Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Definition of pop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStpO315B7U

This song. This is the song we played over and over again in the theater after hours. Anyone wanna analyze it? I might be detecting some neutral intervals in there....

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Oh man! Daler Mehndi, my main man! I had a bunch of friends who were really into his stuff back in my youth theater days. Him and Davut Guloglu. We used to dance around to it during set construction. Good stuff.
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > According to Wikipedia, this guy, Daler Mehndi, does pop:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo
> >
> > So now I know what pop is.
> >
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStpO315B7U
>
> Funny...I love the little chorus/breakdown at 1:55...but can't stand the rest (at least, as music).

Funny, I thought you'd like it.

It's about as progressive as Flat Beat by Mr. Oizo (IE not at all)...but entertaining in the same twisted and hillarious sort of way. And I'll agree...that certainly is pop and, yes, this one really is a pop song (both being short and having singing).

What do you mean by "progressive" and why do you think it's important.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Sure, I'll analyze it: the world is coming to an end tommorow and this is
the soundtrack, proving that it will end in a whimper and not a bang.

Oh, and, also--splasing of water and attractive women are important elements
in music videos of all lands and times.

Utter snoozefest, this.

AKJ

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:25 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStpO315B7U
>
> This song. This is the song we played over and over again in the theater
> after hours. Anyone wanna analyze it? I might be detecting some neutral
> intervals in there....
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Oh man! Daler Mehndi, my main man! I had a bunch of friends who were
> really into his stuff back in my youth theater days. Him and Davut Guloglu.
> We used to dance around to it during set construction. Good stuff.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Wikipedia, this guy, Daler Mehndi, does pop:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo
> > >
> > > So now I know what pop is.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:18 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...t> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mike - what kind of "pop" music do you actually like?
> >
> > -Other Mike
>
> It's an interesting question. I personally see no resemblance between Flat Beat, which is boring, and Tunak Tunak Tun, which was well-performed and interesting. I'd like to know what the moral difference is between looking down on music because it isn't classical, and looking down on it because it isn't "progressive". Of course if the Beatles are pop, I don't see what possible point there can be to the claim pop can't be progressive.

I think that pop can definitely be progressive. I think that it hasn't
been progressive in years. Furthermore, I think that the music from
the 90's that I really liked, much of which I would definitely
consider progressive, is stuff that most people on here would probably
think just plain sucks, so it's probably subjective.

I think it's a bit relative, and has to do with an asymmetry between
these two processes that develop as one learns more Things:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm

Accommodation predominates for much of the beginning of life, or
perhaps it could be better said that the two are in balance. At some
point, however, one may start to develop the prideful notion that one
has learned "enough" to make judgments about the world, at which point
one starts assimilating things too much; discarding information for
the sake of being able to conceptualize it in the half-formed schemata
that one has so far. Then one may actually forget that one is doing
this, which is almost like a complete failure of different
higher-level cognitive functions to communicate with one another. The
side effects of this may range from a drive to self-medicate with
various substances on an individual level, a divide in taste for music
on a generational level, and a push towards nuclear warfare on a
species level. Well, maybe.

Anyway, that's my theory on why I hate Nickelback so much. Maybe some
day I'll find a forward-thinking mailing list on the internet called
philosophy and philosophy-math which will consist of a bunch of people
trying to learn the theory put forward by a guy in his 20s who has
since left the list, a wise mathematician who continues to explore
more of the philosophical landscape while we struggle to figure it the
meaning of it all, a scientifically-minded type who ensures that
quality control is kept high, an occasional bunch of numerological new
age cranks who like to talk about how the meaning of life is encoded
in the many-worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics, etc. And there
will also be a community of enlightened individuals who are more into
practice, and there will be a small divide between the practitioners
and the theorists, which will have reached a peak divide a few years
before I joined and who are slowly coming together because of guys
with weird names like Electroencephalogram Smith. Until I find all
that, I'll keep reading Kant and listening to Paul Simon and
meditating on the sound of one hand clapping, which I'm certain is the
sound of you just taking your fingers and smacking them against the
palm of the same hand. (I never was good at Zen.)

-Mike

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Yeah, this link was much more amusing than that other horrible one, and the
groove is much better. This would be fun to dance to.

The guy in the video, wow, he's a trip.

This reminds me of the kind of stuff they play in Indian restaurants along
Devon Ave. here in Chicago. Makes me hungry for a fresh bit of naan with
chana masala or some kind of yellow lentil dish, follwed by a generous
helping of gulab jamun!

AKJ

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> This is what Peter Gabriel taps into.
>
> The break at 1:58 is really very cool. And as a whole much much better than
> gangsta rap.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > According to Wikipedia, this guy, Daler Mehndi, does pop:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo
> >
> > So now I know what pop is.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> I think that pop can definitely be progressive.

I'm cc'ing metatuning, where this rightly belongs, please respond to my rant
over there :)

.....True Mike, but then in my book at least, I don't call it pop anymore, I
call it art. It's very rare, in my not-so-humble opinion. What's the saying?
If 90% of people like a painting, it should be burned, because it must be
bad?

I don't quite agree with that as an airtight universal, but there a pretty
heavy grain of truth in it. I'd say it's probably true in at least 90% of
cases.... ;)

I'm utterly amazed at the stuff that passes for digestible music in many
circles. The general public demand way more nutritional value in even their
food nowadays than they do in what hits their ears. It's, as ever, often
superficial or sentimental rubbish that gets heaped with praise. Turn on any
random radio station now vs. 1948, or even 1979, and wow, the vast
difference in general interest of what comes out is amazing. Any semblance
of art for art's sake in music anymore is all but gone in favor of marketing
campaigns and American Idol style cheese. We are told that arts education
should be dismantled right-wing, backed by the same corporations filling
these radio stations with empty noise designed to lobotomize the public.
They lobotomize with right-wing talk shows and completely empty corporate
music. It makes me endlessly depressed to think about it, and the greatest
move I ever made for my sanity was to take myself off of the cable TV grid
entirely. Only well-picked movies reach my brain.

But what do we expect? The same people seek to elect Sarah-gun-toting-Palin
to grand empress of the cosmos....everyone's gone completely nuts.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"What do you mean by "progressive" and why do you think it's important."

Progressive, to me, means having multiple chord progressions, each with distinct moods. This song appears to have two and one of those two only appears in the 30 second breakdown....plus the first/main theme is very very short and repetitive.
To note...I don't mean progressive as in "having acoustic and electronic instruments together" IE the 90's electronica definition. Again I think such sub-genres are excessively categorized.

Usually, anything without at least two fairly evolved chord progressions tends to bug me. An example of two fairly evolved parts, to me, is the instrumental "Offshore" by Chicane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAv2s4Q2wwI. Another is "Mindcircus" by Way Out West http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqiuEc3egA. I usually have at least 3 distinct chord progressions in my own pieces. The idea is to take the listener on a journey, not "have a party in one place".

>"Funny, I thought you'd like it."

Listen to the above pieces/youtube links (which I do like) and note the difference of style. Yes they (vs. the pop song you posted) both have beats, they both use some electronic instruments (drum or otherwise)...but the similarities end there; and the links I posted, arguably, are not even vaguely pop but pure underground electronica (big difference). The Chicane one, at one time, was relatively popular music (in Europe only)...but it was not pop as in the genre "pop".

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Mike - what kind of "pop" music do you actually like?"

I very very rarely like pop music...as in pop the genre. However I have nothing against "popular music" which, as Jake said, is a different beast entirely.

If there is anything I do like that people often call "pop", it's stuff like the Smashing Pumpkins (with is a mix of goth rock, shoegazing, grunge, new wave, metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock and some electronica (after their third album)), Blink 182 (which is really pure punk rock with more polished production), Guns and Roses (which is pure metal mixed with countless orchestral influences -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE) and underground electronica that just happens to be fairly popular (BT, some Chicane, Way Out West, some Hybrid, some Chemical Brothers, some Astral Projection (well, it's popular in Arab countries)... And all of the above are rather complex...pretty far from the formulaic melodic hook-basis of much "pop" genre music.

And, of course, I like the Beatles...but the Beatles took inspiration from so many genres I would hesitate to call them "pop" (as in the genre) as well. And the songs I like from them are the weird psychedelic ones (think "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds").

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Gene>"I personally see no resemblance between Flat Beat, which is boring, and
Tunak Tunak Tun, which was well-performed and interesting. "

Tunak Tunak Tun has quite impressive production (far as timbre chosen and mixing clarity) and performance values (specifically rhythmic and the staccato "blur" of the singing). It's blatantly obvious it is a professional production.

To me, it does come down to lack of progressive-ness IE the combination of a very short melodic parts and rhythmic parts that give the impression the whole song (minus the breakdown) is a very short loop rather than an evolving journey.
You could say I'm odd that way...I can hear an incredibly well performed/produced song and say "it didn't work for me...the compositional imagination just wasn't there" with a straight face. I'm not a production-quality junkie, though at the same time I realize production quality plays a huge part in making songs popular/accessible to most other people.

I can understand why other people would like the song (much unlike "Flat Beat", whose only value appears to be "confidence")...but I don't. Put it that way.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Mike B>"Furthermore, I think that the music from

the 90's that I really liked, much of which I would definitely

consider progressive, is stuff that most people on here would probably

think just plain sucks, so it's probably subjective."

Like I said before, when I say progressive I DON'T mean the 90's genre definition of "progressive electronica" IE electronica with acoustic and electronic instrument elements. I mean "does the structure, so far of chords/melodies...of the song progress much?"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Is this progressive?

It got a lot of radio play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMG4QTkvUZk

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Gene>"I personally see no resemblance between Flat Beat, which is boring,
> and
> Tunak Tunak Tun, which was well-performed and interesting. "
>
> Tunak Tunak Tun has quite impressive production (far as timbre chosen
> and mixing clarity) and performance values (specifically rhythmic and the
> staccato "blur" of the singing). It's blatantly obvious it is a
> professional production.
>
> To me, it does come down to lack of progressive-ness IE the combination
> of a very short melodic parts and rhythmic parts that give the impression
> the whole song (minus the breakdown) is a very short loop rather than an
> evolving journey.
> You could say I'm odd that way...I can hear an incredibly well
> performed/produced song and say "it didn't work for me...the compositional
> imagination just wasn't there" with a straight face. I'm not a
> production-quality junkie, though at the same time I realize production
> quality plays a huge part in making songs popular/accessible to most other
> people.
>
> I can understand why other people would like the song (much unlike "Flat
> Beat", whose only value appears to be "confidence")...but I don't. Put it
> that way.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

> Is this progressive?
> It got a lot of radio play
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMG4QTkvUZk

Borderline IE decently good but not "great" to my ears. I hear two main parts, each which really seem to focus on two chords (with decorations/extra sustained notes on top)...with each of the two chords held for a rather long time.
The progressiveness level reminds me a much of "Lovesong" by The Cure -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXCKLJGLENs...only "Lovesong" sounds a lot more steady and anthematic to me (just personal taste, admittedly)...and does have a bit of added "progressiveness" due to the intricate layers of individual melodies played over the chords: not a huge difference but enough to be noticable.

Far as what would qualify as "great progression" far as music that has received widespread popular reception -> "Silent Lucidity" by Queensryche http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw.
The main part has multiple transpositions of two main chords, plus an orchestral layering that introduces some completely different chords and "bends" the mood...plus a couple of shortly-played completely different chords at the end of each verse. Plus the chorus and solos have completely different chord progressions and the mood varies widely from ambient to quite epic.
Granted, the arrangement sounds awesome...but to composition (and the combination of complexity and smoothness), to me, really push this one over the edge. It's a "three part" song, which to me definitely qualifies as "strongly progressive" far as popular (and not "pop genre") music.

Same goes for "Tonight Tonight" by The Smashing Pumpkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEvVIgCm1zg...which has a distinct intro part, build up, and then chorus...all with very unique chords and moods...yet gels together as smoothly as if it only had one theme (at least to my ears).

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

then try this - a hit in the 70's that is pretty complicated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xql99I1VSdI

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> > Is this progressive?
> > It got a lot of radio play
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMG4QTkvUZk
>
> Borderline IE decently good but not "great" to my ears. I hear two main
> parts, each which really seem to focus on two chords (with decorations/extra
> sustained notes on top)...with each of the two chords held for a rather long
> time.
> The progressiveness level reminds me a much of "Lovesong" by The Cure ->
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXCKLJGLENs...only "Lovesong" sounds a lot
> more steady and anthematic to me (just personal taste, admittedly)...and
> does have a bit of added "progressiveness" due to the intricate layers of
> individual melodies played over the chords: not a huge difference but enough
> to be noticable.
>
> Far as what would qualify as "great progression" far as music that has
> received widespread popular reception -> "Silent Lucidity" by Queensryche
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw.
> The main part has multiple transpositions of two main chords, plus an
> orchestral layering that introduces some completely different chords and
> "bends" the mood...plus a couple of shortly-played completely different
> chords at the end of each verse. Plus the chorus and solos have completely
> different chord progressions and the mood varies widely from ambient to
> quite epic.
> Granted, the arrangement sounds awesome...but to composition (and the
> combination of complexity and smoothness), to me, really push this one over
> the edge. It's a "three part" song, which to me definitely qualifies as
> "strongly progressive" far as popular (and not "pop genre") music.
>
> Same goes for "Tonight Tonight" by The Smashing Pumpkins
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEvVIgCm1zg...which has a distinct intro
> part, build up, and then chorus...all with very unique chords and
> moods...yet gels together as smoothly as if it only had one theme (at least
> to my ears).
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

So you love "Tunak Tunak Tun" but this is a snooze-fest?

I think that is irrefutable proof, Aaron, we are not co-existing in a shared reality.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Sure, I'll analyze it: the world is coming to an end tommorow and this is
> the soundtrack, proving that it will end in a whimper and not a bang.
>
> Oh, and, also--splasing of water and attractive women are important elements
> in music videos of all lands and times.
>
> Utter snoozefest, this.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:25 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStpO315B7U
> >
> > This song. This is the song we played over and over again in the theater
> > after hours. Anyone wanna analyze it? I might be detecting some neutral
> > intervals in there....
> >
> > -Igs
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh man! Daler Mehndi, my main man! I had a bunch of friends who were
> > really into his stuff back in my youth theater days. Him and Davut Guloglu.
> > We used to dance around to it during set construction. Good stuff.
> > >
> > > -Igs
> > >
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > According to Wikipedia, this guy, Daler Mehndi, does pop:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo
> > > >
> > > > So now I know what pop is.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Chris>"then try this - a hit in the
> 70's that is pretty complicated.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xql99I1VSdI

Hehehe...yeah that will definitely do it...I hear multiple distinct chorus parts, a distinct breakdown, the mood does a 180 (almost) at 4:00...it gets to the point you almost think they are playing 3 different songs! :-D Plus, like "The Cure"...this band "Yes" uses layers of melodies over the evolving chords to "tint" their sound/color.

It kind of lends to the apparent fact...that what was popular in the 70's in nothing like the "pop" of today...and, in general, I VASTLY prefer popular music from that era...much because the rather modern focus in getting one riff stuck on your head is often thrown out for the sake of diversity (definitely a good thing).

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Usually, anything without at least two fairly evolved chord progressions tends to bug me. An example of two fairly evolved parts, to me, is the instrumental "Offshore" by Chicane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAv2s4Q2wwI.

Booooooring. And with no slightest claim to be considered xenharmonic.

Another is "Mindcircus" by Way Out West http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqiuEc3egA.

A little better, but still dull and pointless. You really think this simple-minded snorefest stuff is good and Tunak Tunak Tun is pop and therefore crap?

I usually have at least 3 distinct chord progressions in my own pieces. The idea is to take the listener on a journey, not "have a party in one place".

I like your stuff better than these. Make of that what you will.

> >"Funny, I thought you'd like it."
>
> Listen to the above pieces/youtube links (which I do like) and note the difference of style.

Never again! MUCH less interesting that the link I posted IMHO.

Yes they (vs. the pop song you posted) both have beats, they both use some electronic instruments (drum or otherwise)...but the similarities end there; and the links I posted, arguably, are not even vaguely pop but pure underground electronica (big difference). The Chicane one, at one time, was relatively popular music (in Europe only)...but it was not pop as in the genre "pop".

I have no idea where the boundary lies or why those examples aren't pop or are "progressive".

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

or this I'd suppose :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdD6L4cKKU8

The theme for the solo, flute and guitar, is quite lovely to me in this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LB6WNzwQWU

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is this progressive?
>
> It's not nearly boring enough to be progressive.
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Booooooring. And with no slightest claim to be considered xenharmonic."

If you don't like it, you don't like it...but the discussion is about the basic composition side of music (in common between xenharmonic and non-xenharmonic music)...none of Chris's examples were xenharmonic either. But the real discussion here is ultimately about how progressive popular songs have been...and general consensus seems to be that modern popular music (and especially pop-genre music) has gotten more and more repetitive.

Me>"Another is "Mindcircus" by Way Out West http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqiuEc3egA. "
Gene>"A little better, but still dull and pointless. You really think this
simple-minded snorefest stuff is good and Tunak Tunak Tun is pop and
therefore crap?"

To be honest, I don't like most pop-genre music (regardless of what country it's from or if that country uses xenharmonic scales). Trying to think of the most pop-like band I like...ok, "The Goo Goo Dolls", and "even" they bother to put multiple chord and melodic themes in their songs. That's not an opinion (like your statement about the above songs being a "snorefest"...that's a fact about the compositional effort behind the music: the songs I've been posting have 2+ distinct chord progressions and themes...Tunak Tunak, by and large, has one except for a tiny breakdown.

>"I have no idea where the boundary lies or why those examples aren't pop or are "progressive"."

To perhaps overly simplify pop...the idea of "pop" (musically) is to take one very simple melody and get it stuck in your head. There are side trend/styles the artists wear...but those change and the "make pop catchy by all means necessary" theme stays consistant.

Like it or not, the Way Out West song I posted does not have a hum-ably simple melody and covers it with jazz chord and layers that work deliberately against the grain of "simple/catchy". The Chicane song doesn't even really have a main melody, just an assembly of textures and chords

. And Tunak Tunak...not only is most everything rung around the same short melody, but even the rhythm's phrasing much so copies the melody...they really seem to have pulled all shots to try and get that melody stuck in your head. Plus there is a huge focus on production quality and arrangement IE changing instruments and other things to add variation without "having" to change the melody to get that variation.

And some people like single-theme-abundant nature of much pop-genre music, I'm not saying it's inferior, just simpler by design and intent. I'm just saying people who like pop should admit to what it is and not take completely unrelated musical efforts with goals unrelated to the pop genre's goals...and shove them under the "pop" label.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Gene>"I like your stuff better than these. Make of that what you will."

Thank you...but, for sure, I go out on a limb far as themes per song compared to most of what I hear, even in the underground electronica scene. The underground electronica scene usually seems happy with 2-3 separate chord themes per song, I usually find I need 5 or more.
And I'm well aware...a whole lot of jazz and classical has 10+, a whole different ballgame, which means people serious about those genres are likely to find almost anything in electronica, rock..."non-progressive" in comparison. Again, none of this is trying to say simple is bad in general to people (though too much simplicity bugs me)...but rather that pop-genre music has a degree of theme simplicity virtually unparalleled by any other modern genres by design. And a goal of getting a melody stuck in your head different from most other forms of music, especially those using larger chords, more themes, and more textures.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Michael/Me> To perhaps overly simplify pop...the idea of "pop" (musically)
is to take one very simple melody and get it stuck in your head.

Gene>"Pachelbel's Canon in D and Ravel's Bolero are pop?"

Most obvious reason why not: both of the above DO have obvious multiple themes so far as the chords, if not also multiple main melodic themes.
Neither of the songs you mentioned have both the chords and melodies, melodically speaking, enforcing the same main melody to be "catchy". Rather, they have chords going in different progressing ways, presumably to add variety and "tint" the mood in different ways, rather than repeating the melody's theme.

Perhaps I need to make a clarification...in POP (the genre), by and large, the melodic theme and chords follow each other IE the chords don't change to different themes...or, if they do, they only change very shortly IE for a few bars before reverting to the main "catchy" hook/theme.

Both of the above songs you mentioned have a very long, evolving theme...even if it's a single one (at least in the case of "Pachelbel's Canon in D". "Bolero" has so many variations, extra notes and such thrown into in...I'd hesitate to call it a single theme...while "Canon in D" rotates chords to the point that, while the melody repeats the same theme, the chords often don't.

"Chariots of Fire" by Vangelis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEF4zH6XHCk...seems much the same way: the melodies stay on the same theme, more or less, but there are inserts of different notes into the main melodic theme that change the flavor/mood of the parts and the chords change themes and the "color" of the piece dramatically between.

To also note, I by no means consider "Chariots of Fire" pop (as in the genre), but definitely consider it "popular music"...and hopefully this will finally make it obvious to you what I see the difference between "popular music" and "pop" (the genre) as.

-------------------Far as POP genre music Michael DOES like......-----------------------

Meanwhile "La Primavera" by Sash >>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu2oCqR9GHM << really IS an
obvious POP track in my mind. This is because the artist "Sash" goes through pains to keep
the same chords and melody going through virtually the entire song with only a few tiny breaks in the melody for the breakdowns,
implanting the melody firmly in your head (whether you like it or not, lol).
He gets variety by changing the arrangements of instruments extensively, altering the texture and tension as well by doing this, and, miraculously (to me at least)...manages a fair sense of evolution in the song despite the single theme-ness. He hints to me that, perhaps, a similar sense of evolution could be obtained by using the same theme in different scales...hinting at similar production tricks with xentonality.

Producers take note...what he/Sash does by using timbre to change the mood is artsy as anything (at least to my ears)...and it's a rare example of "formulaic pop" that I actually enjoy.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> "Bolero" has so many variations, extra notes and such thrown into in...I'd hesitate to call it a single theme...

You should maybe reconsider: Bolero has *precisely* one melodic themes, structured in two parts.

"While on vacation at St Jean-de-Luz, Ravel went to the piano and played a melody with one finger to his friend Gustave Samazeuilh, saying 'Don't you think this theme has an insistent quality? I'm going to try and repeat it a number of times without any development, gradually increasing the orchestra as best I can.'" (Wikipedia)

The music is built over an unchanging ostinato rhythm (the bolero) played on one or more snare drums that remains constant throughout the piece.

On top of this rhythm is repeated a single theme, consisting of two eighteen-bar sections, each itself repeated twice. Tension is provided by the contrast between the steady percussive rhythm, and the "expressive vocal melody trying to break free".[12] Interest is maintained by constant reorchestration of the theme, leading to a variety of timbres, and by a steady crescendo.

The melody is passed among different instruments: 1) flute 2) clarinet 3) bassoon 4) E-flat clarinet 5) oboe d'amore 6) trumpet (with flute not heard clearly and in higher octave than the first part) 7) tenor saxophone 8) soprano saxophone 9) horn, piccolos and celesta 10) oboe, English horn and clarinet 11) trombone 12) some of the wind instruments 13) first violins and some wind instruments 14) first and second violins together with some wind instruments 15) violins and some of the wind instruments 16) some instruments in the orchestra 17) and finally most but not all the instruments in the orchestra (with bass drum, cymbals and tam-tam).

While the melody continues to be played in C throughout, from the middle onwards other instruments double it in different keys. The first such doubling involves a horn playing the melody in C, while a celeste doubles it 2 and 3 octaves above and two piccolos play the melody in the keys of G and E, respectively. This functions as a reinforcement of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th overtones of each note of the melody. The other significant "key doubling" involves sounding the melody a 5th above or a 4th below, in G major. Other than these "key doublings", Ravel simply harmonizes the melody using diatonic chords.

*****

I'll end with a personal note: while it might seem like the easiest task in the world to repeat that drum rhythm endlessly for 12+ minutes (it clocks in differently depending upon the conductor), it is one of the worst things to have to do. Not the concentration, or the control needed to go from ppp to fff over that long a time... no, it is because Every Single Entrance of the melody is a chance for that soloist to emote, which means slowing down.

The principal percussionist I played under for 25 years described it as trying to swim through an Olympic pool filled with 10-40 motor oil. The couple of times I had to do it, I agreed completely.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me> "Bolero" has so many variations, extra notes and such thrown into in...I'd hesitate to call it a single theme...

Jon>"You should maybe reconsider: Bolero has *precisely* one melodic themes, structured in two parts.

"While on vacation at St Jean-de-Luz, Ravel went to the piano and
played a melody with one finger to his friend Gustave Samazeuilh,
saying 'Don't you think this theme has an insistent quality? I'm going
to try and repeat it a number of times without any development,
gradually increasing the orchestra as best I can.'" (Wikipedia)"

Ok, fair enough...he did try to capitalize on the "insistent/repeating" quality of the melody. But look...at 0:40 in the song on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urfjyj4FnUc&feature=related...he sways the melody a bit differently (IE changing the notes and timing BOTH a fair deal). At 1:13-1:17, same thing happens. Yes, the feel is roughly the same, but the motifs change significantly in parts like those.

To compare, though, it certainly is not repetitive in comparison with, say, Flat Beat by Mr. Oizo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv6Ewqx3PMs or "All Star" IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_jWHffIx5E.
Try to tell me with a straight face you think "Bolero" is anything near as insistent toward its melodic theme as "Flat Beat" or nearly as short/narrow/memorizable...granted "Bolero" is about as insistent and "single narrow theme pushing" as I've seen classical music as...but still nothing near so narrow as cookie-cutter pop-genre music is.

>"The melody is passed among different instruments: 1) flute 2) clarinet
3) bassoon 4) E-flat clarinet 5) oboe d'amore 6) trumpet (with flute
not heard clearly and in higher octave than the first part) 7) tenor
saxophone 8) soprano saxophone 9) horn, piccolos and celesta 10) oboe,
English horn and clarinet 11) trombone"

Admittedly, in this aspect, I agree this piece, "Bolero" is VERY "pop"...effort is made to vary almost anything other than the main melody and a narrow theme. Same goes for the use of bridges to "give a sense of variation in the theme without changing it melodically" in pop-genre songs.

>"The principal percussionist I played under for 25 years described it as
trying to swim through an Olympic pool filled with 10-40 motor oil. The
couple of times I had to do it, I agreed completely."

Agreed, I never said performing something with pop-genre musical values is easy...even the slightest mistake is bound to be noticed.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Jon>"Michael, *all* I was replying to was your notion that "Bolero" consisted of more than one theme."

Ok then, fair enough, I agree "Bolero" does have one general theme...even though it seems a bit of a tangent point you are making considering the subject of thread...
-------------------------
That, and the point I was making (which you appeared to be replying to before, but now I realize was not your point) about that a primary defining characteristic of pop-music is a simple, narrow theme with very little variation on the theme both and melodies and chords. You could fairly say my use of "not single themed" was incorrect and, rather, that I should have said "based on a NARROW single theme with virtually no variations within the theme".

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

JonS>"You've asked in the recent past if people could simply point out when
there was an apparent error without any histrionics, and to not jump
all over you. This is what I've tried to do, along with supporting
information."

Indeed, you did...and did so very well. My only gripe and not a large one at all (as I said in an on-list note directed to Gene) is that I wish you would have done your message off-list to me...that's what the whole "tangential topic" part I brought up was about.

But, all in all, as well, I think my response
" Ok then, fair enough, I agree "Bolero" does have one general theme..."

and then continuing on to say

"You could fairly say my use of "not single themed" was incorrect and, rather, that I should have said "based on a NARROW single theme with virtually no variations within the theme" -me

...should count as fair recognition to saying, "you were right and I was listening...enough so to the point I could repeat what you said in my own words". And, indirectly, it meant to say "thank you for communicating so fairly...I'm much more inclined to listen this way"

To wrap this up...would my saying "Bolero" is more oriented toward "variations on a single theme" would be "historianically correct"?

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Michael, you are being messed with. Your reply to Gene's joke about Bolero should have been, all A are C doesn't mean that all C are A.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Jon>"Michael, *all* I was replying to was your notion that "Bolero" consisted of more than one theme."
>
> Ok then, fair enough, I agree "Bolero" does have one general theme...even though it seems a bit of a tangent point you are making considering the subject of thread...
> -------------------------
> That, and the point I was making (which you appeared to be replying to before, but now I realize was not your point) about that a primary defining characteristic of pop-music is a simple, narrow theme with very little variation on the theme both and melodies and chords. You could fairly say my use of "not single themed" was incorrect and, rather, that I should have said "based on a NARROW single theme with virtually no variations within the theme".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> To wrap this up...would my saying "Bolero" is more oriented toward "variations on a single theme" would be "historianically correct"?

1. "historianically" is not a word.

2. No. Ravel's "Bolero" is a rather unique piece, at least in the classical canon: it really *is* just the same melody (theme), over and over again. Why else do orchestral players want to blow their brains out when they see it programmed on a concert? (that's a joke, but we mostly hate it after the first time or two we've played it). They are NOT "variations on a single theme", because when a melody is played by a flute, and then the exact same melody is played on a clarinet, that is not a variation in the theme, it is merely a change in orchestration.

To get a very easy handle on how a classical composer might do a theme and variations, you could certainly look at Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman" by Mozart, which is based on the same song as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" (I'm sure you can Google for mp3s on the Twinkle Variations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_on_%22Ah_vous_dirai-je,_Maman%22

Very easy to follow, and much more in line with what most people would consider actual variations on a theme, rather than just minor/surface changes. If nothing else, this may be another signpost in the differences of 'analyzing' classical and non-classical musics.

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Another one was written by Dohnanyi (opus 25). I did also some
variations on it, still working on more.

Daniel Forro

On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:25 PM, jonszanto wrote:
>
> To get a very easy handle on how a classical composer might do a
> theme and variations, you could certainly look at Twelve Variations
> on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman" by Mozart, which is based on the same
> song as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" (I'm sure you can Google
> for mp3s on the Twinkle Variations)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_on_%22Ah_vous_dirai-
> je,_Maman%22
>
> Very easy to follow, and much more in line with what most people
> would consider actual variations on a theme, rather than just minor/
> surface changes. If nothing else, this may be another signpost in
> the differences of 'analyzing' classical and non-classical musics.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Jon>"1. "historianically" is not a word."
No joke...that's why I put it in quotes and said it because It's a lot shorter than saying "referring to histrionics".

>"They are NOT "variations on a single theme", because when a melody is
played by a flute, and then the exact same melody is played on a
clarinet, that is not a variation in the theme, it is merely a change
in orchestration."

Well, I hear slight changes in the melody throughout the song...at least within a few bars. Agreed though, when instruments change the melody does not...but that's not what I was referring to. Now all you seem to be doing, is claiming we hear the song differently...and that what I count as slight variations you don't count at all.

>"Very easy to follow, and much more in line with what most people would
consider actual variations on a theme, rather than just minor/surface
changes."

I listened and agree...simply put (again), our ears and minds have different standards as what counts as a variation. I hesitate to think "most people" have such a difference in their definition of "variations" vs. "surface changes"...we agree to disagree...this is a subjective measure.

So, knock on wood...my point is that "Bolero" obviously has more variation/surface-changes/whatever-a-person-may-want-to-call-them despite being along a single melodic theme then the songs I displayed here as being "pop-genre". Agreed with Lobawad...just because Bolero may have one theme and one theme falls under the category of lacking variation...does NOT mean Bolero has as little variation of any other piece of music with one theme.
Pop most often has less variation than any sort of classical music, no matter how "persistent" that classical piece may be around a single melody...that's my point.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Love is much too strong a word for the tune that amused me, and the other
tune with the splashing water and the hot ladies, is a snoozefest to me,
aside from the hot ladies.

We only live in a different universe part of the time. I dig what you do,
and I assume you dig it as well? :)

AKJ

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...>wrote:

> So you love "Tunak Tunak Tun" but this is a snooze-fest?
>
> I think that is irrefutable proof, Aaron, we are not co-existing in a
> shared reality.
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sure, I'll analyze it: the world is coming to an end tommorow and this is
> > the soundtrack, proving that it will end in a whimper and not a bang.
> >
> > Oh, and, also--splasing of water and attractive women are important
> elements
> > in music videos of all lands and times.
> >
> > Utter snoozefest, this.
> >
> > AKJ
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:25 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStpO315B7U
> > >
> > > This song. This is the song we played over and over again in the
> theater
> > > after hours. Anyone wanna analyze it? I might be detecting some
> neutral
> > > intervals in there....
> > >
> > > -Igs
> > >
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh man! Daler Mehndi, my main man! I had a bunch of friends who
> were
> > > really into his stuff back in my youth theater days. Him and Davut
> Guloglu.
> > > We used to dance around to it during set construction. Good stuff.
> > > >
> > > > -Igs
> > > >
> > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith"
> <genewardsmith@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Wikipedia, this guy, Daler Mehndi, does pop:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo
> > > > >
> > > > > So now I know what pop is.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> I listened and agree...simply put (again), our ears and minds have different standards as what counts as a variation. I hesitate to think "most people" have such a difference in their definition of "variations" vs. "surface changes"...we agree to disagree...this is a subjective measure.

Cutting down on the verbosity: yes. And if you are talking about classical music, "variation" is a distinct term, referring to composed alterations to a melody, ala the Mozart I linked. What *you* hear as variations in "pop" music as variations is not significant enough to count as the musical term "Variation". It is not subjective in the way you think that it is.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Jon>"And if you are talking about classical music, "variation" is a distinct term, referring to composed alterations to a melody"

Ok, this is going nowhere for either of us Even Bolero has composed alterations...even though you consider them too small to count. This seems similar to someone showing me a Queen solo and saying "now that's variation" and my showing them a Joe Satriani solo and saying "no it isn't!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_%28music%29 says variation is
"a formal technique where material is repeated in an altered form. The changes may involve harmony, melody, counterpoint, rhythm, timbre, orchestration or ANY combination of these."

Turns out I was wrong in a way: simply orchestration changes for the same melody (and nothing more) DO count as a variation according to that definition. So even if the melody DID stay exactly the same, not a single note changing, the wikipedia definition hints strongly toward "Bolero" and even "La Primavera" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsuGg79TfX0 as having "Variations on a theme". So maybe even "La Primavera" is a fair bit less "pop" than I thought in that sense...although it does still seem quite driven toward pushing the melody into one's head (that doesn't change).
-----------------------------------------------

Here's a counter question to the entire list: which songs that have become popular do you think have lots of variation?

There seems to be this stigma that music must be uncannily simple to become popular...and, especially so far as listening to things that yield compositional inspiration, I'm eager to see how far we can all push past that stigma.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Jon>"And if you are talking about classical music, "variation" is a distinct term, referring to composed alterations to a melody"
>
> Ok, this is going nowhere for either of us

Speak for yourself. I'm not in favor of changing musical terminology to reduce it down to meaningless levels. The word "variation" is used in many contexts in many subject areas, and can be used in many ways. When used in musical analysis and musical construction, it has developed a meaning over hundreds of years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_(music)

That the word can mean a lot of other things is evident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_(disambiguation)

I'll stick with something that has a concrete discretion to it. If you want to start using terms like "surface changes", that is perfectly acceptable, and actually means something.