|
Post by charles on Dec 10, 2020 7:08:54 GMT
... If you don't like simplicity, then being a fan of Status Quo and moreso arguing over the heads of a 12/8 time signature on a Quo fan forum is both ironic and contradiction to the highest degree. But I shall apologise and leave it there if my previous points made towards those who might not have an instrumental or more formal and educative approach to music offended you in some quite frankly unfathomable way. Are you talking to me? (enters Deniro) Could you all just shuffle off?
|
|
|
Post by MrWaistcoat on Dec 10, 2020 9:40:11 GMT
I'm thinking of starting a new thread devoted to tertiary subdivisions
I hope it will help. Some people just don't get it 😆👍😉
|
|
|
Post by fretbuzzzzz on Dec 10, 2020 11:03:23 GMT
I've read some daft stuff on here but the suggestion that 'Most Of The Time' is in 9/8 has to be one of the daftest. That mad bit at the end of 'Supper's Ready', that's in 9/8. Dave Brubeck's 'Blue Rondo A La Turk' is in 9/8. Compare and contrast. Your mentioning of 'Supper's Ready' reminded me of a Genesis 'Songbook' Documentary I had seen awhile back. Rutherford discussing 'Turn It On Again' At least it proves that even the more high brow musician among us can sometimes find time signatures confusing. ...so if you could all open the songbook at the 34/35 min page, you could learn something to your advantage or maybe not!
|
|
matt
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by matt on Dec 10, 2020 12:21:52 GMT
Just relistened to MOTT. Spud plays 6 on the beat on the hi hat, with a snare every 4th beat. So that would be a straightforward 6/8.
Not a 3/4 and not a 9/8
|
|
|
Post by sqcollector on Dec 10, 2020 13:05:54 GMT
Just relistened to MOTT. Spud plays 6 on the beat on the hi hat, with a snare every 4th beat. So that would be a straightforward 6/8. Not a 3/4 and not a 9/8 I agree it can be seen as 6/8 with swing feel on the sixteenth notes (eighth notes having ternary subdivision). Just like 6/8 shuffle can be 2/4 with swing feel on the eight notes (each quarter note having ternary subdivision). 6/8 with swing feel is also equivalent to a fast 9/8, if you consider only rhythm. The rhythm the drummer is playing is not the same John (and Alan) plays on MOTT because it does not have ternary subdivision. Here are some examples: Typical 6/8, like the one the drummer is playing: we.tl/t-hSe09qhdbT9/8 (or the 6/8 with swing feel): we.tl/t-bPqQO0aN6X
|
|
|
Post by sqcollector on Dec 10, 2020 13:21:10 GMT
How do you play Oh Baby as a shuffle? Here John is playing the song with swing (around 2 minutes and 40 seconds): To imagine a shuffle, is just that, but instead of the longer stroke, just fit a shorter one, just like on the surrounding beats. John here struggles a bit; the tempo is very fast. Here, when the vocal part comes, they all play with the shuffle feel, except the drums. You can even see it in their hands movements. Some people might not consider this shuffle, from what I'm seeing. But it's at least ternary subdivision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2020 13:46:07 GMT
This has to be the most depressing thread I have ever seen on this board. Draining the life and enjoyment out of the amazing thing that is music, reducing it to a dry, academic husk to be parsed and analysed. Musicians don't make music to have it treated as an exercise in time signature analysis. George Harrison was renowned for using odd and overly complicated time signatures, when I got the chance to ask him why, he said for fun.
|
|
|
Post by QuocaQuola1 on Dec 10, 2020 14:14:49 GMT
This has to be the most depressing thread I have ever seen on this board. Draining the life and enjoyment out of the amazing thing that is music, reducing it to a dry, academic husk to be parsed and analysed. Musicians don't make music to have it treated as an exercise in time signature analysis. George Harrison was renowned for using odd and overly complicated time signatures, when I got the chance to ask him why, he said for fun. Spot on 👍
|
|
matt
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by matt on Dec 10, 2020 15:27:57 GMT
Seems rather unnecessary. Music works on both an emotional and a practical theory level. Harmonies sound good for scientific reasons (converging wavelength peaks) for example. I find why music fascinating for many reasons. The sound and feel moves me emotionally, but a deeper understanding of satisfies my curiosity
People often quote the Beatles as untrained musicians just doing it for fun. The fact is that at least 2 and probably 3 of them were the most gifted musical geniuses of the last 60 years. Their music has a longer legacy than say, Freddie and the dreamers.
In the real Quo world, really this is why John coghlan is a much better drummer than all of the other Quo drummers. He experiments and uses Much more complex and varying drum rhythms, time signature etc. It’s not enough for me to just say "it sounds better" I want to know why. Thats why IMO Ring of a changes intro is better and more interesting than The way it goes. Or why dog of two head sounds more interesting and experimental than Famous in the last century. Or why 4500 times never gets boring. Ever.
It’s no coincidence that Quos general classic period ended the moment they stopped being as interesting musically. Take Down Downs intro. You may just like it. Sure. . A lot more than say little dreamer. Despite them both being in b and of a similar tempo. But why?? Down down is stop start, pause explode, tension and release, light and shade.
If you don’t like it then fine but it’s a bit off to say it’s depressing and reducing it just because some people are interested in something you aren’t.
Yes you can look at the stars in wonder, but studying them scientifically doesn’t detract from the sense of awe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2020 15:43:09 GMT
Seems rather unnecessary. Music works on both an emotional and a practical theory level. Harmonies sound good for scientific reasons (converging wavelength peaks) for example. I find why music fascinating for many reasons. You gain a much deeper understanding (not appreciation) of say jazz, prog etc if you can recognise composition and technique that the musicians are using. People often quote the Beatles as untrained musicians just doing it for fun. The fact is that at least 2 and probably 3 of them were the most gifted musical geniuses of the last 60 years. It’s also no coincidence that their music has a longer legacy than Freddie and the dreamers. In the real Quo world, Really this is why John coghlan is a much better drummer than all of the other Quo drummers. He experiments and uses Much more complex and varying drum rhythms, time signature etc. It’s why Ring of a changes intro is better and more interesting than The way it goes. Or why dog of two head sounds more interesting and experimental than Famous in the last century. It’s no coincidence that quos general classic period ended the moment they stopped being as interesting musically. Take down downs intro. You may just like it. Sure. But there’s a lot going on. A lot more than say little dreamer. Despite them both being in b and of a similar tempo. Down down is stop start, pause explode, tension and release, light and shade. If you don’t like it then fine but it’s a bit off to say it’s depressing and reducing it just because some people are interested in something you aren’t.
Yes you can look at the stars in wonder, but studying them scientifically doesn’t detract from the sense of awe For one it's just my opinion that over analysing becomes a mere exercise in tedium. Secondly over the years I have lectured in music composition at various music schools in Germany and Norway as guest lecturer so I have always been interested in theory. Before I took the step of trying my hand at music professionally after high school in America I had been awarded a scholarship to a very prestigious music college to study classical piano and composition, so I am well versed in, to use a term I detest, "the science of music". For me when the science outways the art then it's time to stop composing as music should lift the soul, not be an exercise in mathematics. But that's just my antiquated opinion.
|
|
matt
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by matt on Dec 10, 2020 15:50:05 GMT
Seems rather unnecessary. Music works on both an emotional and a practical theory level. Harmonies sound good for scientific reasons (converging wavelength peaks) for example. I find why music fascinating for many reasons. You gain a much deeper understanding (not appreciation) of say jazz, prog etc if you can recognise composition and technique that the musicians are using. People often quote the Beatles as untrained musicians just doing it for fun. The fact is that at least 2 and probably 3 of them were the most gifted musical geniuses of the last 60 years. It’s also no coincidence that their music has a longer legacy than Freddie and the dreamers. In the real Quo world, Really this is why John coghlan is a much better drummer than all of the other Quo drummers. He experiments and uses Much more complex and varying drum rhythms, time signature etc. It’s why Ring of a changes intro is better and more interesting than The way it goes. Or why dog of two head sounds more interesting and experimental than Famous in the last century. It’s no coincidence that quos general classic period ended the moment they stopped being as interesting musically. Take down downs intro. You may just like it. Sure. But there’s a lot going on. A lot more than say little dreamer. Despite them both being in b and of a similar tempo. Down down is stop start, pause explode, tension and release, light and shade. If you don’t like it then fine but it’s a bit off to say it’s depressing and reducing it just because some people are interested in something you aren’t.
Yes you can look at the stars in wonder, but studying them scientifically doesn’t detract from the sense of awe For one it's just my opinion that over analysing becomes a mere exercise in tedium. Secondly over the years I have lectured in music composition at various music schools in Germany and Norway as guest lecturer so I have always been interested in theory. Before I took the step of trying my hand at music professionally after high school in America I had been awarded a scholarship to a very prestigious music college to study classical piano and composition, so I am well versed in, to use a term I detest, "the science of music". For me when the science outways the art then it's time to stop composing as music should lift the soul, not be an exercise in mathematics. But that's just my antiquated opinion. Nothing we are saying outweighs the emotion or the art - its just complimentary. Funnily enough in Michaleangelo's time and Leonadro da Vinci's - Science/Mathematics and Art were not viewed as two opposing subjects. I love the idea of the science of beauty, or the science of art, or the science of music. Look at the golden section in architecture and painting, but then also in nature. Sure if you were to construct a composition following rules then yes it would probably be tedious and lack emotion.
|
|
quodec
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Twelve bar blues is now alright.
Posts: 1,213
Favourite Quo Album: Blue For You
Favourite other bands.: early AC/DC, Angel City, Blackfoot, Rose Tattoo, Slade
|
Post by quodec on Dec 10, 2020 18:52:47 GMT
I hope the OP Rossiswaistcoat is keeping up!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MrWaistcoat on Dec 10, 2020 19:14:41 GMT
I hope the OP Rossiswaistcoat is keeping up!!!! Last I heard he was having a brandy 😆🥃
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Dec 10, 2020 23:57:28 GMT
I'm thinking of starting a new thread devoted to tertiary subdivisions I hope it will help. Some people just don't get it 😆👍😉 I gather the Tertiary was defined by there being no dinosaurs left, which gives it a kind of sad and blues-like feel.
|
|
|
Post by charles on Dec 11, 2020 1:30:26 GMT
... If you don’t like it then fine but it’s a bit off to say it’s depressing and reducing it just because some people are interested in something you aren’t. Yes you can look at the stars in wonder, but studying them scientifically doesn’t detract from the sense of awe. All eyes see the figure of the wizard
As he climbs to the top of the world
No sound as he falls instead of rising
Time standing still, then there's blood on the sand
Oh I see his face
Where was your star?
Was it far? Was it far?
When did we leave?
We believed, we believed, we believedSo are you really telling Tony the tower of stone (with our flesh and bones) had to be built, and are you okay with the death toll (so many died, just to see the wizard fly)? What about the heat and the rain, and the whips and chains, Matt? Wouldn't you agree such working conditions were a bit harsh? Did you see a rainbow rising, on the horizon? Glad you enjoyed it, Matt. My eyes were bleeding though and my heart was lead again.
|
|