View Full Version : And another thing!
09-15-2008, 02:06 PM
Listening to quite a lot of today's Music? It is very noticeable that the people who "Write"? this stuff, have absolutely no idea of even basic chord progressions. They merely change the chords in some haphazard fashion!
Ofcourse, on reflection,it does'nt really matter when your total output of chords is strictly limmited to Diatonic Triads , and, not even all 7 of them, usually 1, II, IV, V, and VI, and also quite often a discordant mix of more than one of them!!supposed to represent some kind of advanced type harmony?
lee! - I can call you lee, can I? - you never fail to provide us with endless amusement on this site.
Not a lot of point in responding to this new inanity, but anyhoo...
1. Define "basic chord progressions" (what they consist of in your world). How can we tell what's "right" and "wrong"? Enlighten us with the Rules, please. There are doubtless 1000s of us poor benighted rock composers out here, flailing around blindly in the dark, going only by our ears (what useless organs they are for music, ha!), longing for some leegordo-style guru to show us the True Path to "basic chord progressions" and even - dare we hope? - beyond.
2. What makes you think these sequences you're deriding are "supposed to represent some kind of advanced type harmony"? Whoever claimed that?
3. Give me an example of a song in a major key using the diatonic VII chord. From any era, you choose. Make sure it's not a chromatic dim7, or a 1st inversion V7 chord. (I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can't think of one, and I'm genuinely curious.)
4. Rock - as you may be aware - uses the bVII chord in a major key, frequently. You seem to be condemning one genre of music for not following rules designed for another genre.
Is Asian or African music (eg) rubbish because it doesn't follow European classical/jazz conventions?
5. What makes you think anybody cares about your opinion?
As you say yourself (and I include your idiosyncratic punctuation and spelling) "it does'nt really matter when your total output of chords is strictly limmited to Diatonic Triads , and, not even all 7 of them". You mean that ironically, I guess, but it's perfectly true - as long as practitioners of that music don't claim their harmony is "advanced" - and they don't.
Perhaps you think music should "progress" (like technology or science)? Why? Music - like all art forms - refers to the past and may learn from it, but is not required to build on it or improve on it.
Most modern music will be inferior to much music of the past - if you judge by the criteria of the past. Likewise, most music of the past is inferior judged by contemporary standards.
There are NO universal criteria, valid through all eras, by which to judge music. You may not like that fact, but fact it is. Music is designed for its audience, whoever they may be. Often by members of that audience. To judge a piece of music properly, you have to understand that audience's criteria. If the audience is dumb, we presume they will favour dumb music. That's their business. But of course, even "dumb" is a value judgement applied from outside.
Sometimes - as I suspect you will argue - audiences can be awakened to "great" music of the past, have their horizons broadened. There is a lot of music from past eras of which most people are ignorant. No argument there. But they don't have to like it all. It will only work if it meets that audience's criteria (even if it's criteria they may not be aware of themselves).
So maybe (say) Duke Ellington could catch on with a modern teenage audience. If it does, that doesn't prove it's "great" music (according to some imaginary universal criterion). It doesn't really prove anything. Except maybe people's tastes are broader than we sometimes assume. If it doesn't, if it leaves them cold, that doesn't mean those teenagers are stupid any more than it means it's "bad" music. It's just not the "right" music for them.
6. Why am I even bothering to write all this?? (I'm taking your droll trollery too seriously, dammit... :rolleyes: )
09-15-2008, 06:51 PM
Listening to quite a lot of today's Music? It is very noticeable that the people who "Write"? this stuff, have absolutely no idea of even basic chord progressions. So, you think that all music should strictly follow the theory books? In my opinion that would be turning things upside-down. Music theory is the result of a systematic study of what musical elements that is working. The music theory was not written before people started to write music. If new chord progressions are written - that works, I guess music theory has to be expaneded.
They merely change the chords in some haphazard fashion!
If it fit with the melody, it isn't haphazard.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.