Again stop being a jack ass. I didn't say the songs, you said Beatles innovatived the "12 song album"..

Im talking about the NUMBER of songs on any given record, NOT the songs themselves. Record industry 101 the record contract determined the number of tracks for most records and to a degree still does

Even worse why am i wasting my time? You're talking logistics when im asking about MUSIC THEORY

Now i wanna listen to mingus

this is the shit right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZTtaWqxsQ

fucking 6/8 time sig!

Again,i did the homework hours ago, i made some interesting discoveries, i will wait until Severian does his (because i KNOW that nerdy fuck is like me and can't resist homework) before i spoil the learning experience by just posting the answers.

Remember my brotha i already mentioned i totally agree that Beatles were and are an unparalleled cultural influence but the crux of the discussion is i don't believe they were a serious MUSICAL influence

Agreed love you to bro and thanks for the deftones link made my weekend..

Alas the whole reason i started posting here in 2004 was because a lot of users talked aboutmusic theory stuff and i love it

I don't care so much as id like to know. I have ALWAYS felt Beatles musical influence was overrated and the conversation with severian got my gears spinning so i finally decided to check it out empirically using music theory. Also i just am a music nerd and love the excuse to research and discuss music theory.

And i love you too Teddy Bro-sevelt for totally remembering that indeed its the only Zepp album i can hang with. I legit wish they released some dub instrumental versions of their albums because i always liked their instrumentation its Plant's voice that irks me worse than that loud mouthed bitch you can always hear chearing bleeding through the floor mics for San Antonio Spurs home games

I listened to II and III last weekly oddly.

Nay. No. Nope. No sir. Untrue. False. Not even. Some bands had concept albums around the same time (Kinks, the Who), but before the Beatles? Tell me, what concept albums can you recall from pre-1962? And jazz records don't count, different kind of concept.


You're kinda right about the album lengths... But also kinda wrong. The Beatles were heavily involved in planning their albums even at the very start. In the UK, they pretty much called the shots thanks to having Epstein on their side. Labels didn't truly begin to interfere with track listings to profit off of singles until the Beatles albums were issued in the US. And the Beatles HATED it.

You're basically asking me to tell you what the Beatles invented. Innovated isn't the right word. You're asking for examples of Beatles music that contains musical elements that were completely novel.

My answer to that is, everything that came after Help! Literally everything they did from Rubber Soul to The White Album contained never before heard sounds and recording techniques and engineering.

Integrating the sitar into rock music? Beatles. Backward guitar solos? Beatles. No "lead singer"/shared songwriting duties split at times between all four members? Beatles. Concept albums? Beatles. Hybridizing R&B and folk with "rock and roll" beats and guitar/bass/drum arrangements? Beatles. Leading songs with note assortments instead of chords? Beatles ("And Your Bird Can Sing") Self-referential lyrical wordplay/myth making/song sequels/interconnected lyrics? Beatles!

Long story short, pop music as we know it is a periodic table made up of fragments of what the Beatles did musically. There's no overstating this. They're not my favorite band, but they were the BEST. Pop culture revolves around them to this day like the solar system revolves around the sun. The connections are here, there and everywhere.

nah I do too. They're one of those bands that every album is maybe my fav. Be it IV or Houses Of The Holy or Physical Graffiti.

I mean shit, I even like In Through The Out Door.

You'd probably facepalm less... for starters.

them facepalms are comfort food, son. You're my dood.

Can't go wrong with "Fool in the Rain" when it comes on the radio. God awful, stupid ass premise, but one of the catchiest songs there ever was or ever will be.

George Harrison was a revolutionary guitarist, truly. I actually think he's underrated. Playing Beatles songs (even the easy ones) can be tough. The interplay between the lead and the rhythm, the bass and he percussion. Some songs have truly *fucked* changes. Truly complex chords. I mean, Helter Skelter's pretty damn simple, but check the timing on "Everybody's Got something to hide except for me and my Monkey" ... Insane. And "Here there and everywhere" is strummed so peacefully and eloquently and simply that it feels like a simple song, but it's rooted in five chords, stretches at the odd verse to seven or eight, goes minor chromatic out of nowhere...

See, I'm way behind on my theory talk. I haven't fact checked this shit, just speaking from memory. But still, what a beautiful bunch of sounds that band made!

I don't need everyone to love the Beatles as much as I do, and I know there are folks out there with perfectly sensible arguments against them being THE band (wrong, hole-filled arguments, yes, but sensible ones too!) I just can't say enough about them. Why? Because I'm a HUGE music nerd and I'm HYPER critical. If music can't hold me, make me feel new things, I don't stick with it. I'm astonished that the Beatles still captivate me so much after a lifetime of listening to them, and nearly half a century after their last record.

Sorry if I've been a dick. I just dig talking about this stuff.

Also- that new KEVIN GATES album really is pretty damn good, louder! I detect a hint of lil Wayne at his peak on Islah. It's good and it's full and it's complex. Might join the ranks of Vince Staples and Kendrick if it holds my attention.

I plan to check it.

nah Puffy sampled "Cashmere." There's your segue.

FINALLY. Some theory. So it turns out you are right about Beatles doing some innovative things with chord progressions and timings. If you are interested here is some theory

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/...d_chords.shtml
NOW for the meaty part of the discussion. What specific examples can we find of OTHER BANDS OR ARTISTS utilizing these different chord changes or timings and yes, to be empirical about it we must be both specific and accurate. It can't be what we "feel" or "think" ot is either the same chords and timings or its not and THAT is how we can MEASURE musical influence empirically

I always understood the Pet Sounds was the first "concept" album but Wikipedia seems to say that Frank Sinatra put out the first concept albums?
Im sure that they had plans but as i told Southern Comfort homie you got to prove that. Record companies defined the number of tracks. Indeed the Dead tell the story as to why their first concept album Anthem Of The Sun used "subtracks" such as "1a" and "1b" precisely because of record company issues. The contract for the album at least 8 songs and they only made 5 so they just and if you listen almost arbitrarily subdivided the opening track into four subtracks. Whenever they performed it live they always considered it one song. I would imagine Beatles weren't in a drastically different situation as record companies are record companies. Now i got the Dead story from their own interview so i would imagine that if the Beatles had done something especially artistic with the NUMBER of tracks well they probably would have mentioned it.




Yup, that is exactly what i am saying.


That is just nonsense and you especially know it.


Ill give them that, even Jimi said he picked this up from them.



debatable

You're not being serious are you?

Possibly


I get this your fav band but i think even Beatles might call that hyperbole.


Show me the music theory evidence please.

I never disagreed with that in the least.

Well, you can't measure it empirically. Too many third variables. One being that the guys who wrote (song Y) simply never heard (song X) but stumbled upon the same sound. But yeah I take your meaning and I'm just nitpicking.

One Beatles song that I can hear all over the place is "Hey Bulldog"... I used to feel like Spoon based all of their faster paced songs on than track's dynamics. And then Spoon covered "Hey Bulldog" and I felt really, really pleased with myself.

I can hear Lennon's very specific style of mangled riffing on Raw Power. Like Revolver on steroids. And I think Paul managed to fit minor changes into pop structures in a way that definitely influenced Nirvana. Compositionally "Tomorrow Never Knows" is kind of like the "Sister Ray" mainstream pop (or Siter Ray's the TMN of proto-art-punk). Both songs just drive forward and never let up, cacophonous and droning and beautiful.

And as I've said, I can hear Rubber Soul and Revolver very clearly in Late Registration's orchestral arrangements and chamber-pop vibes. I think that was deliberate. I've heard many a music journalist make similar comparisons.

And blah, and blah-blah... deedoodumday.

Ok, yeah this came before Sgt. Pepper's, and it was an influence on that album, but Pet Sounds was only halfway there I my opinion. Not a concept album in the truest sense of the word. Still, ok... Maybe Beach Boys beat them to it, but the Beach Boys had been taking cues from the Beatles for years at this point (and vice versa). One could argue Pet Sounds wouldn't have been made without the Beatles.


Gotta go to bed now but the Beatles are not my favorite band. Sonic Youth is my favorite band.

More later

Nonsense. THAT IS WHAT MUSIC THEORY DOES. It turns music into something measurable. The link i posted breaks down in very specific and accurate details what kinds of theory based innovations the Beatles created. The question then is where do we see other artists and bands implementing that same theory like how Chuck Berry invented reggae

back on-topic...

I have to admit that I'm not even excited to hear this Kevin Gates. I wanna hear it cuz everyone's gushing. But I'm not really like "omg I can't wait to hear it." Y'know?

Oddly, I'm sort of interested to hear this new Young Thug. I don't know what it is. I hear him and Im' like "no this is bad" but he gets so much praise I always wonder if I'm missing something.

I am excited to hear this new Wiz album. Srsly.

Well, it's what it kinda tries to do... But as a field of study it's aware of its inherent limitations. It doesn't result in truly empirical measurement. And the piece you posted makes a lot of claims, many of them "true" enough, but none of it is truly empirical.

Musical theory is not the same as scientific theory. It serves a different purpose. Like literary theory and legal theory. What it gathers is not "evidence" by the strictest definition of the term, but rather rhetorical, anecdotal support. The piece you posted gathers self-reported semantic evidence to support thesis statements. Not hard quantifiable data that can be statistically analyzed to show or support a causal link.

Also, that piece is quite poorly written. Give me a red pen and let me go balls out on that thing.

But let's be straight with our terminology here. Theory isn't fact. Theory is theory. You can't create an equation to show that Chick Berry invented reggae. You can make a convincing argument in favor of that thesis, and the reader could accept the premise... But you're still dealing with subjective values. There's no way to prove that everyone other than Chuck Berry didnt invent reggae. Can't prove a negative, semantically or scientifically. So remember that we're not dealing with the kind of theory that can truly be tested via rational empiricism or the scientific method.

Anyway, I'm nitpicking but there are two different worlds of theory/research/application. There's the quantitative and the qualitative and you're in a qualitative zone here, which doesn't even factor in to empiricism. Not without extensive post-treatment by other research.

I do like the article though. It puts into words some of the shit that was rattling around in my brain that I-- being as detached form theory as I am-- couldnt find a way to express.

Particularly the bit about the Beatles' songs containing chordal changes that almost don't work, or don't make sense... and come close (but never do) hinder the song's quality.

One of my bands once did a kind of country punk cover of "Rocky Raccoon" and it actually proved to be quite an undertaking. Part of it was that I was the only one ("hey hey my only one"... *cough* sorry... sometimes I sing Kanye songs when I type or say the name of a Kanye song in conversation.... Ok, I always do that) who knew the song well.

This story is not interesting and I have to go to work so ima stop right here.

Wow. It's out! They're both out actually. You're a Spotify guy right? Well, listen away. I can't promise Khalifa won't be dope at times, but I can pretty much promise that Slime Season 3 will be butt play.

I've been reading more Pitchfork than usual lately. I find it kind of hilarious that Deftones feel the need to mock Kanye. I mean... the Deftones? Seriously? They're lucky they still have a semblance of relevance, and that they're not being considered gusty by association with the bullshit acts they came up with. But whatever.

I don't think they were 'mocking' him. I just think it was a sort of timely joke. Like "hey this thing just happened, and we're announcing our album so it'll be funny." I don't know. They don't seem like mean-spirited guys.

Like when that guy from Wavves said he was calling his album "Kanye." I don't think that was mocking. Just sort of silly.

I told y'all Knxwledge was the shit.

Maurice White was one of the giants in making uplifting music. Sad.

Gates song TWO PHONES will not leave my head

That is what you don't get. Deftones could care less about their "relevance" and people are free to criticize other art. Indeed as a fan i know deftones have been heavily and harshly criticized over the years so maybe Kanye and his fanbase shouldn't give any fucks?

they both suck?

Kanye <3
Kevin Gates <3
Young Thug <3

Anderson is insanely talented, just watch his performance on Colbert from a couple of days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cLZRqqznU

Suede is a great single and Malibu is already bound to go down as one of the best albums of the year. Can't wait for this.

Yes it is empirical in the sense that there is measurable data. A chord is math based, it is quantifiable, we can measure it. Same with timing patterns, scales, etc. We can use this empirical data to mathematically examine OTHER musics and see if they incorporate the same math (eg chord progressions, timing structures, melody and scale patterns). Sure, its not going to be 100% definitive and there will ALWAYS be exceptions BUT once we have some measurable data we can look for more evidence. In this case, if we believe that one banf, say the Beatles, innovatived an entirely unique music theory, then our next step is to check if any other bands implemented the same theories. If yes then we now can begin to look for less quantifiable evidence as to if these second artists directly borrowed from the first artist or if it was purely serendipitous or coincidence.



Actually it is because the parameters of all possible sounds are both definable, quantifiable, and measurable. Indeed the entire premise of theory is based on Pythagoras insights on the mathematical relationship between harmony and octaves.


Partly true but again remember the theory is simply explain the underlying math of music. A G chord or key is what it is because that particular sound has a quantifiable and measurable frequency wave. What separates what we call a G from what we call an A is 100% measurable. Further the melodies, chord progressions, and scale patterns are also all based on the underlying math. Now of course most artists don't use theory to CREATE music, i have written at least a hundred songs and i never ONCE consulted theory. Instead what i use theory for is either to think about harmonic chords or scales when i am playing back up or lead guitar in a band with OTHER people's music OR when i am trying to accurately translates my own original music to share or jam with other musicians. Indeed in this regard music theory becomes a LANGUAGE



Yes it was but it delved into ACTUAL music theories in ways neither you or I even remotely discussed.


When we extrapolate from theory to make inferences about other artists true it just theory. When we use theory to say "the chord is a G" or to say "the scale is an Aeolian Aminor" THAT isn't merely theory, that is a mathematical fact of reality of what music is! Music IS math.


Yes we can by combining the empirical evidence of the actual theory with the testimonial evidence from the other artists. For example i said Chuck Berry invented reggae because (a) music theory shows us some of the chord progressions, scales, and time structures that Berry incorporated and in many respects innovatived and created which we ALSO then see mirrored in reggae music and then (b) ask those musicians who invented reggae what influencd them to incorporate those SAME theory based chords and patterns? Well when we do this we hear all the pioneers of reggae saying they invented reggae after spending years listening to Chuck Berry rock and roll on the radio stations from New Orleans and then formimv rock and roll bands which evolved into rock steady bands which evolved into ska bands which evolved into reggae. Further proof is in the pudding, i couldn't even remotely play reggae music for YEARS.. then i joined a blues band and learned to play some Chuck Berry covers. Using the up stroke, timings, and chords from these covers naturally developed my own playing so that almost arbitrarily one day i was just able to also play reggae!

"'Bout the year Drizzy and Cole dropped, before K.Dot had it locked, I was sleeping on the floor, newborn baby boy, tryna get my money pot so wifey wouldn't get deported.."

"I explain to a musician. Dem knew it but dem couldn't do it." Bob Marley on playing Reggae

Its because its chord progressions and patterns are super basic R&B BUT its timing patterns and structures are so backwards, counterintuitive, and confusing from a "traditional" guitarist perspective! Indeed the crux to playing reggae is to remember the guitar is not a rhythm instruments in reggae, it is really percussion