Rolling Music Theory Thread

Well Sund4r there's "what do I think" and "what do I feel". I think that the kind of analysis that you read in that "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" piece where it's like "oh! this guy is identifying the most defining trait of this song and probably the cleverest harmony-coup of Elton's career". I think that when I scan through the "Aeolean" blog linked above it's like "oh! how interesting that they started using iii-chords in pop songs at a specific point".

But "what do I feel"? My own ears hear music in the abstract. I hear, say, a I-iii-IV-bII-V-I movement (and most movements that would be contained within pop music) without thinking about what chords or key it's in. My fingers naturally move to the keys, to the guitar chords. Most pop musicians I know work the same way-- even asking somebody "what key is the song in?" you've got a 50/50 chance that the musician knows or cares. I think a lot of pop music + music theory has misidentified the point of translation, if that makes sense? Using numerals and words to describe what's happening in a song is a compromise.

It's not that it's too easy, it's just that it's not that interesting. Only when Marcello mentioned "Holiday" did it occur to me that that song is not in a major-key but in a minor-one, and contains the same denial-of-major-key-tonic as "Teenage Dream". But what does that say about Madonna-songwriter? or Madonna-cultural force? or me, if I wanted to write a song like Madonna's? I dunno.

Though as an interesting note, there is a profession whose job it is to listen to newly-composed tracks for commercials and comment on their similarities to other tracks, the place-holder music, for example. That professional will then comment on what elements need to be changed-- usually getting quite specific, on a theory level, asking for a melody to go further upward or for reharmonizations. That professional will then be required to testify in court if any plagiarism charges are laid. I've only heard third-hand about this occupation actually being a thing, but man I've love to read a "my day at work" with one of them

My understanding is that most music theory and the music it loves to theorize about, both classical and jazz, still basically depends on the major/minor system. Whatever key you are playing in, whatever scale you've got going, sooner or later you are going to have a V7 chord, even if in your original scale the chord would have been v7 and you need to put in a leading tone. Modal jazz doesn't help either because there the harmony is static: you stay on the same scale for 24/32 bars and go up a half-step for 8 bars every once in while, that's it. Actual modal changes or cadences aren't talked about that much except for in that one book I linked to the other day, which actually has a list of "typical" Aeolian cadences and progressions, which includes something close to the GL progression.

Well I think for musicians "using numerals and words to describe what's happening in a song" is not merely a "compromise" but a useful tool for when you're playing with other musicians (if they happen to know the same notative language you know) and when you're writing a song and looking at your options. I think there's kind of an efficiency to knowing some kind of theory or other when writing music, as long as you don't treat it as prescriptive. You know, I liked the way x chord sounds here, but I need to think of a way to get back to the first chord of the A section, here are five ways I know of to do it, rather than just flailing around and playing random chords until something sounds good.

(xp to self) Whenever chords can't be parsed in the usual manner they call it "non-functional harmony," which is kind of a catchall I guess. In one of those Rikki Rooksby books he uses John Barry as an example of somebody who came up with really original chord sequences. When Barry was in the service he took some kind of composition correspondence course with a guy name William Russo who had same interesting ways of thinking about music "out of the box." Topic for further research.

imo the activity that needs to be cultivated most in musicians and composers is the "translation of what you hear to your medium". You hear something and you can play it back, or you can write it down.

"Flailing around playing random chords" is just composing, it's the way Stravinsky did it, Messaien did it, Shostakovich did it. It's actually the way Bach did it too, it's not like he had Rameau around to tell him what he was doing. It's interesting to learn the trade via articles and classes but ultimately, well, for instance, I developed a taste for four-two chords-- a triad with the raised-7th in the bass-- I probably have the terminology wrong but fuck it, it's C# D F# A-- from hearing a Deerhoof song and saying "huh they put a C# in the bass of that D-major chord and it sounds flat, kind of like a Motown bass line but exaggerated". If there's gonna be any "learn the secrets" article, my consciousness dictates that it should say "put away your Guitar Player magazine and learn it by ear"

*conscience, not consciousness

Whenever chords can't be parsed in the usual manner they call it "non-functional harmony,"

There are whole systems of post-tonal analysis btw.

(I'll have a lot to say in response to fgti after I put together my counterpoint class!:P)

I'm all for learning by ear. I've never used tabs in my life fwiw. But you pick things up by ear faster when you have some kind of system for understanding the relationships between notes and chords, whether it's "formal" notated stuff or just knowing what shape something is on the guitar. It's certainly true that you can intuit your own version of "theory" by just doing a lot of close listening and struggling to match the sounds on the guitar. But it can help you recognize things more quickly if you know what a major triad first inversion is or what a flatted fifth sounds like over a dominant 7 chord. I also find knowing some theory particularly helpful on guitar, where "chord shapes" can get you in kind of a rut (as opposed to piano where it's equally easily to play almost any combination of notes).

_Whenever chords can't be parsed in the usual manner they call it "non-functional harmony,"_

There are whole systems of post-tonal analysis btw.

Hurting's last post completely otm.

the Gaga piece is really good btw.

Two 'quick' points:

i)This seems disingenuous, unless I'm misunderstanding it:

"Flailing around playing random chords" is just composing, it's the way Stravinsky did it, Messaien did it, Shostakovich did it. It's actually the way Bach did it too, it's not like he had Rameau around to tell him what he was doing.

Those first three composers all had world-class formal training. Messiaen was a theory professor. Surely Shostakovich had some theoretical understanding of how fugues were put together before he wrote 24 of them. Stravinsky must have been aware of serial methods before he used them, Messiaen knew what an octatonic scale was etc. I would think that Bach was aware of Renaissance principles of counterpoint, Zarlino's rules of dissonance, etc?

ii) I don't think that anyone has an objection to the cultivation of this skill:

imo the activity that needs to be cultivated most in musicians and composers is the "translation of what you hear to your medium". You hear something and you can play it back, or you can write it down.

This is essentially a description of traditional aural skills. But this informs theory and vice versa. Knowing what a IV-V-I progression is makes it easier to identify something by ear.

A simple fact is that different people learn better in different ways. Some musicians have a great ear, intuitively. (My impression is that you fall in this category?) I, for one, don't: ear training was always the hardest part for me. Grasping the logic of how things work in a formal/abstract sense (which came easily to me and not to others) is really useful for me to make sense of things. It did speed up the compositional process tremendously (as I think it does for most composers).

And, again, I'm pretty sure you're aware of these things so maybe this is a devil's advocate sort of deal?

Sund4r's last posts completely otm.

I see Hurting 2 already said part of what I was saying in ii).

My version of what you two guys said might have been a little more defensive -moi? - so I'll just nod in agreement.

Assume by post-tonal Sund4r was talking about stuff like serialism and tone rows but I'll wait until counterpoint lesson is done to find out.

Only when Marcello mentioned "Holiday" did it occur to me that that song is not in a major-key but in a minor-one, and contains the same denial-of-major-key-tonic as "Teenage Dream". But what does that say about Madonna-songwriter? or Madonna-cultural force? or me, if I wanted to write a song like Madonna's? I dunno.

I think acknowledging that it's interesting can be separate from attempts to answer a lot of questions that require more information to answer.

lol "to answer" twice

Only when Marcello mentioned "Holiday" did it occur to me that that song is not in a major-key but in a minor-one, and contains the same denial-of-major-key-tonic as "Teenage Dream". But what does that say about Madonna-songwriter? or Madonna-cultural force? or me, if I wanted to write a song like Madonna's? I dunno.

Well it depends what you want to know I guess? I mean one person looking at a building might be more interested in the nitty-gritty engineering aspects of it while another might be more interested in the architectural presentation of it. You could probably say that Madonna is an artist whose "artist"ness is less about the harmonic structure of her music than, say, the Beatles, let alone Bach. There's nothing lesser about that kind of artistry imo, it's just primarily a different skillset and presentation. I mean, Madonna's songs still have harmonic and melodic structures that have to serve her purposes well, like any artist, and I don't think she would be what she is without that aspect, but Madonna the icon really dominates the music.

BTW you know Deerhoof is the product of conservatory compositional education right? I always thought you could hear that in their harmonies -- I feel like certain kinds of harmonies just don't "occur" to most rock bands naturally.

Those first three composers all had world-class formal training. Messiaen was a theory professor. Surely Shostakovich had some theoretical understanding of how fugues were put together before he wrote 24 of them. Stravinsky must have been aware of serial methods before he used them, Messiaen knew what an octatonic scale was etc. I would think that Bach was aware of Renaissance principles of counterpoint, Zarlino's rules of dissonance, etc?

I'm not saying that "learning how to do it" is useless, I'm saying that the important lesson to learn is to have that information internalized, the way we all visualize words instead of keystrokes. I picked those three composers because they (famously) had intuitive compositional techniques, both in practice as composers and in teaching as pedagogues. Nadia Boulanger, basically. The famous quote Schoenberg made about Stravinsky "you will always compose at the piano, some composers are like that". That "holistic"? method of teaching has at least been passed down from Boulanger to Corigliano to my teacher Kulesha, and to Glass, and to Copland; Babbitt (I've been told by two students) had attempted to hybridize that method with a more rigorous approach. And all these teachers will, sure, teach you how to write a fugue, teach you 12-tone technique, but only insofar as it suits your requirements as a composer.

Sure Bach heard Palestrina, but whether or not Bach had read Fux is kind of beside the point. I feel like in rock bands there are those have heard Neu! and like it and those who haven't or don't. But, I speak from a specific position of privilege as someone who took a course (and one of ignorance, as I'm only familiar with the classical school of thought, i.e. no jazz). Beyond Bach chorale, which is pretty amazing and applicable stuff to everything, I don't think any chord-to-chord knowledge is particularly useful. Better to play the fugues, unpack them intuitively. (Major exception: orchestration, for which you can never receive enough training.)

Ha, OK, I think that's a little different from "flailing around playing random chords" but I have a better sense of where you're coming from now.

[Again, more tonight]

where is the goodbye yellow brick road piece people are talking about?

It's on Pitchfork, Jayson wrote it and it's beautiful. He says the bVI comes out of nowhere, and to my ears it doesn't, it's already been foreshadowed in the verse with the bVII-V mediant movement (the same relationship as I-bVI), but what does come out of nowhere is that m9 jump! (I feel like it's a chess move: m9!!) I... cannot think of any other songs that have a m9 jump, the only one off the top of my head that has any 9th is "December Will Be Magic Again"-- possibly inspired by Yellow Brick Road? she loves Elton John

found it, thanks!

"Day After Day" by Badfinger has nice 9th (not minor) jump on second line "Every day my MIND is wound around you"

Spotify version of that tune is a rerecord and he couldn't hit the note!

Boulanger to Corigliano to my teacher Kulesha

Hey, Corigliano is at Lehman College. I wonder if he knows Rob Schneiderman from the other thread.

Aargh. Maybe I misremembered about about "Day After Day" maybe the 9th is in a different place or not there at all. I leave it to Tim.

Guitar solo/melody reiteration & embellishment maybe.

Better to play the fugues, unpack them intuitively.

So I'm going to be difficult: there is nothing at all wrong with this approach but why is it better (asks the theory prof who likes writing fugues but, um, doesn't play piano)?

Hurting, you gotta buy that piano pronto. Too many guitar players of various stripes on this thread.

Wish I had the golden ears and fleet fingers of the Martian lutists of old that sang so sweetly, but given this lack it is nice have a little theoretical underpinning to help me think of things I might want to try to play so I don't have to thumb though the chord grimoire for new grips.

I mean, that Schoenberg quote needs to be read with the awareness that he was famously insecure about his inability to play the piano.

You come from this royal lineage of study, yet it seems like you are telling us not to worry about this stuff and just play. With all due respect, a careless reading of your posts might detect an aristocratic brush off : "Let them eat CAGED"

Good thing you're not reading them carelessly, then :) Kulesha is a great guy and I won't speak ill of him, but I learned more from attending a single Bang On A Can marathon than I did from four years in school.

I thought what the Pitchfork writer meant was that the Bb minor chord comes out of nowhere. That's the pivot chord (a borrowed iv in the home key). That's, of course, where that minor ninth occurs.

xp So much of music learning both performance and composition is rooted in listening though, I can't really imagine what music school must be like now that Youtube exists and you can instantly call up a dozen performances of a Webern violin piece. I'd imagine music school has been improved dramatically just by being able to access this shit instead of having to sift through CDs in the library.

@ Tim oh is it a bb-minor? I thought it was a Db-major but I was "on recall" I don't have access to the track

Db in the bass, but I think it's a Bb minor chord. It creates that great parallel with the ii-V-I, which you also already had in the home key.

Ha, you got CDs? Our library still used cassettes where I did undergrad. But yeah, Naxos Music Library does make a big difference, although I don't know that I'd say it's the main reason why music school has been improved dramatically.

Scores were all filed by card :) what a pain. Generally I'd just grab things at random and study them because actually finding anything was so difficult. It's impossible for me to gauge the comparative worth of "education" vs. "post-education" because everything got so great about six years ago.

i'd love to hear a composition by a person who has never heard a note of music but knows everything about the rules of composition via notation. i'm guessing this has already been done with computers though

Aeolian Cadence blog has "Louie Louie" mentioned in its first section about the three chord trick but doesn't seem to point out that the chord is not V but a v with a minor third.

I've been thinking about this paragraph about Trout Mask Replica's wiki a lot the past couple days, with regards to what is imo the best-ever intersection of untrained compositional intuition + training in dictation:

Van Vliet used a piano—an instrument he had never played before—as his main compositional tool. Since he had no experience with the piano and no conventional musical knowledge at all, he was able to experiment with no preconceived ideas of musical form or structure. Beefheart sat at the piano until he found a rhythmic or melodic pattern that he liked. Mike Barnes compared this approach to John Cage's "maverick irreverence toward classical tradition".[11] John French then transcribed this pattern, typically only a measure or two long, into musical notation. After Beefheart was finished French would then piece these fragments together into compositions, reminiscent of the splicing together of disparate source material on Marker's tape. French decided which part would be played on which instrument and taught each player their part, although Van Vliet had final say over the ultimate shape of the product. Band member Bill Harkleroad has remarked on "how haphazardly the individual parts were done, worked on very surgically, stuck together, and then sculpted afterwards." Once completed each song was played in exactly the same way every time, eschewing the improvisation that typifies most popular music in favor of an approach more like a formal, classical composition. Guitarist Fred Frith noted that during this process "forces that usually emerge in improvisation are harnessed and made constant, repeatable."

I'd shrug at Frith and say that all composition is improvisation at the moment of conception, but otherwise.

"Van Vliet used a piano—an instrument he had never played before—as his main compositional tool. Since he had no experience with the piano and no conventional musical knowledge at all, he was able to experiment with no preconceived ideas of musical form or structure."

IMO this is complete bullshit, it's the expressive fallacy.

Complete bullshit? As in the opposite is true?