Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 64

Thread: Here's the idea:Song Analysis Thread

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    It might also be an idea to look at general principles of song analysis: what are the tools we need in order to dismantle a popular song?
    I think this is a great question. Personally, I'd like to start with a chart and then make sure everyone understands the concepts / terminology that's going to be used.

    ...0.02 cents from me...

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    863
    ya, that's not bad, but in order to analyse a popular song, i don't think you need that much really. but you could go into alot of detail at the same time.

    in a popular song, i think i would look at the recording. look at the chords of it, look at the melody of it. that's first and foremost.

    but then there's the individual instruments and how they harmonize given that, or to create that.

    and also say the solo area, what sorts of things the guy is doing in solo.

    and also look at how the changes are relative to each other, and how the progression is relative to the key it's in.


    now this could be a real simple thing in a way, but also when you look at a solo, there's probably many ways to interpret it.

    but also, we could try and construct our own solos, and look at those, ask each other what one guy did in one part, or ask opinion about one part or another.

    what i think is healthy for this, is not to be too kind, but not too mean obviously. i mean everybody can learn from everybody in everything. this is i find a fact in life and an important one to acknowledge. so there's nothing wrong in being pointed out some bad things or whatever. because it's always a learning process. but if you tell everybody everything is good, this will not help them improve, which to me, is more important than sparing them the disappointment of being told something negative, which really, imo nobody should ever feel because it's not an insult, but rather a wonderful gift, an opportunity to improve. but also sometimes someone might say they don't like something, but whatever, fine don't like it, i like it, and i'm making the music, so whatever, it's ok you don't like it, but i don't think i'll change anything.

    you know , it's all good.

    but anything extra anyone brings to the table of how they view a song or what makes it good in their eyes, or anything they'd like to share i think is good, and i think is the power of lots of people looking at the tune.

    however, i think this is best complemented by actual sounds, because if everybody already knows all the same theory, then nobody needs the sounds, but then nobody needs to discuss it either.

    but say something, call it something, and refer it to a specific part of the song that's different.

    that's why i think it's important to discuss specific recordings. not a theory only view of a song.

    a chord progression is not a song. so how could we discuss a lead sheet really? alot of the song parts are missing. you know what i mean?

    we could look at how the chord sequence is constructed, and the degrees of it and stuff. ya sure. and look at the melody. but the rest is missing. and for my money, cry me a river is maybe a little advanced, or at least the lead that was submitted, simply for the fact that chord progression wise it's really complicated.

    me, i'm of the simpler is better type. I mean, if you look at cry me a river. alot of the chords are all the same root like Em for example, but the extensions on it are complicated. so really that song is only Em but the rendition is all the additions, kind of, sometimes it's really part of the song itself. the song itself requires a given extension.

    that's why those can be tough in my opinion. i find it's better to start simple, and then go nuts with what's simple. i mean just something simple can become so complicated. and sometimes it's just much easier to make something complicated than something simple and yet good. so it's not like there's no value on simple things. some people find that for a good song to be good it must be complicated, because that looks like the guy who wrote really knows his stuff. but to me, that's not the case. that's like saying a painting needs lots of colors or lots of shapes to be good. but good paintings can be simple or complicated or monotone, or two tone, 3 tone, or fully realistic looking.

    something simple might be easier for us to talk about and look at also. and quicker to go through. i find for music, what's also important, is comparing lots of songs together. so going through many songs i think is good. not necessarily looking at the same one in super depth.

    that's just my 50 cents.

  3. #33
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by mjo View Post
    I think this is a great question. Personally, I'd like to start with a chart and then make sure everyone understands the concepts / terminology that's going to be used.

    ...0.02 cents from me...
    Here are some of what I was referring to as "tools" for dismantling a song:

    In no particular order:

    An understanding of the following concepts (tho not necessarily a familiarity with the terminology):
    1. Key (major and minor)
    2. Chord structure. (Intervals, extensions.)
    3. Chord function - particularly tonic (I), dominant (V), subdominant (IV) and supertonic (ii) - the latter two being usually interchangeable.
    4. Secondary dominants.
    5. Modal tonalities, as distinct from major or minor keys.
    6. Modal interchange (often known as "borrowing" from other parallel scales, esp the natural minor).
    7. Common substitutions (esp tritone or b5 sub).

    The latter is not too important for talking about pop or rock music, but all the other six are.

    That's just dealing with the harmony (chords and chord sequences). Other factors (still thinking mainly about rock music) include:

    8. Melodic intervals. (Same terminology as harmonic intervals in chords, but the way individual notes interact one after the other is what melody is all about.)
    9. Form and structure (intro-verse-chorus-bridge-etc).
    10. Meter/time signature. IOW, bars (measures), beats, beat divisions, etc.
    11. Rhythmic feel (straight, swing, shuffle, etc).
    12. Tempo.

    13. Production. This is a big category, and is extremely important in rock. It includes all the following factors:
    14. Orchestration - ie, choice of instruments used, and whether the mix of instruments changes in the course of the song.
    15. Arrangement. Which notes are given to which instruments. (Maybe not tremendously important for rock, but occasionally worth considering.)
    16. Timbre, and use of electronic and studio effects. Extremely important in rock - generally under-theorised. One of those areas where musicians know extremely well what is "good" and "bad", without needing any theory about it. The most obvious "folk" element of rock music, in that knowledge about it is passed on by ear and word of mouth, in a very immediate and direct way.

    Last but maybe not least:
    17. Lyrics! Naturally, to any songwriter, the lyrics are 50% (at least) of what matters about the song. But it's arguable we needn't consider them at all in any analytical way in this thread, except perhaps to refer to times when the music seems to express something related to the lyrics. (If we are going to analyse lyrics beyond there, we'd need to bring in literary tools, to do with rhyme, syntax, scanning, etc.)

    My point is that we need (at least) to be able to identify all these strands in a piece of music (and maybe others), so as not to talk at cross purposes. Eg, a particularly ear-catching effect may be to do with a change in instrumentation, or the use of a digital effect - so talking about chord changes is beside the point.
    IOW, we have to do some pretty serious analytical listening first, before we get down to deciding how to talk about a track.
    We can, of course, choose to talk ONLY about the chords, or ONLY about the melody, or structure, or use of effects, or whatever. Just depends on whatever angle interests us about the song in question.

    Naturally, the purpose of this exercise is not just a desire to take songs to pieces for the sake of it (a destructive or reductionist urge) - but to understand how music works, what kinds of choices in putting a song together have what kinds of effect on the listener. (If indeed we can identify anything objective that has the same effect on anyone...)

  4. #34
    JazzNerd gersdal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Norway - South West coast
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    Here are some of what I was referring to as "tools" for dismantling a song
    This is a great suggestion, and very systematic. I'll love to work around these ideas, but I'd suggest we add a few ...

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    An understanding of the following concepts (tho not necessarily a familiarity with the terminology):
    1. Key (major and minor)
    2. Chord structure. (Intervals, extensions.)
    3. Chord function - particularly tonic (I), dominant (V), subdominant (IV) and supertonic (ii) - the latter two being usually interchangeable.
    4. Secondary dominants.
    5. Modal tonalities, as distinct from major or minor keys.
    6. Modal interchange (often known as "borrowing" from other parallel scales, esp the natural minor).
    7. Common substitutions (esp tritone or b5 sub).
    I would add a bit on scales that can be used for improvisation, and for those who do not rely so much on scales I would also add a bit on guide tones. Most of all it would be interesting to look at what the artists actual choice (scale choices or is she doing chord tone soloing or maybe following guide tones) in this regard is on the specific tune.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    8. Melodic intervals. (Same terminology as harmonic intervals in chords, but the way individual notes interact one after the other is what melody is all about.)
    9. Form and structure (intro-verse-chorus-bridge-etc).
    10. Meter/time signature. IOW, bars (measures), beats, beat divisions, etc.
    11. Rhythmic feel (straight, swing, shuffle, etc).
    12. Tempo.
    I would like to add the rhythm playing more specifically, what are the rhythm player doing, what could have been done, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    13. Production. This is a big category, and is extremely important in rock. It includes all the following factors:
    14. Orchestration - ie, choice of instruments used, and whether the mix of instruments changes in the course of the song.
    15. Arrangement. Which notes are given to which instruments. (Maybe not tremendously important for rock, but occasionally worth considering.)
    16. Timbre, and use of electronic and studio effects. Extremely important in rock - generally under-theorised. One of those areas where musicians know extremely well what is "good" and "bad", without needing any theory about it. The most obvious "folk" element of rock music, in that knowledge about it is passed on by ear and word of mouth, in a very immediate and direct way.

    Last but maybe not least:
    17. Lyrics! Naturally, to any songwriter, the lyrics are 50% (at least) of what matters about the song. But it's arguable we needn't consider them at all in any analytical way in this thread, except perhaps to refer to times when the music seems to express something related to the lyrics. (If we are going to analyse lyrics beyond there, we'd need to bring in literary tools, to do with rhyme, syntax, scanning, etc.)
    There is a lot of great suggestions in JonR's posting, and I can accept that. The extra bits would make it more interesting for me, but I also understand that I'm becomming the odd guy in this company.

    Cheers
    Last edited by gersdal; 01-20-2010 at 04:54 PM.

  5. #35
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by gersdal View Post
    I would add a bit on scales that can be used for improvisation, and for those who do not rely so much on scales I would also add a bit on guide tones. Most of all it would be interesting to look at what the artists actual choice (scale choices or is she doing chord tone soloing or maybe following guide tones) in this regard is on the specific tune.
    Sure - essential addition to my list. Dunno how I forgot improvisation! Connected with/inspired by all the other stuff of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by gersdal View Post
    I would like to add the rhythm playing more specifically, what are the rhythm player doing, what could have been done, etc.
    You mean choice of chord shapes, or timings/patterns? Or both?

    Again - as with improvisation - it's extending the analysis from "what they did" to "how else could you do it?"

    IOW, it throws up all kinds of other questions. Such as, how much of what we hear is essential to the identity of that piece of music? How much could we change or adapt - when we play the song ourselves - before it becomes unrecognisable, or something else?

    In rock, the answer is "not very much". Even a solo is often regarded as something that needs to be copied. We could, however, play the song with different instrumentation or effects (or choose different shapes for the chords), but normally we'd be expected to get as close as we can to the original, given what we have available (in terms of equipment as well as our personal abilities!).

    In jazz, of course, the answer is "anything except the melody" - and even the timing of the melody can be improvised. (If singing, the lyrics would not be changed.)

    In short, how far we go down that path (improvisation strategies and techniques) in this thread depends on the tune we're looking at - and also on our own attitudes of course. (Some people will want to do a tune their own way - some will want to copy as close as possible. Or just get a clear picture of what's going on in the first place, maybe to just enjoy the listening process at a different level.)

  6. #36
    JazzNerd gersdal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Norway - South West coast
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR View Post
    You mean choice of chord shapes, or timings/patterns? Or both?
    I was mostly thinking of rhythmic things like timing, anticpation and delays in the playing. Things that would differentiate why it is fantastic to listen to Eddie Van Halen playing rhythm, and why it is rather boring to listen to some of his copycats that has merely focused on copying his tapping technique . Chord choices (not neccessarily shapes) are sometimes interesting also in rock, and are definitely interesting in jazz, but to a large extent that would be under your no 7.
    Another thing to do with rhythm: How does the guitar, keyboard, bass and drums create the groove in combination?

    I'm probably not making myself very clear, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm heading at. I'm trying to not always focus on jazz

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    863
    you know what? i'm not sure we need to be so systematic, when analyzing a song. some songs are good for different reasons that other ones. some things are definitely crucial such as melody and chord structure and all that, and clearly you could look at anything else. and i think it would be really fun to look at stuff you can do to improvise, scales or whatever people use, and also to look at what they did in that particular song, but looking at the previous posts, they are already really long, and they are only giving the titles and short explanations of a list of criteria we should study.

    think of how long the actual study would be.


    also, i'm positive that no jazz great would approach a new song and look at all of that before getting into it. that's so much.

    but like i said, the cool thing about this, is that we can share from everybody's perspective what they think of it. people can ask any sorts of questions about it.

    going through it systematically that way will create enormous threads and months worth of a single song.

    i'm not sure how this will all pan out, but i think that myself included we should really try and pace ourselves not to put too much in each post, and try to deal with one single topic per post, or else we're gonna end up like often do, with posts full of quotes, and every post will be so huge, which will make it real difficult to do.

    i know i make long posts for one thing, which i'm going to try and not do for this analysis.

    plus we can always bring things up as we go and add more later. we don't need to do so much right away.

    but i'm wondering how this will workout without specific structure within the tune.

    enumerating things to look at, does seem like a good idea. maybe we even need to have an extra folder tree, with where ijam is, put the tune, then inside threads per section of it, like improv, structure, or whatever.

    idk. we'll have to feel it through as we go. i think it's probably not going to workout perfectly at first and we'll need to round off some edges to get it better.

    but definitely the absolute musts of every tune i think are in no particular order.

    1. Key
    2. chord progression in notes and roman numerals.
    3. melody
    4. specified recording for reference.


    everything else, although not less important i think we can add at our leisure, and look at absolutely. but these 4 things i think are the crucial things you need for every tune. except the melody, will be tough for me, since i don't read sheet music, but i'll get that from the recording, and maybe i can learn a little something about notation if we post that for every song.

  8. #38
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    you know what? i'm not sure we need to be so systematic, when analyzing a song.
    Well, analysis is analysis. No point if it isn't systematic.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    some songs are good for different reasons that other ones. some things are definitely crucial such as melody and chord structure and all that, and clearly you could look at anything else.
    Right. All of which requires a system of some kind.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    and i think it would be really fun to look at stuff you can do to improvise, scales or whatever people use, and also to look at what they did in that particular song,
    Sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    but looking at the previous posts, they are already really long, and they are only giving the titles and short explanations of a list of criteria we should study.

    think of how long the actual study would be.
    So?
    It can be done in short parts. Not everything has to be looked at. We can go as deep (or as shallow) as we like into any of this.
    My view is that it's good to start with a clear set of criteria (a "system"), so that we can talk meaningfully.
    Otherwise we risk rambling incoherently, using ill-defined terms. Posts get longer and longer without actually saying anything useful or interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    also, i'm positive that no jazz great would approach a new song and look at all of that before getting into it. that's so much.
    You'd be surprised. I don't suppose they'd write it all out. But they would certainly look at various aspects of it, using similar concepts to those I outlined. (Eg, for Cry me a River, a jazz "great" would know everything I described, and more, and would be able to work it all out in a few minutes.)
    They know all the ins and outs, all the "tricks", almost intuitively. If someone were to ask them to write it all down, it would probably take them a lot longer, and no doubt it would be a LOT longer than my analysis. (There's probably several angles or approaches to it that I didn't bother to mention, or am even aware of.)

    You should check out some of the discussions over on allaboutjazz (where the serious dudes hang out). You'll find whole threads on one tune. (Hell, there was even a huge thread on just one CHORD a while back...)

    Of course they don't go into all that (consciously) when confronted with a tune on the bandstand. But they KNOW it all.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    going through it systematically that way will create enormous threads and months worth of a single song.
    So?
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    i'm not sure how this will all pan out, but i think that myself included we should really try and pace ourselves not to put too much in each post, and try to deal with one single topic per post, or else we're gonna end up like often do, with posts full of quotes, and every post will be so huge, which will make it real difficult to do.
    Well, it's important to think carefully and plan what you write. Clarity is what matters.
    I'm guilty of rambling at tangents myself sometimes, but I do try to be clear.
    Hence the need for a systematic approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    plus we can always bring things up as we go and add more later. we don't need to do so much right away.
    Sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    but i'm wondering how this will workout without specific structure within the tune.
    Every tune has a structure.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    enumerating things to look at, does seem like a good idea. maybe we even need to have an extra folder tree, with where ijam is, put the tune, then inside threads per section of it, like improv, structure, or whatever.
    Whoah! Now that IS systematic!
    Good idea, but I can't see how that would work technically in a forum like this. But we can certainly use headings in our posts, and refer clearly to something we're commenting on in some previous post.
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerpikingood View Post
    but definitely the absolute musts of every tune i think are in no particular order.

    1. Key
    2. chord progression in notes and roman numerals.
    3. melody
    4. specified recording for reference.
    Yes, good to have an audio reference. (Or maybe more than one, which will be useful for comparison in some cases.)

    But the reason I added all those other things is that "theory" is too often only concerned with the things you mentioned (harmony, essentially). Rock is about a lot more than that. You can't understand rock from its chord sequences alone (although you can get quite a lot that way).

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    439
    I definately believe this idea is very Positive to The IBreatheMusic.com community,

    excellent suggestion to get this rolling !!

    while there are questions about how it will implemented realize the "bigger picture"

    that this will help musicians ANALYZE a specific tune, increase their knowledge and help them understand the song, it's structure, form, musical style, etc better

    analysis(of the kind we are talking about) of a specific song will contribute to a musicians knowledge of improvisation, creativity, implementation of chord substitution, etc

    now besides those assets

    further understanding of a song may help with

    analysis of this song(particularly by different musicians who may have arranged the tune differently and may have contributed different musical styles)
    this could provide objectively a way to look at the same song and see how it was "modified" and how variations were created by different musicians/composers/arrangers etc.

    this all can be quite positive.

    the thing that has to be decided is how this will be implemented.

    its REALLY important that we ALL communicate using the same musical theory language,

    otherwise there will be misunderstandings

    personally I tend to agree with JonR and also Gersdal(and his concerns about that importance of communicating the rhythm)and their analytical "vision" of what would be the most useful for a forum community like IBreatheMusic.com when analyzing songs in this manner
    Last edited by Schooligo; 01-21-2010 at 05:41 AM.
    "Success is arriving at a Personal Satisfaction within yourself"

    Dedicated To Guitar!!!

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    863
    I think different songs will have different strengths, and ya, sure, there will be different things you'll want to look at, rhythm is to me, the most important dimension of music, so certainly it will be interesting to look at that, but i think it's important to realize, that if you collect too much information, this won't necessarily be internalized. and it will essentially go in one ear out the other. we'll see how it all goes when it comes down to it. but the point is for this to be useful in the future. it's all fine and daddy to rip a song apart to shreds and look at every nook and cranny of it. but if you do, this might not become useful to you in the future.

    I'm not sure what everyone's habits are with learning new songs, but i know for sure that i often don't even need to learn the chords to a song to be able to play to it let alone study it like crazy. for simpler songs mind you, but still. i think alot of pros are short on time for learning new songs. undoubtedly they continue to learn and study songs, but also, someone can start a tune from scratch and they can keep up. they won't be analyzing the tune either, or studying it. it is the knowledge they've obtained before plus just their hearing and inspiration that lets them play to a tune.

    but, i think that studying tunes like we're going to do is a good excercise, for learning. it's nto easy to use it this way though either. I mean someone could show us all mathematical formuls and explain to us complex physics, and say it all in one go, but the fact is, that formulas are hard to remember and need to be used often. you could go through a bunch of material, and oh, yes i understand, but you will have gone through so much, that you will quickly forget, and you spent all that time for nothing basically. what I'd like to get from this is not just to read a bunch of information about a tune, but to internalize the things from it. for me, this will require some repetition. to me if internalized this would mean you would be able to hear the sounds when you say the words. you would be able to hear a tune, and recognize the key, and the chord sequence in roman numerals. and recognize a solo on your fretboard, you should be able to see the notes where they are played on your fretboard as you hear them in the song. too much at once, and i think it will be too hard to get to this level.

    and ya, like you said, different songs will make us look at different things. different songs have different things special about them. but imo no song can be studied by its chord sequences alone. a chord sequence is not a song by a long shot. so many songs use the exact same chord sequence.

    but like i said, if we plan a huge list of things to look at and disect every tune in enormous detail, i think it will do us more harm than good. it's good to take small bites and chew thoroughly.

    the things i posted are to me, the bare necessities though. not the sufficient information. i mean there is no sufficient. there's just stuff to be learned from songs whatever you want to learn.

    by doing many songs, and little parts of them, by comparing them and doing lots of them is where you really internalize the info imo.

    what we are doing is tricky. it sounds "easy" and great, but it's tricky. most would not take this approach. you won't find this approach in any book (i think) because it easily lends itself to taking too much information at once too much different information. which makes it hard to compare song to song.

    usually the procedure is to look at chord sequences, and compare song to song. or look at whatever other attribute song to song. a good method. but i think we can do more, and learn a bit more song to song, share observations of songs in particular, point out cool things about it, stuff like that. play with it. solo with it, share solos, share ideas about solos. i think hands on is a great approach. huge for learning curve. and many songs also. which can easily be compared with the basic info i posted. as well as other things we might discuss either in soloing or whatever. real sound is crucial i think too. i mean you can talk about articulations or whatever, but to show it either in a recording you made or someone else made, or youtube clip, i think is huge. music is not text, so i think actual music is essential. i don't see how you can analyze music without music.

    idk, it's going to be interesting once under way. but i think there's few main things we should try and keep in mind. short and single topicish. except for like one liners like one post could have the bpm the chord sequence and all that in it. just information. not discussion. to think more quantity of songs instead of indepthness, and a hands on approach. i personally think those things would benefit all of us.

    but maybe i'm alone in that. idk. I'm anxious for this poll to get going though. and on the other a little apprehensive, and on the other really curious.
    Last edited by fingerpikingood; 01-21-2010 at 07:28 AM.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    439
    you know fingerpickin,

    since you seem to be a major "contributor" to this thread, and maybe eventually a major contributor to the implementation of this IJam process,

    there are many comments in your posts that are IMHO are not logical critical thinking.

    and since you seem to be so "vocal", I have concerns with your opinion based on your comments.

    for example,

    quote by fingerpickingood:
    i think it's important to realize, that if you collect too much information, this won't necessarily be internalized. and it will essentially go in one ear out the other. we'll see how it all goes when it comes down to it. but the point is for this to be useful in the future.
    and why would it not be "useful in the future"???

    it's all fine and daddy to rip a song apart to shreds and look at every nook and cranny of it. but if you do, this might not become useful to you in the future.
    well, that's your opinion but I definately don't agree with it

    but i know for sure that i often don't even need to learn the chords to a song to be able to play to it let alone study it like crazy.
    now your getting ridiculous
    how do you play to a song without internally &/or externally learning the song??

    to give you one practical application of what I mean,

    learning the chord progression is a very important priority when either playing rhythm or lead(its even important to be aware of the Harmony to be a competent improvisor)


    they won't be analyzing the tune either, or studying it. it is the knowledge they've obtained before plus just their hearing and inspiration that lets them play to a tune.
    wrong,
    they are definately "analyzing the song" either internally &/or externally and using senses like hearing is an important part of that process.

    I mean someone could show us all mathematical formuls and explain to us complex physics, and say it all in one go, but the fact is, that formulas are hard to remember and need to be used often. you could go through a bunch of material, and oh, yes i understand, but you will have gone through so much, that you will quickly forget, and you spent all that time for nothing basically.
    another ridiculous comment,

    you mean if members were analyzing a song, and I comment that the Mixolydian mode scale is being used, and one way to communicate that information is to give the scale formula so that musicians will be able to themselves create that scale
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7

    that information and analysis like that is not useful information to help increase a musicians knowledge.
    once again I definately do not agree.

    what I'd like to get from this is not just to read a bunch of information about a tune, but to internalize the things from it. for me, this will require some repetition. to me if internalized this would mean you would be able to hear the sounds when you say the words. you would be able to hear a tune, and recognize the key, and the chord sequence in roman numerals. and recognize a solo on your fretboard, you should be able to see the notes where they are played on your fretboard as you hear them in the song.
    you get what you put into it.

    nothing wrong with that strategy, but you will have to do necessary "WORK" to be able to "internalize things"

    a chord sequence is not a song by a long shot. so many songs use the exact same chord sequence.
    one of the very few things I agree with you on

    but like i said, if we plan a huge list of things to look at and disect every tune in enormous detail, i think it will do us more harm than good.
    how so?? it's very possible some of these submitted analyzed songs could be on this site for a very long time,

    why wouldn't anyone who had the knowledge contribute with factual information,

    and how would that be a bad thing??

    it's good to take small bites and chew thoroughly.
    this can be a useful strategy and generally I agree

    what we are doing is tricky. it sounds "easy" and great, but it's tricky. most would not take this approach. you won't find this approach in any book (i think) because it easily lends itself to taking too much information at once too much different information. which makes it hard to compare song to song.
    different musicians frequent this community, and the majority have a very thorough understanding of music and music theory,

    for all to understand, certain efforts must be completed so that we are all speaking a common thorough musical language

    usually the procedure is to look at chord sequences, and compare song to song. or look at whatever other attribute song to song. a good method. but i think we can do more, and learn a bit more song to song, share observations of songs in particular, point out cool things about it, stuff like that. play with it. solo with it, share solos, share ideas about solos.
    IBreathemusic.com is all about sharing,

    now your contradicting yourself,

    you seem to be saying(in the statements above this paragraph)that doing that very thing is a BAD idea.


    i think hands on is a great approach. huge for learning curve. and many songs also. which can easily be compared with the basic info i posted. as well as other things we might discuss either in soloing or whatever. real sound is crucial i think too. i mean you can talk about articulations or whatever, but to show it either in a recording you made or someone else made, or youtube clip, i think is huge. music is not text, so i think actual music is essential.
    different people learn in different ways,

    learning by a "hands on approach" is a useful tool,

    the question I present to you, is how do you plan to implement such a strategy ???

    i don't see how you can analyze music without music.

    that because(based on your comments) I suspect you don't know how to do it.


    i think there's few main things we should try and keep in mind. short and single topicish. except for like one liners like one post could have the bpm the chord sequence and all that in it. just information. not discussion. to think more quantity of songs instead of indepthness, and a hands on approach. i personally think those things would benefit all of us.
    what??

    this is not a coherent paragraph at all,

    what are you trying to say?

    but maybe i'm alone in that. idk. I'm anxious for this poll to get going though. and on the other a little apprehensive, and on the other really curious.
    clearly your apprehensive, but I get the impression that is more due to your lack of knowledge in music and music theory.

    its nothing personal, but you seem to be so "vocal" about what you think should be major advice to contribute implementation of IJam, yet you contradict yourself and at times don't have coherent paragraphs.
    "Success is arriving at a Personal Satisfaction within yourself"

    Dedicated To Guitar!!!

  12. #42
    Registered User bluesking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    687
    I see we are getting down into the nuts and bolts here.

    As I have volunteered to organise iJam (at least for now) I thought it would be helpful to give you an idea of what I intend to do to help make it work.

    I will construct polls and make sure that songs are chosen fairly and democratically. I will state a couple of basic rules (i.e. only discuss the selected song in its own thread etc.) I won't be policing a "strategy for how to actually perform the analysis".

    Different people have different analysis styles and all are welcome to post whatever they feel is relevant. Some people will want to learn only how to solo over a tune. Others will want to be able to play the whole thing unacompanied. Other will look at it from the perspective of creating an arrangement for a whole group. etc.etc.

    Although I do agree with the majority view: namely that, without at least some understanding of music theory, people will not get as much out of the analysis as they could. That doesn't mean people can't post recordings and ask for suggestions. It does make it very hard for them to give useful advice however.

    In fingerpickin's case the mixture of illiteracy & a propensity to ramble on about only those things which are irrelevant is a constant. In the vein of all people who havn't expended the (extremely modest) effort required to understand theory, he believes it is too hard (or perhaps even detrimental) and will take up too much of his time. This of course begs the question "why does he post on a music theory forum?" but that is only for him to understand. What I mean to say is, thats fingerpickin through and through, regardless of whether we are discussing iJam or anything else.
    "Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar"

    Hidden Content

  13. #43
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesking View Post
    I see we are getting down into the nuts and bolts here.

    As I have volunteered to organise iJam (at least for now) I thought it would be helpful to give you an idea of what I intend to do to help make it work.

    I will construct polls and make sure that songs are chosen fairly and democratically. I will state a couple of basic rules (i.e. only discuss the selected song in its own thread etc.) I won't be policing a "strategy for how to actually perform the analysis".

    Different people have different analysis styles and all are welcome to post whatever they feel is relevant. Some people will want to learn only how to solo over a tune. Others will want to be able to play the whole thing unacompanied. Other will look at it from the perspective of creating an arrangement for a whole group. etc.etc.

    Although I do agree with the majority view: namely that, without at least some understanding of music theory, people will not get as much out of the analysis as they could. That doesn't mean people can't post recordings and ask for suggestions. It does make it very hard for them to give useful advice however.

    In fingerpickin's case the mixture of illiteracy & a propensity to ramble on about only those things which are irrelevant is a constant. In the vein of all people who havn't expended the (extremely modest) effort required to understand theory, he believes it is too hard (or perhaps even detrimental) and will take up too much of his time. This of course begs the question "why does he post on a music theory forum?" but that is only for him to understand. What I mean to say is, thats fingerpickin through and through, regardless of whether we are discussing iJam or anything else.
    All agreed.
    This thread is turning in on itself, and it's important we don't descend to ad hominem attacks. I'm perfectly OK with fingerpickingood's contributions - I don't often read them right through, but he has valid things to say (somewhere in there, usually), and doesn't indulge in personal criticism.

    I think once we have a few tunes set up as targets, we can point our artillery in that direction rather than at each other!

  14. #44
    Mod
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Maryland USA
    Posts
    1,334
    Sorry I don't get to mod this thread more often. I think the ideas we are coming up w/ here are great. but we have to try and keep this a peaceful process. If we start trying to shoot each other it won't work.

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    863
    i don't want no theory. i want theory this is why i am here. i am not saying no theory. I know you guys know alot of theory, and i want to learn theory. but to me, theory is the words attached to the sound not the words alone. and i'm envisionning how this thread will end up, and i think it's best for everybody to do a little at a time, and not analyze in depth a huge list of stuff right away. because the way sounds and words and stuff become internalized and really useful for when you play on your own, is repetition. doing many songs.

    i thought i was clear about that in one of my random rambling sessions.

Similar Threads

  1. The muting thread
    By phantom in forum Guitar Technique
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 01:18 PM
  2. general listening analysis for the strickly pentatonic thread
    By Schooligo in forum Composition, Arranging & Analysis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 06:38 AM
  3. Classical Theory/Jazz Theory & Analysis
    By rmuscat in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-12-2005, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •