DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Musicians => Topic started by: TM172003 on May 25, 2021, 11:58:49 AM
-
This is probably a stupid question, but I thought I’d ask anyway as it’s bugging me.
I’m pretty new to counting time signatures, I never really ‘got it’ but recently I’ve been practicing counting odd times in DT, Haken, Opeth etc. I’m listening to Visions by Haken and when the band comes in at the beginning it sounded like 6 to me, but looking it up it’s written as 12/8. The reason it confuses me is not the number of notes, it’s when the measures actually end. Because what I counted as two measures of 6/4 was actually 12/8. So I suppose my question is can two measures be “added” so that it reads as 12 rather than 6? Listening back I can’t wrap my head around it only being one bar of 12, it really sounds like 2 bars of 6 to me. But I am new and so I’m probably miles off. Anyway, a bit of help would be appreciated.
-
I am not familiar with that track from Haken, but when it comes to time signatures like that, the main difference is the grouping of notes and how the notes feel. One good example is 4/4 vs 8/8, or 3/4 vs 6/8. Even though you have the same amount of notes, the grouping is different.
(https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/4-The-difference-between-34-and-68-768x306.png)
-
First question Im going to ask is; where did you see it notated as 12/8? I'm asking, because as far as I know, Haken themselves have never released sheet music / tabs / transcriptions / anything for Visions. That means that anything you may have, could potentially be wrong. That said, lets's get into it..
I personally hear the moment the band comes in as 4/4, with triplets in the keyboard melody. (Let's be clear that I'm talking about the part that starts at 1:12 up until 2:03), but I can also see why someone would want to notate this in 12/8 instead. Every twelve keyboard notes (12 eighth notes in 12/8, or 12 eighth note triplets in 4/4) there's a new bar. You can hear the chords in the background change as well. This is (partly) what tells me 6/8 is not right. The drum part further drives this home; tcymbal hit on every beat kind of gives that away, as well as the bass and snare drum alternating the 1 and 3; if you write this in 6/8, every first bar will start with the bass drum hit, while the second will start with the snare.. this shows that's not right. The 'other' 6/8-option would mean you're counting an entire 4/4 bar in 6/8, in which case all the accents will be in the wrong places, so that's not right either.
So yeah, I'd say 4/4 personally, because that's how I feel it, but I would see no fault in notating it in 12/8 instead if you'd want to avoid writing all the triplets in the keyboard (and bass drum part).
-
Isn't ONE by Metallica in 12/8 ?
Design For Life by Manic Street Preachers is definitely 6/8.
But yeah the difference between 1 bar of 6/8 and 2 bars of 3/4 confuses me too.
-
One is in 3/4. But also 4/4. But also 2/4. But also 6/4.
-
Isn't ONE by Metallica in 12/8 ?
Design For Life by Manic Street Preachers is definitely 6/8.
But yeah the difference between 1 bar of 6/8 and 2 bars of 3/4 confuses me too.
In 6/8 there’s a strong accent on the 1 and a weaker accent on the 4.
3/4 has a strong accent on the 1.
-
One by Metallica is definitely NOT 3/4.
-
One by Metallica is definitely NOT 3/4.
The verses are in 3/4 with the snare on 3.
-
I can't even make that work in my head. If anything it's in 6/8 but 3/4 ? Nope.
-
I can't even make that work in my head. If anything it's in 6/8 but 3/4 ? Nope.
https://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/HL-350730.html (https://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/HL-350730.html)
-
I've seen "official" sheet music that was hilariously inaccurate. I saw one for Wonderwall that said it was in B minor ffs. You only have to listen to ONE to realise it's not 3/4.
6/4 maybe 6/8 maybe. 3/4 doesn't work at all.
-
I’ve always felt in in 3/4. If it was 6/8 the snare would land on the 4th beat which it doesn’t. It lands on beat 3.
-
I agree. I counted the chorus as 6/4 but the verse is definitely 3/4.
-
I've always felt the verses as being in 12.
-
The difference between 3/4 and 6/4 is virtually non-existent. That's like saying something makes sense in 8/4 but that "4/4 doesn't work at all."
The intro to One is in 4/4. The verses are 3/4 with occasional 2/4 measures. The chorus and interlude are in 6/4 (or you could stick with 3/4). The heavy section is all in 4/4. Check it out on Songsterr.com and you'll see how it makes sense.
-
The difference between 3/4 and 6/4 is virtually non-existent. That's like saying something makes sense in 8/4 but that "4/4 doesn't work at all."
The intro to One is in 4/4. The verses are 3/4 with occasional 2/4 measures. The chorus and interlude are in 6/4 (or you could stick with 3/4). The heavy section is all in 4/4. Check it out on Songsterr.com and you'll see how it makes sense.
3/4 and 6/4 are definitely different. 3/4 has one strong beat followed by two weak beats (ONE two three) while 6/4 is like 4/4 with an extra two beats at the end (ONE two three four five six).
-
3/4 and 6/4 are definitely different. 3/4 has one strong beat followed by two weak beats (ONE two three) while 6/4 is like 4/4 with an extra two beats at the end (ONE two three four five six).
6/4 is traditionaly compound time, so it's two groups of three. It's 6/8 with a different pulse.
4/4+2/4 should be 3/2. But yeah, you'll often find it written as 6/4.
-
3/4 and 6/4 are definitely different. 3/4 has one strong beat followed by two weak beats (ONE two three) while 6/4 is like 4/4 with an extra two beats at the end (ONE two three four five six).
6/4 is traditionaly compound time, so it's two groups of three. It's 6/8 with a different pulse.
4/4+2/4 should be 3/2. But yeah, you'll often find it written as 6/4.
4 and 8 being on the bottom are more common. 2, 16, and 32 are far less common. I’ve been reading music for the better part of 15 years and I have never gotten a piece of sheet music with a 2 on the bottom. 6/4 is felt in duple feel to offer a time signature with 12 eight notes that feels different than 12/8. Traditionally speaking, a 4 on the bottom signifies a duple feel/simple meter while an 8 on the bottom signifies triplet feel/compound meter. Obviously this isn’t taking complex meters that can’t be subdivided evenly like 5 and 7 into the equation, but the numbers on the bottom do more than signify what note gets the subdivision: they also dictate the feel.
-
4 and 8 being on the bottom are more common. 2, 16, and 32 are far less common. I’ve been reading music for the better part of 15 years and I have never gotten a piece of sheet music with a 2 on the bottom.
They aren't rare in classical music. The "C" with a bar, which is 2/2, is quite common. For other types of x/2, the first example that comes to my mind is the last movement of Seven star symphony by Charles Koechlin, which has a whole section alternating 4/2, 3/2 and 5/2. This is actually a good example of the difference between 3/2 and 6/4 (and an example of expert writing) :
(https://i.ibb.co/mhfSHp4/2021-06-08-09-40-13-IMSLP603645-PMLP971167-Koechlin-The-Seven-Stars-Symphony-Op-132-VII-Char.png) (https://ibb.co/xzx3MZ6)
6/4 is felt in duple feel to offer a time signature with 12 eight notes that feels different than 12/8. Traditionally speaking, a 4 on the bottom signifies a duple feel/simple meter while an 8 on the bottom signifies triplet feel/compound meter.
It's an usual practice in popular music, but it's not in classical music (and time signature writing comes from classical music), and it's "wrong" from a theoritical point of view. It makes sense : the compound meter equivalent of 4/4 should be 6/4, not 6/8.
That being said, as long as musicians understand each other, it's fine, and you'll find duple time written in 6/4 in classical music too.
-
6/4 = ONE two three four five six. Six Quarter notes per bar
6/8 = ONE two three FOUR five six. Six Eighth notes per bar.
3/4 = ONE two three ONE two three. Three quarter notes per bar.
When I think of Metallica and 3/4 I think of the chorus of The House That Jack Built. " The HIGHER you are the FURTHER you fall. LONGER the walk....."
-
6/4 should also be ONE two three FOUR five six
but, like in 6/8, the 4th beat is slightly less accentuated than the first beat.
-
6/4 should also be ONE two three FOUR five six
but, like in 6/8, the 4th beat is slightly less accentuated than the first beat.
That is NOT how 6/4 is meant to be felt. It’s ONE two THREE four FIVE six. I’m a bass player, a drummer, and a drum teacher. My entire professional life is spent in the rhythm section. If you were gonna feel two sets of three, keeping it in 3/4 and splitting the phrase between the two measures will get the point across better from a sheet music perspective. As I said above, a 4 on the bottom indicates duple feel, meaning the subdivisions are divided into groups of two, while an 8 on the bottom indicates triplet feel, meaning the subdivisions are divided into groups of three. Obviously there are exceptions, but 6/4 is a duple feel, meaning it’s three groups of two, not two groups of three.
-
Not trying to ruin the party, but you are both right.
6/4 could be a simple or compound meter, meaning that it could be divided in 3 groups or 2, or 2 groups of 3. It all depends on the piece itself.
-
Not trying to ruin the party, but you are both right.
6/4 could be a simple or compound meter, meaning that it could be divided in 3 groups or 2, or 2 groups of 3. It all depends on the piece itself.
As I said, there are exceptions, but 6/4 is usually a simple meter. I know it’s not a big deal, but I’ve more or less devoted my entire life to the art of rhythm and seeing people argue with me when I know for a fact that I’m right really irks me. Of course there are instances where 6/4 is felt in groups of three (like how 4/4 can be divided into 3,3,2 but we would never call that the primary subdivision of the time signature), but that’s an example of bending the rules, not the rule itself. As a teacher, it is my job to teach the rules of common practice, and focusing on the exceptions before the rules themselves are learned confuses the lesson. You have to know the rules before you can bend and break them.
-
As I said, there are exceptions, but 6/4 is usually a simple meter. I know it’s not a big deal, but I’ve more or less devoted my entire life to the art of rhythm and seeing people argue with me when I know for a fact that I’m right really irks me. Of course there are instances where 6/4 is felt in groups of three (like how 4/4 can be divided into 3,3,2 but we would never call that the primary subdivision of the time signature), but that’s an example of bending the rules, not the rule itself. As a teacher, it is my job to teach the rules of common practice, and focusing on the exceptions before the rules themselves are learned confuses the lesson. You have to know the rules before you can bend and break them.
I'm not sure I should answer this as you seem so sure of yourself. But I guess I will...
You're talking about popular music. The theoritical framework of popular music is full of mistakes, and it's not written music (for most of it anyway). In classical music (which is the basis for time signature writing, even if pratices have evolved over time, and is written music), 6/4 is a compound time signature. It is the rule. It's the 6/4 in simple meter that is a bending of the rule. In the same way, the number at the bottom of the time signature doesn't designate the feel. It might give this impression in popular music pratice, but it's actually untrue.
If I really need to prove this, here is Brahm's first violin sonata:
(https://i.ibb.co/CmBFf15/2021-06-08-19-43-20-IMSLP546705-PMLP10225-Brahms-Violin-Sonata-No-1-in-G-Minor-Piano-Part-pdf.png) (https://ibb.co/YP2GxR7)
Here are the bassons at the beginning of Holst's Uranus, from The Planets (it's in 6/4) :
(https://i.ibb.co/1QTtmT1/2021-06-08-17-43-34-Holst-THE-PLANETS-Suite-for-Large-Orchestra-Partitur-pdf-IMSLP15438-Uran.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Here is Scriabin prelude op.11 n° 4 (fun fact, op.11 n° 1 is written in 2/2) :
(https://i.ibb.co/qMQp9SR/2021-06-08-17-42-36-IMSLP10496-Scriabin-Op-11-pdf.png) (https://ibb.co/0jbrZ7f)
These are not exceptions, but applications of the rule. You mentioned the "rules of common practice": the music of these composers is the one these rules originated from (I also found examples in Bach, Chopin, etc.).
6/4 is a compound time signature, unless you think Scriabin, Brahms and Holst, were wrong and didn't know what they were doing.
Actually, if you want to be pedantic, 6/4 is a compound duple time signature, because it's two groups of three (9/8 is a compound triple time signature, 2/4 a simple duple time signature, 4/4 a simple quadruple time signature, etc.).
Another example I like is the first movement of Prokofiev's second symphony is written mostly in 3/2, but it switches to 6/4 at several points. A good example :
(https://i.ibb.co/Gtn8BVT/2021-06-08-17-03-12-IMSLP104941-PMLP214300-Prokofiev-Symphony-No-2-Op-40-orch-score-pdf-Ad.png) (https://ibb.co/0Fm68ft)
This is good time signature writing. Also note how Prokofiev wrote 4/4 in the last measure, and not 2/2 like elsewhere in the score.
I'm completely fine with 6/4 considered as a simple triple time signature, but it's a wrong practice that have become an habit in popular music, and should not be considered as the "true" rule. It's not, both from a historical point of view and a theoritical one.
-
Yeah, you nailed it, with excellent examples as well.
That said, I’m quite sure if you look hard enough you’ll find examples of 6/4 being divided in 3 groups of 2, but to be ‘theoretically correct’, that should be a 3/2 instead. The bottom number doesn’t dictate pulse, the top one does. One of the standard works on music theory in my own language reads (translated and paraphrased); “in a six-beat measure, accents and secondary accents happen every three beats. This rule is founded on general agreement and has no deeper background*. The six-beat measure therefore has a beat on one and four. A six-beat measure with accents on one, three and five is then written in a three-beat measure. This rule is easy to abide by, because the notation will not be much different.”
*(I actually do not agree here, because I believe, as I stated above as well, that the ‘rule’ is that a 6-beat measure should be divided in 2x 3, because it’s in essence a compound time signature and that’s the only reason/way it would differ from a 3-beat measure, ‘founded on agreement’ or not).
-
Most of the examples of 6/4 I’ve seen have been simple meter. Even something like Nothing Else Matters, which has a slow triplet feel, is notated as a slow 6/8 rather than a medium tempo 6/4. This is literally the first time I’ve heard people say 6/4 as a compound meter is the standard, and that includes the theater scene I worked in before the pandemic with my music director best friend. 6/4 in classical music was extremely rare, and it has become more common now, so to pull examples from a time period where the time signature wasn’t even common and calling it common practice is…I don’t know how to describe it. And to invalidate modern music is to ignore the evolution of music. Let’s not forget that tritones were avoided in the “common practice” period because they were difficult to sing (NOT because people thought they were evil) but then jazz and blues came along and emphasized dominant 7th chords, of which the signature sound is the tritone between the 3rd and 7th. As society evolves, art and the way we interpret it evolves. We’re both right, but I’m approaching music from a modern standpoint because I’m teaching music in the 21st century, and none of my students want to learn Brahms (unfortunately). They want to learn pop and rock, where the backbeat is king, and every song that’s come up in triplet feel has either been written in 6/8 or 12/8 (I’m not even touching 9/8 right now or this thread may explode). Let’s also not forget that I myself am a progressive rock musician who plays in a Top 40 band, so my approach to music couldn’t be further from the “common practice”. My application of music theory is to help me when I get stuck, whether that be writing my own music or building cohesive sets in my top 40 cover band. I know my theory, but I rarely have to use it, and rhythmic theory is far more arbitrary than harmonic theory.
-
Most of the examples of 6/4 I’ve seen have been simple meter. Even something like Nothing Else Matters, which has a slow triplet feel, is notated as a slow 6/8 rather than a medium tempo 6/4. This is literally the first time I’ve heard people say 6/4 as a compound meter is the standard, and that includes the theater scene I worked in before the pandemic with my music director best friend. 6/4 in classical music was extremely rare, and it has become more common now, so to pull examples from a time period where the time signature wasn’t even common and calling it common practice is…I don’t know how to describe it. And to invalidate modern music is to ignore the evolution of music. Let’s not forget that tritones were avoided in the “common practice” period because they were difficult to sing (NOT because people thought they were evil) but then jazz and blues came along and emphasized dominant 7th chords, of which the signature sound is the tritone between the 3rd and 7th. As society evolves, art and the way we interpret it evolves. We’re both right, but I’m approaching music from a modern standpoint because I’m teaching music in the 21st century, and none of my students want to learn Brahms (unfortunately). They want to learn pop and rock, where the backbeat is king, and every song that’s come up in triplet feel has either been written in 6/8 or 12/8 (I’m not even touching 9/8 right now or this thread may explode). Let’s also not forget that I myself am a progressive rock musician who plays in a Top 40 band, so my approach to music couldn’t be further from the “common practice”. My application of music theory is to help me when I get stuck, whether that be writing my own music or building cohesive sets in my top 40 cover band. I know my theory, but I rarely have to use it, and rhythmic theory is far more arbitrary than harmonic theory.
But of course we know better, and it is. :)
-
The first time I encountered Irrational time signatures my brain stopped working for a bit, it's still can be so confusing.
Dividing and feeling time in music can be really interesting.
-
I just want to answer on one point (for the rest, to each is own, etc.).
And to invalidate modern music is to ignore the evolution of music. Let’s not forget that tritones were avoided in the “common practice” period because they were difficult to sing (NOT because people thought they were evil) but then jazz and blues came along and emphasized dominant 7th chords, of which the signature sound is the tritone between the 3rd and 7th.
I don't know where you learned that, but it is completely false. Dominant 7th chords have been largely used since the 17th century, and tritones, especially through diminished chords, were essential to the harmonic langage of many 19th century composers including Liszt and Wagner. Moreover, when jazz emerged, classical music had already established atonality, polytonality, quartal and quintal harmony, 11th and 13th chords... It was way pass dominant 7th chords and tritones.
It's not about "invalidating modern music". "Modern music" is not equivalent to "popular music". The popular music framework, useful in a specific context, doesn't work if you want to understand and analyse more complex music. The "art music" framework is as modern as the popular music one, continues to evolve, and is more accurate, although the specifications of popular music shoud be taken into account.
-
I just want to answer on one point (for the rest, to each is own, etc.).
And to invalidate modern music is to ignore the evolution of music. Let’s not forget that tritones were avoided in the “common practice” period because they were difficult to sing (NOT because people thought they were evil) but then jazz and blues came along and emphasized dominant 7th chords, of which the signature sound is the tritone between the 3rd and 7th.
I don't know where you learned that, but it is completely false. Dominant 7th chords have been largely used since the 17th century, and tritones, especially through diminished chords, were essential to the harmonic langage of many 19th century composers including Liszt and Wagner. Moreover, when jazz emerged, classical music had already established atonality, polytonality, quartal and quintal harmony, 11th and 13th chords... It was way pass dominant 7th chords and tritones.
I was more generalizing (obviously the V7-I resolution has been a major part of music for centuries), but during the time where music was mostly used for worship and was mostly a cappella, tritones were rarely used due to them being difficult to sing without accompaniment (as is the case with most dissonant intervals but since the tritone is right in the middle of the perfect fourth and perfect fifth; the two most stable intervals besides the octave; and a lot of chamber music was centered around those two consonant intervals). There’s a lot more nuance to the evolution of music than I touched on, but my point still stands about things that used to be uncommon are now common and visa versa.
And going back to my point about rhythmic theory being more ambiguous but also simultaneously talking about something a little off topic, I’ve been watching a lot of YouTube videos talking about the rhythmic tendencies of other cultures, and one of the most interesting things is the rhythmic feel of Balkin dances. A lot of Balkin music is folk music, and it’s meant to be danced to, but Balkin dances are a bit different than more Western European styles, and the music aligns with that. I forgot what it’s called, but one dance is is 9/8, but instead of feeling it as three groups of three or 4/4 with an extra emphasized eight note at the end, they feel it as “quick, quick, quick, slow” which translates in common notation as 2, 2, 2, 3. It’s so different than what most people who are used to Western European traditions would feel, but it makes sense when you watch people from these countries dance and play. I love learning about musical traditions from other areas of the world and seeing how they differ from western music theory while also experimenting and seeing how they fit in with what most of us are used to.
-
I was more generalizing (obviously the V7-I resolution has been a major part of music for centuries), but during the time where music was mostly used for worship and was mostly a cappella, tritones were rarely used due to them being difficult to sing without accompaniment (as is the case with most dissonant intervals but since the tritone is right in the middle of the perfect fourth and perfect fifth; the two most stable intervals besides the octave; and a lot of chamber music was centered around those two consonant intervals). There’s a lot more nuance to the evolution of music than I touched on, but my point still stands about things that used to be uncommon are now common and visa versa.
But... music hasn't been mostly used for worship and a cappela since the beginning of the 16th century, 400 years before the emergence of blues and jazz. The use of dominant 7th chords has nothing to do with blues and jazz. You're talking about a period that was before the common pratice era. Modern popular music is a direct descendant of common pratice, from both a theoritical and historical point of view. When it comes to harmony, there is a pretty much nothing in modern popular music that wasn't common in classical music.
-
I was more generalizing (obviously the V7-I resolution has been a major part of music for centuries), but during the time where music was mostly used for worship and was mostly a cappella, tritones were rarely used due to them being difficult to sing without accompaniment (as is the case with most dissonant intervals but since the tritone is right in the middle of the perfect fourth and perfect fifth; the two most stable intervals besides the octave; and a lot of chamber music was centered around those two consonant intervals). There’s a lot more nuance to the evolution of music than I touched on, but my point still stands about things that used to be uncommon are now common and visa versa.
But... music hasn't been mostly used for worship and a cappela since the beginning of the 16th century, 400 years before the emergence of blues and jazz. The use of dominant 7th chords has nothing to do with blues and jazz. You're talking about a period that was before the common pratice era. Modern popular music is a direct descendant of common pratice, from both a theoritical and historical point of view. When it comes to harmony, there is a pretty much nothing in modern popular music that wasn't common in classical music.
I didn’t say jazz and blues were the first to do it. I was giving an example of more modern forms of music to highlight how music changed.
-
I didn’t say jazz and blues were the first to do it. I was giving an example of more modern forms of music to highlight how music changed.
I still don't see what has changed when it comes to dominant 7th chords. Anyway...
-
Anyone watch Rick Beato on the Youtubes ?
I find when he tries to explain a theory idea - he somehow makes it MORE confusing. I think he tries to over explain and cram in as many ideas into one concept.
I did a Music Degree for 3 years and there are much simpler ways to explain concepts. Like Modes for arguments sake.
The C major scale has 7 scales within it. The Notes are C D E F G A B C.
D Dorian is C major but starting and ending on D. And so on.
But Rick has this way of making it really over complicated.
I have watched a lot of his vids and I think he likes to flex with how much theory he knows etc.
A little bit like when I used to watch Rob Chapman vids and every video - he'd have as much of his gear in shot as he could. Like - look how much stuff I have.
-
The thing with a lot of music theory is that theory alone means nothing if you have no idea how to apply it. While technically correct that D dorian is C major starting on D, that's an oversimplification of what D dorian actually is; a scale with its own sound that can be used in specific instances.
Granted, I haven't really watched a lot of Rick Beato's videos, mostly because I'm not interested in hearing stuff explained I already know, but the ones I have seen show someone who's at least really passionate about what he's doing, even though I thought he explained a certain concept a little clumsily if I may say so.
-
Sidenote but I just saw a video about Jacob Collier talking about Shepards Tone which basically is an audio illusion of a tone getting constantly higher in pitch. He then speaks about how he created the same kind of thing but with a groove. I understand the concept behind it and how it works but i've never really heard it in a context like he demonstrated.
Oh it's actually called Shepard-Risset glissando.
https://youtu.be/QhwarirTaUE
-
Theory should only come out when you get stuck. Victor Wooten had the best analogy. He said that theory is a set of tools. You leave your toolbox in the trunk, and you don’t use them to drive your car, but if your car breaks down, you’re happy you have the tools to fix it.
-
Rick Beato's videos annoy the hell out of me. My brother-in-law Dave keeps sending me links to them, and I honestly don't know why. I'm not impressed by how much music theory he thinks he knows, because I know a little bit myself and nothing he says goes beyond the basics. But he seems really intent on impressing people with how well he's analyzed the songs by applying music theory to it. I believe the series is "What Makes This Song Great?" but it should be titled "What Makes Me Sound Smart (in my own mind)?"
I told Dave that I don't even know how to respond without sounding like an asshole. Beato points out really elementary stuff, stuff I remember noticing when I was in junior high, before I'd even learned any theory, but makes it sound like some kind of amazing revelation. It's like going into a building and raving about how the walls are all perpendicular to the floor, and how fucking amazing it is that the doors are hung properly. No, that's some really basic shit. Sorry, not impressed.
-
It's like going into a building and raving about how the walls are all perpendicular to the floor, and how fucking amazing it is that the doors are hung properly. No, that's some really basic shit. Sorry, not impressed.
As someone who works in the industry that involves hanging drywall and installing doors, this made me laugh really hard.
-
I'm glad you took it in the right way. :) I meant no disrespect to people who work in the industry; I'm sure you have your challenges, like any other biz.
-
It is a treat to have a client gush over some work we did that was rather rudimentary compared to what we are often able to do.
-
Interesting you thought of him like that because I also know music theory but never took his videos for anything other than well educating music theory.
The basics ARE the important stuff and he gets new viewers all the time so i'm not sure why someone would feel like he's bragging.
I love his series WMTSG, he points out so many nuggets I atleast never knew. The Boston episode is great: https://youtu.be/mrJ0xnXv_IQ
His interviews are really great too. I really enjoyed the one with Vinnie: https://youtu.be/oRH1G6ZpuL0
-
Rick Beato's videos annoy the hell out of me. My brother-in-law Dave keeps sending me links to them, and I honestly don't know why. I'm not impressed by how much music theory he thinks he knows, because I know a little bit myself and nothing he says goes beyond the basics. But he seems really intent on impressing people with how well he's analyzed the songs by applying music theory to it. I believe the series is "What Makes This Song Great?" but it should be titled "What Makes Me Sound Smart (in my own mind)?"
I told Dave that I don't even know how to respond without sounding like an asshole. Beato points out really elementary stuff, stuff I remember noticing when I was in junior high, before I'd even learned any theory, but makes it sound like some kind of amazing revelation. It's like going into a building and raving about how the walls are all perpendicular to the floor, and how fucking amazing it is that the doors are hung properly. No, that's some really basic shit. Sorry, not impressed.
I get that point of view, and I understand it, but I think it's only one way of looking at it. It may not be intellectual music theory depth, but in terms of MY UNDERSTANDING of the song itself, I like the added depth he brings to a lot of things. I like hearing the separated parts. I like how he sort of "explodes" the songs to see how all the parts work together. Until Beato's vids, I never realized there's no real chorus in "Don't Stop Believin'". I always thought Running With The Devil was the simplest Van Halen song (it's about the only one I can play, for example) and I always had the sort of idea that Ed was a savant of sorts, but it's fun to me to hear how what I thought was just a from-the-gut song is actually pretty well crafted (and if memory serves, I learned that there WAS rhythm guitar on that track, at least behind the solo part).
I know enough theory to be dangerous, but I struggle with applying it. I know what time signature are, and what keys are, but I can't listen to a song and tell you "that's in 3/4" or "that's in the key of D". If I'm playing and someone says "Blues in C", the best I can do at that point is play a C chord (I know, I know, that's the point). So to find out that songs that I always thought were done by people who claim to have no clue about how music works actually DO work is neato. Rhymes with Beato. :) :) :)
-
Interesting you thought of him like that because I also know music theory but never took his videos for anything other than well educating music theory.
The basics ARE the important stuff and he gets new viewers all the time so i'm not sure why someone would feel like he's bragging.
Well, that's the thing; in the videos of his I have seen (which, again, aren't a lot) I personally didn't think he was explaining things clearly at all. I find it rather annoying when someone clouds music theory in some pseudo-mystic bullshit as if it's something ridiculously difficult only to be understood by the few. I get this sentiment a lot from people that do know stuff about music theory and Beato kind-of gave me a similar vibe. It;s the same thing in these random music theory Facebook groups I'm in; there's A LOT of disinformation, basically people blatantly stating nonsense as if it were truth (I bet most don't even know (why) they're wrong) and also a lot of snobbish people who claim to have all the knowledge (and then still get things wrong every now and then).
That said, I also believe music theory is not the be-all-end-all either, and I'm saying this despite teaching music literally being my job. I don't really agree on the toolkit analogy made above, but I do think you'll need a good understanding of music theory in order to comprehend what you're doing and also (maybe even more important) what the people around you are doing. Especially when playing together weith other musicians it's hugely important to know what's happening around you. Then to debunk some stuff to make things even more complicated; it's a myth that knowing all music theory will instantly make you a better musician (it won't) or that playing stuff without knowing what you're doing somehow make it more 'pure' (that's nonsense).
-
I used to watch analysis videos before, I thought they were entertaining. But there are 2 people who took the joy out of them for me so I kind of stopped. Those 2 people are "Music Is Win" (Tyler) and "Become the Knight" (Mike). They both come off as knowledgeable people, but kind of annoying at the same time. Though I remember enjoying this video, mainly because it's a song that I never looked into the harmony in it.
https://youtu.be/wjkdGwHe5qg?t=36
-
Interesting you thought of him like that because I also know music theory but never took his videos for anything other than well educating music theory.
The basics ARE the important stuff and he gets new viewers all the time so i'm not sure why someone would feel like he's bragging.
Well, that's the thing; in the videos of his I have seen (which, again, aren't a lot) I personally didn't think he was explaining things clearly at all. I find it rather annoying when someone clouds music theory in some pseudo-mystic bullshit as if it's something ridiculously difficult only to be understood by the few. I get this sentiment a lot from people that do know stuff about music theory and Beato kind-of gave me a similar vibe.
I can't speak for Rick but i'm pretty sure he didn't mean to sound like that and it's unfourtunate that you feel that. Just to be clear i'm not defending Rick because I to haven't seen every video so if there's a particular video or videos that's representational for the topic I might hear that to.
Here's one video:
Basics of Music Theory: Part I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4Rx0j2eMI&list=PLW0NGgv1qnfyoar2YGLoCqzTnhzE3R61d&index=10&ab_channel=RickBeatoRickBeatoVerifierat)
How you present music theory is of course very important and that can be done in very diffrent ways depending on what target audience you have. On YT you have a demographic on pretty much any age so that's a bit tricky to reach all.
It's not like you exactly can say that music theory is easy or hard, that would be a lie because there's levels to it and also we all individually grasp certain concepts at diffrent rate. I'm a slow learner myself and has always been. I usually need to hear certain concepts many times in order to fully grasp it even if it's deemed easy by some.
I don't hang around in groups like that so I wouldn't know but I think that there's usually humbleness with actual great knowledge.
-
"Become the Knight" (Mike). They both come off as knowledgeable people, but kind of annoying at the same time.
You’re kind of asking for it when you watch someone called “Mike the Music Snob”.
I really like Mike’s channel, and Tyler’s isn’t bad either but I definitely understand why people cringe at him sometimes.
-
Adam Neely is my favorite music theory YouTube. He’s a bassist which helps as he thinks on my level, but he’s also coming from a place of gigging, whether it be with his original band Sungazer, with a wedding band, around the world as an ambassador for American music, or the random odds and ends projects that the typical New York City musician takes. He doesn’t talk down to people, which comes from his vast experience playing out, and instead aims to educate in a fun way.
-
He sounds like my kind of guy. I'd like to say I'll check him out sometime, but I know I probably won't, and I cannot tell a lie. :p
educate in a fun way.
This is key. YouTube videos can be for entertainment, education, amusement, literally to waste time, all of the above, or none.
I've only seen a couple of hours of total Rick Beato video total, but during that time he's pointed out at most two or three things I hadn't noticed before. Most of the time he's pointing out stuff I consider really obvious. Sometimes he actually analyzes things using some degree of music theory, which I guess can be educational for some, but he doesn't have anything to offer me in that department. So I guess it comes down to whether or not he's entertaining enough to keep watching, and the answer there is No. That doesn't leave much future for Rick and me. I'm sure he's crying about that.
-
Both Adam Neely and Charles Cornell are great resources if you just can't stand Rick. :lol
-
I think Adam Neely is great, but mostly for his in-depth videos. I've watched every single Adam Neely youtube video and his presentation style and the subjects he picks are right up my alley. He doesn't do 'beginner' music theory though, so without a basic background some of his stuff could be hard to follow, although I do think he tries to explain everything quite thoroughly.
Another one I enjoy 'watching' (listening to) is 12tone. Those videos are basically someone talking over a video of drawings, but it's way better than this makes it sound. Very in-depth on the music theory side, but also conscious of its limitations.
-
Count me among those who don't like Beato. And here are the reasons why:
- He doesn't explain theoretical concepts clearly, he just states the ones he hears happening.
- His book is overpriced and helpful only as a reference book, even then it seems like a poorly organized assembly of materials you could get anywhere else
- His ear training app is a very expensive and basic, there are tons of apps out there that are exactly the same and free/low cost.
- His opinions are pretty trite a lot of times and nothing more illuminating than the stuff you could hear on a slow day at Guitar Center (in the last video I listened to, he said something like "A fast solo is good if it still sounds good slowed down". lol. What nonsense.
That's not to say he's a total hack. He obviously has some talent, and has had some success in an industry that is probably impenetrable for for 99.9999% of his audience. But he's no luminary, not by a long shot, and too many people these days take the slick YouTube productions they see way too seriously and confuse what they get out of them with real knowledge.
I think it's funny that he has his own signature Gibson guitar, too. My friends and I were joking about what special features it had, and one person mentioned that maybe it had a speaker on the back of the headstock that will shout the name of whatever chord you are currently playing.
-
Count me among those who don't like Beato. And here are the reasons why:
- He doesn't explain theoretical concepts clearly, he just states the ones he hears happening.
- His book is overpriced and helpful only as a reference book, even then it seems like a poorly organized assembly of materials you could get anywhere else
- His ear training app is a very expensive and basic, there are tons of apps out there that are exactly the same and free/low cost.
- His opinions are pretty trite a lot of times and nothing more illuminating than the stuff you could hear on a slow day at Guitar Center (in the last video I listened to, he said something like "A fast solo is good if it still sounds good slowed down". lol. What nonsense.
That's not to say he's a total hack. He obviously has some talent, and has had some success in an industry that is probably impenetrable for for 99.9999% of his audience. But he's no luminary, not by a long shot, and too many people these days take the slick YouTube productions they see way too seriously and confuse what they get out of them with real knowledge.
I think it's funny that he has his own signature Gibson guitar, too. My friends and I were joking about what special features it had, and one person mentioned that maybe it had a speaker on the back of the headstock that will shout the name of whatever chord you are currently playing.
I would have said "it promotes itself while playing" (or, the alternative, "it bitches about the artists that won't let you play their songs"). :) :)
-
Rick Beato's videos annoy the hell out of me. My brother-in-law Dave keeps sending me links to them, and I honestly don't know why. I'm not impressed by how much music theory he thinks he knows, because I know a little bit myself and nothing he says goes beyond the basics. But he seems really intent on impressing people with how well he's analyzed the songs by applying music theory to it. I believe the series is "What Makes This Song Great?" but it should be titled "What Makes Me Sound Smart (in my own mind)?"
He's a youtuber. His goal is not to analyse songs or to impress others, but to give the impression to people who love generic rock music but don't know anything about music theory that the music they like is complex, superior, great, etc. His videos are basically an enhanced version of "reaction videos", which only have a mastubatory value for the viewers ("look, these guys on youtube love what I love, I must have such perfect tastes!").
Note that by "generic rock music", I don't mean that the music is bad, only that it's stuff that is accessible and that everybody likes.
I think Adam Neely is great, but mostly for his in-depth videos. I've watched every single Adam Neely youtube video and his presentation style and the subjects he picks are right up my alley. He doesn't do 'beginner' music theory though, so without a basic background some of his stuff could be hard to follow, although I do think he tries to explain everything quite thoroughly.
Too bad he jumped the shark with his "music theory is white suprematism" video, which was poorly argumented and generaly wrong.
-
I think Adam Neely is great, but mostly for his in-depth videos. I've watched every single Adam Neely youtube video and his presentation style and the subjects he picks are right up my alley. He doesn't do 'beginner' music theory though, so without a basic background some of his stuff could be hard to follow, although I do think he tries to explain everything quite thoroughly.
Too bad he jumped the shark with his "music theory is white suprematism" video, which was poorly argumented and generaly wrong.
I don't know why you'd consider that 'jumping the shark', although of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'll have to watch it again to see whether or not it was poorly argumented, but I don't remember thinking that myself, especially since the points he made were also brought up in my own education (Musicology). The music theory we think is universal (spoiler; it's not) is firmly rooted in German nationalism and is clearly Europe-centric. There's a lot of evidence for that. Of course the click-bait-ish title - which was later removed - called for attention, but like a lot of stuff Adam Neely does, I for one thought it was good this particular (and dare I say 'uncomfortable'?) topic was brought to a wider audience.
Lastly, from your post I'm getting the impression that because of this video you don't watch Adam Neely vids (anymore), and to be honest if that's the case then that's more on you than on the guy that continues to drop quality content regularly.
-
Another one I enjoy 'watching' (listening to) is 12tone. Those videos are basically someone talking over a video of drawings, but it's way better than this makes it sound. Very in-depth on the music theory side, but also conscious of its limitations.
12Tone is great! Unlike Rick, he actually explains the theory behind popular songs properly, and in other videos he touches on some pretty obscure and out there theory concepts. The content guys like he and Adam make is incredibly interesting to someone like me who loves learning for the sake of learning.
-
I don't know why you'd consider that 'jumping the shark', although of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'll have to watch it again to see whether or not it was poorly argumented, but I don't remember thinking that myself, especially since the points he made were also brought up in my own education (Musicology). The music theory we think is universal (spoiler; it's not) is firmly rooted in German nationalism and is clearly Europe-centric.
That wasn't the argument of Neely - and moreover of Ewell (who has an agenda, and does not act in good faith). Saying music theory is Europe-centric is different from saying it's rooted in German nationalism and white suprematism. They acted like music theory hasn't evolved since the 19th century, and that it's teached everywhere in the same way, on the basis of the example of a small department in a Texas University that teaches Schenkerian theory. You say yourself that you've had a different education. I had too. Everything Neely was calling for is already teached in a lot of music departements all over the world. The video was a loosy provocation and a loosy attempt to fit in recent trends. It was ill intended and based on strawman arguments, and doesn't open any perspectives.
Lastly, from your post I'm getting the impression that because of this video you don't watch Adam Neely vids (anymore), and to be honest if that's the case then that's more on you than on the guy that continues to drop quality content regularly.
No, I don't watch his videos anymore, but that video was only the nail on the coffin. I thought that his videos had been lackluster for some time, and that his presentation and his choice of subjects were changing for the worse. I don't like his persona. I did watch one of his recent videos a few weeks ago, and I found it uninteresting. Lots of quirky comments and good production value, with actually little to say. Others have every right to be interested in the content he produces.
-
Another one I enjoy 'watching' (listening to) is 12tone. Those videos are basically someone talking over a video of drawings, but it's way better than this makes it sound. Very in-depth on the music theory side, but also conscious of its limitations.
12Tone is great! Unlike Rick, he actually explains the theory behind popular songs properly, and in other videos he touches on some pretty obscure and out there theory concepts. The content guys like he and Adam make is incredibly interesting to someone like me who loves learning for the sake of learning.
Yeah 12tone is great. The style sometimes is distracting to me, but the content is usually top notch for Youtube.