Nicholas2.0
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,666
|
Post by Nicholas2.0 on Dec 16, 2010 3:30:40 GMT -5
actually i have and it's not country. ask a musician what the difference between country and rock is, they are not even the same time signatures lol. Um...what?? Time signatures aren't genre specific. ???
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 16, 2010 14:36:07 GMT -5
actually i have and it's not country. ask a musician what the difference between country and rock is, they are not even the same time signatures lol. Um...what?? Time signatures aren't genre specific. ??? wth, i learned in college in music theory. like a 12/8 ts for ex. is more slow blues,doo wap and 6/8 is waltzy type and 3/4 used for waltzes, country & western ballads, sometimes rarely used used in pop. and common time 4/4 for rock,blues,funk and pop!
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 16, 2010 14:39:10 GMT -5
Um...what?? Time signatures aren't genre specific. ??? wth, i learned in college in music theory. like a 12/8 ts for ex. is more slow blues,doo wap and 6/8 is waltzy type and 3/4 used for waltzes, country & western ballads, sometimes rarely used used in pop. and common time 4/4 for rock,blues,funk and pop!oh its also the first thing i learned when learning to play guitar lmao! of coursr theyre are always crazy time signatures and rare instances but i was just replying to your very blunty written Um...what?? Time signatures aren't genre specific
|
|
PHOBES
3x Platinum Member
Until We Have Faces (02-01-11)
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 3,317
|
Post by PHOBES on Dec 16, 2010 17:34:58 GMT -5
Um...what?? Time signatures aren't genre specific. ??? wth, i learned in college in music theory. like a 12/8 ts for ex. is more slow blues,doo wap and 6/8 is waltzy type and 3/4 used for waltzes, country & western ballads, sometimes rarely used used in pop. and common time 4/4 for rock,blues,funk and pop!3/4 and 6/8 are, essentially, the same. Basically it's up to the listener to decide which a particular song is, although typically 6/8 is more sporadic. Either way, 4/4 and 6/8 are fairly proficient in most types of music today, especially as the line between most genres continues to blur. Admittedly, I can't think of a pop song right now that isn't 4/4, but both rock and country have their fair share of 4/4 and 6/8 songs.
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 16, 2010 18:26:18 GMT -5
wth, i learned in college in music theory. like a 12/8 ts for ex. is more slow blues,doo wap and 6/8 is waltzy type and 3/4 used for waltzes, country & western ballads, sometimes rarely used used in pop. and common time 4/4 for rock,blues,funk and pop!3/4 and 6/8 are, essentially, the same. Basically it's up to the listener to decide which a particular song is, although typically 6/8 is more sporadic. Either way, 4/4 and 6/8 are fairly proficient in most types of music today, especially as the line between most genres continues to blur. Admittedly, I can't think of a pop song right now that isn't 4/4, but both rock and country have their fair share of 4/4 and 6/8 songs. maybe but when we studied musical comp, theory and appreciation we learned that. country used to be different than rock. now with keith urban and taylor swift it is blurred, but traditionally they are not the same or why would Garth haft to take lessons on singing in different time sigs for Chris Gaines prodject, and singing lessons 4 it too? 'marketing, and mass appeal marketing has killed the originality and what each format/genre stood 4 if u ask me!
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 16, 2010 18:45:29 GMT -5
Yeah, but if you look at history, that happens naturally anyway. Tchaikovsky and his contemporaries blended Russian folk music with the western European classical tradition resulting in the height of the global popularity of Russian music. The genre of symphony changed quite a lot from the early gallant style symphonies of the 1750s to the Mahler symphonies 150 years later, but they're both still symphonies. Metal of 30 years ago and metal of today have very little in common. Classical music of 200 years ago has more harmonically in common with today's pop music than today's classical music. Genres evolve and change. That doesn't make today's country music NOT country music just because it was affected by the other music that developed around it. Considering what "rock" music sounded like 50 years ago with Elvis and Chuck Berry, I would think Three Days Grace has very little in common with it, but how are you gonna say that Three Days Grace is not a rock band?
Today's country is not classic country, but it's still country.
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 16, 2010 19:30:26 GMT -5
Yeah, but if you look at history, that happens naturally anyway. Tchaikovsky and his contemporaries blended Russian folk music with the western European classical tradition resulting in the height of the global popularity of Russian music. The genre of symphony changed quite a lot from the early gallant style symphonies of the 1750s to the Mahler symphonies 150 years later, but they're both still symphonies. Metal of 30 years ago and metal of today have very little in common. Classical music of 200 years ago has more harmonically in common with today's pop music than today's classical music. Genres evolve and change. That doesn't make today's country music NOT country music just because it was affected by the other music that developed around it. Considering what "rock" music sounded like 50 years ago with Elvis and Chuck Berry, I would think Three Days Grace has very little in common with it, but how are you gonna say that Three Days Grace is not a rock band? Today's country is not classic country, but it's still country. i never looked at it from that perspective, but your right!
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 16, 2010 19:57:03 GMT -5
The first thing my music theory teacher taught me when I had music theory is that everything we were going to learn in the class was absolutely useless. This isn't a joke. This is something he said. And you know, what the hell, he was right.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 16, 2010 20:19:46 GMT -5
^I disagree. It helps me a lot with songwriting and communicating ideas. If you're a musician/producer, it can be pretty helpful.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 16, 2010 20:23:40 GMT -5
^I disagree. It helps me a lot with songwriting and communicating ideas. If you're a musician/producer, it can be pretty helpful. I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music.
|
|
mcbrearty
Gold Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 914
|
Post by mcbrearty on Dec 16, 2010 22:54:30 GMT -5
^I disagree. It helps me a lot with songwriting and communicating ideas. If you're a musician/producer, it can be pretty helpful. I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. I agree, one guy's crap music is another guy's masterpeice. Theres not one band that everyone loves, except for maybe Bowling For Soup. ;)
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 17, 2010 0:12:08 GMT -5
^I disagree. It helps me a lot with songwriting and communicating ideas. If you're a musician/producer, it can be pretty helpful. I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. That's because when music theory is applied correctly, it isn't a method of making music; it's a vocabulary of terms that describe the music and with that understanding applied to existing pieces of music, composers might use those elements to help get the sound that they're going for. Knowing music theory can also help you steer clear of doing something that's been done a million times before by actively choosing not to imitate the pieces in the canonical repertoire.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 17, 2010 9:01:38 GMT -5
I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. That's because when music theory is applied correctly, it isn't a method of making music; it's a vocabulary of terms that describe the music and with that understanding applied to existing pieces of music, composers might use those elements to help get the sound that they're going for. Knowing music theory can also help you steer clear of doing something that's been done a million times before by actively choosing not to imitate the pieces in the canonical repertoire. I think you're missing the point. I get what music theory is, and I get that it can be useful. I think his point was that some people get obsessed with following rules and concepts and base their entire understanding of music on that and forget to just enjoy it. Both from a listener's perspective and a creator's perspective.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 17, 2010 9:38:19 GMT -5
^Yeah, but that's different from everything being absolutely useless. You can see where I might not infer your point from the words "absolutely useless." It doesn't necessarily follow.
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 17, 2010 9:56:50 GMT -5
^I disagree. It helps me a lot with songwriting and communicating ideas. If you're a musician/producer, it can be pretty helpful. I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. very tue in that sense, art is art, but you haft to kjnow the basics of what you want to create and what style you are going to be, what identity you have as a songwriter and musicicna in this biz, so to me it is helpful...
|
|
|
Post by marv1978 on Dec 17, 2010 10:09:34 GMT -5
I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. That's because when music theory is applied correctly, it isn't a method of making music; it's a vocabulary of terms that describe the music and with that understanding applied to existing pieces of music, composers might use those elements to help get the sound that they're going for. Knowing music theory can also help you steer clear of doing something that's been done a million times before by actively choosing not to imitate the pieces in the canonical repertoire. exactly!
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 17, 2010 19:51:43 GMT -5
I think his point was not to slavishly adhere to it since there's not one right way to do things and there's never a right way to make music. very tue in that sense, art is art, but you haft to kjnow the basics of what you want to create and what style you are going to be, what identity you have as a songwriter and musicicna in this biz, so to me it is helpful... No you don't. It's an illusion.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 17, 2010 19:53:19 GMT -5
^Yeah, but that's different from everything being absolutely useless. You can see where I might not infer your point from the words "absolutely useless." It doesn't necessarily follow. Yes, I had thought about that. Although it actually is still sort of useless, from a certain point of view. I can see how knowing the general rules of theory can help in certain contexts, but you know, I doubt most musicians really have a background in that sort of thing. You don't really need to know theory to create a great sounding song. So I think the point in saying that it's useless is that if you pay too much attention to theory, you can stifle creativity by trying to follow conventions (or deliberately avoid them) and get lost in rules that are barely adhered to anymore. Theory is nice as a starting point and I guess to learn lexicon, but beyond that, how applicable is it to pure creation and enjoyment? You don't necessarily need to know the rules to know how to break them.
|
|
HereIsGone
Gold Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 911
|
Post by HereIsGone on Dec 18, 2010 0:50:19 GMT -5
^Yeah, but that's different from everything being absolutely useless. You can see where I might not infer your point from the words "absolutely useless." It doesn't necessarily follow. Yes, I had thought about that. Although it actually is still sort of useless, from a certain point of view. I can see how knowing the general rules of theory can help in certain contexts, but you know, I doubt most musicians really have a background in that sort of thing. You don't really need to know theory to create a great sounding song. So I think the point in saying that it's useless is that if you pay too much attention to theory, you can stifle creativity by trying to follow conventions (or deliberately avoid them) and get lost in rules that are barely adhered to anymore. Theory is nice as a starting point and I guess to learn lexicon, but beyond that, how applicable is it to pure creation and enjoyment? You don't necessarily need to know the rules to know how to break them. Very true. I've seen videos of musicians who haven't taken lessons or musical theory say that they wonder if it'd help improve their playing if they were to take it later or if it would just mess things up and stifle creativity musically (random-ass tuning, and other stuff like that) since they've always worked it out within the way they taught themselves. If I could remember where it was, I'd link it, but yeah. It sums up your point.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 20, 2010 6:25:08 GMT -5
I know this music theory conversation has temporarily died down, but I'd like to revive it to make another point. As a college music major (finishing my degree in a week *fingers crossed*). While introductory music theory courses entail a lot of rule-learning and studying the conventions of dead white guys, advanced theory classes are often very interesting because with those rules and conventions in our vocabulary, we can then analyze pieces and composers that ingeniously implement those conventions in unique ways or defy them in a way that gives the artist their signature sound. While you don't necessarily need to know the rules of music theory to have an intuition that a band like Fair To Midland is more advanced musically than a band like, say, Buckcherry, tools of music theory allow me to describe and have a perspective on technical elements that give Fair To Midland its unique sound on a level beyond lyrics, or the timbre of the voice, or instrumentation. Their compositional and arrangement choices are also a big part of their sound, and the particular aesthetic choices that I gravitate toward in their sound and anyone else's compositions are now accessible to me as I develop my own sound due in part to my fairly advanced knowledge of music theory. Could that potentially stifle creativity? In some respects, yes; but it also makes other people's ideas more readily accessible to me than many of my peers without a background in music theory, which is a distinct advantage. Innovation almost always results from a synthesis of others' ideas with one's own. Ergo, music theory is not useless. Q.E.D. mothaf**ka!
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 20, 2010 8:30:03 GMT -5
I'll admit I never pursued advanced theory since music was my minor and I wasn't too interested in that aspect of things, so I can't really speak on how invigorating it is to dissect a piece of music and how applicable it is to creative thinking. Obviously you've made use of it, so good on you. Maybe I've just been reading Johnny Rotten's biography too much lately. We don't need no education! (on music that is.)
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Dec 20, 2010 9:15:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Dec 20, 2010 13:53:45 GMT -5
Top 40 on Active:
49 39 AARON LEWIS Country Boy 226 141 85 0.584
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Jan 15, 2011 12:50:57 GMT -5
Top 30 on Active:
40 30 AARON LEWIS Country Boy 300 228 72 0.729
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Feb 6, 2011 18:27:32 GMT -5
Top 50 on Alternative:
53 50 AARON LEWIS Country Boy 127 110 17 0.276
|
|
Devin
Diamond Member
Best Rock Poster 2011―2014
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 14,015
My Charts
Pronouns: He/Him
|
Post by Devin on Feb 6, 2011 19:48:17 GMT -5
I can't believe this is still doing well! And it's Top 60 on country too
|
|