you Madison avenue for lying to me! Next thing you'll tell me is that drinking shitty american beer won't actually help me get insanely attractive women to sleep with me. Aside from politicians, ad agencies are the sleaziest groups of people I know and its why I thank the maker every day for dvr.

Actually, they stopped lying to you a few years ago. Now they are telling you that since you have just been justifiably humiliated by that insanely attractive woman, you may as well complete your shame cycle by drinking their shitty American beer with your equally degenerate never-get-laid friend and seek solace in your Xbox.

The Great Serpent
01-29-2012, 12:12 AM
Actually, they stopped lying to you a few years ago. Now they are telling you that since you have just been justifiably humiliated by that insanely attractive woman, you may as well complete your shame cycle by drinking their shitty American beer with your equally degenerate never-get-laid friend and seek solace in your Xbox.

Testify!

GonzoTheGreat
01-29-2012, 04:01 AM
I really hope the rap thing is a phase, though...
Oh yes it is. Of course, the next craze will be far worse still, but at least rap will be gone. Mostly. Apart from the fact that almost an entire generation will still keep listening to the stuff, as they won't like whatever replaces it much more than we will.

I'm sure that thinking this through will set your mind at ease about the (lack of) future of rap.

Terez
01-29-2012, 04:34 AM
Oh yes it is. Of course, the next craze will be far worse still, but at least rap will be gone. Mostly. Apart from the fact that almost an entire generation will still keep listening to the stuff, as they won't like whatever replaces it much more than we will.

I'm sure that thinking this through will set your mind at ease about the (lack of) future of rap.Well, I've studied music cycles, and a couple of generations of crap is usually followed by something good. Of course, it's all subjective, but it goes something like this in Western music:

Medieval - Gleeman rule the music world, and they rock at it. Meanwhile church music is evolving after not having evolved whatsoever in 1000 years or more, and they realize they have to compete. Music notation is invented. The rise of the non-anonymous composer begins.

Renaissance - Composers still aren't too widely-celebrated, and they need church jobs and/or sponsors from the nobility to make a living. Some of them are good, some of them suck. It doesn't make much difference to most people because people don't travel much, so you hire the best guy who happens to be in the vicinity.

Baroque - Opera is invented, based on the idea that Greek plays were performed musically (we actually don't know much about Greek music at all, or any music before the modern notation was developed around 9-1200 CE). Bach shows up after the Baroque style is already going out of fashion. He doesn't write any operas. He dies with few admirers outside Germany, and is worshiped as a god less than a century after his death.

'Classical' - Industrial Revolution happens. The Common Man has money in his pocket, and he's ready to spend it on music. Composers with actual talent are bypassed for really big orchestras playing really loud stuff. The Common Man loves this.

Romantic - Composers like Schumann and Liszt make a killing while composers like Chopin are dismissed as lightweight by the establishment. Within a century of his death, Chopin is worshiped as a god in every country on earth.

Impressionist - Debussy has some strange ideas about music. Establishment musicians go one place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kYC6JjigfA) with it. Meanwhile, jazz musicians go somewhere completely different with it, and the music is wildly popular for several decades, especially in the early-to-mid 20th century. It's also really good. Juilliard creates a jazz program in the year 2000 and wonders why no one cares about them any more. Meanwhile pop culture, largely derived from jazz, goes through several fluctuations, eventually producing mostly crap because these people aren't being trained as musicians any more. (Even the Beatles went to music school.)

Something will inevitably rise up from the ashes.

confused at birth
01-29-2012, 01:16 PM
So like what you like and dont trust the Establishment

What else is new?

Something will inevitably rise up from the ashes.

will the flames involve simon cowell or any other reality tv personalities? Please

Davian93
01-29-2012, 03:38 PM
I look forward to 100 years from now when people will talk about the giants of the early 20st century musical scene...and how they will dissect every Katy Perry lyric for deeper meaning.

Terez
01-29-2012, 06:23 PM
will the flames involve simon cowell or any other reality tv personalities? PleaseOwls...every one is fond of vowels, except for mice, and shrews, and Simon Cowells, and you know why they come for you. Owls in your dressing room, owls in your gravy...even if you hide at sea, there's owls in the Navy! Simon Cowell your days are numbered, owls will get you while you slumber. In the night, they'll come for you and tear your crazy legs in two, cause you're the king of the beavers, the king of the beavers, you cannot deceive us, and you can't. fool. owls.

I look forward to 100 years from now when people will talk about the giants of the early 20st century musical scene...and how they will dissect every Katy Perry lyric for deeper meaning.
The great thing about music history is that you get to pick the really good ones and pretend like everyone else just never existed.

DaiShan1981
01-30-2012, 05:46 AM
I actually play in the backing band for (one of?) the best known Dutch rappers. The main guy himself is actually white but the rest of the band (except me, obviously) is black.

I would say that most of the stereotypes about the weird handshakes, the slang and the low-hanging pants hold, in their case. But I don't see why people would then assume they are also stupid, or deal drugs or shoot people. They're actually very nice people and on the whole not any dumber than the other musicians I know. ;)

While the music itself is in some cases about being more awesome than the rest, judging from the songs we play I would say the topics are really quite diverse. Some of them are about love, as with any music style really. Some of them are about the good and bad things in Dutch society and Dutch people. One is about fighting internal battles and his friend who had a stroke.

As a musician I also have to really disagree with the people dismissing it as "simple" or "not music". If you focus on the few chords or the lack of a traditional melody you're really missing out on a lot. Just because the musical emphasis and structure is different than what you're used to, that doesn't make it simple. That's almost like dismissing Indian classical music "because it's just random plucking on a sitar".

Terez
01-30-2012, 06:17 AM
While the music itself is in some cases about being more awesome than the rest, judging from the songs we play I would say the topics are really quite diverse. Some of them are about love, as with any music style really. Some of them are about the good and bad things in Dutch society and Dutch people. One is about fighting internal battles and his friend who had a stroke.Rap about stuff like this in America doesn't sell. You can find some underground stuff, but the mainstream stuff is like Sini said.

As a musician I also have to really disagree with the people dismissing it as "simple" or "not music". If you focus on the few chords or the lack of a traditional melody you're really missing out on a lot.
Missing out on what, exactly?

DahLliA
01-30-2012, 06:30 AM
Owls...every one is fond of vowels, except for mice, and shrews, and Simon Cowells, and you know why they come for you. Owls in your dressing room, owls in your gravy...even if you hide at sea, there's owls in the Navy! Simon Cowell your days are numbered, owls will get you while you slumber. In the night, they'll come for you and tear your crazy legs in two, cause you're the king of the beavers, the king of the beavers, you cannot deceive us, and you can't. fool. owls. (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/Owls/)

needs clicky-stuff

DaiShan1981
01-30-2012, 12:36 PM
Rap about stuff like this in America doesn't sell. You can find some underground stuff, but the mainstream stuff is like Sini said.
Well I won't claim to be an expert on rap in the US. Nor in Holland, to be honest. I think in most music styles, what drifts to the top of the broadcast charts is not always a good representation of the genre.
Missing out on what, exactly?
Well for instance there is, compared to other styles, a great subtlety in timing between instruments. Also the "groove" itself is really built on being static with very specific variations (as opposed to other pop music or jazz) which tends to put a lot of restrictions on what rhythmic information each instrument is allowed to add. There is a lot of interaction between the groove and the lyrics. And a really good flow and message in the lyrics themselves, that you can't find in other styles, exactly because the focus is on timing and message, instead of melody.

Again, I won't pretend to be a hiphop or rap expert like some of my bandmates, but since starting with them I've learned a ton and gained a lot of respect for the musicianship involved. Even though I already had a professional musical education before.

Cor Shan
01-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Childish Gambino changed my opinion on rap/hiphop.

Crispin's Crispian
01-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Well for instance there is, compared to other styles, a great subtlety in timing between instruments. Also the "groove" itself is really built on being static with very specific variations, as opposed to other pop music or jazz which tends to put a lot of restrictions on what rhythmic information each instrument is allowed to add. There is a lot of interaction between the groove and the lyrics. And a really good flow and message in the lyrics themselves, that you can't find in other styles, exactly because the focus is on timing and message, instead of melody.


I think the best lyrical rappers blur the line between music and poetry. Not so much with metaphor, etc., but with timing the lyrics to the musical elements.

Much of the basis for hip hop is funk music, which emphasizes rhythm and syncopation over all else.

As for content, I stopped really listening to hip hop when political rap took a backstage to G-Funk and gangsta. On that note, here's a somewhat appropriate song from one of my all-time favorites:

Bring the Noise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvy7MWjfVPE)

Remember to try to listen to the words. ;)

DaiShan1981
01-30-2012, 06:42 PM
I need to check that song.
But I just wanted to say that I came home from the album release party with that band I mentioned and that bass player and drummer are the best I ever play with, and they feel the style particularly well. Again, there is good and bad stuff in each genre, but in my not so humble opinion what we did tonight was very musical.

And we rocked the house, too :-P

Frenzy
01-31-2012, 12:26 AM
Much of the basis for hip hop is funk music, which emphasizes rhythm and syncopation over all else.

Stomp! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtF-hvruDQ)

On that note, here's a somewhat appropriate song from one of my all-time favorites:

Bring the Noise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvy7MWjfVPE)

Remember to try to listen to the words. ;)

I prefer this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSPeg5Nw9Tk&feature=related)version :D

yks 6nnetu hing
01-31-2012, 02:17 AM
And we rocked the house, too :-P

you did:D

Terez
01-31-2012, 02:59 AM
I need to check that song.
But I just wanted to say that I came home from the album release party with that band I mentioned and that bass player and drummer are the best I ever play with, and they feel the style particularly well. Again, there is good and bad stuff in each genre, but in my not so humble opinion what we did tonight was very musical.

And we rocked the house, too :-PIf you have actual people playing actual instruments, then you're automatically producing something infinitely more musical than mainstream American rap. Don't get me wrong...I realize there is potential for musical content in rap. I've even heard it before with the aforementioned 'underground' stuff. But as it is, mainstream rap is the most musically devoid of all the popular genres...which is, of course, saying something.

DaiShan1981
01-31-2012, 03:55 AM
Again, I don't think it's fair to define a genre by the dumbed-down stuff that reaches the hit charts. You wouldn't want people to think country is nothing more than drunk guys "singing" (rapping?!) silliness based on "Red Solo Cup" either.
That said, wasn't "Lose Yourself" by Eminem a hit there some years back, by the way? I thought that was a pretty decent song, the third verse especially.

And I'm pretty sure many mainstream rappers play live with band. I've personally seen Snoop Dogg and Jay Z and they both had a full band, at least. I think for their recordings they just prefer the more produced sound, but you should really see them live, they rock.

Terez
01-31-2012, 04:07 AM
Again, I don't think it's fair to define a genre by the dumbed-down stuff that reaches the hit charts. You wouldn't want people to think country is nothing more than drunk guys "singing" (rapping?!) silliness based on "Red Solo Cup" either.
That said, wasn't "Lose Yourself" by Eminem a hit there some years back, by the way? I thought that was a pretty decent song, the third verse especially.I'm not really trying to define the genre so much as trying to make a statement about the music that permeates the culture. As for Eminem, the problem with him is that you have to take everything he says in context.

And I'm pretty sure many mainstream rappers play live with band.Well, all of the rap I've heard has been on the radio (I've forced myself to listen to hours of it, hoping there was something good there) and I haven't heard any, so please forgive my ignorance.

I've personally seen Snoop Dogg and Jay Z and they both had a full band, at least. I think for their recordings they just prefer the more produced sound, but you should really see them live, they rock.There wouldn't happen to be anything worth listening on YouTube that you could link me to? I really hate concerts, because I really hate both 1) loud music, unless it's Bach organ music, and 2) huge crowds. Not that I did not do the music scene thing for many years. I just got tired of it, because the best music is always at crowded bars with lots of drunk people. I hate drunk people so much that I can't get drunk any more no matter how hard I try.

DaiShan1981
01-31-2012, 05:51 AM
It's pretty hard to find something of decent quality, sifting through millions of cell phone recordings. But it seems some of them were on Letterman a few times. While I can't speak for these particular songs specifically (lyrics-wise nor otherwise), it gives a decent idea of the band-feel that they bring to their gigs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwDSOCA-_Yw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJCf98i167A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBILx8NB-Uc&feature=fvst
oh #%$@ that one is soooo groovy, I don't even know the song. Jay-Z's timing is really killing too.

Easy enough to scroll through Letterman clips from there on, I think.

Ishara
01-31-2012, 08:13 AM
Rap about stuff like this in America doesn't sell. You can find some underground stuff, but the mainstream stuff is like Sini said.
I'll disgaree here. Mainstream, populist rap right now is primarily Jay-Z, Kanye, Eminem and Drake (bigger in Canada than he is the US, but a protege of all of them). They all rap about the same things that all musicians tap: love, hate, work, play, money, sex, loss, struggle...they're just more direct. There are significantly less euphemisms in rap than there are in mainstream music, in my opinion.

In the case of Drake, he's a half-Jewish, half-Black kid from a rich neighbourhood in Toronto, and still has the backing of Jay-Z, Kanye and Eminem for his music. He doesn't rap about drugs and whores, he raps about how he's never dealt drugs or whores. LOL And they all have full bands backing them up in concert - it's never just the beats and rap.

As for Eminem, the problem with him is that you have to take everything he says in context.
Lord knows I'm not going to engage in a battle about music with you, but how is that different than any other musician and their music? Of course you have you have to take everything he says in context - that's how you come to understand and appreciate it.

Tomp
01-31-2012, 09:05 AM
I thought of putting this in the "Annoy me" thread, but it probably fits in here.
What really annoys me is when rappers use classical music for their "star piece" in the song and don't give any credit.
I think when music is really old there are no royalties or rights that keep people from just taking a piece of a symphony and put that in there.
I know there's someone who did that with Beethovens 5th symphony. I can't remember the name now.
That is just sacrilegious to me.

DaiShan1981
01-31-2012, 09:57 AM
That's been done a ton of times with the Fifth. Wasn't it in Saturday Night Fever too? I really like Robin Thicke's "When I Get You Alone" in any case, also based on the Fifths main theme.
Personally I think it's cool that they rework this stuff into something that appeals to a new generation. Giving credit doesn't really serve any purpose because as you said, nobody gets an royalties. So it'd just be preachy or condescending to the listeners, in my opinion.

Also, Ishara, awesome set of juxtapositions; love vs hate, work vs play, money vs sex, ermm... lol
Agree with your point though.

Sei'taer
01-31-2012, 10:07 AM
I'm not a big fan of rap, but there has been some that I've liked. Here's a couple of examples:

I met the Beastie Boys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE&ob=av2e) in Kansas City in 1989. They were cool as hell, but not very impressed with my abilities on a skate board. One of my suite-mates grew up with Ad-rock so we went to hang out with them a couple of times when they were in KC. Funny thing about them is they were all great musicians. I don't think many people realize that all of them played instruments. If you can find it, listen to Cookie Puss by them.

I liked Run-DMC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B_UYYPb-Gk&ob=av2e) too. This song was just a lot of fun.

Crispin's Crispian
01-31-2012, 12:05 PM
Stomp! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtF-hvruDQ)

Damnit. You not only managed to find a song I'd never heard, but one I actually like! I can usually only listen to a P-Funk song for a little while before it gets boring. But this one is under five minutes. :p Plus how can you not watch a big picture of George moving in and out of the screen.

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-31-2012, 12:37 PM
Love George :D

but you better not fake the funk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxMcFM-kOo)

Figbiscuit
01-31-2012, 01:17 PM
Snoop Dog live was awesome, the full band were amazing, and having never seen live rap performed before, not at all what I was expecting. Also I've never smelt so much pot at a gig in my life :eek:

I highly recommend Jurassic 5. I would love to see them live, but sadly they split in...2007 I think so it's not to be. I'd link some vid's but I'm an internet philistine and can't figure out how...but anything off the album Feedback is great, IMO. There's plenty stuff on You Tube.

Terez
02-01-2012, 04:09 AM
Lord knows I'm not going to engage in a battle about music with youIt's not really about music at this point though, is it? At least, not in the way that I consider myself an expert. I find several things about rap to be generally mind-numbing musically, but that's just me. Also, you mentioned money as something that every other genre writes songs about, and while there are certainly some examples, the obsession with bling seems to stem from rap, and while I can understand the cultural reasons for it, I find it also mind-numbing. And your favorites aside, I find the treatment of women to be often less non-euphemistic and more offensive, and this is just the stuff I hear not from listening to the radio (which I don't do any more) but the stuff I can't avoid (cars on the street, in parking lots, random stuff on TV which I don't watch but catch a glimpse of from time to time, etc.) There's no need to get defensive about it just because I am 1) opinionated and 2) a musician, because regardless of your feelings on the subject it's not really about music for me, so I'm not trying to project myself as an authority on the subject. Ten years ago it was extremely uncommon in MS for music students to be either rap or country fans. These days there are quite a few more fans of both in the music school. From what I understand most don't really see much relationship between the music they listen to and the music they study. I have said before on this forum that it would be interesting to see what would come of popular genres if you could study music in a way that prepared you to perform it, record it, etc. There are a few schools in the US that focus on this, but not many, and for other participating schools it's a completely separate program from the music school. But that's just me - obviously most people are happy with the state of pop music. :)

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 04:25 AM
Eh, I thought we were talking mostly about music.
As for schools that prepare you to play and record pop music, I think there are plenty, and the US has some of the best in the world. I'm not sure if you're aware of the developments in the last ten or twenty years or so in jazz schools, but many of them are broadening their scopes and are incorporating pop music and recording, precisely because their students are bringing those influences. I'm a prime example, though not from the US.
Not to mention that hiphop and rap, as opposed to say your regular mainstream dance or even rock or country, has already been taking elements from jazz since the beginning. I would also say that many of the best producers in pop music have a professional music education background. But in the end, I think music is about playing together and learning by doing. Doesn't have to be in a school necessarily.

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 04:29 AM
Oh, example; Giorgio Tuinfort, a Dutch producer who make some tracks for the Dutch rapper I'm with, is getting pretty big in the US the last few years. He's produced for Akon and a few others I forgot the names of. He studied jazz piano at the Conservatory in The Hague.

Ishara
02-01-2012, 08:16 AM
It's not really about music at this point though, is it? At least, not in the way that I consider myself an expert. I find several things about rap to be generally mind-numbing musically, but that's just me. Also, you mentioned money as something that every other genre writes songs about, and while there are certainly some examples, the obsession with bling seems to stem from rap, and while I can understand the cultural reasons for it, I find it also mind-numbing. And your favorites aside, I find the treatment of women to be often less non-euphemistic and more offensive, and this is just the stuff I hear not from listening to the radio (which I don't do any more) but the stuff I can't avoid (cars on the street, in parking lots, random stuff on TV which I don't watch but catch a glimpse of from time to time, etc.) There's no need to get defensive about it just because I am 1) opinionated and 2) a musician, because regardless of your feelings on the subject it's not really about music for me, so I'm not trying to project myself as an authority on the subject. Ten years ago it was extremely uncommon in MS for music students to be either rap or country fans. These days there are quite a few more fans of both in the music school. From what I understand most don't really see much relationship between the music they listen to and the music they study. I have said before on this forum that it would be interesting to see what would come of popular genres if you could study music in a way that prepared you to perform it, record it, etc. There are a few schools in the US that focus on this, but not many, and for other participating schools it's a completely separate program from the music school. But that's just me - obviously most people are happy with the state of pop music. :)

LOL - Oh, I don't disagree with you on a lot of points! But I'm *surprise* of two minds about it sometimes. I mean, Kanye and Jay-Z are the pinnacle of rap right now, their lyrics in combination with their beats are unstoppable - BUT do they perpetuate the anti-feminist offensive portrayl of women (or B*tches, as Jay-Z was so very fond of saying). Rap culture does glorify drugs, prostitution, objectification of women and bling above all else. That may be why I like Drake so much, actually. He doesn't - mostly because he doesn't have a) the experiences to rap about, and b) the cred to try. So he doesn't. He raps in sweater vests, and rocks it without any of that crap. But he's few and far between. Even Eminem, who I love made his career rapping about how much he loathed (I sort of feel like hate doesn't even begin to cover their relationship) his on/off ex-wife, how he would kill her if he could get away with it. Dude had some effed up relationship with women in general. Now, he seems to have turned it around (along with his addiction issues) and by all accounts is a very loving father to his 2 daughters, so maybe things have gotten better for him. But I acknowledge the juxtaposition between *loving* his song Drug Ballad and not loving what it means...

As for the state of pop music today, I'm with you. The actual talented people are so very few and far between these days, that anyone with an autotuner seems to be able to get famous. This Lana del Rey is just the latest in a bunch of mediocre "artists," the difference being her parents were rich enough to buy her a writer, a producer, an agent and a publicist to come up with a sellable identity for this train wreck. I like happy, poppy music to dance in the car to (I'd say work out to, but who are we kidding?) as much as the next person, but I do lament the lack of real lasting talent out there...

Tomp
02-01-2012, 08:39 AM
As for the state of pop music today, I'm with you. The actual talented people are so very few and far between these days, that anyone with an autotuner seems to be able to get famous. This Lana del Rey is just the latest in a bunch of mediocre "artists," the difference being her parents were rich enough to buy her a writer, a producer, an agent and a publicist to come up with a sellable identity for this train wreck. I like happy, poppy music to dance in the car to (I'd say work out to, but who are we kidding?) as much as the next person, but I do lament the lack of real lasting talent out there...

I think much of it has to do with record producers use and discard mentality. Now when they see a "sensation" they cram it for all it's worth and then leave them by the wayside.
Before youtube and the different talent shows bands and artists had time to grow and work on their performance in garages and small venues.
Today I don't think an artist like Bob Dylan would have made it to recording a popular record. It isn't strange that artists like MJ went coco when they get famous and get a bizarre life at an early age. Now, I don't compare todays young talent being as young as he was, but today there is much more pressure from everyone that a sixteen year old boy or girl are not ready for and they have not matured enough as arists or as persons to handle it when the going gets tough.

By the way, today I hear less and less of unique voices. Most of them seem mediocre and bland.
The sound has also been produced until it gets boring. I would argue that the small mistakes in an old recording gave it a unique soul in a way.

Terez
02-01-2012, 09:14 AM
As for schools that prepare you to play and record pop music, I think there are plenty, and the US has some of the best in the world.I said there were a few. Berklee is usually considered one of the best; I considered applying there when I was a teenager. But the vast majority of music schools don't branch out.

Not to mention that hiphop and rap, as opposed to say your regular mainstream dance or even rock or country, has already been taking elements from jazz since the beginning.Yes, I mentioned that a few posts back. [Edit: Just saw the 'as opposed to'. I had kind of skimmed over that phrase before. I have to disagree with that; I think all forms of popular music derive a great deal from jazz, though it might be more obvious in hip-hop/R&B than it is in rock. I think the influence is more evident in rock than it is in rap, or at least, I haven't heard much in the way of jazzy sampling, unless you count the soundbite stuff. Country and blues have a very recursive relationship, but then, most forms of jazz drew elements from European or other types of 'white' music, perhaps especially Debussy for the bebop stuff.]

I would also say that many of the best producers in pop music have a professional music education background. But in the end, I think music is about playing together and learning by doing. Doesn't have to be in a school necessarily.Of course not. Schools are just an outlet for those who are looking for a way to hone skills and break into the business. Or at least, they should be. Children are encouraged to take the responsible route and go to school, and there are good reasons for that. The state of music schools in general is not very helpful as far as that is concerned because there are too many academics out there trying to preserve the world as it is (or was). Granted, that will change over time as the profs get younger, but traditions are hard things to overcome. Most music education in the US centers around choirs and bands (orchestras to a lesser extent).

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 09:33 AM
I said there were a few. Berklee is usually considered one of the best; I considered applying there when I was a teenager. But the vast majority of music schools don't branch out.
That's very strange, in Holland alone there are at least 5 accredited schools that facilitate studying pop music, and 2 for recording. Probably more, that's just the ones that spring to mind right now. Could be that this is more alive in Holland. But Berklee was definitely on my mind for the US. Ironically I also considered applying there at one point, but there were more pitfalls for me than just the application, obviously. Even so, I have to keep making the case that pop music is not the same thing as BROADCAST HITS. There are plenty of really good pop musicians. The reason broadcast hits are simple is because people are buying them, it's that easy really. It's more a reflection of the demands and the state of society than the quality of music or the musicians right now.
Yes, I mentioned that a few posts back.
So you did, sorry, I missed that. I don't really get why you would wonder about pop music reaching new heights if there was more education for it then, since clearly there are schooled jazz musicians operating well within the genre of pop music.

Terez
02-01-2012, 09:39 AM
That's very strange, in Holland alone there are at least 5 accredited schools that facilitate studying pop music, and 2 for recording.There are well over 2,000 universities in the US, and that's just the universities (not counting community colleges which often have music programs). When I say 'a few', I mean 'much more than in Holland' apparently. :p

But Berklee was definitely on my mind for the US. Ironically I also considered applying there at one point, but there were more pitfalls for me than just the application, obviously.Yeah, I was in the end too nervous about the audition. Because I sure as hell couldn't afford to go there without a scholarship.

Even so, I have to keep making the case that pop music is not the same thing as BROADCAST HITS. There are plenty of really good pop musicians. The reason broadcast hits are simple is because people are buying them, it's that easy really. It's more a reflection of the demands and the state of society than the quality of music or the musicians right now.I agree there are plenty of good ones being ignored. I have many friends who fall into that category.

So you did, sorry, I missed that. I don't really get why you would wonder about pop music reaching new heights if there was more education for it then, since clearly there are schooled jazz musicians operating well within the genre of pop music.Organization is key, and also an activist approach to integrating kids' dreams with their education. That is, an effort by schools to actually put out music. I've also considered it as an alternative to the RIAA-type bloodsucking producers.

Terez
02-01-2012, 11:11 AM
LOL - Oh, I don't disagree with you on a lot of points! But I'm *surprise* of two minds about it sometimes.Yeah, I have that problem too. I have a good excuse because I am a Gemini. ;)

I mean, Kanye and Jay-Z are the pinnacle of rap right now, their lyrics in combination with their beats are unstoppable - BUT do they perpetuate the anti-feminist offensive portrayl of women (or B*tches, as Jay-Z was so very fond of saying). Rap culture does glorify drugs, prostitution, objectification of women and bling above all else.This may just be me off in my relatively sheltered southern white person frame of mind, but I often think of it like this: for centuries now whites in the US have fought blacks every step of the way just on the simple matter of treating them like human beings, which as a white person (especially a white male) is something you take for granted. Emancipation didn't help much in that regard, ergo the Civil Rights movement doesn't succeed until a century later, and even that was in some ways only a symbolic victory, just like Obama's election was in some ways only symbolic. I figure that people can only take being told 'we'll treat you like a human being if you act right' for so long without beginning to take bad behavior as a point of pride. And of course, bad behavior is far from a 'black thing', and this is where your non-euphemistic take on the whole thing comes in (as a very deliberate thing). Now it's 'maybe we'll "act right" if you accept us just the way we are and treat us like human beings even though we're culturally fucked up because in case you forgot there are reasons for that shit'. Which is starting to work, hence the popularity of 'black' genres (rap, hip-hop, etc.) among all races and in pretty much all countries at this point (I hear that the Iraqi kids are very much into rap these days, imagine that). Some people in the US call the phenomenon 'white guilt', but the implications sort of miss the point. I get it (and I can appreciate the message the most when it's put across somewhat intelligently, e.g. The Coup), but I don't have to like the music, and people have been liking crappy music for a long time. Before rap existed all we had to bitch about was four-chord country and rock. And for the music students, Schoenberg and recitative.
As for the state of pop music today, I'm with you. The actual talented people are so very few and far between these days, that anyone with an autotuner seems to be able to get famous.Like that Rebecca Black chick? I think she got famous because she was funny.

This Lana del ReyI'll have to google that.

I like happy, poppy music to dance in the car to (I'd say work out to, but who are we kidding?) as much as the next person, but I do lament the lack of real lasting talent out there...I have always had a tendency to favor minor keys (dark) over major keys, and I think this is relatively common among classically-trained musicians. I think it's partly because minor keys are more complex. There are many more options as to how you can get from one chord to another within the system of functional harmony. But partly I think it's because all musicians are a little depressed.


Dai'shan, as to something you mentioned earlier about the restrictions placed on you in terms of syncopation because of the exactness of what the rapper is doing...one thing that I have thought about a lot and would like to see more attempts at in the future is improvised counterpoint. The rhythm aspect is just one aspect of it; if the words are, for example, scat-sung, then you have a musical line which places even more restrictions on the accompanying musicians. It's not necessary for lyrics to be sung to create this effect; it can go on while someone is rapping. So I appreciate what you are saying, but I still find it simplistic, because I like tonal complexity even more than I like rhythmic complexity. The tonal aspect has to be there or it doesn't interest me much. Of course, tonal counterpoint often works like a logical puzzle which is solved with rhythmic complexity (Bach fugues are a good study on that, or canons), which just gives the interaction a whole nother dimension of complexity. The musical element is there in rap, but it's often just barely there. Again, not making a generally-applied statement so much as an observation about 'what do most people who listen to rap care about, and what is the general result of their preferences'?

I'm not saying that I'm capable of improvising like that. Obviously a lot of the beboppers are capable of it to various extents; it just seems like a mostly-dying art. I get that most people today find jazz old-fashioned. It is old-fashioned. But there are certain aspects of it I think very much worth reviving. Perhaps you and your band and your friends are doing just that. If so, I hope there are a million more like you, just waiting for the masses to understand how awesome they are. Some of the stuff you linked earlier, the live performances, is certainly better than the lame boxed stuff, but I think there is a lot of room for growth there. I get really frustrated sometimes by things like the fact that Beyoncé, who has an amazing voice, never sings anything to show off her voice. Or rarely. Why is that? I think that vocal and instrumental improvisation and virtuosity are becoming less valued, and I find that strange especially in the realm of hip-hop where amazing diva voices are very common, and especially strange considering the ancestors of the musical movement, such as it is.

Again, I have faith that something will rise from the ashes. People will get bored with the same old thing and will either change or find new ways to show off.

More on the subject of rhythmic complexity...one thing that hip-hop has pretty well down is the elusive concept of the 'Chopin rubato', which is something that classically-trained musicians simply cannot understand (http://pianosociety.com/new/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4925). Some even argue that it is impossible. Chopin actually wrote polyrhythm etudes specifically for the purpose of training a pianist to have independence of the hands so that they could properly play his music, which is to say, with a steady tempo, but with a free-floating melody that has rhythmic independence. It's a pretty simple concept, but very difficult to pull off as a pianist (playing both the independent line and the steady line at the same time).

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 11:50 AM
I think we have a disconnect here. Obviously there are many more than five universities here. Anybody with the right kind of highschool education can get into a university. You can study music history or musicology or that kind of stuff in many universities. Then there are specific music universities called conservatories. You can't get into those without auditioning, and you have to have a pretty decent skill level to get in (though it differs somewhat per school). Of the about 8 to 10 of those that we have, I can think of at least four that either have specific pop departments or incorporate it heavily into their curriculum. There is at least one school that does only pop. These are educations specifically aimed at becoming performing musicians, with a focus of about 80 percent on playing, 10 on teaching and 10 on things like management and the legal side of things. Hence the auditioning.

As for tonal vs rhythmic complexity, to be honest I don't think classicaly trained musicians usually appreciate the rhythmic complexity that goes on in the better pop/jazz/R&B. IMO, this goes far, far deeper than what you find in classical music. Just as things like counterpoint go much deeper in classical music. The focus is just different.

And I can't fathom why you would say that Beyoncé doesn't show off her voice. Check out "Listen" from the movie Dreamgirls, Halo from "I am Sasha Fierce", "Crazy in Love" from the live tour "The Beyoncé Experience" or anything else from that DVD to be honest. She blows my mind. But other than having a very flexible voice she has stellar timing as well as can be heard again on Crazy In Love, Independent Women, Survivor, Bills Bills Bills, the list goes on and on. I can't really complain about much she delivers, but I suppose if you are wanting/expecting her to sing a different kind of repertoire you might be disappointed.

Crispin's Crispian
02-01-2012, 11:53 AM
Yes, I mentioned that a few posts back. [Edit: Just saw the 'as opposed to'. I had kind of skimmed over that phrase before. I have to disagree with that; I think all forms of popular music derive a great deal from jazz, though it might be more obvious in hip-hop/R&B than it is in rock. I think the influence is more evident in rock than it is in rap, or at least, I haven't heard much in the way of jazzy sampling, unless you count the soundbite stuff. Country and blues have a very recursive relationship, but then, most forms of jazz drew elements from European or other types of 'white' music, perhaps especially Debussy for the bebop stuff.
This is a really interesting discussion. I'm not a music history scholar, but I do enjoy listening to a lot of different genres, and I also appreciate influences.

The other day was Django Reinhardt's birthday, and my brother (an amateur guitar player) was talking about his influences on so many later guitarists. It got me thinking about how swing had this weird evolution where it's unclear to me if it started in "country" (Bob Wills, etc.) or jazz (Django, et al.). When you listen to early swing from either genre, it's not that dissimilar. Even aside from swing, bluegrass is basically jazzed-up folk songs with high harmonies.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than to say I agree that jazz has been hugely influential among many genres. But at the same time, some of the influences on jazz are the same influences you can hear today.

Terez
02-01-2012, 12:08 PM
I think we have a disconnect here. Obviously there are many more than five universities here.Yes, I'm aware of that. I was speaking to scale.


Anybody with the right kind of highschool education can get into a university. You can study music history or musicology or that kind of stuff in many universities. Then there are specific music universities called conservatories. You can't get into those without auditioning, and you have to have a pretty decent skill level to get in (though it differs somewhat per school). Of the about 8 to 10 of those that we have, I can think of at least four that either have specific pop departments or incorporate it heavily into their curriculum. There is at least one school that does only pop. These are educations specifically aimed at becoming performing musicians, with a focus of about 80 percent on playing, 10 on teaching and 10 on things like management and the legal side of things. Hence the auditioning.I personally would prefer a course of study a little more heavy on teaching because I think that music history and theory are valuable to anyone studying music, whatever the type. If you go to school to learn to be a writer, you're expected to learn classics. If you study philosophy you're expected to learn Plato. Why should it be any different with music? But maybe that's just me. Like I mentioned before, most schools have separate programs. I don't see the point, when it could be all one program with different emphases. Everyone gets the basics, and everyone goes in different directions.

As for tonal vs rhythmic complexity, to be honest I don't think classicaly trained musicians usually appreciate the rhythmic complexity that goes on in the better pop/jazz/R&B. IMO, this goes far, far deeper than what you find in classical music.Again, that depends on the classical music and how it's played. Chopin is more rhythmically complex in general than a lot of classical composers (keep in mind that I find most classical music boring); you have the complexity of what he writes (often with polyrhythm) and then the complexity of what's not written on the page (what I was talking about earlier). And people don't appreciate the complexity of what's written either in many cases. Like the 25/11 etude in a minor by Chopin, which seems really simple and straightforward, but often requires many hidden lines to be brought out of the mess of notes in the RH, and pedaling to emphasize those syncopations, and very, very delicate manipulation of timing between the LH and RH (again, beyond what is written on the page). We discussed earlier that most classically-trained musicians can't comprehend much beyond what is on the page. I get that syncopation is much more common in the post-jazz world than it was in the pre-jazz world, and I like it. It just isn't enough to make rap interesting to me.

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 12:24 PM
I would argue that rock and jazz share an ancestor in blues. I don't think popular rock has many recognizable characteristics from jazz at all, except perhaps improvisation. Hiphop harmonies are much more directly taken from jazz. Erykah Baduh for instance really blurs the line and is still relatively mainstream/big.

Also, I hate bebop. :-P
I don't mind taking some of the influences and ideas about chord-based improvisation into a new context, but the style itself either bores me to death or gets me nervous, I can never decide which. I'm lucky enough to have gotten through my entire education playing barely a handful of standards, though I'll admit I was something of an exception in that.

Terez
02-01-2012, 12:31 PM
The other day was Django Reinhardt's birthday, and my brother (an amateur guitar player) was talking about his influences on so many later guitarists. It got me thinking about how swing had this weird evolution where it's unclear to me if it started in "country" (Bob Wills, etc.) or jazz (Django, et al.). When you listen to early swing from either genre, it's not that dissimilar. Even aside from swing, bluegrass is basically jazzed-up folk songs with high harmonies.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than to say I agree that jazz has been hugely influential among many genres. But at the same time, some of the influences on jazz are the same influences you can hear today.Right, that's what I meant when I said that jazz was originally influenced by all sorts of other music, including the standard European fare and bluegrass (which had evolved from an earlier form of 'popular music' in the pre-recording age, a tradition dating back to the gleeman and further). It came out of ragtime and dixieland. Everything shares, but jazz sort of took over everything in the early-to-mid-20th Century, so it's just simpler to say that jazz influenced all modern forms of music. The term itself is very elusive and there is a great deal of debate as to what it includes.

Crispin's Crispian
02-01-2012, 12:32 PM
I would argue that rock and jazz share an ancestor in blues. I don't think popular rock has many recognizable characteristics from jazz at all, except perhaps improvisation. Hiphop harmonies are much more directly taken from jazz. Erykah Baduh for instance really blurs the line and is still relatively mainstream/big.
Well of course. But blues and early, early country also share a lot. The difference is mainly cultural.

I think the improv aspect from jazz is huge in rock, but you're right that blues were more influential. I would argue that most prog rock (Rush, Tool, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, and even Muse and Radiohead) moved away from blues and toward jazz. But the blues are still there.

Also, I hate bebop. :-P
I don't mind taking some of the influences and ideas about chord-based improvisation into a new context, but the style itself either bores me to death or gets me nervous, I can never decide which. I'm lucky enough to have gotten through my entire education playing barely a handful of standards, though I'll admit I was something of an exception in that.
You know, I started getting into jazz in HS when I joined the jazz band. I appreciate Charlie Parker as probably the greatest technical sax player ever, but I feel rather the same way about bebob. I couldn't ever really get into it, because it lacked emotion to me. I much prefer bebop styling over swing or earlier standards.

I'm not enough of a musician to appreciate more modern jazz, and without the emotion I don't really want to listen to it. :/

Terez
02-01-2012, 12:34 PM
I would argue that rock and jazz share an ancestor in blues. I don't think popular rock has many recognizable characteristics from jazz at all, except perhaps improvisation.Instrumentation for one thing, especially the drum set and the electric guitars.

I'm lucky enough to have gotten through my entire education playing barely a handful of standards, though I'll admit I was something of an exception in that.
Yeah, standards are just easy places to meet for a jam session. Some of them I really like. But then, I like bebop. :)

Terez
02-01-2012, 12:41 PM
I think the improv aspect from jazz is huge in rock, but you're right that blues were more influential. I would argue that most prog rock (Rush, Tool, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, and even Muse and Radiohead) moved away from blues and toward jazz. But the blues are still there.Agreed on that count, though I'm only really familiar with Rush, Tool, and PF.

You know, I started getting into jazz in HS when I joined the jazz band. I appreciate Charlie Parker as probably the greatest technical sax player ever, but I feel rather the same way about bebob. I couldn't ever really get into it, because it lacked emotion to me. I much prefer bebop styling over swing or earlier standards.

I'm not enough of a musician to appreciate more modern jazz, and without the emotion I don't really want to listen to it. :/If you think Naima (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX7ije-HXU8&feature=related), for example, lacks emotion, then you are soulless! I know what you mean, though, and to me the largest part of that is form...but I imagine that the strophic form isn't the problem for you. Another part is the harmony which makes climactic lines nearly impossible to achieve. Naima is IMO something of an anomaly.

confused at birth
02-01-2012, 12:46 PM
I mean, Kanye and Jay-Z are the pinnacle of rap right now,

Jay-Z is yes, Eminem is again now that he has pulled his head out his arse and started coming out with decent material again. Drake is talented I just dont like him that much, T.I. was great for a while when he had to deal with the crap that came with the stupid hip hop lifestyle and he came out with some excellent music but I havent heard anything he has done recently.

The only way someone would say Kanye is at the pinnacle is as a way of explaining what got shoved up his arse to make him act the way he does. He is a reasonably talented producer at best and that is the best I can say about his music, I mean come on he even managed to make a katy perry song worse.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than to say I agree that jazz has been hugely influential among many genres. But at the same time, some of the influences on jazz are the same influences you can hear today.


You should really watch the first few shows of metal evolution it doesnt have much on rap until the episode about rap metal but it does go into how modern music is influenced by classical, jazz and blues and how different genres evolved from them, it also shows how different countries have influenced each other as the music evolved

Ishara
02-01-2012, 01:24 PM
The only way someone would say Kanye is at the pinnacle is as a way of explaining what got shoved up his arse to make him act the way he does. He is a reasonably talented producer at best and that is the best I can say about his music, I mean come on he even managed to make a katy perry song worse.


LOL - I didn't say I liked the guy! He is an ass, and a WAY better producer than he is a rapper, and his ego is infitely bigger than his talent. BUT (and maybe you can call it hanging on Jigga's coat-tails), watching any footage from the Watch the Throne tour is my evidence for the pinnacle statement. It is ferociously awesome, and not all because of Jay-Z.

ETA: HEY! Did you guiys know that hitting the 'escape' button erases your post back to it's original blank state? GAH.

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 02:09 PM
I personally would prefer a course of study a little more heavy on teaching because I think that music history and theory are valuable to anyone studying music, whatever the type. If you go to school to learn to be a writer, you're expected to learn classics. If you study philosophy you're expected to learn Plato. Why should it be any different with music? But maybe that's just me. Like I mentioned before, most schools have separate programs. I don't see the point, when it could be all one program with different emphases. Everyone gets the basics, and everyone goes in different directions.
Putting a bigger emphasis on teaching takes away time from learning skills you need to play your instrument at a high level. Tbh, the four years you usually get is already pretty short, even if starting from a moderately advanced level. You can study "high school music" here if you want some playing and some teaching. You'll get more theory and teaching skills there. But I'm a player, so I'm glad that's what they trained me to be.

Again, that depends on the classical music and how it's played. Chopin is more rhythmically complex in general than a lot of classical composers (keep in mind that I find most classical music boring); you have the complexity of what he writes (often with polyrhythm) and then the complexity of what's not written on the page (what I was talking about earlier). And people don't appreciate the complexity of what's written either in many cases. Like the 25/11 etude in a minor by Chopin, which seems really simple and straightforward, but often requires many hidden lines to be brought out of the mess of notes in the RH, and pedaling to emphasize those syncopations, and very, very delicate manipulation of timing between the LH and RH (again, beyond what is written on the page). We discussed earlier that most classically-trained musicians can't comprehend much beyond what is on the page. I get that syncopation is much more common in the post-jazz world than it was in the pre-jazz world, and I like it. It just isn't enough to make rap interesting to me.
I don't think you are getting what I'm driving at. The kind of timing subtleties I mean are totally absent from classical music. The Chopin
Rubato is maybe the closest thing to it but not at all what I mean. This has to do with the elusive and hard to explain concept of "groove". Maybe I should have had more teaching lessons so I could explain better, haha. It goes back to African tribal music and therefore has an evolution entirely separate from Western classical music. The tension comes not so much (or not all) from syncopation but from the idea of the beat as a common entity in all playing musicians. This is not necessarily absent in classical music, but in order to achieve the effect I mean, the beat itself (whether it's actually being played by a drummer or achieved by insinuation through the adding up of the different instruments) has to be so static that it's possible to push or pull against it without upsetting the total. You can create tension by playing slightly in front or slightly after the beat, or varying it without making it appear random. Or making it random on purpose but then fixing your spot in time again. Of course, if one person plays in front of what is perceived as The Beat, the other musicians have to be aware of that and depending on how good they are at recognizing this they will either keep steady, speed up/get confused and try to "fix" things, or in the best case, engage in an interaction with the perpetrator. Jazz musicians often talk about having a "relaxed" timing, which generally means playing slightly behind The Beat, but of course this is too simple because someone still has to pull the whole thing forward. This is usually the drummer, and more specifically his right hand because the kick and snare often also vary on purpose.

This is something many pop and jazz musicians study on for years and sometimes never achieve.

In my opinion, good rappers (and certainly Jay Z, Snoop and Beyoncé for that matter) are mind-blowingly good at this. You don't have to find it interesting on my account, but I don't think you should dismiss it as easy or dumb.

Crispin's Crispian
02-01-2012, 02:16 PM
You should really watch the first few shows of metal evolution it doesnt have much on rap until the episode about rap metal but it does go into how modern music is influenced by classical, jazz and blues and how different genres evolved from them, it also shows how different countries have influenced each other as the music evolved

I haven't even heard of that--sounds awesome. I'm going to go research it. :)

confused at birth
02-01-2012, 02:25 PM
This has to do with the elusive and hard to explain concept of "groove".

groove just comes from the grooves on a record

I haven't even heard of that--sounds awesome. I'm going to go research it.

Its a VH1 show the guy doing it is ok and it is focused on heavy metal but he does interview to lots of musicians and producers but not just from rock and heavy metal.
I am not sure when its on so I watch the repeats last one I watched was about the metal music in europe that doesnt exist over here because of cultural differences and the festival culture in europe.

Crispin's Crispian
02-01-2012, 02:47 PM
The tension comes not so much (or not all) from syncopation but from the idea of the beat as a common entity in all playing musicians. This is not necessarily absent in classical music, but in order to achieve the effect I mean, the beat itself (whether it's actually being played by a drummer or achieved by insinuation through the adding up of the different instruments) has to be so static that it's possible to push or pull against it without upsetting the total. You can create tension by playing slightly in front or slightly after the beat, or varying it without making it appear random. Or making it random on purpose but then fixing your spot in time again. Of course, if one person plays in front of what is perceived as The Beat, the other musicians have to be aware of that and depending on how good they are at recognizing this they will either keep steady, speed up/get confused and try to "fix" things, or in the best case, engage in an interaction with the perpetrator. Jazz musicians often talk about having a "relaxed" timing, which generally means playing slightly behind The Beat, but of course this is too simple because someone still has to pull the whole thing forward. This is usually the drummer, and more specifically his right hand because the kick and snare often also vary on purpose.

You can do what you want, but you always have to come back to The One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey2qm-y7G7U).

James Brown changed the typical soul rhythm to emphasize the first beat in every measure, whether by instrumentation or a lack thereof. This is completely different from swing and soul, which usually emphasized the two and four. He let the musicians do whatever the hell they wanted on two, three, and four, but somewhere someone had to hit the one. Hard.

George Clinton took this and ran with it as a concept, and I think this was an incredibly strong influence on hip hop.

groove just comes from the grooves on a record
Etymologically, sure. But euphemistically...see Dai's post.

DaiShan1981
02-01-2012, 02:59 PM
groove just comes from the grooves on a record
I didn't say it was hard to say where the word comes from. But that does nothing to explain what you mean when you say "that bass player has a really good groove" or "that guitar player can't pick a groove" or "that song is really grooving".

Terez
02-01-2012, 10:19 PM
I don't think you are getting what I'm driving at.No, I get it. You just apparently don't want to believe that classically-trained musicians are capable of grasping it.

The kind of timing subtleties I mean are totally absent from classical music. The Chopin Rubato is maybe the closest thing to it but not at all what I mean.I never said it was the same thing...just a similar complexity with a similar level of skill necessary.

In my opinion, good rappers (and certainly Jay Z, Snoop and Beyoncé for that matter) are mind-blowingly good at this. You don't have to find it interesting on my account, but I don't think you should dismiss it as easy or dumb.Now you're putting words in my mouth.

DaiShan1981
02-02-2012, 12:43 AM
No, I get it. You just apparently don't want to believe that classically-trained musicians are capable of grasping it.
No I don't... lol
Because you keep nodding and replying with terms like syncopation.
I never said it was the same thing...just a similar complexity with a similar level of skill necessary.
Alright, I'll give you that. I just have really really bad experiences with classical timing transferred to pop or jazz. Now you're putting words in my mouth.
I can appreciate that you care more about tonal and harmonic complexity than rhythmic complexity, but you've (repeatedly?) referred to rap as being the most dumbed down, musically. That's what I'm objecting to. But then maybe I'm arguing against something you don't think at all, and I just mistook your earlier comments?

Terez
02-02-2012, 01:09 AM
No I don't... lol
Because you keep nodding and replying with terms like syncopation.Syncopation is a part of it, but I did mention that the Chopin rubato was more along the lines of what you are talking about. In the thread I linked, I even used Beyoncé to try to explain to these prigs at Piano Society how it works. ;) They seemed to believe that a relentless beat was necessarily an indicator of an unmusical performance, that a melodic rhythm acting independently within the confines of a beat was 'dissociative' and inherently unmusical. It baffles me that people could think this way about music.

Alright, I'll give you that. I just have really really bad experiences with classical timing transferred to pop or jazz.Trust me, I understand, well enough to know that I personally suck at it, though I can handle the Chopin rubato which is similar in many ways. Chopin always said it was a Polish thing...obviously the African thing is different. But the principle is much the same, I think.

I can appreciate that you care more about tonal and harmonic complexity than rhythmic complexity, but you've (repeatedly?) referred to rap as being the most dumbed down, musically. That's what I'm objecting to. But then maybe I'm arguing against something you don't think at all, and I just mistook your earlier comments?Well, I explained that the reason why I find it 'mind-numbing' is the fact that rhythm is, to me, a very important element of music-making, but only one element. I find it boring when the tonal complexity is removed (not just harmonic complexity, but contrapuntal complexity and melodic ingenuity). In other words, you don't have to convince me that the rhythmic aspect of rap can be very complex, nor do you have to convince me that this talent is evident in rap far more often than tonal talent in the genre. It's just not enough for me. It's difficult for me to think of something as musical when rhythm is the dominant and defining characteristic. It's not that I don't appreciate rhythm. It's just that I appreciate the tonal element much more. I also appreciate vocal and instrumental virtuosity in that realm much more than I can appreciate rhythmic virtuosity on its own. I appreciate it a lot more (as I said first off) when there is good poetry behind it.

Tomp
02-02-2012, 05:34 AM
groove just comes from the grooves on a record

Yeah, I posted earlier on this thread a QI-bit about when certain jazz words started to be used and what some of them came from.
Here it is again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6jP-b3bAY&feature=related) - Jazz-nazis.

Groove is indeed from a records groves. Groovy comes from that as well, basically, meaning cool and guess what "in the groove means".

Figbiscuit
02-02-2012, 05:44 AM
Yeah, I posted earlier on this thread a QI-bit about when certain jazz words started to be used and what some of them came from.
Here it is again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6jP-b3bAY&feature=related) - Jazz-nazis.

Groove is indeed from a records groves. Groovy comes from that as well, basically, meaning cool and guess what "in the groove means".

You seem to have a particular fondness for QI :)

Firseal
02-02-2012, 07:07 AM
I think the problem is that they don't want to sound racist (and since when did black become racist? African Americans fought to be called black at one point, because it was better than smug crackers calling them negros), they don't want to sound politically incorrect, because that's as much a death knell as racist these days, and they don't want to sound politically correct, because that's a huge sign to black people that the rich white people (and this is an important delination, as poor or middle class white people would not give a crap) are trying too hard.

So they go for the most nuetral, least offensive thing they can imagine. Thus is born 'urban', which means black (and Hispanic, if you happen to live in an area where they are a large portion of the population), along with such fun things as 'hip' and 'in-touch' and 'community driven' and so on. Because they figure if they can make it sound inoffensive enough, then they can negotiate the pitfalls of not offending a single one of the entire population of people reading.

They haven't quite figured out this makes them sound like either babbling morons or doublespeak robots yet, but at least it's usually good for a laugh.

(I always imagine one of those executives leaving their house in the morning, and driving past a bunch of black people specifically hired by their assistant to smile back when he says, 'Hey Homies!')

Tomp
02-02-2012, 07:08 AM
You seem to have a particular fondness for QI :)

I do, sorry to burden you with it.

GonzoTheGreat
02-02-2012, 07:21 AM
African Americans fought to be called black at one point, because it was better than smug crackers calling them negros), ...
Yes, but now those Americans of more recent African descent* have figured out that "negro" simply means "black" in another language, so it's all the same. You can blame the Latin Americans for teaching their language to "the wrong people" for this PC problem.

* All humans have African ancestors, if you look far enough (few million# years) back.

# Taking into account that Neanderthals and such are also in our ancestry.

Terez
02-02-2012, 10:53 AM
Putting a bigger emphasis on teaching takes away time from learning skills you need to play your instrument at a high level. Tbh, the four years you usually get is already pretty short, even if starting from a moderately advanced level. You can study "high school music" here if you want some playing and some teaching. You'll get more theory and teaching skills there. But I'm a player, so I'm glad that's what they trained me to be.I didn't address this earlier because it is a weighty subject for me, and something that I've put a lot of thought into, and I didn't really have time to get into it until now. (And really I should be practicing, but here I am.)

Anyway, I agree that too much 'teaching' and not enough emphasis on performance takes away from the skills you can reasonably gain as a performer. I just think it's a little extreme to therefore say that only a high-school level of history and theory is sufficient. As I'm sure you know, at non-conservatory schools in the US (and at many conservatories, which often have joint programs with adjacent universities so that they can award accredited bachelor's degrees), we have to take a lot of high-school level stuff, mostly because the secondary school programs suck, and we stopped challenging our students in many areas a long time ago because we don't know how to deal with them when they fail. So university students, regardless of their major course of study, take classes in English, math, lab science, social science, foreign languages, history, etc. I personally feel that students should be able to drop their weakest category at least, since obviously they're not going to be trying to a job requiring these skills. I could have done without the lab sciences and the math (though I would have loved to have taken math and science courses more specific to my interests, and I loved logic).

So, music majors. My university is pretty typical for a music program. All students fall into the category of the choir/band/orchestra model except for pianists and guitarists. (Again, the music production program is completely separate.) Regardless of whether they're education or performance or history majors, they all have to take four years of private lessons and four years of recital class. Recital class has two components: you have to go to 12 recitals per semester (certain studios make certain recitals mandatory, like oboe recitals for oboists, and jazz recitals for jazz majors) and you have to go to the class which meets once a week. The first week of the month is general recital class, where the best performers play for the whole music school based on auditions done the other three weeks of the month in departmental recital classes, which are a bit more informal (piano department, woodwinds, brass, percussion, strings, guitarists, and voice, which is much more formal than the other departments due to the difference in size). All majors are technically required to perform once a semester in departmental, and performance majors more often, usually once a month. Performance majors are expected to qualify for a general recital performance about once a semester, especially their junior and senior years.

For private lessons, everyone has to do a jury every semester (the jury being the faculty of your department). Everyone is expected to practice 3 hours a day. Pianists have to play three pieces from three different periods, the more difficult the better. Jazz majors have to improv and sightread. Vocalists have to do 5 or 6 songs in at least 4 different languages. (They always make you learn something English, Italian, French, and German, but some people get adventurous. They also have to take courses in diction as undergraduates, and actually learn the languages on some degree plans, especially graduate degrees.) Wind and string instruments usually only have to play one thing. Pianists also have to accompany them. All of them. There are close to 300 music students at my school and less than 30 pianists. We have several adjuncts who accompany and teach non-pianists how to play piano, because everyone has to pass a proficiency exam in piano (even the education majors who are going on to be band directors and choir directors), but the students have to accompany for free (meaning for the scholarship). I think the major ensemble requirement should be ditched for pianists and guitarists, but that's just me. Especially pianists. Guitarists don't have to accompany anyone.

Aside from that, all majors are required to be in a major ensemble. Jazz majors are allowed to use the jazz band as their major ensemble only if they make the 1:00 lab. (I was in the 2:00 as a trumpet major - the lowest at our school ;) - but back then this wasn't allowed anyway; we had to do band/choir/orchestra or die.) This takes up a lot of time, because the ensembles meet three times a week or more. Band is the worst, with football season. Four days marching practice, class rehearsals (1.5 hours) three times a week on top of that, and football games on Saturday, and maybe pep band performances the night before, and road trips. Choir is not much better. Three times a week (except for the lowest group, which is usually made up of non-majors and people who probably shouldn't be majoring in music), plus Monday Night Choir which is everyone together for the huge stuff, like Carmina Burana. Performances for both ensembles, often with many extra rehearsals with orchestra and whatnot. Pianists have to do major ensemble and accompanying. Guitarists have to do major ensemble, choir if they can't play another instrument. There are three large wind bands at my school, and three large choirs, and an orchestra, which only counts as major ensemble for the strings.

Every music major is required to take a certain number of credits, usually around 11 credits, of 1-credit-per-semester small ensembles. There are many different kinds of these. Small jazz bands of many flavors—trios, dixieland bands, funk groups (sometimes this can get dangerously close to rock and hip-hop). Trumpet choirs. Steel drum bands. Brass bands. Jazz lab bands for non-jazz majors. Choral chamber groups. Woodwind quintets. String quartets. Handbell choirs. There's something for everyone.

On top of that, performance majors are expected to go a lot further. They do opera, concerto competitions, regional competitions, whatever they can get a part for, or a gig for, to put on the resume. The wind and percussion performance majors are expected to do orchestra on top of band (which is two major ensembles). Everyone has to do one recital, but performance majors often do two or more (I had to do two, but the flute studio has to do four.) The faculty serve as agents for gigs that pay money instead of school credit, taking calls from people looking for musicians and directing them to the best student for the job. They advise you on what rates to charge. They set you up with students for private lessons. They direct you toward prestigious competitions and help you prepare.

With all that in mind, it's difficult to see how the kids at my school don't get a thorough training when it comes to performance. The quality can vary, certainly, depending on the talents of the students and the teachers. But music students work hard. And on top of the core classes, science and math and philosophy and whatnot, they spend just as much time on music classes: music history, music theory, music education. Performance majors are required to take more theory classes than education majors. Everyone takes 3 semesters of music history (some 4 or 5) and everyone takes at least 6 semesters of music theory (sometimes 7 or 8). Jazz majors take improv classes and history of jazz classes. I get really upset that the broad music history course, the 2 top required semesters, spend so little time on jazz in the 20th century. I think they need to start weeding out the less talented composers from the classical eras to make room for it, and I think they should have done it 50 years ago. I'm sure many schools do better than mine on that account, but most universities are using the same textbooks, and they barely give a nod to jazz. Popular post-jazz music rarely gets even that much. I find it so ironic that this music that might be the pinnacle of art music in the 20th century, something that is uniquely American, has been given more attention in other parts of the world than it has been given in our own music schools. Again, there are exceptions; I'm talking about the average university. Most have started jazz programs by now, but it's still not considered 'legitimate', something that all musicians should study at least a little bit. But everyone has to study Bach, Beethoven, and Schoenberg. I think the lack of emphasis on jazz in the US is a major reason for the current gaping disconnect between academic and popular music. Jazz is already history, but it's a huge gaping chunk in our music history.

But I think that it's important to anyone who wants to be a musician. There have been some efforts to expand past European music in recent years in the English-language musicology, and I agree with that direction (if not the speed), because I don't think it should be all about European music, but it's part of being a citizen of the musical world IMO...and with music in particular, I think that the more we are forced to broaden our horizons, the better we are as musicians, no matter the genre. A lot of people think they don't need to be informed on current events to vote, but are they right? Sure, it's art, and not as srs, but it's the same idea. I'm sure that your high school programs are superior to ours, but there's so much to learn, and it always enriches us to go further.

Theory is important for two reasons. In the abstract, it teaches you to think about music from a different perspective. In the concrete, it focuses on ear-training. Some music students have a problem with this, as you noted. Others are really naturals. There is also often a correlation between those who are naturals when it comes to aural skills and those who are naturals at the paper side of music theory, reading music, spelling chords, and analyzing form. It's a useful skill for a performer to have, and while some can perform but hate studying music theory, it's still a worthy pursuit. Someone who is pursuing a performance career should be required to give it a go at least, and if it's not terrifying for them (it is for some), then they should be encouraged to pursue it further. Pianists generally have an edge in music theory because our music-reading is so much more complicated than for everyone else who only has to read one note at a time, usually in one clef all the time. Guitarists are somewhere in between. I think music literacy is important because it allows you to teach music to others without demonstrating. Sometimes demonstrating is easier (especially if you've got a quick student), but quite often it's not. It allows you to learn music more quickly (assuming it's written down in the first place). Yes, it can trap a lot of people in the rut where they can't play anything that's not on a page...but I rather think that these people wouldn't have had much luck learning to play without it, generally.

Brita
02-02-2012, 10:00 PM
My son came home one day accusing me of sounding racist every time I used the word black. As in "That toast is going to turn black if you leave it in the toaster too long." He would look at me reproachfully and say "Mom, that's racist you know."

Obviously the school made a lame attempt to teach racial tolerance to a bunch of Northern Ontario kids who have 0.0001 % chance of carrying any racist thoughts towards a "black" person.

Yet, racism towards our aboriginal population abounds. I guarantee you nothing was said about this at school. Instead, my son is totally confused, and I am left trying to explain that calling something black is not racist, and to think it is wrong to mention something is black is actually more offensive. And meanwhile his grandfather mutters about "those goddamn natives" and how they should "go back to where they belong" without any qualms at all.

We let US culture dominate us so much that we define racism in a manner totally removed from our northern community and refuse to see the racism monster in our own back yard.

Firseal
02-02-2012, 10:20 PM
All humans have African ancestors, if you look far enough (few million# years) back.

Yes, but it makes for an uncomfortably long list of relatives to invite all of humanity to Thanksgiving dinner. (Plus, by the same dint but adding a few more million years, I would have to consider the spider monkey playing a pipe organ in the circus to be related to me. Also, Glenn Beck. No dice.) Not to mention the shopping involved. Which is why most folk only trace back a hundred years or so. A couple hundred if you really want to stress the ancestory, and a LOT more if you got something to prove.

Frenzy
02-03-2012, 02:45 AM
Damnit. You not only managed to find a song I'd never heard, but one I actually like! I can usually only listen to a P-Funk song for a little while before it gets boring. But this one is under five minutes. :p

Dood, have you never seen the movie PCU? Go get it. Now.

GonzoTheGreat
02-03-2012, 04:20 AM
Yes, but it makes for an uncomfortably long list of relatives to invite all of humanity to Thanksgiving dinner. (Plus, by the same dint but adding a few more million years, I would have to consider the spider monkey playing a pipe organ in the circus to be related to me. Also, Glenn Beck. No dice.)
I was thinking that you were completely off your rocker. After all, while I won't pretend that my musical talent is anywhere near that of the average spider monkey, it can be nice to bask in reflected glory now and then. But then you clinched it with your last example.
Though I'm not quite sure exactly how far back one would have to go for that one.

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 04:37 AM
Terez, if you count solfège, sight-reading, rhythmic notation and the like as "teaching skills" then there is definitely more than 10 percent of that in the education I got. I see those as skills required for playing effectively though. Maybe that's somewhat different between the classical and jazz/pop approach. But since in jazz and pop live playing, there is much improv and a lot of the "goodness" comes from hearing what the other is doing, I don't think you could do it properly without a good ear or a good rhythmic understanding (that sixteenth isn't "somewhere about here" but "it's THERE, boom").

I think making music is mainly about skills. I don't mean just playing technique, but even solfège or harmonic understanding are skills when applied to playing. It doesn't really help you that you know or can figure out the flat 13 on a Gb chord if you can't find it instinctively during playing, or don't hear that your bandmate is playing a sharp 11 when you're playing a fifth at the top. So I would say that for me theory is only a practicing tool, one that kind of helps you to realize what else there is to practice and listen for.

I would also argue that theory always comes AFTER the fact - first people play a certain way, then others hear it (and apparently think it sounds good) and start writing down what's happening. There is something odd in then learning what was written down in order to play it. While it can be easier (because humans are intellectual and visually focussed beings), I think you're kind of training the wrong skills if you learn that way. Meaning your eyes and your brain. I'm not saying I don't do it that way either. But I've often wondered if I wouldn't have become a better player with better ears if I'd just sat by the radio all day and tried to play everything that came by by ear. In the end, music is all about hearing, not seeing. Whatever Britney and her friends might want you to believe.

In short, I don't think my view is that different from your last paragraph, except maybe in approach.

As for jazz history, I'd like to have had a little more I suppose. We did have a course but it was quite basic. I didn't take classical history, it was optional.

Our conservatories are accredited by the way, but we don't have to take any classes that are not related to music in some way. I find it really strange that you would expect to train someone to be a successful performing musician in four years and then waste time teaching them English and math.

On the whole, your program seems pretty full. I don't think mine was as full of "required" things at least, even if I still ended up playing at least 8 hours a day some way. There was room to develop your own preferences, which I think is really important. It's something you do because you love it, after all.

The basic sentiment I have about the whole thing is that if you want to become good at what you do, you should do as much and as many things as you can that are directly related to it, and not waste energy on other stuff.
That might make it sound like I'm a really elitist "everything-for-the-music" guy, but I'm really not. I'm happy to be moderately successful as a playing musician but I'm not really expecting a career as a major pianist or producer. I have stronger points and weaker points and colleagues that are much better players than me on many fronts. I enjoy my life outside of music.

I just think if I spend a day a week teaching, I'm basically telling kids to do something badly that I could've done much better myself, and I will have hardly played that day. Better to have a playing gig half those weeks and maybe write something or practice the free weeks. It's actually why I like doing the ballet comping. I get to play pretty much what I want as long as I transfer the beat they need and finish when they do. I get to practice improvising and my touché and play a nice grand at the same time. It improves all my other playing gigs, that way. I don't enjoy the teaching itself either, which is obviously a factor, so it'd be pretty pointless to do it.

Terez
02-03-2012, 04:43 AM
I think there was a misunderstanding along the way. Apparently you thought I meant that everyone should be trained to teach? If you're planning on teaching, then obviously that's true, but there is a huge gap between performance and education majors in the number of pedagogy classes they have to take. Performers are all taught one or two semesters on pedagogy, since it's assumed you are likely to need a back-up plan in the future, but only education majors have to take large numbers of classes on pedagogy. I just meant that all musicians need some training in theory and music history, regardless of whether they plan to perform or teach. I'm aware of the general performers' attitudes concerning theory (and composers have the same attitude), but it's not trading one skill set for another in my opinion, but rather encouraging the use of both. Theory is part analysis, part ear-training. Analysis is important mostly because it helps us to learn what exactly it is about our favorite music that makes it so good. Some have an instinctive feel for it that can be augmented by training. Some can be taught to have a good feel for it with training. Some are hopeless. Usually voice majors. ;)

GonzoTheGreat
02-03-2012, 04:48 AM
I would also argue that theory always comes AFTER the fact - first people play a certain way, then others hear it (and apparently think it sounds good) and start writing down what's happening.
Like that hard rocker* who, to his amazement, discovered that some people were actually being taught how to play a guitar with one finger. He did it that way, because that's all he'd ever managed to master. They learned it that way, because they wanted to be able to copy his famous "one finger guitar" style.

But yeah, if it works, someone will cook up a theory proving why it just had to work. And others will then dutifully learn that theory, and subsequently start condemning those who try to do it differently.

* Details may vary. Could've been a heavy metal player, instead, for instance.

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 05:48 AM
I've never heard that story, Gonzo, it sounds pretty apt for what I mean. Though I can't really see any one finger playing techniques on guitar with standard tuning.

Terez, I did figure you meant a heavier focus on teaching when you said "more theory". Because for me, theory always has to be applied. In the case of solfège, this is easy, 'cause unless you're a total natural from the get-go, your ears will continue to improve for the rest of your life, and you can use it directly in improv and listening to your bandmates. But for things like harmony it already becomes more abstract, and I think you need many many more hours to incorporate certain harmonic concepts into your playing and really own them, than you need to understand a concept intellectually. At least this goes for jazz and pop, I think. Classical majors have much less freedom in the actual notes they play, obviously. Most of the time, all the notes are given and harmony is relegated to being an analysis tool. I think a major difference is that a jazz player is constantly running theory through his head while playing. If I see the symbols for D half diminished, Bb7, Ebmaj7, I'm not only finding the notes to play but also thinking "that looks like a II V I because the D half diminished is just an Fm with a different bassnote, depending on the melody I could also make it an F7 to lead into the Bb7" and so on and soforth. But this has to happen instantly. So yes, theory is very important, but at the same time, all these concepts going through your head have to be so instinctive and quick that I don't think extra hours in harmony classes would help me much. Hence my focus on playing.

For jazz history it's even more questionable where the applied value lies, though it's nice to be aware of different styles and what's appropriate in them. But you rarely see jazz history as an applied course, tbh.

Terez
02-03-2012, 06:35 AM
Terez, I did figure you meant a heavier focus on teaching when you said "more theory". Because for me, theory always has to be applied. In the case of solfège, this is easy, 'cause unless you're a total natural from the get-go, your ears will continue to improve for the rest of your life, and you can use it directly in improv and listening to your bandmates. But for things like harmony it already becomes more abstract, and I think you need many many more hours to incorporate certain harmonic concepts into your playing and really own them, than you need to understand a concept intellectually.Right, but when I'm talking about this futuristic concept of a partnership between academia and modern music production, what I have in mind for the most part are the performers who go on to be composers as well. (Performers who write their own songs, alone or jointly.) Obviously it's pretty common to just perform what other people write, but if I'm not mistaken, this is extremely uncommon in rap. (In other words, the rap comes first, written by the rapper, and maybe someone slaps the other tracks on to go with it, or a live band does their thing around it?) It has a certain value to pure performers, and a greater value to the performer/composers. In other words, I think everyone should have a go at it just for the perspective, but not dwell too long on it if it's not incredibly useful. And the useful aspect comes when you go beyond your personal instincts and learn to understand the language of music more thoroughly, how others speak it. Instincts will always give you an advantage, but broader instincts can be taught.

At least this goes for jazz and pop, I think. Classical majors have much less freedom in the actual notes they play, obviously. Most of the time, all the notes are given and harmony is relegated to being an analysis tool.Eh, classical students don't often go on to be composers, which goes back to the same point as above.

I think a major difference is that a jazz player is constantly running theory through his head while playing. If I see the symbols for D half diminished, Bb7, Ebmaj7, I'm not only finding the notes to play but also thinking "that looks like a II V I because the D half diminished is just an Fm with a different bassnote, depending on the melody I could also make it an F7 to lead into the Bb7" and so on and soforth. But this has to happen instantly. So yes, theory is very important, but at the same time, all these concepts going through your head have to be so instinctive and quick that I don't think extra hours in harmony classes would help me much. Hence my focus on playing.Well, our theory courses usually start out with harmony and then branch out into other things. Right now they spend two years on harmony, and I think that could be cut down a lot, to a year maximum including basic aural skills, if our public high schools taught theory. (They don't, except in really good schools, usually big ones in high-income areas. Some students come to college as music majors and have to learn to read music, especially voice and percussion majors.) After that they get into "20th Century Harmony" which in my case got into jazz and even some classic rock thanks to my somewhat-hip professor who went to college in the 70s and was therefore a little bit outdated. But basically that course is all over the place, from Schoenberg to Cage to Coltrane to Zappa and what have you. And then there is Counterpoint, which is basically the hardcore study of traditional Western harmony mostly focusing on Bach and the art of the fugue (some seriously challenging stuff that I think helps a lot to hone any musicians instincts, except for those intimidated by it). By this point you're not incredibly worried about spelling chords or labeling them, because they're just a byproduct of the counterpoint anyway. In some ways, it's a backwards way to study music. Chopin always thought so, and so did Bach. The counterpoint is the real deal of what's going on in the music, but it's much more complicated than the chords, so they teach the chords first. Jazz players know this; they practice scales and modes more than arpeggios (and then they get into practicing specific patterns)....but they also know which scales and modes work over which chords, and why. Learning these things helps even those with a natural talent for improv to get better at it.

For jazz history it's even more questionable where the applied value lies, though it's nice to be aware of different styles and what's appropriate in them. But you rarely see jazz history as an applied course, tbh.I assume by 'applied course' you mean something a performance student would study? I think it has the same value as learning regular history. I don't know how your high schools work, but in ours it's impractical to teach music history in high school because there are only a small number of students even in the big schools who will pursue music as a career. So if 'applied' means courses applied toward your degree as a performer, then I don't see why not. Last I checked, even Berklee taught music history to performance students, not just the classically-inclined. And presumably that includes jazz history, because isn't jazz history at least as relevant to a modern musician as Bach? Is the value limited relative to performance lessons and experience? Sure. Is it therefore not worth learning? I obviously think it's very much worth learning, again for the same reason it's important to learn any kind of history.

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 07:21 AM
Right, but when I'm talking about this futuristic concept of a partnership between academia and modern music production, what I have in mind for the most part are the performers who go on to be composers as well. (Performers who write their own songs, alone or jointly.) Obviously it's pretty common to just perform what other people write, but if I'm not mistaken, this is extremely uncommon in rap. (In other words, the rap comes first, written by the rapper, and maybe someone slaps the other tracks on to go with it, or a live band does their thing around it?) It has a certain value to pure performers, and a greater value to the performer/composers. In other words, I think everyone should have a go at it just for the perspective, but not dwell too long on it if it's not incredibly useful. And the useful aspect comes when you go beyond your personal instincts and learn to understand the language of music more thoroughly, how others speak it. Instincts will always give you an advantage, but broader instincts can be taught.
I can see what you're driving at, but I personally think this has a lot to do with personal preference and inclination. In other words, I agree with trying it but not dwelling on it.

As for rap, it differs, covering is really not done, that's true. But often they'll be inspired by a basic track or loop that the producer/composer delivers and then they make a rap that fits the mood they get from it - obviously the track has to still be moldable in that case, but that's the beauty of having a mostly loop-based structure :)

Well, our theory courses usually start out with harmony and then branch out into other things. Right now they spend two years on harmony, and I think that could be cut down a lot, to a year maximum including basic aural skills, if our public high schools taught theory. (They don't, except in really good schools, usually big ones in high-income areas. Some students come to college as music majors and have to learn to read music, especially voice and percussion majors.) After that they get into "20th Century Harmony" which in my case got into jazz and even some classic rock thanks to my somewhat-hip professor who went to college in the 70s and was therefore a little bit outdated. But basically that course is all over the place, from Schoenberg to Cage to Coltrane to Zappa and what have you. And then there is Counterpoint, which is basically the hardcore study of traditional Western harmony mostly focusing on Bach and the art of the fugue (some seriously challenging stuff that I think helps a lot to hone any musicians instincts, except for those intimidated by it). By this point you're not incredibly worried about spelling chords or labeling them, because they're just a byproduct of the counterpoint anyway. In some ways, it's a backwards way to study music. Chopin always thought so, and so did Bach. The counterpoint is the real deal of what's going on in the music, but it's much more complicated than the chords, so they teach the chords first. Jazz players know this; they practice scales and modes more than arpeggios (and then they get into practicing specific patterns)....but they also know which scales and modes work over which chords, and why. Learning these things helps even those with a natural talent for improv to get better at it.
I have personally never done much with counterpoint at all. I don't think it figures in much pop music which tends to be more melody/chord based than truly polyphonic. Though I enjoy a bass taking its own direction, I still think of that as chords with altered bass notes.
To each what works for them, I suppose. I studied jazz scales over chords but to be honest it always seemed a really odd way to learn music to me. Knowing which notes I am "allowed" to play over a certain chord tells me nothing about if my melody will be nice. If there's four chords in a bar and I have to play a different scale over three of them it gets pretty hard to predict what my melody will sound like. So after trying the "right" way for a while I just went back to basically my own variant of "playing what sounds nice". I'd say it's mostly pentatonic but there's some chromatism (?) in there and I do love the major 6th of the Dorian mode. But of course since I add in notes here and there it's not really Dorian anymore. I try to let the melody decide where it goes, loosely based on the chords. I dunno, it's kind of hard to explain.

Also, much of 'improv talent' I think is just daring to hit a note and making sure it's in time. If you hit a "wrong" note, trust your ears to tell you so, and then fix it by playing a "right" note and suddenly you've created tension and release. I can only improvise well if I know the surroundings, so to speak. The best way to ruin my evening is making me improvise over Desafinado or Giant Steps or something. Though for the listeners, jazz is usually easier to fake than pop. My friend always says "jazz is hard to do really well, but pop is really easy to do badly".

Davian93
02-03-2012, 07:31 AM
This is why I love TL...I get to learn all sorts of things I'd never have any insight into otherwise.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-03-2012, 09:00 AM
This is why I love TL...I get to learn all sorts of things I'd never have any insight into otherwise.

just wait until he gets started about shiny knobs and sound engineering, then it *really* takes off.

wait for it...



wait for it...










Kronos

go!

Terez
02-03-2012, 09:40 AM
I have personally never done much with counterpoint at all. I don't think it figures in much pop music which tends to be more melody/chord based than truly polyphonic.Well, that's a difficult distinction to make. Even the voicing of chords is an aspect of counterpoint. When you comp chords in jazz, it's thoroughly driven by basic counterpoint principles, which also translates to easier keyboard technique. Stuff like this becomes important in pop music all the time. Take Blackbird by the Beatles, or Precious Things by Tori Amos. (She has really good timing, by the way...the loose, expressive, beat-driven timing that is in some ways similar to what we were talking about. Even when she's obviously intoxicated at concerts, she rules.)

I studied jazz scales over chords but to be honest it always seemed a really odd way to learn music to me. Knowing which notes I am "allowed" to play over a certain chord tells me nothing about if my melody will be nice. If there's four chords in a bar and I have to play a different scale over three of them it gets pretty hard to predict what my melody will sound like. So after trying the "right" way for a while I just went back to basically my own variant of "playing what sounds nice". I'd say it's mostly pentatonic but there's some chromatism (?) in there and I do love the major 6th of the Dorian mode. But of course since I add in notes here and there it's not really Dorian anymore. I try to let the melody decide where it goes, loosely based on the chords. I dunno, it's kind of hard to explain.You don't have to explain it. I hate scales, and when I do improv it's always instinctual. I have been working on this Chopin etude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5SV8ldylbQ) for a long time. The scale at the end is one of the hardest parts for me, lol. (I hate the way that dude plays it, BTW, but it's one of the best on YouTube. I like Cziffra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvifHFt9Kuw) much better, but he's extremely eccentric and he adds extra bass notes, and gets little respect among pianists today because of the eccentricity. But much more fun to listen to than Lugansky. I only linked to Lugansky because for some reason lots of people like establishment piano playing better than expressive playing. But I agree Cziffra is a tad overboard in places.)

Though for the listeners, jazz is usually easier to fake than pop. My friend always says "jazz is hard to do really well, but pop is really easy to do badly".lol, yeah it's really easy to make yourself look stupid trying to improv jazz

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Kronos
Hahahaha I love you, honey :)

yks 6nnetu hing
02-03-2012, 09:50 AM
Hahahaha I love you, honey :)

:p between you and my new job I really know more than I ever wanted to know about electricity. I dont' even giggle any more whenever someone mentions AC/DC underwater cabling and converters

Crispin's Crispian
02-03-2012, 10:50 AM
:p between you and my new job I really know more than I ever wanted to know about electricity. I dont' even giggle any more whenever someone mentions AC/DC underwater cabling and converters

Shocking!

But seriously, I didn't know AC/DC did an underwater show. That's freakin' awesome.

"Dirty deeds, done real deep."

or was it

"It's a long way to the bottom if you want to rock'n'roll"?

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Shocking!



Groan. Can I take Rep away?

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 11:06 AM
Someone PLEASE know Deathklok/Metalocalypse...

Sei'taer
02-03-2012, 11:07 AM
Shocking!

But seriously, I didn't know AC/DC did an underwater show. That's freakin' awesome.

"Dirty deeds, done real deep."

or was it

"It's a long way to the bottom if you want to rock'n'roll"?

I'm guessing you didn't go with "High Voltage" for a reason?

Ishara
02-03-2012, 12:25 PM
My son came home one day accusing me of sounding racist every time I used the word black. As in "That toast is going to turn black if you leave it in the toaster too long." He would look at me reproachfully and say "Mom, that's racist you know."

Obviously the school made a lame attempt to teach racial tolerance to a bunch of Northern Ontario kids who have 0.0001 % chance of carrying any racist thoughts towards a "black" person.

Yet, racism towards our aboriginal population abounds. I guarantee you nothing was said about this at school. Instead, my son is totally confused, and I am left trying to explain that calling something black is not racist, and to think it is wrong to mention something is black is actually more offensive. And meanwhile his grandfather mutters about "those goddamn natives" and how they should "go back to where they belong" without any qualms at all.

We let US culture dominate us so much that we define racism in a manner totally removed from our northern community and refuse to see the racism monster in our own back yard.

Where DO they belong? Does he mean on reserves?

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 12:30 PM
Where DO they belong? Does he mean on reserves?

They should go back across the Bering Strait?

Terez
02-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Where DO they belong? Does he mean on reserves?Maybe he means up in the tundra. If it was in the US, I'd assume that he meant the desert. Or the Everglades, if he's a little more high-brow than the average American.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 12:33 PM
:p between you and my new job I really know more than I ever wanted to know about electricity. I dont' even giggle any more whenever someone mentions AC/DC underwater cabling and converters

~bzzzt~ Hand over the geek card. The correct response was "I know."

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 01:36 PM
Someone PLEASE know Deathklok/Metalocalypse...


Metalocalypse... its that crappy rock band cartoon what about it?
And its spelled dethklok

since you are going to bring up that weirdness have you ever heard Apocalyptica On the Rooftop With Quasimodo?

Apocalyptica are great I have never met anyone else that has heard their music

AC/DC

Its just a boring electrical theory class why are you bringing it up?

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 01:39 PM
Well, that's a difficult distinction to make. Even the voicing of chords is an aspect of counterpoint. When you comp chords in jazz, it's thoroughly driven by basic counterpoint principles, which also translates to easier keyboard technique.
I know that; let me rephrase; I don't think in terms of counterpoint while I'm playing. I don't even think "7 becomes 3". I think "Dm7 goes to G7 like this". That's when I'm playing jazz at all, which I don't very often.Stuff like this becomes important in pop music all the time. Take Blackbird by the Beatles, or Precious Things by Tori Amos. (She has really good timing, by the way...the loose, expressive, beat-driven timing that is in some ways similar to what we were talking about. Even when she's obviously intoxicated at concerts, she rules.)

True, some pop music uses it effectively. But a lot of pop doesn't object too much to parallel fifths for instance.
And yes, Tori Amos rules. Also, I think you'd enjoy Blackbird by Brad Mehldau. I believe he's Canadian, but he has a Dutch wife. Met him once here in Amsterdam, really cool guy. And probably one of the leading jazz pianists of this time.
You don't have to explain it. I hate scales, and when I do improv it's always instinctual. I have been working on this Chopin etude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5SV8ldylbQ) for a long time. The scale at the end is one of the hardest parts for me, lol. (I hate the way that dude plays it, BTW, but it's one of the best on YouTube. I like Cziffra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvifHFt9Kuw) much better, but he's extremely eccentric and he adds extra bass notes, and gets little respect among pianists today because of the eccentricity. But much more fun to listen to than Lugansky. I only linked to Lugansky because for some reason lots of people like establishment piano playing better than expressive playing. But I agree Cziffra is a tad overboard in places.)I've never been particularly interested in people doing things the "proper" way. Which is odd, I guess, since I have quite commercial taste.

lol, yeah it's really easy to make yourself look stupid trying to improv jazz
I think you mistook me; I think if you have a little bit of creative skill it's not hard to fake your way through a lot of jazz - but it will never
become really great. Whereas pop music is a lot simpler harmonically and scale-wise (usually) but you'll instantly eff it up unless you know exactly what you're supposed to do. It's closer to classical in that sense. I'd rather play jazz with a pop player with a decent ear, than play pop with a really creative jazz player, as a rule. And sadly, I've done plenty of field-tests with this.

Terez
02-03-2012, 02:08 PM
I know that; let me rephrase; I don't think in terms of counterpoint while I'm playing. I don't even think "7 becomes 3". I think "Dm7 goes to G7 like this". That's when I'm playing jazz at all, which I don't very often.This sort of varies from person to person. I had a student a couple of years ago who wanted to study with my teacher, but my teacher rejected him, so I volunteered to take him (because his only other choice was to not major in music, and he was so passionate about it that I felt compelled to try to do something about it, and I felt my teacher was really vicious about it). So she agreed. He had an interest in jazz and a natural feel for it too...but he was very nervous about it. So, my solution was to try to steer him in that direction where he was more likely to get faculty support. Now, I can't play jazz worth a shit, though I can fake it to a point if I'm in the right frame of mind. But I taught this guy a few things about how chords worked, specifically via their contrapuntal movements, and it was like a light came on in his head. All of his natural instincts began to make sense to him. It taught him how to experiment. This is why I believe everyone needs some theory. After you experiment a while, your instincts are largely by feel (distance between the keys) and sight (pattern of the keys). That's why you don't have to think about it. When I play Chopin, I'm not thinking F-C-E-A-D#-C-D-A-C#-A-C-E....blah blah whatever. I just play it.

True, some pop music uses it effectively. But a lot of pop doesn't object too much to parallel fifths for instance.You know what they say. First you learn the rules. Then you decide when to break them. :)

I've never been particularly interested in people doing things the "proper" way. Which is odd, I guess, since I have quite commercial taste.In case you didn't notice I have a thing for Bach and Chopin, but I rarely listen to them. It's not their fault. It's the pianists. They all suck. Which is really funny, because they all have amazing technique. Sometimes I wonder if it's become the norm in classical pianism for technique/polish and something resembling a soul to be mutually exclusive things.

I think you mistook me; I think if you have a little bit of creative skill it's not hard to fake your way through a lot of jazz - but it will never become really great. Whereas pop music is a lot simpler harmonically and scale-wise (usually) but you'll instantly eff it up unless you know exactly what you're supposed to do. It's closer to classical in that sense. I'd rather play jazz with a pop player with a decent ear, than play pop with a really creative jazz player, as a rule. And sadly, I've done plenty of field-tests with this.There is a lot of merging in the live music I've always gravitated to. I guess the proper word is fusion, but I'm not sure the music fits the stereotype of the label. I have some friends who have delved into country and rap and classic rock territory all the while preserving some elements of jazz, namely virtuosic improv (at least every now and then) and also high-level (instinctive) counterpoint. And the weird thing about it is that there is sort of an underground culture of this sort of musician that doesn't really identify as a pop musician or a jazz musician. They play with serious jazzers and pure poppers, just kind of floating in and out of either scene, sometimes playing both simultaneously. The original music from that group is very interesting to me.

Brita
02-03-2012, 02:31 PM
Where DO they belong? Does he mean on reserves?

Yes :( We have a very large aboriginal population that come here from the far north for school. A lot of people here feel the increase in crime is directly linked to this...lots of convenience store robberies, an increase in muggings and gang activity. The thing is- when a convenience store robbery is reported, they mention "native Canadian male" or "caucasian male", but people selectively remember the reports of the native Candian only, not the caucasian. I have called people on it because the prejudice is becoming really obvious.

And now there are reports of bottles being thrown out car windows at them, with racial slurs hollered out. There is anti-aboriginal graffiti springing up. It is very...unsettling.

Ishara
02-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Yes :( We have a very large aboriginal population that come here from the far north for school. A lot of people here feel the increase in crime is directly linked to this...lots of convenience store robberies, an increase in muggings and gang activity. The thing is- when a convenience store robbery is reported, they mention "native Canadian male" or "caucasian male", but people selectively remember the reports of the native Candian only, not the caucasian. I have called people on it because the prejudice is becoming really obvious.

And now there are reports of bottles being thrown out car windows at them, with racial slurs hollered out. There is anti-aboriginal graffiti springing up. It is very...unsettling.

Yuck. That *would* be unsettling. I don't even begin to know how you would try to teach your kids about how that's wrong either. But, you're awesome, so I'm sure you'll figure something out! :)

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 03:07 PM
Yes :( We have a very large aboriginal population that come here from the far north for school. A lot of people here feel the increase in crime is directly linked to this...lots of convenience store robberies, an increase in muggings and gang activity. The thing is- when a convenience store robbery is reported, they mention "native Canadian male" or "caucasian male", but people selectively remember the reports of the native Candian only, not the caucasian. I have called people on it because the prejudice is becoming really obvious.

And now there are reports of bottles being thrown out car windows at them, with racial slurs hollered out. There is anti-aboriginal graffiti springing up. It is very...unsettling.

From what I can remember from when my cousin lived in Australia for a year Sydney has a similar situation so its not a Canadian problem its a people are crap problem

SauceyBlueConfetti
02-03-2012, 03:27 PM
Yuck. That *would* be unsettling. I don't even begin to know how you would try to teach your kids about how that's wrong either. But, you're awesome, so I'm sure you'll figure something out! :)

Brit that is so sad. :(

I love my son's daycare. From the time he was 3 months old he was loved by
- a beautiful, elderly, Slovakian woman
- a Southern American girl who is black
- a young German girl with nose rings
-and a few others of nationalities I have yet to figure out.

He reaches for people of any size, age or color for love. Because he knows he can have it from them if they are willing. He doesn't see color, accent or upbringing--he sees who wants to talk to him, play with him, cuddle him. Sadly, that will have to be tempered a bit (as he becomes more independent in the world danger lurks) but what a magnificent thing to see. Ugliness towards others comes from parents. :(

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 03:58 PM
Metalocalypse... its that crappy rock band cartoon what about it?
And its spelled dethklok
My mistake. And THANK YOU. After the comments about an underwater concert I just kept thinking of the "music for fish" episode.
since you are going to bring up that weirdness have you ever heard Apocalyptica On the Rooftop With Quasimodo?

Apocalyptica are great I have never met anyone else that has heard their music
Sorry to disappoint then, I haven't either. Is it worth it?

Terez
02-03-2012, 04:07 PM
I had never heard of Apocalyptica until Frenzy mentioned them a couple of years ago. I find them more amusing than anything else, though they are quite talented obviously. And they make an impressive sight on a stage! ;)

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 04:10 PM
Sorry to disappoint then, I haven't either. Is it worth it?

I dont know you would have to listen to them. I think they are incredible but as no one else has heard of them I might be wrong

People have been arguing about musical styles here for a while, mediaplayer calls them classical I just wanted to know if actual people agreed
for the full range try to find these on Youtube
End of Me
Beautiful
Broken Pieces
Bring Them To Light
The Shadow of Venus

I dont know where you are but when my dad looked them up while in rotterdam their music videos were blocked for some reason so I cant just post links

My fav is Not Strong Enough but there is 2 version one with Doug Robb singing and the other with Brent Smith from Shinedown but I cant decide which one I like more

Terez
02-03-2012, 04:20 PM
Depends on how you define classical. By instrumentation (definitely one of the defining characteristics of 'classical' music), then yes. But it's a stretch, seeing as how they play Metallica.

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 04:28 PM
But it's a stretch, seeing as how they play Metallica.

The Metallica covers was just their debut album they changed a bit the last couple of albums and I love Worlds Collide and 7th Symphony. Mediaplayer says Hollywood Undead is metal so I dont trust it to much
See if these work

Beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wgu9Ax3shs
Broken Pieces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JFdcBULC2Q&feature=related
On the Rooftop With Quasimodo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUnNhOwKi-8&feature=related
The Shadow of Venus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqmj_aZ9hdU&feature=related

DaiShan1981
02-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Oh wait then I do know them. I even think a study mate (cellist) from my first year plays with them.
[EDIT]just checked and can't be. He was probably in a tribute thing or something.

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 04:45 PM
whats the name?
there has been five cellist in the band and they have another one that joins them on tour

Did the links work?


I now have a burnt hand as my roommate somehow managed to get two left handed oven gloves and the pan just melted through but my pork chops taste good

Crispin's Crispian
02-03-2012, 05:35 PM
I now have a burnt hand as my roommate somehow managed to get two left handed oven gloves and the pan just melted through but my pork chops taste good
Wait what? Just turn the glove over, dude.

confused at birth
02-03-2012, 05:52 PM
Wait what? Just turn the glove over, dude.

did that when I found out but they have thumbs so I put the on like normal and got burnt because I didnt know the colours mattered

Anyway what do you think are they classical?

yks 6nnetu hing
02-04-2012, 05:25 AM
~bzzzt~ Hand over the geek card. The correct response was "I know."
I don't get it?

Its just a boring electrical theory class why are you bringing it up?

Because i hate you and want to make your life a living hell....

Really, sometimes I say things for no other reason than *I want to*