Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:19 pm

Then they will not read it. I don't read all the iPad stuff and the post your music and lounge.

It is a music forum - albeit technology focused - I am sure a lot of people here are quite musical and some understand how to read music and play.

Are you saying it shouldn't be here or just passing comment?

After reading that thing on bridge I have been inspired to become a bridge player - I know nothing about it but it looks like it will keep me fit - all this travelling North and South and stuff.

Can anyone recommend a good bridge book and where I can get the clothes? shoes? bridge racket etc.?

ttilberg
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ttilberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:39 pm

ttilberg wrote:Sorry to distract from an excellent thread; as a former music theory student, I appreciate the respect that goes into this stuff.
Of course it should be here!

This is all extremely relevant, and it should be celebrated!

I was just pointing out this irony: Music Theory : Bridge.

As I stated in the beginning of my post, I went to school for music theory; I was in no way complaining that it is here, just stating that I have no idea wtf bridge is about, they talk like crazy people. And that is probably what people think when they read things like:
luddy wrote:The Cdim7 wants (strongly) to resolve to something, like Gm7. That gives the overall progression a turn like Dm7 - Am7 - Gm7, something like that. In other words, it's a progression that's kind of "going somewhere", which makes it interesting.
yur2die4 wrote:Major third interval in relation to the fundamental's pitch class shows up pretty early in the harmonic series. Therefore that interval is highly consonant.

A minor interval shows up next, but it is in relation to that major third. And ends up being part of a major chord. Major chords are hidden in saw waves
There is a hilarious similarity between these quotes and what I read in the newspaper regarding bridge.
Tim Tilberg - Duluth, MN | SoundCloud - Arsenal
2011 13" MBP w/8GB ram | Live 9 Suite, Reason 6.5, FXPansion DCAM/Etch/Maul, Izotope Ozone 5

Bagatell
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Sierra Nevada, Spain

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by Bagatell » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:10 pm

ttilberg wrote:
ttilberg wrote: There is a hilarious similarity between these quotes and what I read in the newspaper regarding bridge.
Yep. And most of the noobies call themselves producers now rather than guitarist or keyboard player or whatever. I always thought a producer was the guy in the suit paying for everything. I can understand why he wouldn't need to know music but why would he need to know anything about Live either?

ttilberg
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ttilberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:49 pm

Image
yur2die4 wrote:Major third... shows up pretty early in the harmonic series.
Tim Tilberg - Duluth, MN | SoundCloud - Arsenal
2011 13" MBP w/8GB ram | Live 9 Suite, Reason 6.5, FXPansion DCAM/Etch/Maul, Izotope Ozone 5

stringtapper
Posts: 6284
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by stringtapper » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:11 pm

Of course the "bridge" analogy (which is funny :) ) could be used for lots of specialized topics. Think about the typical audio tech speak that goes on around here. I'm sure plenty of people would zone out pretty quickly when reading about oscillators and LFOs and frequency modulation, etc., etc.

That also brings me to a point that mystifies me to some extent:

Why do some people on boards like this who have a good grasp on the fundamentals of digital audio and electronic music also seem to rail against any discussion of music theory as if it's just too complex or somehow ruins the experience of music? Really? Understanding how to spell chords within a key is more complex than dialing in a sound on a synth? Really?

People often don't care to use terminology that is pretty standard in music fundamentals, but then you don't seem them calling a square wave a "diddlywonker" or an LFO a "wobble maker" when it comes to fundamentals of the electronic realm.

What's up with that?
Unsound Designer

beatmunga
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:20 pm

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by beatmunga » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:16 pm

stringtapper wrote:Of course the "bridge" analogy (which is funny :) ) could be used for lots of specialized topics. Think about the typical audio tech speak that goes on around here. I'm sure plenty of people would zone out pretty quickly when reading about oscillators and LFOs and frequency modulation, etc., etc.

That also brings me to a point that mystifies me to some extent:

Why do some people on boards like this who have a good grasp on the fundamentals of digital audio and electronic music also seem to rail against any discussion of music theory as if it's just too complex or somehow ruins the experience of music? Really? Understanding how to spell chords within a key is more complex than dialing in a sound on a synth? Really?

People often don't care to use terminology that is pretty standard in music fundamentals, but then you don't seem them calling a square wave a "diddlywonker" or an LFO a "wobble maker" when it comes to fundamentals of the electronic realm.

What's up with that?
It could be that:

a) sound designing nerds are cool, compared to music theory nerds...and therefore more likely to reveal their nerdiness
b) sound design and synthesis are still relatively new and being explored with fresh sounds coming up on our radios and TVs on a fairly regular basis (well, admittedly rarer in the last few years). Can the same be said of the classical/contempory/jazz avant garde? This point, of course, probably informs point (a)
c) Ableton is a very synthophile/theoryphobe friendly package. Sibelius it 'aint. It is one of the best ways for people to make a pleasant noise without playing instruments or studying too much theory.
d) as you have alluded to before Stringtapper, timbre is everything these days.

Possibly.
mendeldrive wrote:NOBODY designs their own sounds... There is ZERO point in reinventing the wheel.

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:47 pm

Ha. You might not like them but the Beatles are the most successfull act of the modern era of music by a country mile. And they found new ways to make music without exploring timbre too much in this sense.

There are still an almost infinite possible number of ways of combing 112 notes within 10 minutes.

Only a fraction of which have been explored.

It's just easier to sit at a computer and bang out track after track of music that sounds like everything else by focusing on timbre and sounds without structure or development.

Timbre is killing music.

I bet you in 200 years time people will listen to the Beatles and Bach and some other proper that we haven't heard of yet.

And it won't be because of timbre.

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:48 pm

Ha. You might not like them but the Beatles are the most successfull act of the modern era of music by a country mile. And they found new ways to make music without exploring timbre too much in this sense.

There are still an almost infinite possible number of ways of combing 112 notes within 10 minutes.

Only a fraction of which have been explored.

It's just easier to sit at a computer and bang out track after track of music that sounds like everything else by focusing on timbre and sounds without structure or development.

Timbre is killing music.

I bet you in 200 years time people will listen to the Beatles and Bach and some other proper that we haven't heard of yet.

And it won't be because of timbre.

beatmunga
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:20 pm

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by beatmunga » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:52 pm

ian_halsall wrote:Ha. You might not like them but the Beatles are the most successfull act of the modern era of music by a country mile. And they found new ways to make music without exploring timbre too much in this sense..
I'm guessing you're firmly in the 'She Loves You' camp as opposed to 'Tomorrow Never Knows', then...

The Beatles are my favourite group.

And it was the stuff they did where a combination of the lack of touring restrictions, experimentation with mind expanding drugs, and a progressive yet populist outlook combined to make them exactly explore new production methods and seek out new timbres that makes for their most interesting work, surely? Sets them apart from Gerry & The Pacemakers et al?
ian_halsall wrote:There are still an almost infinite possible number of ways of combing 112 notes within 10 minutes.

Only a fraction of which have been explored.
Can't wait to hear some of this exciting new innovation. Let me know when it's next on the radio!
mendeldrive wrote:NOBODY designs their own sounds... There is ZERO point in reinventing the wheel.

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:12 pm

Yeah I love the Beatles as well - nothing gay mind.

Now where did I put that glitch and crackle making sample cd?

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:13 pm

I love "Ferry Across the Mersey"

And let's not start on "You'll Never Walk Alone"

yur2die4
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Menasha, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by yur2die4 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:35 pm

That picture is fucking awesome.

Ableton has been my gateway from simple track blending, beat creation, fx exploration, synthesis, midi, and eventually theory. Last but not least, new ways of thinking. I will always adore this program haha.

And, I'd like to add that I feel Beethoven and The Beatles both share in common having hit the sweet spot for timing in creating their masterpieces. And also exploiting their craft tirelessly. They did not settle for mediocrity. I don't think that Beethoven will ever be trumped haha. And The Beatles pretty much define the modern recording age. But I'm sure we are all very aware of this :P

SnoopWess
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by SnoopWess » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:46 pm

ian_halsall wrote:try and explain this:

why are major chords happy and minor chords unhappy?

Let me know
Cultural Ideals. Neither are happy or unhappy. Our culture perceives it that way.

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:01 pm

easy - job done - can sleep easy at last

thx

ian_halsall
Posts: 1711
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 8:52 am
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: Question for music theory fans - chord progression analysis

Post by ian_halsall » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:07 pm

Yeah - it's difficult to see how you can ever get close to the last piano sonata or the a-minor quartet or the 9th or the 5th or the 7th or the 106 or opus 109 or 110.

Fuck I give up - where are my headphones.

Or the 3rd.

Post Reply