Musical properties of Shiina Ringo's music -music theory experts please help

[isxahopas]

Originally Posted by lazer85

the accordian in Bonsai Hada and Ringo no uta don't sound much like Astor Piazolla's accordian at all

Not to be the turd in the punch bowl but that may be due to the fact that Piazzolla didn't play the accordion, he played bandoneón.

[lazer85]

Originally Posted by isxahopas

Not to be the turd in the punch bowl but that may be due to the fact that Piazzolla didn't play the accordion, he played bandoneón.

the turd is I....I am quite embaressed.

[justriiingo]

@ParisJihen: True geniuses don't need to know music theory... but for lesser people, it sure does help a lot.

[lazer85]

urgg you guys are totally taking this the wrong way. No one is going to use this information to write songs. This is curiosity and wanting to understand things.

[ParisJihen]

Originally Posted by justriiingo

@ParisJihen: True geniuses don't need to know music theory... but for lesser people, it sure does help a lot.

That's kind of what I was trying to say...

Anyway Lazer85, your inquiery just means that you have a very good taste in music, but maybe not yet the universal culture Ringo seems to have...

[Entry№1]

Originally Posted by ParisJihen

Maybe "genuine" is not the appropriate word... I meant authentic artists, honest musicians driven by true inspiration and not commercial goals... (same thing for the word "sincere"). I teach music everyday, and all what people need to know to be able to write a good song are: major chords, minor chords and 7th chords. Maybe as a listener or music student, you need to analyse everything, a songwriter don't... All the theoric knowledge you just mentioned above will only be useful to you if you wanna become a jazz musician, it won't help you to write a song. I always thought: the more you analyse things, the less spontaneous you are. I mean you are inspired or not. Science won't make an artist out of you.

On the contrary, I think it makes you even more spontaneous. I can write a great song in much less time than I used to when I began studying music theory, because I could more concretely understand what I was wanting to accomplish. And by 'great song', I mean a song that conveys what I imagine and how I feel, not simply a testament to my own perceived set of skills.
I could have just as well called you over-analytical for showing your students major, minor, and seventh chords. Why not just give them a piano or guitar (or better yet, totally new and original home-made instruments no one has composed for before) and let them tinker with it, without any knowledge whatsoever of traditional notions of scales, chords, intervals, polyphony, or rhythm? I also never implied that through understanding theory better you would be more 'inspired'.
And, despite popular belief, being analytical ≠ being commercial. Many great composers throughout history studied the nuances of other composers and musical cultures to convey specific aesthetics in their work. Many other 'modern' greats like Claude Debussy and Béla Bartók were renowned for their cultural referencing and theoretical innovations. And yet, their music can be very moving as well. This is the same qualities I see in SR.
I find it extremely fascinating to explore the objectivity and subjectivity of music... such as what makes a song "sad", or give a person imagery of a certain place and time; why cultures have designated certain melodic shapes or scales to denote certain aesthetics, and how those traditions can be re-interpretted. Music, at the end of the day, is frequencies, which we ourselves have given meaning. I wish more people understood that.

Originally Posted by lazer85

No one is going to use this information to write songs.

I already have.

[Scribble R]

It makes sense that understanding musical theory will make you more 'musically articulate' and thus allow you to convey your feelings/ideas in the way you imagined.

Mind + Soul + Technique = Perfection

(Mind + Technique + ???? = Profit)

[ParisJihen]

Originally Posted by Entry№1

Many other 'modern' greats like Claude Debussy and Béla Bartók were renowned for their cultural referencing and theoretical innovations. And yet, their music can be very moving as well. This is the same qualities I see in SR.

what a compliment for her ! hope she'll read that...

Originally Posted by Entry№1

I find it extremely fascinating to explore the objectivity and subjectivity of music... such as what makes a song "sad", or give a person imagery of a certain place and time; why cultures have designated certain melodic shapes or scales to denote certain aesthetics, and how those traditions can be re-interpretted. Music, at the end of the day, is frequencies, which we ourselves have given meaning. I wish more people understood that.

Deep thoughts man !

I didn't want to lead that interesting debate in the field of "composers" who obviously have to master the theoric part of their art. We were talking about "songwriters"; songwriting being considered by famous french artist Serge Gainsbourg as a minor art ^^, a matter in which I believe simplicity must be rule n°1. That's why these analyses above seemed quite vain to me.

[lazer85]

Originally Posted by ParisJihen

what a compliment for her ! hope she'll read that...



Deep thoughts man !

I didn't want to lead that interesting debate in the field of "composers" who obviously have to master the theoric part of their art. We were talking about "songwriters"; songwriting being considered by famous french artist Serge Gainsbourg as a minor art ^^, a matter in which I believe simplicity must be rule n°1. That's why these analyses above seemed quite vain to me.

You sarcastic boner
I really appreciate Entry's contribution to this post. I wish you would take your intelligista fueds over what art is elsewhere.



I don't really like the idea of someone thinking mathematically about music as they make it but understanding it must certainly make the creativity flow out easier. I spent 2 years trying to write songs on guitar without knowing more than my major and minor chords and the process closely resembled diarrea. A few months ago I started trying to memorize scale patterns and the notes on a guitar in standard tuning and the songs I've written since then come out easy and beautiful like a baby made of strawberries, cake and little puppies. It seems like learning a language, you can learn survival phrases and do pretty well, even do the things you wanna do if your good at it. But learning as much as you can makes it easier to say what you want to say, the more you know, the easier it becomes. I dont ever intend on sitting down and working out songs mathematically but I certainly think my knowledge of chords on guitar and speed at which i can come up with them naturally will increase if I study music theory more intensely and that cannot be a bad thing.

[Glathannus]

The problem I have with music theory, is how understanding it might change the way I listen to other peoples' music. I have a very innate and mostly untapped affinity for mathematics. I can intuitively appreciate when 'random' music actually has a method to the madness. That's what really draws me into jazz, and I suspect if I formally understood the mathematics of jazz, it would rob me of my role as an intuitive listener.

If I ever want to get serious about making music someday, I know I'm going to have to learn music theory eventually, and that is a day I am dreading, because I may lose more as a listener than what I will gain as a songwriter.