The Songwriter Forum - songwriting reviews, tips and chat
Songwriter Forum => The Writing Process => Topic started by: GuyBarry on January 27, 2017, 03:23:50 PM
-
Now I'm getting into writing these jazz chords I'm finding some of the terminology a bit confusing.
If I understand correctly, A-C-E-F# is written Am6 and called a "minor sixth chord". Yet it doesn't have a minor sixth in it - it's a minor chord with a major sixth! (No idea what A-C-E-F would be called, although it doesn't sound very jazzy - more like something out of a tragic film score.)
On the other hand, C-E-G-Bb-Db is called a "minor ninth chord", but it's a major chord with a minor ninth (and a minor seventh of course). I initially thought it was written Cm9 but it isn't - what would that be, C-Eb-G-Bb-D? The notation for C-E-G-Bb-Db appears to be C7b9, which is what I've used in the introduction to my latest song.
Is there a good guide to jazz chord terminology and notation anywhere? There doesn't seem to be one agreed system - just various sets of conventions.
-
Hi, there are many ways to describe a set of notes in a chord,usually dependant upon the root note of the chord, e.g. A std C chord could also be an Em aug 5, or a Gsus 4 6th.
But I digress in the example you use of an Am6. It's the A chord that's a minor first with the 6th added to make the m6. As I understand it you start with the root note first A, then determine if its major or minor then add the sub set of added note or notes to arrive at the full description of a chord that is different from a straight major chord. A6 is the major A with the F# added to make the 6th.
But.....I'm not an expert that's just my understanding!
Cheers
Jamie
-
Generally, here's how I write extended chords. Major & minor refer to the 3rd. So your first chord would be Am6. Your second example has a major 3rd, so I'd use this shorthand: C7-9 (the minus symbol denotes a semitone lowering) or as you said C7b9. In the same way that C+7 indicates a major seventh, it's the plus sign that differentiates it from C7. Both are major chords, but only the latter has the dominant seventh.
Diminished chords sometimes take the shorthand 'dim' or sometimes have use the degree symbol (which I can't find on my keyboard) and augmented chords are generally represented as +5 (in my mainly guitar based experience)
I don't know if there's an agreed system. Maybe some jazzers will be along later to help us out.
-
I think you are confusing "chords" with "intervals"
As TONE has said, in "chords" the major/minor variance relates to the 3rd degree of the scale and whether it is a Major 3rd or Minor / "flattened 3rd"
The extensions are then added after this has been determined
JAMIE is spot on about how the same chord can be interpreted/named in different ways depending on context (ie the lowest note may not be the root note - it could be an inversion or a "slash chord" where there is a different bass note completely so there can be varying sets of conventions)
However, with "intervals" you can have major , minor, perfect, augmented and diminished intervals
Intervals are the space between the root note and the next note
"MAJOR" and "PERFECT" intervals are those with an interval (the distance between the first note and next note played) where the second note falls on the Major scale - eg C to D is a Major Second, C to E is a Major Third, C to F is a Perfect Fourth, C to G is a Perfect Fifth, C to A is a Major Sixth, C to B is a Major Seventh, C to C is a "Perfect Eighth", "Perfect Octave" - or most commonly referred to as just an "Octave"
We can then use these names to understand the other typs of intervals:
A MINOR interval is a semi-tone (half step) below a MAJOR interval - so there can be Minor Second (C to Db), Minor Third (C to Eb), Minor Sixth (C to Ab), and a Minor Seventh (C to Bb)
So a Cm7 (C minor 7) chord contains root note, a flattened 3rd note, which is a Minor 3rd interval and a "flattened 7th note", which is a Minor 7 interval
A C7 (C Dominant 7) chord contains a root note, a 3rd, (which is a Major Third interval), a 5th note, (which is a Perfect 5th Interval), and a "flattened 7th note", which makes the chord a Dominant 7th chord (as opposed to a Major 7th chord), (which is a Minor 7 interval)
I hope these examples demonstrate the different terminology "in action"
Just for completeness...
AUGMENTED intervals are a semi-tone (half step) above a PERFECT interval - so C to F is Perfect Fourth and C to F# is an Augmented Fourth
So a suspended 4th chord (e.g. Csus4) contains an augmented 4th interval
A Perfect 5th interval is (C to G) and C to G# is an Augmented Fifth
DIMINISHED intervals are a semi-tone (half step) below a PERFECT interval - so C to F is Perfect Fourth and C to E is an Diminished Fourth - A Perfect 5th interval is (C to G) and C to Gb is an Diminished Fifth
This is where it gets interesting - as MINOR intervals can also be made Diminished Intervals by lowering the Minor Interval by a semi-tone (half step)
eg - C to B is a MAJOR Seventh, C to Bb is a MINOR Seventh - there a DIMINISHED Seventh is C to Bbb (B flat flat - which is actually an "A" note, but the DIMINISHED Seventh interval is referred to as a "flattened, flattened seventh)
DIMINISHED Chords contain a root note, a flattened 3rd note (which is a Minor Third Interval) and a flattened 5th note (which is a Diminished Fifth Interval)
I know this is a bit of a rushed explanation but I hope it helps explain why and how intervals are referred to as Major, Minor, Perfect, Augmented and Diminished - and how these intervals sit within chords and how they affect the names of chords
-
I think you are confusing "chords" with "intervals"
No, I know the difference between a chord and an interval (if that remark was addressed to me). My question was about the slightly confusing terminology.
The interval A to F# is called a major sixth. The interval A to F is called a minor sixth. However, it appears that the chord A-C-E-F# is called a "minor sixth chord", even though it contains a major sixth rather than a minor sixth. (It's sometimes also called a "minor-major sixth chord", which is less misleading in my view.)
I was initially misled by the notation "Am6", because it looks as though you have to add a minor sixth to the chord. I can see now that the "m" belongs with the "A" rather than the "6" - it's A minor plus a sixth. I'm not sure how you can tell from the notation that it's a major sixth rather than a minor sixth though.
But then, when it comes to the so-called "minor ninth chord", it actually does contain a minor ninth (e.g. C-E-G-Bb-Db). As tone has pointed out, it's generally notated as "C7-9" or "C7b9" - you couldn't write "Cm9" because that would presumably mean C minor seventh plus a major ninth (e.g. C-Eb-G-Bb-D). I think.
As I said in my opening post, a lot of ad hoc conventions seem to have grown up and they don't always fit with each other.
[...]
I know this is a bit of a rushed explanation but I hope it helps explain why and how intervals are referred to as Major, Minor, Perfect, Augmented and Diminished - and how these intervals sit within chords and how they affect the names of chords
Thanks but you really don't need to explain any of this for my benefit!
EDIT: My question is discussed in some detail here:
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/37957/why-does-a-minor-sixth-chord-contain-a-major-6th-interval (http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/37957/why-does-a-minor-sixth-chord-contain-a-major-6th-interval)
-
I know nothing much but I call C-Eb-G-Bb-D a minor ninth....Cm9.
I don't call your 'so-called minor ninth' chord (C7b9) a minor ninth. Don't know where you got that from. As Tone (and Boydie) said it's the third degree that determines major/minor so I wouldn't have thought that anybody would call that a minor chord. It's a c7flat9 to me.
What I think of as a minor ninth contains a major ninth (interval-wise) just as the m6 contains a major sixth. Why....God knows!
-
No, I know the difference between a chord and an interval (if that remark was addressed to me). My question was about the slightly confusing terminology.
But it is not confusing terminology when you look at the differences between CHORD and INTERVAL naming conventions, which is why I spent some time explaining the different examples
But then, when it comes to the so-called "minor ninth chord", it actually does contain a minor ninth (e.g. C-E-G-Bb-Db). As tone has pointed out, it's generally notated as "C7-9" or "C7b9" - you couldn't write "Cm9" because that would presumably mean C minor seventh plus a major ninth (e.g. C-Eb-G-Bb-D). I think.
I think you have missed out a key word - this chord to me is usually referred to as "Dominant Minor Ninth Cord"
The "Dominant" part indicates a "Dominant 7th chord" (containing a root, Major 3rd, Perfect 5th, and "Flattened 7th" - which is a Dominant 7th containing a Minor 7 interval)
To this "Dominant" chord you add the Minor 9 Interval, which is a flattened 9th
This is why the chord would usually be written as C7b9 (which I agree makes things much clearer)
Please refrain from the "know it all attitude" when peopleare trying to help you when you say you are "confused" by something and they (me) try to help :(
I will NOT allow this to happen again with you
If you want to discuss things, then that is absolutely fine but your constant "defensive" attitude to people trying to engage in discussion is getting tiresome
-
I know nothing much but I call C-Eb-G-Bb-D a minor ninth....Cm9.
I don't call your 'so-called minor ninth' chord (C7b9) a minor ninth. Don't know where you got that from. As Tone (and Boydie) said it's the third degree that determines major/minor so I wouldn't have thought that anybody would call that a minor chord. It's a c7flat9 to me.
What I think of as a minor ninth contains a major ninth (interval-wise) just as the m6 contains a major sixth. Why....God knows!
Ah, that's where I was getting confused. As Boydie pointed out, C7b9 is called a "dominant minor ninth", not a "minor ninth" as I said. The minor ninth chord is indeed the one that you suggest (C-Eb-G-Bb-D):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_chord#Dominant_minor_ninth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_chord#Dominant_minor_ninth)
It's really confusing terminology though. You'd think that a "dominant minor ninth" chord would be a type of "minor ninth" chord, where as in fact the two are completely different:
"dominant minor ninth" = "dominant (seventh)" + "minor ninth"
but
"minor ninth" = "minor (seventh)" + "(major) ninth"
I pity anyone trying to learn this from scratch!
-
But then, when it comes to the so-called "minor ninth chord", it actually does contain a minor ninth (e.g. C-E-G-Bb-Db). As tone has pointed out, it's generally notated as "C7-9" or "C7b9" - you couldn't write "Cm9" because that would presumably mean C minor seventh plus a major ninth (e.g. C-Eb-G-Bb-D). I think.
I think you have missed out a key word - this chord to me is usually referred to as "Dominant Minor Ninth Cord"
Thank you for pointing that out. I was indeed in error.
Please refrain from the "know it all attitude" when peopleare trying to help you when you say you are "confused" by something and they (me) try to help :(
If you'd just posted what you did above, instead of giving me a long explanation of lots of stuff I already know, it would have been rather more helpful. Anyway, we got there in the end.
-
If you'd just posted what you did above, instead of giving me a long explanation of lots of stuff I already know, it would have been rather more helpful. Anyway, we got there in the end.
The "long explanation" was not just for you - it was to "the forum" to add to the discussion as I am know MANY more people read these threads than post
You had "misundertood" the "Minor Ninth Chord" and how it is constructed so I thought a detailed explanation may help you AND anyone following the thread - don't take it so personally
I know from running this forum that the majority of visitors are "lurkers" that review threads prior to joining as members
You have been advocating how important understanding music theory is so I went out of my way to give a full explanation using music theory, which has ultimately helped you correct your error and improve your (and all members') understanding to make the terminology less confusing
This is not a "competition" about who knows the most about music theory - this forum is all about "discussion" to help us all understand things a little more because, as you quite rightly say, I pity anyone trying to learn this stuff from scratch - which is exactly why we are all here - to help each other
-
But then, when it comes to the so-called "minor ninth chord", it actually does contain a minor ninth (e.g. C-E-G-Bb-Db). As tone has pointed out, it's generally notated as "C7-9" or "C7b9" - you couldn't write "Cm9" because that would presumably mean C minor seventh plus a major ninth (e.g. C-Eb-G-Bb-D). I think.
I think you have missed out a key word - this chord to me is usually referred to as "Dominant Minor Ninth Cord"
Thank you for pointing that out. I was indeed in error.
Please refrain from the "know it all attitude" when peopleare trying to help you when you say you are "confused" by something and they (me) try to help :(
If you'd just posted what you did above, instead of giving me a long explanation of lots of stuff I already know, it would have been rather more helpful. Anyway, we got there in the end.
That reply. (?)
Sorry to add a not so positive note to the somewhat tense topic about your attitude on this forum as of late Guy, but seriously, the way you respond to and treat people trying to help you is not the most joyful reading at the moment.
I like this forum and I like the people, you included Guy. I think it would be a shame to let some hurt pride and bad attitude spoil the place so could we please drop it?!? Please.
You should be grateful for the enormous amount of tolerance you've been respectfully shown. Not many forums out there would give you that.
My 0.2
Peter
-
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have now gone away and researched the correct answer to my question. I would like to show you how I would have answered it if I'd had the knowledge I have now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm getting into writing these jazz chords I'm finding some of the terminology a bit confusing.
If I understand correctly, A-C-E-F# is written Am6 and called a "minor sixth chord".
That's correct.
Yet it doesn't have a minor sixth in it - it's a minor chord with a major sixth!
That's because the "minor" in "minor sixth chord" doesn't refer to the interval of a sixth. It refers to the minor triad on which the chord is based, and the "minor" bit comes from the minor third in the triad.
The "sixth" bit is always major by convention - it's just one of these things you have to learn, I'm afraid. The terminology isn't ideal but it's what's grown up over the years. Sometimes the chord is called "minor major sixth" to avoid confusion.
(No idea what A-C-E-F would be called, although it doesn't sound very jazzy - more like something out of a tragic film score.)
I think that would be a "minor minor sixth", though you could also regard it as the first inversion of the F major seventh chord (Fmaj7/A).
On the other hand, C-E-G-Bb-Db is called a "minor ninth chord", but it's a major chord with a minor ninth (and a minor seventh of course).
You're mistaken, I'm afraid. That's actually called a "dominant minor ninth chord" - a dominant seventh plus a minor ninth. It's usually written C7-9 or sometimes (as you say) C7b9.
I initially thought it was written Cm9 but it isn't - what would that be, C-Eb-G-Bb-D?
Yes, that's the actual "minor ninth" chord, written Cm9 - a minor seventh chord plus a major ninth. Again, the convention is that ninths in chords are always major unless otherwise specified.
The notation for C-E-G-Bb-Db appears to be C7b9, which is what I've used in the introduction to my latest song.
Correct.
Is there a good guide to jazz chord terminology and notation anywhere? There doesn't seem to be one agreed system - just various sets of conventions.
You could start with the Wikipedia page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_names_and_symbols_(popular_music)), though I warn you it's quite long and complicated, containing lots of rules and exceptions. The problem is that there's no standard convention for chord names and notations, and various different ones have grown up over the years, which don't always sit easily with each other.
Best of luck!
-----------------------------------
Going through the original post, point by point, and actually addressing the points in it. Not just flooding the thread with loads of information and hoping that the relevant stuff might be buried in there somewhere.
My paid job is as a maths tutor. I try to assess the level of knowledge of my students and answer their questions based on what they know. I don't assume that they all know nothing, or that they all possess my level of knowledge. I treat them as individuals.
And that's all I have to say in this thread. Thanks for the helpful responses.
-
Ok. NEWSFLASH.
I'm going to PM you this response since you've indicated that you won't be back to read any replies. Your self-important, arrogant attitude has been a constant feature of your posts of late, and this is no exception.
Going through the original post, point by point, and actually addressing the points in it. Not just flooding the thread with loads of information and hoping that the relevant stuff might be buried in there somewhere.
As Boydie clearly explained in his reply, you're not the only person on this forum, nor reading this thread. This is a public forum. It's about sharing knowledge, ideas and a sense of community.
My paid job is as a maths tutor. I try to assess the level of knowledge of my students and answer their questions based on what they know. I don't assume that they all know nothing, or that they all possess my level of knowledge. I treat them as individuals.
I don't give a shit what your job is or how you approach it. This is not your job. This is our community. I started this community, and one of my clear objectives was to create a place where egos are left at the door, everyone helps everyone, and everyone has an opportunity to grow, supported by the other members.
Your welcome here is extremely close to running out. A reply to this (and several other posts relating to your attitude) would go some way to addressing that.
-
i'm not a maths tutor...but i do know that 2+2=4 :)
-
Ok. NEWSFLASH.
I'm going to PM you this response since you've indicated that you won't be back to read any replies.
OK, I'm back to answer you.
Your self-important, arrogant attitude has been a constant feature of your posts of late, and this is no exception.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. I've just read through my last few posts and they're full of phrases like 'Thank you for pointing that out. I was indeed in error' and 'Ah, that's where I was getting confused'. I'm generally pretty courteous to people if they're courteous to me.
Going through the original post, point by point, and actually addressing the points in it. Not just flooding the thread with loads of information and hoping that the relevant stuff might be buried in there somewhere.
As Boydie clearly explained in his reply, you're not the only person on this forum, nor reading this thread. This is a public forum. It's about sharing knowledge, ideas and a sense of community.
Indeed and I'd very much like to help create that sense of community. A little while ago there was a new poster who asked a question about whether there was a key change in "Streets of London" when the D7 came in. I thought it was an intelligent question from someone who was just starting to learn about theory, and I answered as best I could. I didn't attempt to belittle or patronize him, or suggest that I knew better than he did.
But mine was the only response in that thread that actually attempted to answer the question. The rest were along the lines of "you're getting too hung up on the theory". I thought that was extremely patronizing to someone who was genuinely trying to inform themselves a little bit, and must have been terribly off-putting. Instead of receiving genuine help, he was told "don't worry your silly little head about that, poor thing". That's not the sort of response I would want to see on a forum like this.
There has been some helpful information in this thread, from you as well as others, but a lot of it has been buried in with a lot of irrelevant information. The thread title is "jazz chord terminology". It should have been fairly clear from my opening post that I was coming from a position where I was reasonably confident with basic major and minor chords and intervals, but I was finding some of the jazz chord terminology confusing (sixths and ninths in particular). The chord naming conventions run counter to some of the interval naming conventions. That doesn't mean that (as Boydie suggested) I don't know the difference between a chord and an interval, it means that I'm used to chord names that reflect interval names. An "augmented chord" contains an augmented fifth, a "diminished seventh chord" contains a diminished seventh, and so on. All of a sudden I was up against things like "minor sixth chord" which didn't appear to make sense.
And that's all I wanted explained. I wasn't asking for a long explanation of minor and major chords and intervals. I assumed that anyone reading a thread called "jazz chord terminology" would know all that already. Explanation of the basics presumably belongs elsewhere on the forum.
My paid job is as a maths tutor. I try to assess the level of knowledge of my students and answer their questions based on what they know. I don't assume that they all know nothing, or that they all possess my level of knowledge. I treat them as individuals.
I don't give a shit what your job is or how you approach it. This is not your job. This is our community.
I'm on several specialist internet forums on a variety of different topics, most of which have their own technical language. If someone asks a technical question, and I believe I have the knowledge to answer it, then I do so to the best of my ability. So, hopefully, do other posters. If I don't know the answer, or don't know it in full, I don't post anything. I read the thread and try to learn from it. There's no point in just filling up a thread with information for the sake of it.
I started this community, and one of my clear objectives was to create a place where egos are left at the door, everyone helps everyone, and everyone has an opportunity to grow, supported by the other members.
And I'd like to see that as well. And that's what I try to do when people ask questions which I feel I can answer. If I can't, I don't feel obliged to post anything vaguely relevant to the question. That's not helping the original poster - that's confusing them.
I take pride in the information I post to internet forums. I don't just write off the top of my head. I try to put myself in the position of the person asking the question, and tailor my response to what I think they want. I may get it wrong sometimes of course but they can always come back if necessary.
Your welcome here is extremely close to running out. A reply to this (and several other posts relating to your attitude) would go some way to addressing that.
Well, I don't think I'll be around for too much longer anyway. I'd like the opportunity to post the audio of my latest song when it's available but it doesn't really matter if I can't. After that I think I'll take the contact details of a few posters who I think have been valuable to me, and either move on to a more suitable forum, or rely on face-to-face contact with other musicians.
I get the impression that for many people here this forum is their only contact with other songwriters. I got back into writing because I met another songwriter, so I've always had that contact. I've met other budding writers via the Rec House and now I've discovered Bath Songwriters' Group, who are absolutely fantastic.
I think it's a shame that other people here haven't been able to find a resource like that. For me music is primarily a living thing that I do with other people. It's not a sterile thing that I produce in front of a computer.
Regards
Guy
-
i'm not a maths tutor...but i do know that 2+2=4 :)
Shouldn't that be "But I do know 1+1=2"? ;)
-
I'm glad you replied here Guy, thanks for that.
I can't understand how you don't notice (I'm tempted to think you do notice but allow yourself to ignore it) how your replies come across as aggressive, egotistical and self-righteous. Even this one I'm replying to right now, starts off with great diplomacy. You took my points and answered them in detail, with honesty (it seems) and publicly (as I requested).
Yet at the end, you couldn't help but have another dig. Another reminder how the other resources you tap are superior to this one. A little stab at the other members by the implication that their musical impulses are sterile because they involve a computer.
Seriously?
A computer is a tool, like a french horn or a tambourine. It doesn't sterilise the music. It captures it. By that definition, every recording artist is sterile because they used a machine while they were making music. An analogue recording studio may not be a 'computer' in the accepted sense, but it does the same thing, minus a few tricks. A computer does not create the music for you. It doesn't write the song.
If you can be polite, respectful and gracious in your contributions here, I still maintain that you're very welcome, Guy. It's just that you haven't been - and it's not just me who thinks so.
-
And I'd like to see that as well. And that's what I try to do when people ask questions which I feel I can answer. If I can't, I don't feel obliged to post anything vaguely relevant to the question. That's not helping the original poster - that's confusing them.
I take pride in the information I post to internet forums. I don't just write off the top of my head. I try to put myself in the position of the person asking the question, and tailor my response to what I think they want. I may get it wrong sometimes of course but they can always come back if necessary.
I get the impression that for many people here this forum is their only contact with other songwriters. I got back into writing because I met another songwriter, so I've always had that contact. I've met other budding writers via the Rec House and now I've discovered Bath Songwriters' Group, who are absolutely fantastic.
I think it's a shame that other people here haven't been able to find a resource like that. For me music is primarily a living thing that I do with other people. It's not a sterile thing that I produce in front of a computer.
There's being informative, helpful and taking pride in the information you post and then there's flagellating yourself on the floor with the theory you profess to so abundantly possess... I have a fair indication which applies to you and in case you're in any doubt it is not the first one...
The second comment exposes that elitist sense of musical privilege that has now become the inarguable characteristic of your posts on the forum. To be honest I've gone past trying to extract any reason or rhyme from your posts as you are trying too hard to seem clever and flex your theoretical muscle and now you are having a cheap shot at bedroom producers and those that write as a hobby and use modern technology.
In between digesting the volumes of theory that you so evidently consume in your every spare moment perhaps you should pause and reflect on the tone of your communication and your attitude towards others. Just because you know a little about theory - yes I said a little and that no doubt stings someone with a sense of hubris as rampant as your own - doesn't make you 'right' when it comes to songwriting and it certainly doesn't make you better than those who produce or write in front of a computer....
-
i'm not a maths tutor...but i do know that 2+2=4 :)
Shouldn't that be "But I do know 1+1=2"? ;)
=Sam Cooke?
-
I'm glad you replied here Guy, thanks for that.
I can't understand how you don't notice (I'm tempted to think you do notice but allow yourself to ignore it) how your replies come across as aggressive, egotistical and self-righteous. Even this one I'm replying to right now, starts off with great diplomacy. You took my points and answered them in detail, with honesty (it seems) and publicly (as I requested).
Indeed, and that's what I generally try to do on internet forums. I like to show that I'm paying attention to what the other person's saying. I know the "point-by-point" style can get a bit tedious for other posters sometimes but I think it's important in a discussion like this. Too often I see debates on the internet where it's clear that the participants haven't really read each other's posts.
Yet at the end, you couldn't help but have another dig. Another reminder how the other resources you tap are superior to this one. A little stab at the other members by the implication that their musical impulses are sterile because they involve a computer.
I was just saying what I preferred. I couldn't sit in front of a computer to make music. I spend enough time at the computer as it is (like taking part in this forum!). If I were making all my music at the computer, and using the computer as my primary means of interaction with other musicians, I'd go nuts. I'd become disconnected from the actual musical performance.
A computer is a tool, like a french horn or a tambourine. It doesn't sterilise the music. It captures it. By that definition, every recording artist is sterile because they used a machine while they were making music. An analogue recording studio may not be a 'computer' in the accepted sense, but it does the same thing, minus a few tricks. A computer does not create the music for you. It doesn't write the song.
Fair enough. We've got a digital recording studio at the Rec House, running Logic Pro. I don't know anything about the technical side of things (though I wouldn't mind learning the software at some point). But we are first and foremost a live music venue. All the recordings we've produced have been of musicians singing and playing instruments. On my recording I had someone in to play the keyboard and the producer (a very talented guy who's sadly now left) played all the other instruments. It wouldn't have been anything like as much fun if I'd done it all myself at the computer.
I've previously remarked on the fact that a lot of the music posted here is rather gloomy for my liking. I wonder if that's at least partly a result of the way that it's been created? I've pretty much given up on the review forums because I was finding it all so depressing.
If you can be polite, respectful and gracious in your contributions here, I still maintain that you're very welcome, Guy. It's just that you haven't been - and it's not just me who thinks so.
OK, well once again I'm sorry for any offence I've caused. The last time this happened I decided to take a break from the forum. Perhaps I'll do so again - as soon as I've posted I Never Expected You! If that doesn't bring a smile to everyone's lips, nothing will :)
-
There's being informative, helpful and taking pride in the information you post and then there's flagellating yourself on the floor with the theory you profess to so abundantly possess... I have a fair indication which applies to you and in case you're in any doubt it is not the first one...
I'm certainly not flagellating myself at the moment! That'd be rather painful.
The second comment exposes that elitist sense of musical privilege that has now become the inarguable characteristic of your posts on the forum.
You see, again you equate knowledge of music theory with "privilege" and "elitism". Knowledge of theory isn't privileged or elitist - anyone can learn it if they're willing and able. I started learning theory when I was a child, as I've mentioned before, and it's hard-wired into my musical brain to some extent. I really do hear chords as dominant or submediant, it's not something I've imposed on my musical perception. I'm sorry if that comes across as snobbish but I'm simply incapable of hearing music any other way.
In between digesting the volumes of theory that you so evidently consume in your every spare moment...
No I don't. Generally I don't need to. I'm trying to learn something about jazz chords at the moment because I'd like to write more in a jazz idiom. That's all.
perhaps you should pause and reflect on the tone of your communication and your attitude towards others. Just because you know a little about theory - yes I said a little and that no doubt stings someone with a sense of hubris as rampant as your own - doesn't make you 'right' when it comes to songwriting
I never said it did. I've only ever said that theory informs the creative process. Of course you can write music without a knowledge of theory, just as you can write literature without a knowledge of grammar. But I've never heard anyone claim that knowing grammar makes you a worse author, or inhibits the literary instinct, or that writers who know grammar are in some way "elitist". Why take this attitude to music theory?
and it certainly doesn't make you better than those who produce or write in front of a computer....
Not better - just different. I've spent several hours in front of a computer this morning just dealing with all the points in this thread. I wasn't planning to. I'm already getting muscle strain and if I had to sit here to write music as well I'd be exhausted!
In fact I really ought to go out for a walk and get some exercise. Enough for now!
-
I'm certainly not flagellating myself at the moment! That'd be rather painful.
You see, again you equate knowledge of music theory with "privilege" and "elitism". Knowledge of theory isn't privileged or elitist - anyone can learn it if they're willing and able. I started learning theory when I was a child, as I've mentioned before, and it's hard-wired into my musical brain to some extent. I really do hear chords as dominant or submediant, it's not something I've imposed on my musical perception. I'm sorry if that comes across as snobbish but I'm simply incapable of hearing music any other way.
Not better - just different.
I've never beaten myself with a music theory book for self gratification and pleasure so I'll have to take your word on how painful it would be...
You see Guy this is the crux of the issue - every time you are pulled on your condescension you try to tie people up with the semantics of your posts while consistently overlooking the context they were made within, the tone they were expressed in and the fact that its an open music forum for a community that surprise surprise contains more than just you.
You've already taking a derisory attitude to people who have answered your questions in a way that sought to help you and others with little or no theoretical knowledge. You've also left posters with little doubt that as a bunch of computer bedroom producers they have little to offer you unlike the talented folk at the Rec House who seem to be on the lofty heights of musical genius that you inhabit and you've finished off a recent post with the smug declaration that your next song will not be 'gloomy' like the songs everyone else writes but will make everyone smile. It's going to be galling to hear this Guy but just because you think your songs are fun and the greatest thing ever written since the 1930's and a few people at the Rec House agree with you doesn't actually make it so. To be completely frank - and the objectivity of individual taste notwithstanding - I've seen the square root of fuck all to substantiate your superiority complex. You are very quickly becoming a distraction on this forum for me. Your threads invariably descend into a 'let's show these poor idiots how much theory I know' spectacles and to be honest it's getting tiring now. It's neither impressive nor intimidating if I'm honest...
Ironically you end with an admission that you do not see yourself as 'better' just 'different' - perhaps for everyone's sake you can start reflecting that in your posts instead of belittling everyone, running down the forum as a 'producers' forum not fit for actual musical writers like yourself or threatening to leave when people tell you to wind your neck in.
-
You see Guy this is the crux of the issue - every time you are pulled on your condescension you try to tie people up with the semantics of your posts while consistently overlooking the context they were made within, the tone they were expressed in and the fact that its an open music forum for a community that surprise surprise contains more than just you.
I've spent quite a long time attempting to engage with this forum - I didn't turn up yesterday. I went away once before because people appeared to dislike my attitude. That was over lyrics. I've come back again, and the same thing has happened over harmonies. I'm not an arrogant person by nature, so the only thing I can conclude is that I'm completely out of step with the forum consensus, and I'd rather go somewhere else.
It's going to be galling to hear this Guy but just because you think your songs are fun and the greatest thing ever written since the 1930's and a few people at the Rec House agree with you doesn't actually make it so.
I performed four of my songs on Thursday night, ending with "I Never Expected You". It was a special occasion that we'd put on to attract people from all over Bath, not just our little local community. Most of them were non-musicians and had been specially invited by the organizer, who has all sorts of impressive contacts. We were trying to do a "professional" show.
They went down a bomb. People came up to me afterwards and complimented me. I've created contacts with all sorts of local musicians because of that set. They loved it and I knew they would. I gauge my audience and I try to give them what they want.
To be completely frank - and the objectivity of individual taste notwithstanding - I've seen the square root of fuck all to substantiate your superiority complex.
I don't have a "superiority complex". I get feedback from the audience who are there right in front of me. I love performing and I love having a live audience. If it had gone down flat on the night I'd have been the first to know.
-
I feel I'm pissing against the wind replying time after time to you. You're much too quick with a response that ignores the issues addressed and every time you seem to have a truly amazing ability to sound more pompous than before.
I think I'm just going to ignore your nonsense now but before I sign off I'd just like to add that perhaps at the next Rec House love in with the great and good of the thriving Bath music cartel you should ask for a gold star and/or a pat on the back - it's clearly what you are angling for on here and aren't getting.... :D
-
I feel I'm pissing against the wind replying time after time to you. You're much too quick with a response that ignores the issues addressed
I've addressed every point that you've made. However, since you don't like my responses, here's one that will no doubt suit you better.
I'm an absolutely crappy songwriter with an over-inflated sense of importance, and I am not worthy to lick the boots of the geniuses who frequent this forum.
Happy now?
-
Cool Guy, its a songwriters forum, we all live whatever