Analyze this!

Originally posted by chris mood
Are you done college now?

Looks like someone skipped English class. :P

Just messin' man.

LOL!

Me enklish class have me helped alot! the enklish book only was for 5 cent! now i to close pervect!

como esta' usted? Si, no habla ingles.....beso mi cola, usted cerdo gordo!!

[Edited by chris mood on 10-30-2003 at 09:41 AM]

I V with a variation. Why is this so difficult? There is NO analysis. It's horribly simple! Understanding that proper theory is a method of analysis. X, simple rules apply. A I or i can't be something else, in a strict context. A V7 can't be anything but what it is! Why over-complicate?

I never understand a word he says. Ever.

All the sentences run togther and don't make sense. Am I the only one?

Please don't tell me I'm dumb. :D

No, you're not the only one. I never know what the hell he's trying to say.

Originally posted by griphon2
I V with a variation. Why is this so difficult? There is NO analysis. It's horribly simple! Understanding that proper theory is a method of analysis. X, simple rules apply. A I or i can't be something else, in a strict context. A V7 can't be anything but what it is! Why over-complicate?

Not everything is so black and white, sometimes there is grey areas.

I think you mean "my bad", chris. Not "my bag", although that does sound cool too. My job sucks at times because if I slip up I get b*tched at big time. That and my boss is a complete butt pirate, and all I can do is grind my teeth. All will be better soon since I am relocating. :)

I have to agree that not everything in music can be taken as I or V. For the most part it is true, but we need more science behind it to understand it's complete existance. I think in analysis you need more than just a science, but an audio of the actually music. Alot of factors go into the understanding of music besides science, such are pyschological and just the nature of sound.

From Notice:
I have to agree that not everything in music can be taken as I or V. For the most part it is true, but we need more science behind it to understand it's complete existance.

Do you honestly believe this? There is so much unbelievable SCIENCE out there, or you're simply not reading it. I'm just at a loss in this thinking. Is there such a thing as "ORIGINAL"? Might become philosophical. I just don't know what to say. I'm flabbergasted.

Dewd, I'm commenting on what you said. HAHA, or really what chris said. Sounds like you said everything can be linked to I or V with or without some variation. I see where that can come from but I'm saying there is alot more science alot there. Think about what I'm saying a bit longer before you reply.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

I have to agree that not everything in music can be taken as I or V. For the most part it is true, but we need more science behind it to understand it's complete existance. I think in analysis you need more than just a science, but an audio of the actually music. Alot of factors go into the understanding of music besides science, such are pyschological and just the nature of sound.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Did I miss something?

So did I, miss something.

As usual you loons have hijacked my thread. So now I keep getting all these email notifications about new posts.

Originally posted by griphon2
I V with a variation. Why is this so difficult? There is NO analysis. It's horribly simple! Understanding that proper theory is a method of analysis. X, simple rules apply.

Sounds like your saying all analysis can be considered I or V with a variation. Maybe I miss read you but I know I'm not the only one who does cause Griphons' posts never make any sense, at least clear sense. That's how I took it, sorry maybe my misunderstanding.

You can consider a song with a chord progression like the one christoph wrote. Each chord could be some relation to a new tonic, in a way that every chord modulates to a new key. Every chord in a key has some link to the tonic key. V7 or dominants are the same way, as we see cirlce fifth chord progressions (or turnarounds) with all domiannt chords. Every dominant chord changes the key. Ex. E7 - A7 - D7 - G7. Each dominant chord is part of a new diatonic key. The patterns goes E7 is A major, and A7 is D major, and so on.

And NO I don't endorse this way of analyzing, and I hope no one else does. But it can work out as such, and I think griphon was saying that's the simplest way or proper way. The rest of my reply is why.

Since Western music is based off the diatonic system of the major scale (7 notes/ 7 chords), all the chords within the scale can be analyzed as being a dominant / tonic or sub there of. Actually, we had this conversation before and I stated that in certian circumstances I would view the 4 chord as having its'own identity.

All though this type of analysis works, it takes out all the fun (for me). Like all things in theory, it does not come without its flaws, a bit oversimplified. Although it is good for "on the job" training. Someone throws a chart in front of you and says "O.K., now solo, 1234....you have to be able to think on your feet (fast). NTMs' analytical viewpoints on the other hand, are a bit to the other extreme, over complicated and sometimes impractical. I prefer a middle ground that endorses creative, free thinking, yet is logical and practical at the same time.

Originally posted by Christoph

As usual you loons have hijacked my thread. So now I keep getting all these email notifications about new posts.

Loon = A fish eating, diving bird, with a sharp bill and webbed feet.

I don't have webbed feet!

I was always taught to imagine the next chord ahead of where you are and use the chord your on to get there. Even if you imagine the wrong chord, as long as your playing continues convincingly you'll be ok. Think up a small theme and do several variations of it. Also watch for key changes in the chords because in such a case you may need to change the theme. That's my improv strategy, and it may be over-complicated or impractical but it's worked great for me. Think each chord as the music progresses and trying to build on that doesn't work for me. For some it does but I have seen many players who do that and it sounds like there playing in limbo. They can connect the chords brilliantly but there's no theme.

I think my views are very free-thinking and go more by creativity than anything else but I would like to hear where you see differently. Maybe even how I over complicated something and how you would do it so I may emend such faults.

I wasn't referring to POV on improvisation, that's a whole different matter, I was referring to analyzation techniques.

Thank you, Chris Mood. Ultimately, (which is my point) I can over simplify. It sooner or later, comes out in the wash. Since this is "an open forum" and called "tricks", one is stuck and struck by or with many views, interpretations and the like. But one, has to start somewhere.

I am working on a page at my site, that I hopefully, will lay to rest a lot of myths. The initial idea is very, very simple. It's application can get extremely complex, depending on knowledge and understanding. But, doesn't any art? We should be able to speak, without contempt.

Sorry for the supposed hi-jacking. A major complaint of mine. Every good, played proven, idea seems to be refuted or argumentative. This is not, presently, an open forum. Agree or not, let it be heard. Might learn something.