[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Should also be noted that while Peter Tosh was a better guitar player and taught Bob to play music Bob's later solo material from a theory perspective is the most complex of all reggae. Bob took the simplicity of reggae and gave it the subtle complexity of jazz

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

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.

MUSIC is mathematical, quantifiable, yes. Music theory, no. It becomes an inherently non-objective, non-empirical method of research when things like testimonial evidence are used to support theses. Empiricism involves objective observation. Interviews and sound bytes and opinions from writers and musicians are not part of the equation.

Yeah, music is hella mathematical, and thereby scientifically applicable. Sure. But opinions are inherently subjective.

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.

Yeah, right. Ok. Still talking about notes, math, data points. None of this is true of testimony. That's why the burden of "proof" is really just a burden of being convincing in law. You still have to default to the decision of a jury, who may not have listened to a damn word of the trial either way. It's not science, it's humanities and rhetoric.

Indeed in this regard music theory becomes a LANGUAGE

Then musicologists would be linguists. Which they are to some degree, and I suppose the effect of sound on neural activity could be used to turn this into a question of science. Linguistics is a field that utilizes cognitive neuroscience (wut!) to legitimize itself scientifically. But linguistic theory is HELLA complex, and way beyond what any of us are talking about here. If music theorists wanted to adopt the research methods of psycholinguists, then we'd have some shit to talk about.

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

yep.

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.

You don't have to explain the model to me man, I'm a neuropsych grad school dropout!!!

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!

I still think you have yourself a working thesis at best. Find a way to test and measure it blindly, and replicate the results with diverse populations, and we'll be on the same page.


This is SHIT man you just HATE THE BEATLES! Admit it!!

Talking to you is fun.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

MUSIC is mathematical, quantifiable, yes. Music theory, no. It becomes an inherently non-objective, non-empirical method of research when things like testimonial evidence are used to support theses. Empiricism involves objective observation. Interviews and sound bytes and opinions from writers and musicians are not part of the equation.

Yeah, music is hella mathematical, and thereby scientifically applicable. Sure. But opinions are inherently subjective.



Yeah, right. Ok. Still talking about notes, math, data points. None of this is true of testimony. That's why the burden of "proof" is really just a burden of being convincing in law. You still have to default to the decision of a jury, who may not have listened to a damn word of the trial either way. It's not science, it's humanities and rhetoric.




Then musicologists would be linguists. Which they are to some degree, and I suppose the effect of sound on neural activity could be used to turn this into a question of science. Linguistics is a field that utilizes cognitive neuroscience (wut!) to legitimize itself scientifically. But linguistic theory is HELLA complex, and way beyond what any of us are talking about here. If music theorists wanted to adopt the research methods of psycholinguists, then we'd have some shit to talk about.



yep.



You don't have to explain the model to me man, I'm a neuropsych grad school dropout!!!




I still think you have yourself a working thesis at best. Find a way to test and measure it blindly, and replicate the results with diverse populations, and we'll be on the same page.


This is SHIT man you just HATE THE BEATLES! Admit it!!

Talking to you is fun.

that is the entire point. Once we have the math of identical chord progressions or timing or whatever now we have Exhibit A. Then we are not asking for opinions, we check and see firstly if the artists credkt their influences directly. If not THEN we are being subjective and making opinionated inferences but even then because there is underlying math to shape our assertions we at the least say it is a good estimation.
Also i think you stumbled onto something good with the linguists. They indeed have a very complex field but their task is to trace the evolution of language over time and the relationships between languages. Perhaps their methodologies can help us do the same kinds of classifications for different musics?


I don't need to research the origin of reggae Bob Marley, Alton Ellis, Johnny Clark, all these brothers all already said they were influenced by early Rock and Roll bands and the chord progressions are identical.

[Severian]

I'm just saying man, an artist citing an influence is still not a reliable data point. Self-report measures have a thousand flaws. The self-report bias is a thing!
Think about it, if I'm a guitar player in an indie band and I'm asked to list my influences, chances are I'm going to say a bunch of names that I think will make me sound cool. Ima be like, "yo, I'm all about Big Black, Shellac, Sonic Yourh, and this dude Glen Branca" even if my music sounds like Matchbox 20 compared to those artists. Even if I'm in the band Real Estate or some shit, I'm gonna say my influenced are super dope. I'm gonna name drop. (Not me as in Severian, but me as in the character I was playing for those two sentences.)

So I'm on board with connecting the dots statistically. Find a unique chord change in 1964, see it again in 1978 and 84 and 93... I get that that's a fairly valid way to observe and measure the impact of instance #1. *fairly* ...

But I don't think the self-testimonies can be taken at face value because there are a millions reasons why people say the things they say when they're asked questions.

I get what you're saying and I respect the amount of thought you've put into this. I hope you get where I'm coming from and don't think I'm just hating on you. Basically I think you're about 50-60% on point, but there has to be a more reliable measure than self report/testimony to flesh out the model if it's going to fall into the category of quantitative statistically sound research.

But I'm a science guy. That's my bias. As much as I love the arts and -- fuck, I WORK in the fucking arts now-- my education and training was predominantly in the experimental sciences. I have to remind myself sometimes that quantitative research has a ton of value and plays a huge role in the flow and development of theory and knowledge.

[Severian]

So... Did you guys hear Kanye apparently still hasn't settled on a title?
I haven't seen any cover art.
I think the press and the pressure are both getting to him a bit. Poor guy.
Just let him be! Let him be so he can release his Let it Be!!! Or whatever!!!

I had so man doubts about Yeezus and that album still sounds like the goddamn future of music. I've learned to just trust in Kanye. Wish everyone else would do the same. All this talk about him dropping a brick for the first time ever, man, it's probably freaking him out a bit. Haters trying to turn a self-fulfilling prophecy on our boy.

T-5 days.

[Severian]

Oh yeah... Flume!


Anyone else stoked for the new Flume album?

Have you guys HEARD "Smoke and Retribution" featuring Vince S.? Man, I haven't used this term in a while, but it's fucking FIRE. (Nothing Yeezy hasn't done before, but still)

Check it out
Flume - Smoke and Retribution ft. Vince Staples & Kučka

[Severian]

Originally Posted by 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.."

Who's K.dot? Kendrick?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

How is an artist saying directly that they were influenced by another artist NOT smoking gun? And ironically i think you are over intellectualize it because you are now contradicting your pwn original argument about the Beatles being influential

[louder]

Originally Posted by Severian

Who's K.dot? Kendrick?

Yes. It was his original rapper name before The Game adviced him to go under his real name.

[noisereductions]

right his first few mixtapes were as K. Dot.

[louder]

A snippet of Father Stretch My Hands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JeR4PJB5j0

Kanye even played it in his car while the paparazzi caught him a week ago (@ 0:15):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlWWXUhwsZY

Sounds incredible.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

How is an artist saying directly that they were influenced by another artist NOT smoking gun? And ironically i think you are over intellectualize it because you are now contradicting your pwn original argument about the Beatles being influential

Because you're saying it's not subjective, but self-report measures (like open ended questions and testimonies) are *always* biased. In the realm of rational empiricism, someone saying something is never a smoking gun. Why knows why they really said it? There's no way to tell. Have to be able to establish some validity in these scenarios and there's no test for how much so-and-so's statement about what influenced him truly reflects what actually influenced him.
How are yo not getting this?

And no, I'm not contradicting my argument, I'm saying none of this is-- not my argument, not yours, not that terrible paper's author-- is 100% scientifically measurable, because all of it is just basically opinion, or someone else's opinion, or someone's own statement about the past. My argument is that kind argument that the Beatles are influencial is not something that can be measured scientifically.

So I'm pretty much just saying the same shit over and over and over at this point. Can we be done?

[louder]

Another Father Stretch My Hands snippet: https://vid.me/KH9U

You can hear the Gospel elements here. Amazing.

[louder]

Just an observation:

Flashing Lights, Street Lights, All of the Lights, High Lights.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by louder

Another Father Stretch My Hands snippet: https://vid.me/KH9U

You can hear the Gospel elements here. Amazing.

Wow, that's the shortest snippet of a song I've ever heard, but DAMN I'm excited to hear that track now!! Fuck me, man.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by louder

Just an observation:

Flashing Lights, Street Lights, All of the Lights, High Lights.

Whatcha gettin' at here, redux?

(Good name for a greatest hits collection... Doesn't seem like Kanye's speed, that, and also it would have to be like three discs long, but... ya never know!)

[Severian]

Originally Posted by louder

A snippet of Father Stretch My Hands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JeR4PJB5j0

Kanye even played it in his car while the paparazzi caught him a week ago (@ 0:15):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlWWXUhwsZY

Sounds incredible.

He's actually pretty laid back around all those cameras now. I love how he stops for pics with kids. That's sweet. I'm pretty sure he was not talking to anyone on the phone in this clip ... *maybe* listening to a message, but probably just trying to avoid contact. Still, I've met smaller celebrities that acted like much bigger dicks.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Because you're saying it's not subjective, but self-report measures (like open ended questions and testimonies) are *always* biased. In the realm of rational empiricism, someone saying something is never a smoking gun. Why knows why they really said it? There's no way to tell. Have to be able to establish some validity in these scenarios and there's no test for how much so-and-so's statement about what influenced him truly reflects what actually influenced him.
How are yo not getting this?

And no, I'm not contradicting my argument, I'm saying none of this is-- not my argument, not yours, not that terrible paper's author-- is 100% scientifically measurable, because all of it is just basically opinion, or someone else's opinion, or someone's own statement about the past. My argument is that kind argument that the Beatles are influencial is not something that can be measured scientifically.

So I'm pretty much just saying the same shit over and over and over at this point. Can we be done?

But again this is where you are over intellectualizing it. Stop. Think. Think about guitar. IF an artist says point blank they were directly influenced by another artist it is not necessarily pure emotions or opinion. It is simply pointing out who taught you something you previously didn't know. For example who taught me the upstroke technique? Literally it was my friend Samau when were in a blue jam band together. What was the very first song i ever used the upstroke to play and learn this technique? Chuck Berry Around and Around. So if i say my use of upstroke is influenced by Chuck Berry i am not merely being nostalgic or sympathetic, i am telling you exactly where i learned it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by louder

Yes. It was his original rapper name before The Game adviced him to go under his real name.

That was good advice. I actually always wondered why he went by his given name but it always did sound like a good rap name so that is probably what Game said to him

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

But again this is where you are over intellectualizing it. Stop. Think. Think about guitar. IF an artist says point blank they were directly influenced by another artist it is not necessarily pure emotions or opinion. It is simply pointing out who taught you something you previously didn't know. For example who taught me the upstroke technique? Literally it was my friend Samau when were in a blue jam band together. What was the very first song i ever used the upstroke to play and learn this technique? Chuck Berry Around and Around. So if i say my use of upstroke is influenced by Chuck Berry i am not merely being nostalgic or sympathetic, i am telling you exactly where i learned it.

Yeah, according to you. Don't take it personall. It's just a fact of research. Self-report measures are the least reliable. Doesn't matter if you're telling the absolute truth or not, if you're the only one who "knows" it's the truth, it's not a reliable data point. Want you're talking about works ok in qualitative research, but it's generally avoided in quantitative. Just saying.