[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

FINALLY. Some theory. So it turns out you are right about Beatles doing some innovative things with chord progressions and timings. If you are interested here is some theory

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/...d_chords.shtml
NOW for the meaty part of the discussion. What specific examples can we find of OTHER BANDS OR ARTISTS utilizing these different chord changes or timings and yes, to be empirical about it we must be both specific and accurate. It can't be what we "feel" or "think" ot is either the same chords and timings or its not and THAT is how we can MEASURE musical influence empirically

Well, you can't measure it empirically. Too many third variables. One being that the guys who wrote (song Y) simply never heard (song X) but stumbled upon the same sound. But yeah I take your meaning and I'm just nitpicking.

One Beatles song that I can hear all over the place is "Hey Bulldog"... I used to feel like Spoon based all of their faster paced songs on than track's dynamics. And then Spoon covered "Hey Bulldog" and I felt really, really pleased with myself.

I can hear Lennon's very specific style of mangled riffing on Raw Power. Like Revolver on steroids. And I think Paul managed to fit minor changes into pop structures in a way that definitely influenced Nirvana. Compositionally "Tomorrow Never Knows" is kind of like the "Sister Ray" mainstream pop (or Siter Ray's the TMN of proto-art-punk). Both songs just drive forward and never let up, cacophonous and droning and beautiful.

And as I've said, I can hear Rubber Soul and Revolver very clearly in Late Registration's orchestral arrangements and chamber-pop vibes. I think that was deliberate. I've heard many a music journalist make similar comparisons.

And blah, and blah-blah... deedoodumday.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Pet Sounds

Ok, yeah this came before Sgt. Pepper's, and it was an influence on that album, but Pet Sounds was only halfway there I my opinion. Not a concept album in the truest sense of the word. Still, ok... Maybe Beach Boys beat them to it, but the Beach Boys had been taking cues from the Beatles for years at this point (and vice versa). One could argue Pet Sounds wouldn't have been made without the Beatles.

I get this your fav band but i think even Beatles might call that hyperbole.

Gotta go to bed now but the Beatles are not my favorite band. Sonic Youth is my favorite band.

More later

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

you can't measure it empirically. Too many third variables

Nonsense. THAT IS WHAT MUSIC THEORY DOES. It turns music into something measurable. The link i posted breaks down in very specific and accurate details what kinds of theory based innovations the Beatles created. The question then is where do we see other artists and bands implementing that same theory like how Chuck Berry invented reggae

[noisereductions]

back on-topic...

I have to admit that I'm not even excited to hear this Kevin Gates. I wanna hear it cuz everyone's gushing. But I'm not really like "omg I can't wait to hear it." Y'know?

Oddly, I'm sort of interested to hear this new Young Thug. I don't know what it is. I hear him and Im' like "no this is bad" but he gets so much praise I always wonder if I'm missing something.

I am excited to hear this new Wiz album. Srsly.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Nonsense. THAT IS WHAT MUSIC THEORY DOES.

Well, it's what it kinda tries to do... But as a field of study it's aware of its inherent limitations. It doesn't result in truly empirical measurement. And the piece you posted makes a lot of claims, many of them "true" enough, but none of it is truly empirical.

Musical theory is not the same as scientific theory. It serves a different purpose. Like literary theory and legal theory. What it gathers is not "evidence" by the strictest definition of the term, but rather rhetorical, anecdotal support. The piece you posted gathers self-reported semantic evidence to support thesis statements. Not hard quantifiable data that can be statistically analyzed to show or support a causal link.

Also, that piece is quite poorly written. Give me a red pen and let me go balls out on that thing.

But let's be straight with our terminology here. Theory isn't fact. Theory is theory. You can't create an equation to show that Chick Berry invented reggae. You can make a convincing argument in favor of that thesis, and the reader could accept the premise... But you're still dealing with subjective values. There's no way to prove that everyone other than Chuck Berry didnt invent reggae. Can't prove a negative, semantically or scientifically. So remember that we're not dealing with the kind of theory that can truly be tested via rational empiricism or the scientific method.

Anyway, I'm nitpicking but there are two different worlds of theory/research/application. There's the quantitative and the qualitative and you're in a qualitative zone here, which doesn't even factor in to empiricism. Not without extensive post-treatment by other research.

[Severian]

I do like the article though. It puts into words some of the shit that was rattling around in my brain that I-- being as detached form theory as I am-- couldnt find a way to express.

Particularly the bit about the Beatles' songs containing chordal changes that almost don't work, or don't make sense... and come close (but never do) hinder the song's quality.

One of my bands once did a kind of country punk cover of "Rocky Raccoon" and it actually proved to be quite an undertaking. Part of it was that I was the only one ("hey hey my only one"... *cough* sorry... sometimes I sing Kanye songs when I type or say the name of a Kanye song in conversation.... Ok, I always do that) who knew the song well.

This story is not interesting and I have to go to work so ima stop right here.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

back on-topic...

I have to admit that I'm not even excited to hear this Kevin Gates. I wanna hear it cuz everyone's gushing. But I'm not really like "omg I can't wait to hear it." Y'know?

Oddly, I'm sort of interested to hear this new Young Thug. I don't know what it is. I hear him and Im' like "no this is bad" but he gets so much praise I always wonder if I'm missing something.

I am excited to hear this new Wiz album. Srsly.

Wow. It's out! They're both out actually. You're a Spotify guy right? Well, listen away. I can't promise Khalifa won't be dope at times, but I can pretty much promise that Slime Season 3 will be butt play.

I've been reading more Pitchfork than usual lately. I find it kind of hilarious that Deftones feel the need to mock Kanye. I mean... the Deftones? Seriously? They're lucky they still have a semblance of relevance, and that they're not being considered gusty by association with the bullshit acts they came up with. But whatever.

[noisereductions]

I don't think they were 'mocking' him. I just think it was a sort of timely joke. Like "hey this thing just happened, and we're announcing our album so it'll be funny." I don't know. They don't seem like mean-spirited guys.

Like when that guy from Wavves said he was calling his album "Kanye." I don't think that was mocking. Just sort of silly.

[noisereductions]

 

R&B vocalist Anderson .Paak and producer Knxwledge are working together as NxWorries (pronounced “No Worries”). Last Spring, they debuted with the single “Suede” which quickly found the ears of Dr. Dre.

Anderson .Paak went on to record eight tracks with Dre that appeared on his album Compton. Fader declared Anderson .Paak, “the L.A. savant all over Dr. Dre’s new album.” His own credits go beyond vocalist – he’s a songwriter, drummer, an incredible live performer and producer​.

Knxwledge (“knowledge”) is a prolific hip-hop beat maker from Los Angeles whose record Hud Dreems​ ​came out this year. His production credits include tracks for Joey Badass and Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly (2015).

NxWorries recently completed a national tour with Earl Sweatshirt and are putting the ​finishing touches on their full-length album for Stones Throw Records, set for release in 2016.

[Severian]

I told y'all Knxwledge was the shit.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by louder

http://pitchfork.com/news/63352-eart...hite-has-died/

Sad, a big legend. RIP.

Maurice White was one of the giants in making uplifting music. Sad.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Severian

Also- that new KEVIN GATES album really is pretty damn good, louder! I detect a hint of lil Wayne at his peak on Islah. It's good and it's full and it's complex. Might join the ranks of Vince Staples and Kendrick if it holds my attention.

Gates song TWO PHONES will not leave my head

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Wow. It's out! They're both out actually. You're a Spotify guy right? Well, listen away. I can't promise Khalifa won't be dope at times, but I can pretty much promise that Slime Season 3 will be butt play.

I've been reading more Pitchfork than usual lately. I find it kind of hilarious that Deftones feel the need to mock Kanye. I mean... the Deftones? Seriously? They're lucky they still have a semblance of relevance, and that they're not being considered gusty by association with the bullshit acts they came up with. But whatever.

That is what you don't get. Deftones could care less about their "relevance" and people are free to criticize other art. Indeed as a fan i know deftones have been heavily and harshly criticized over the years so maybe Kanye and his fanbase shouldn't give any fucks?

[Rob Instigator]

they both suck?

[Derek]

Kanye <3
Kevin Gates <3
Young Thug <3

[louder]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

 

Anderson is insanely talented, just watch his performance on Colbert from a couple of days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cLZRqqznU

Suede is a great single and Malibu is already bound to go down as one of the best albums of the year. Can't wait for this.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Well, it's what it kinda tries to do... But as a field of study it's aware of its inherent limitations. It doesn't result in truly empirical measurement. And the piece you posted makes a lot of claims, many of them "true" enough, but none of it is truly empirical.

Yes it is empirical in the sense that there is measurable data. A chord is math based, it is quantifiable, we can measure it. Same with timing patterns, scales, etc. We can use this empirical data to mathematically examine OTHER musics and see if they incorporate the same math (eg chord progressions, timing structures, melody and scale patterns). Sure, its not going to be 100% definitive and there will ALWAYS be exceptions BUT once we have some measurable data we can look for more evidence. In this case, if we believe that one banf, say the Beatles, innovatived an entirely unique music theory, then our next step is to check if any other bands implemented the same theories. If yes then we now can begin to look for less quantifiable evidence as to if these second artists directly borrowed from the first artist or if it was purely serendipitous or coincidence.

Musical theory is not the same as scientific theory.

Actually it is because the parameters of all possible sounds are both definable, quantifiable, and measurable. Indeed the entire premise of theory is based on Pythagoras insights on the mathematical relationship between harmony and octaves.

It serves a different purpose. Like literary theory and legal theory. What it gathers is not "evidence" by the strictest definition of the term, but rather rhetorical, anecdotal support. The piece you posted gathers self-reported semantic evidence to support thesis statements. Not hard quantifiable data that can be statistically analyzed to show or support a causal link.

Partly true but again remember the theory is simply explain the underlying math of music. A G chord or key is what it is because that particular sound has a quantifiable and measurable frequency wave. What separates what we call a G from what we call an A is 100% measurable. Further the melodies, chord progressions, and scale patterns are also all based on the underlying math. Now of course most artists don't use theory to CREATE music, i have written at least a hundred songs and i never ONCE consulted theory. Instead what i use theory for is either to think about harmonic chords or scales when i am playing back up or lead guitar in a band with OTHER people's music OR when i am trying to accurately translates my own original music to share or jam with other musicians. Indeed in this regard music theory becomes a LANGUAGE

Also, that piece is quite poorly written. Give me a red pen and let me go balls out on that thing.

Yes it was but it delved into ACTUAL music theories in ways neither you or I even remotely discussed.

But let's be straight with our terminology here. Theory isn't fact. Theory is theory. You can't create an equation to show that Chick Berry invented reggae. You can make a convincing argument in favor of that thesis, and the reader could accept the premise... But you're still dealing with subjective values.

When we extrapolate from theory to make inferences about other artists true it just theory. When we use theory to say "the chord is a G" or to say "the scale is an Aeolian Aminor" THAT isn't merely theory, that is a mathematical fact of reality of what music is! Music IS math.

There's no way to prove that everyone other than Chuck Berry didnt invent reggae. Can't prove a negative, semantically or scientifically.

Yes we can by combining the empirical evidence of the actual theory with the testimonial evidence from the other artists. For example i said Chuck Berry invented reggae because (a) music theory shows us some of the chord progressions, scales, and time structures that Berry incorporated and in many respects innovatived and created which we ALSO then see mirrored in reggae music and then (b) ask those musicians who invented reggae what influencd them to incorporate those SAME theory based chords and patterns? Well when we do this we hear all the pioneers of reggae saying they invented reggae after spending years listening to Chuck Berry rock and roll on the radio stations from New Orleans and then formimv rock and roll bands which evolved into rock steady bands which evolved into ska bands which evolved into reggae. Further proof is in the pudding, i couldn't even remotely play reggae music for YEARS.. then i joined a blues band and learned to play some Chuck Berry covers. Using the up stroke, timings, and chords from these covers naturally developed my own playing so that almost arbitrarily one day i was just able to also play reggae!

[louder]

"'Bout the year Drizzy and Cole dropped, before K.Dot had it locked, I was sleeping on the floor, newborn baby boy, tryna get my money pot so wifey wouldn't get deported.."

[Rob Instigator]

"I explain to a musician. Dem knew it but dem couldn't do it." Bob Marley on playing Reggae

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

"I explain to a musician. Dem knew it but dem couldn't do it." Bob Marley on playing Reggae

Its because its chord progressions and patterns are super basic R&B BUT its timing patterns and structures are so backwards, counterintuitive, and confusing from a "traditional" guitarist perspective! Indeed the crux to playing reggae is to remember the guitar is not a rhythm instruments in reggae, it is really percussion