Posted on

Making Music Make Sense; Making Music Make Evidence

file2921258632159

I spoke to students and faculty at the Harvard University Law School on Tuesday, March 11, 2014.  I am always thrilled and humbled to be invited to come to that great campus and interact with these brilliant, insightful and original thinkers.  Fortunately, many of our ideas and concerns overlap and intersect and as fortunately, there are always surprises for me and them.

One constant issue with which I struggle is how to explain music – music as evidence – evidence that will sway a judge and/or jury to understand what I know about the music.  Many probing questions were addressed to me about this concern.  Explaining music as evidence to a judge and/or jury is similar to teaching whether in the forms of interaction with a student, small group of students, class, or large class in person or online.  Teaching music, something I have been paid to do since I was 12, has always been an extremely happy-engendering, inspiring activity that is similar to presenting evidence of a musical nature.  The end goals – will my intended audience understand how I perceive this music – are similar.  Is what I have selected and arranged for the particular audience pertinent, relevant, meaningful and/or convincing?

Teaching a judge and/or jury is analogous to teaching in the traditional offline and online manner.  (Online instruction has been around long enough – since the pre-Google, pre-Napster mid/late 1990’s – that I would claim online teaching is itself “traditional” and that there are traditional models of online education.)  At its core, there are perhaps four (4) components with respect to evidence –

Substance

Means of communication

Perception

Outcome

which to me are tantamount to

Content

Delivery

Determination

Conclusion

The following possibilities are in play:

Have I gathered the right materials to get across my point(s)?

If so, have I used the right or good/good enough, means to get across my point(s)?

If I do not have the right materials, then even if the means to present the materials are very good, the end result could be failure.

If I have the best means to convey my message/materials but have gathered  material that is not optimal, the end result could be failure.

______________________________________________________

How does one make music make sense or make music make evidence?  Does music ever make sense?  What does it mean to “make sense?”  A lot of effort and ink has been spent on trying to understand the meaning of music and even more have labored to understand the meaning of life.  (Let’s leave life out of this!)  But the meaning of music, from a philosophical perspective, is irrelevant in most and perhaps every legal situation.

How does one explain music?  By explain music, I am suggesting that we can make someone hear something specific and special in music.  It could be a chord or chord pattern, an unusual sound or sounds, a specific melody or melodies, a lyric or lyrics, a combination of any or all of these, etc.

______________________________________________________

What will best convey the message, i.e., make the evidence most effective?  What is/are the most important factor(s) in making the message understandable and persuasive to listeners, jury, judge, students and audience?

A.   The messenger’s skills, credentials and background.

B.   The nature and quality of the technical and visual exhibits (charts, numbers, graphs, images, etc.).

C.   The musical examples (perhaps edited and/or enhanced).

D.   The musical examples along with technical exhibits and complex verbal expression.

E.   The musical examples along with technical exhibits and simple, understandable verbal expression.

F.   The musical examples along with non-technical exhibits and simple, understandable verbal expression.

G.   The musical examples along with non-technical exhibits and complex verbal expression. 

______________________________________________________

Musical evidence can be

1.  Technical

2.  Not Technical

3.  A Hybrid of Technical & Not Technical

Can one type of evidence work in one particular instance and another type of evidence work in another instance?

Would a musical style dictate or suggest a particular type of evidence?

Can the style and substance of evidence differ according to a musical style?

______________________________________________________

(This post reminds me of another post of mine – Which Words Work With Which Music? – in which the difficulties and frustrations of writing about music are played with.)

These and many more questions should be addressed and evaluated along the road to making music make sense and making music make evidence.  Until then the state of musical evidence and its presentation continues to be (as reflected in this short lyric) “something wild and unruly.”

 

Posted on

Putting It My Way But Nicely – There Should Be No More Lawsuits…

file0001543354866

Music of Bach, Badfinger, The Beatles, Toby Keith, Sebastian Mikael, Rodgers & Hammerstein, The Rolling Stones,  XTC

The 3-4-5-8 from Sebastian Bach to Sebastian Mikael.

THIS IS IT.

Not the Michael Jackson film, THIS IS IT, but the 5th and final SHOULD Artist X Sue Artist Y over 3-4-5-8 post.

The final post about 3-4-5-8.  This could have gone much longer and it could have been massively expanded if 3-4-5-1, which to many is the same as 3-4-5-8 (“8” and “1” are the same letter – an octave above or below each other – the last letter name of the pitch is identical).  It’s been fun but now we’ll be

putting it my way, but nicely.

To repeat – this will end my discussion of potential lawsuits over four different notes – the nice four-note [-3-4-5-8-] melody with some variation.  (In addition to this being designated by Arabic numbers representing pitches, it could be designated as, “mi fa sol do,” but I chose numbers this time as I learned numbers before I learned solfège syllables, one of a musician’s favorite mnemonic devices.)

I’ve considered the following to be the same – they are roughly the same:

3-4-5-8

3-4-5-5-8-8-8  (as sung by Badfinger)

All of this came about because I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville one Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.  That led to an investigation of the 3-4-5-8 melody as well as the music of Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, XTC, Badfinger,  The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and more.

The string of posts went in this order, from the most recently released music, back to The Rolling Stones.

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)  v.  Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

XTC –  Then She Appeared (1992)  v.  Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Badfinger – Come And Get It  (1970)  v.  XTC – Then She Appeared  (1992)

The Rolling Stones – Street Fighting Man  (1968)  v.  Badfinger – Come And Get It (1970)

_______________________________________________________________

Today, I’ll add a few more and end my pursuit of the 3-4-5-8  melodic gesture. There are many other 3-4-5-8 melodic gestures in a lot of of music by artists including Creedence Clearwater Revival, Miles Davis, The Mavericks, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Bach, Beethoven and others.

Beatles – Little Child (1963)

0.09  little child won’t you dance (with me)  –  (“with me” is sung to 6-5)

0.22  little child won’t you dance (with me)

0.44  little child won’t you dance (with me)

1.26  little child won’t you dance (with me)

from “The King & I” – Getting To Know You  (1951) (by Rodgers & Hammerstein)

0.01  getting to know you

0.04  getting to know all (about you)

0.16  getting to know you

0.19  putting it my way (but nicely)

0.31  getting to know you

0.34  getting to feel free (and easy)

1.08  getting to know you

1.11  getting to know all (about you)

1.23  getting to know you

1.26  putting it my way (but nicely)

1.38  getting to know you

1.41  getting to feel free (and easy)

and frequently throughout

Bach – Suite No. 3 in D Major, BWV 1068 – Bourree I  (1730)

3-4-5-8 is played by oboes and violins in unison at the opening of the Bourree from Suite No. 3 for Orchestra .  It is heard at 0.00 and repeated soon at 0.08.  It also changes keys and is heard again later as well.

Bach used 3-4-5-8 as a nice little melodic snippet.  Bach’s version is faster than those sung by Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, Toby Keith, Andy Partridge (XTC), Tom Evans (Badfinger), Mick Jagger, John Lennon or Marni Nixon (King & I).

_______________________________________________________________

I’ve been asked for my opinion as to whether any of those infringe.  In my opinion, NONE of those I have posted  infringe on any copyright of which I am aware. 

3-4-5-8 is a snippet that dates back centuries – I have posted a few prominent uses of 3-4-5-8 from 1730 – 2013.  After having studied these recordings and the specific uses of 3-4-5-8, I am convinced that this melody/melodic excerpt is in the public domain.  Lawsuits should rarely if ever stem from the use of 3-4-5-8 although sadly there are copyright infringement lawsuits filed over much less in common than simply four (4) unoriginal pitches.

“Putting it my way but nicely”  –  none of these musical works featuring 3-4-5-8 infringe any of these other works featuring 3-4-5-8 and none should have caused or been the cause of a copyright infringement lawsuit._______________________________________________________________

 

 

Posted on

Should The Rolling Stones Sue Badfinger?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The 4th “SHOULD” post.  The 4th “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

OK, this is getting long.  How long will this 3-4-5-8 be stretched out?  The answer?  I’ll end this 3-4-5-8 posts with the next installment of the series:  the 5th “SHOULD” post.  But for today –

Today’s songs and potential case:

The Rolling Stones – Street Fighting Man  (1968)

Badfinger – Come And Get It (1970)

My last three posts have featured pairs of songs that feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  -prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs and potential case from the previous post:

Badfinger – Come And Get It  (1970)  v.  XTC –  Then She Appeared  (1992)

The songs and potential case from the post before that (February 27, 2014):

XTC –  Then She Appeared (1992)  v.  Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

The songs and potential case from the post before that (February 24, 2014):

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)  v.  Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibilities and reasons why these songs could be in litigation – all of those songs feature the 3-4-5-8 melody.  I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.  That led to an investigation of the 3-4-5-8 melody as well as the music of Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, XTC, Badfinger and now The Rolling Stones.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the Badfinger v. XTC case which was a precedent to the XTC v. Toby Keith case which was a precedent to the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael case  – namely, should The Rolling Stones sue Badfinger for stealing the 3-4-5-8 of The Rolling Stones?  (Again, all of these are, to my knowledge, hypothetical cases.)  A funny twist to this is that it would be The Rolling Stones suing their friend Paul McCartney as McCartney wrote “Come And Get It.”  (Here is Paul McCartney singing and playing every instrument on his song, Come And Get It.  He allowed Badfinger to record it if they stuck to it as faithfully as he demanded.  This recording is from The Beatles Anthology 3, a must have double CD.)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs prominently twelve (12) times in The Rolling Stones’  Street Fighting Man  (1968).

The Rolling Stones – Street Fighting Man  (1968)

0.35  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

0.39  cause in sleepy

0.40  London town there’s

0.42  just no place for a street fighting (man)

1.20  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

1.24  cause in sleepy

1.25  London town there’s

1.27  just no place for a street fighting (man)

2.10  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

2.14   cause in sleepy

2.15  London town there’s

2.17  just no place for a street fighting (man)

Badfinger – Come And Get It (1970)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs frequently and prominently in Badfinger’s Come And Get It although slightly modified with a repeated “5” and “8”  –   3-4-5-5-8-8-8.  (As the song progresses, the  3-4-5-8 that usually features the lyrics “if you want it here it is” and “if you want it anytime” changes from 3-4-5-8 to 8-6-5-5 and other non-3-4-5-8 melodies.)

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970, U.S. release)

0.05  if you want it here it is

0.15  if you want it any time

0.38  if you want it here it is

0.51  if you want it here it is

1.02  if you want it any time

_______________________________________________________________________

Should The Rolling Stones sue Badfinger over the 3-4-5-8 melody that was so prominent in their Street Fighting Man and so prominent in Badfinger’s Come And Get It?  As I’ve stated before, there are music copyright infringement lawsuits in the courts in 2014 that involve NO melodic similarity.

_______________________________________________________________________

Posted on

Should Badfinger Sue XTC?

file1441263245035

The 3rd “SHOULD” post.  The 3rd “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

Two of my last posts have featured pairs of songs that feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  -prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs from the February 27, 2014 post:

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992)

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

The songs from the post before that (February 24, 2014):

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibilities and reasons why these songs could be in litigation. I did NOT advocate that a lawsuit should happen and I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.  That led to an investigation of the 3-4-5-8 melody as well as the music of Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, XTC and now Badfinger.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the XTC v. Toby Keith case which was a precedent for the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael possibility  – namely, should Badfinger sue XTC for stealing “Badfinger’s” 3-4-5-8?

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970)

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs frequently and prominently in Badfinger’s Come And Get It although slightly modified with a repeated “5” and “8”  –   3-4-5-5-8-8-8.  (As the song progresses, the  3-4-5-8 that usually features the lyrics “if you want it here it is” and “if you want it anytime” changes from 3-4-5-8 to 8-6-5-5 and other non-3-4-5-8 melodies.)

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970, U.S. release)

0.05  if you want it here it is

0.15  if you want it any time

0.38  if you want it here it is

0.51  if you want it here it is

1.02  if you want it any time

XTC’s  Then She Appeared (1992) is a song written and recorded almost twenty (20) years before Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011) but more than twenty (20) AFTER Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970).  It also prominently features the 3-4-5-8 melody.  The 3-4-5-8 is the opening vocal and the hook throughout the entire song.

The thirteen (13) examples of 3-4-5-8 in Then She Appeared, complete with associated lyrics, are heard here:

XTC – Then She Appeared  (1992)

0.22  then she appeared

0.31  then she appeared

0.50  cherubim cheered

0.59  then she appeared

1.08  then she appeared

1.26  know it sounds weird

2.02  then she appeared

2.11  then she appeared

2.30  all Edward leared

3.06  then she appeared

3.15  then she appeared

3.24  then she appeared

3.33  then she appeared

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  As mentioned before, one answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) Badfinger v. XTC music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and NOT melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not STYLE.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your comments.

Posted on

Should XTC Sue Toby Keith?

file9991341804669

Another “SHOULD” post.  Another “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

My last post was about two (2) songs that both featured the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  – prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs were

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibility and reasons why these songs could be in litigation. I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael possibility  – namely, should XTC sue Toby Keith for stealing their 3-4-5-8?

XTC  Then She Appeared (1992)

Toby Keith  Red Solo Cup (2011)

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992) is a song written and recorded almost twenty (20) years before Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011).  It also prominently features the 3-4-5-8 melody.  The 3-4-5-8 is the opening vocal and hook throughout the entire song.

The thirteen (13) examples of 3-4-5-8 in Then She Appeared, complete with associated lyrics, are heard here:

XTC – Then She Appeared  (1992)

0.22  then she appeared

0.31  then she appeared

0.50  cherubim cheered

0.59  then she appeared

1.08  then she appeared

1.26  know it sounds weird

2.02  then she appeared

2.11  then she appeared

2.30  all Edward Lear-ed

3.06  then she appeared

3.15  then she appeared

3.24  then she appeared

3.33  then she appeared

The sixteen (16) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011):

0.32  red solo cup

0.35  I fill you up

0.44  red solo cup

0.47  I lift you up

1.19  red solo cup

1.22  I fill you up

1.31  red solo cup

1.33  I lift you up

2.21  red solo cup

2.24  I fill you up

2.32  red solo cup

2.35  I lift you up

2.44  red solo cup

2.47  I fill you up

2.56  red solo cup

2.59  I lift you up

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  One answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) XTC v. Toby Keith music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and NOT melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not STYLE.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your comments.

Posted on

Should Toby Keith Sue Sebastian Mikael?

file7001249784548

Should Toby Keith sue Sebastian Mikael?  Have you heard Toby Keith’s 2011 song, “Red Solo Cup?”  Have you heard Sebastian Mikael’s 2013 song, “Red Solo Cup?”

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup features the lyrics, “red solo cup, I fill you up” and “red solo cup, I lift you up” always sung to the same melody, an ascending four-note pattern that is the hook:  -3-4-5-8.

The 3-4-5-8 melody is heard sixteen (16) times in Red Solo Cup.

Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night features the lyric, “four shots ago,” always sung to the same four-note pattern as heard in Red Solo Cup, used in all four (4) choruses, and in a similar prominent manner as well:  3-4-5-8.

The 3-4-5-8 melody is heard four (4) times in Last Night.

If both songs use the same pitches but one was recorded and released earlier, shouldn’t the publisher(s) of Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup sue the publisher(s) of Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night ?

The sixteen (16) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup:

0.32  red solo cup

0.35  I fill you up

0.44  red solo cup

0.47  I lift you up

1.19  red solo cup

1.22  I fill you up

1.31  red solo cup

1.33  I lift you up

2.21  red solo cup

2.24  I fill you up

2.32  red solo cup

2.35  I lift you up

2.44  red solo cup

2.47  I fill you up

2.56  red solo cup

2.59  I lift you up

The four (4) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night:

0.46  four shots ago

1.54  four shots ago

2.37  four shots ago

3.40  four shots ago 

_______________________________________________________________________

To reiterate some of the similarities between Red Solo Cup and Last Night:

Toby Keith sings 3-4-5-8 sixteen (16) times throughout Red Solo Cup.

3-4-5-8 is the hook.

Sebastian Mikael sings 3-4-5-8 four (4) times throughout Last Night.

3-4-5-8 is always an important part of each chorus.

Both songs feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8.

Toby Keith recorded and released Red Solo Cup well before Sebastian Mikael recored and released Last Night.

Why wouldn’t Toby Keith’s publisher(s) sue Sebastian Mikael?

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  One answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and not melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not style.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your  comments.

Posted on

How I Hear It – Beethoven & Van Halen

file7721255110383

My Nashville trip has been eventful and much longer than expected.  My one week has turned into three.  I need to get back north and as tempting as it is, I won’t quote or paraphrase Paul McCartney and “Get Back.”

When I was learning classical music, and classical music theory (known to many as simply, “music theory”), what helped was comparing classical music to what I knew much better and made more sense to me, namely, rock music or pop music.  The more I learned about music and different styles of music, the more I explored and then compared classical with those other styles  –  first soul/Motown, then jazz, folk, blues, country, world music (although I had been hearing that earlier without knowing I was hearing world music) and eventually hip hop, trip hop, acid jazz and anything else with or without a name.

When I listen to music, it usually reminds me of other music.  When I first heard Van Halen When It’s Love, it reminded me of the opening of the first movement of Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 4 (as well as a few other rock and country songs).  That is because they share the same somewhat unusual (for rock and pop) chord progression.  There are four (4) chords heard clearly in both, although in Van Halen, the chord progression is heard twelve (12) times, whereas in Beethoven, it is heard only three (3) times.  This chord progression is based on four (4) bass notes from the major scale – the 1st pitch followed by the 5th, followed by the 3rd, followed by the 4th:  1   5   3   4.  Three of these four bass notes are the roots of the chords:  1    5    and 4.  The “3” is the 3rd of the “I chord.”  This chord, therefore, does not have its root as the lowest sounding note in the chord.  It is an “inverted” chord, and there are are far fewer inverted chords in rock and popular music than in classical music.  The somewhat-unusual-for-rock chord progression is  I   V   I6   IV  (pronounced, “One.  Five.  One six.  Four.”)

Van Halen  –  When It’s Love

That     I   V   I6   IV   progression is heard four (4) times at the opening and eight (8) times near the ending of When It’s Love:

I N S T R U M E N T A L     A T      O P E N I N G:

0.00 – 0.09

0.10 – 0.18

0.19 – 0.28

0.29 – 0.38

N E A R    T H E     E N D    O F     T H E    S O N G:

4.02 – 4.10

4.11 – 4.20

4.21 – 4.30

4.31 – 4.39

4.40 – 4.49

4.50 – 4.59

5.00 – 5.08

5.09 – 5.19

 

The majority of Classical music is not as repetitive, in terms of a singular repeated chord progression, as popular and/or country music.  But the    I   V   I6   IV   progression is heard at the outset of the first movement of Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 4.

Beethoven  –  Piano Concerto No. 4, Mvt. I

S O L O    P I A N O:

0.42 – 0.48

O R C H E S T R A    (without piano):

1.00 – 1.08

P I A N O     &    O R C H E S T R A:

11.43 – 11.51

Do these sections from Van Halen and Beethoven sound similar?  They are identical in terms of harmony and bass melody, and chord progression.  This intrigues me but probably very few other people, and I was even warned not to write this post.  Oh well.  I did.  I will not write posts like this often but I love the idea of parallels between music that at the surface should have little in common and I believe that hearing these parallels leads to a better understanding and appreciation of music.  I intentionally avoided explaining the elementary music theory and music theory terms and nouns above because I do not think an understanding of music theory is necessary to hear these specific parallels between Beethoven and Van Halen, and the education/explanation would take too long for a single post.

*     *     *     *     *     *

Here is the full orchestral score of Beethoven – Piano Concerto No. 4, Op. 58.  Thrillingly to me and sadly to some, the printed musical scores Beethoven composed can be copied for free, i.e., they are in the public domain – one does not need to ask the copyright owner permission to use this music because the copyright term has ended.  No one gets paid when one downloads the scores to these excellent compositions.

One of my favorite and most used music website is IMSLP – the Petrucci Music Library.  It should be the first place one visits to study and download music.  (I intentionally left out some details in that last sentence.)

Posted on

A slew of bagpipes playing tangos in a forest – My Favorite Tangos (Part 1)

I’m loving my vacation in Nashville – my first Christmas not in Massachusetts.  It’s been great to catch up with friends and former students (from here and New Jersey), hike Radnor Lake, see the new stuff in Nashville and launch into some business.  All of my business is also fun, so I keep on “fun-ing,” as Sheriff Andy Taylor once said.

*     *     *     *     *     *                      *     *     *     *     *     *

A question to which I often return  –  what is tango?  Should the question be, “What is a tango?   Is tango a dance?  Is tango music?  Is tango both music and dance?  To me tango is music and the accompanying dance.  To others I’m sure the idea of an “accompanying” dance, meaning the visual subservient to the aural, is offensive.  Music is meant for many as something to accompany dance.  For me it’s music – the invisible art form that grabbed and OCCUPIED me as a child  –  first.  Other stuff – film, video, TV, advertising, ballet, dance, opera, musicals, etc. – is often secondary and there to serve music.  I’ll more often stick with what I think is this contrarian view  –  let the invisible (music) rule and let us serve her/him/it/them.

And as a musician who likes tango but is not an expert in tango, a simple rhythmic figure that tells me, “this is tango,” comes to mind.  When I hear a specific rhythmic pattern that repeats, I think “tango.”  To do a disservice to tango and a deep explanation, the pattern takes place over four (4) beats, numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4.

T A N G O   is  not:

1                2                3                4                1                2                3                4

T A N G O  can be this:

1                2   and    3                4                1                2   and    3                4

T A N G O  can be this:

1                2   and    3                4   and     1                2   and    3                4   and

T A N G O  can be this:

1                2                3                4   and    1                2                3                4   and

And here is an explanation from Howcast of how to (dance) tango.  It states that the tango pattern is

1                2                3   and         4   

Here is a collection of tangos – sort of a HOW TO / HERE THEY ARE collection of tango.

For me, this   –

1                2                3                4   and  1      

 is my favorite tango and the repeated rhythmic figure which I first associate with tango.  I think there are not many examples of tango in rock (music).

Three (3) of my favorite tangos in rock are:

The Beatles  –  Ticket To Ride

The Doors  –  Moonlight Drive

The Police  –  Roxanne

At a future point, I will delve further into more of my favorite tangos (maybe an annotated list with links) and a discussion of that massive tango collection linked to above.  I’d also like to explore the effects of tempo/speed, as well as instrumentation and loudness on our definition and perception of tango.  For example

if a slew of bagpipes play tangos in a forest and no one hears them, is it still a tango?

Other favorite tangos of mine were recorded by Astor Piazzola, Gato Barbieri, Sting (in addition to “Roxanne”), The Doors (in addition to “Moonlight Drive”) and Burt Bacharach.

What are your favorite tangos?  Your favorite tangos in rock?  Are there examples of tango in country?  Jazz?  Urban?  Soul?  (Is there still “soul?”)  R & B?

I hope you enjoy the first Sunday in 2013  —–

E. Michael

Posted on

Best Chord Ever – Part 1 – The Beatles “All I’ve Got To Do”


I have revised this post by adding many more links to recordings found on YouTube (the Beatles’ “personal pronouns period” songs), definitions from Dictionary.com and Wikipedia, and links to Amazon.com if one is interested in purchasing The Beatles’ With The Beatles or Weather Report’s  I Sing The Body Electric.

This is the rainy Tuesday morning (December 18, 2012) in Gloucester after the New York Jets self-destructed on national television last night.  It is also the 40th blog post at www.emichaelmusic.com.  One way to celebrate would be to show a video someone made of me composing at the piano.  There will be a video below that will emphasize what I want to discuss today.  The  best chord ever.  At least for today, this is the best chord ever.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I love chords.  I’ve often composed at a piano by playing one chord, isolating it and thinking about where the sounding pitches want to go next, and then maybe writing the new chord that resolves the pitches from the first chord.  The first chord was a commanding boss that demanded to have its way.  The second chord, in the scenario I am describing, is a slave – it has no choice but to be and do as the first chord demands.

Or repeating or rearticulating my first chord.  Maybe the first chord wants to just linger and eventually fade away.  If it was really good, maybe it’s time to repeat it.  Or maybe it’s time for a series of chords led by this great chord.  The intervals in the chord can be unfolded and turned into melody, and maybe this melody will be harmonized by this chord or subsequent transpositions of this chord.  This type of composing can lead to countless areas and new musical expression.

In this post, I’m considering a chord one only hears in one context  –  in one particular song.  Without this chord, the song wouldn’t be as good.  But this great chord doesn’t fit in its context.

Listen to the first sounds, i.e., the first chord, in this Beatles song:

Beatles – All I’ve Got To Do

The chord has no business being here.  Or in any pop song.  Could this chord be heard in jazz?  I don’t think Ornette Coleman would use this chord.  I don’t think Thelonious Monk would have either.  Cecil Taylor?  Maybe Cecil Taylor would use it.  Early Weather Report?  Yes, maybe.   I could imagine this chord/hear this chord in “Vertical Invader“ from side 2, song 1 of Weather Report’s second album, I Sing The Body Electric.   The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Eminem and Kanye – nope, they wouldn’t use it.  The Beatles used it.  Once and only once.  The chord is used only at the opening.  Never again in any Beatles song.  Not in outtakes, bootlegs.  Nowhere.  Damn.  Or as Miles Davis would have said, “DAY-UHM.”

So, here is one of the best chords ever.  You hear it arpeggiated at the opening.

It is solo guitar  –

no singing

no bass

no drums

no keyboards

Only guitar playing this mystical chord:

Beatles – All I’ve Got To Do

The chord consists of these five (5) notes:

 E  G#  C  F#  A

The Beatles used this most advanced, dissonant and mystical chord only once and only here on their second album.  This was during their personal pronoun period.  The early Beatles’ song titles were filled with personal pronouns –

From Me To You

She Loves Me

And I Love Her

Love Me Do

All My Loving

Please Please Me

P. S. I Love You, etc.

Their lyrics too were very simple.  So, why with all of this simplicity and direct boy-girl expression, did they use this complex  chord?  The chord does not reappear in All I’ve Got To Do, the With The Beatles album, or any subsequent Beatles song or album.

Does this chord appear anywhere else, i.e., in any songs?  I’ve never done a search for it.  I think I would be searching for a very long time for this chord.

My point of this post  –  this is a GREAT CHORD.  It’s so striking and unusual.  It adds a lot to this song even if it is only used once – actually, once in the Beatles’ lifetimes.  As a little kid when I first heard All I’ve Got To Do, I thought the chord was scary.  As I got older it became mysterious, or in Boston speak, wicked cool.  What do you think of this chord?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Don’t read this section  –  (jump down to the final sentence).  It is the most music theory I’ve delved into yet in these forty (40) blog posts.

I made sure to avoid naming this chord.  This chord can have a few names  –  it can be…

E 11 #5  (pronounced “E eleven sharp five”) – this is probably the most acceptable name of names.  (To be literally correct, the pitch “C” should be re-spelled as a B#, pronounced B sharp, but most non-Western Classical musicians would rather see, hear, think and speak “C” than “B#.”)

F# min 9 b5 in 3rd inversion (pronounced F sharp minor nine flat five in third inversion) – a very foolish name but accurate description.

An F# min 9 b5 in 3rd inversion would also be an F# half diminished 7 with an added Major 9, again in 3rd inversion.  Again, a foolish name but accurate description.

This chord  is also the verticalization of the upper tetrachord of the A melodic minor ascending scale functioning as a dominant in A minor with the added 3rd from its resolution to an A minor chord.  Blah blah.

In pitch-class set theory, the chord is the pitch class set, 0 2 4 5 8.  Its most compact arrangement is:  E F# G# A C, which really spells out the upper tetrachord of the A melodic minor scale with an an added natural 3 of the A minor scale.  (I hope you didn’t read this section.)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I want to explore other “best chords ever” in the future.  Do you have any best chords ever/favorite chords?

Posted on

I Had Almost Given Up On You – This Chord Didn’t Want To Change (Part 1), 14-Style Bliss

 

file0001884539324It’s December 14, 2012.  Friday, the 14th.  Not Friday the 13th and not 12/12/12/ or 12-12-12.  But there is still some symmetry to today’s date:

12 – 14 – 12

But by that way of thinking – with the month as 12 and the year as 12 (not 2012) – there are 31 days of this nice symmetry, a fact I’ll ignore after this sentence ends.  Except to sarcastically say (write) that today is probably a great day to get married or give birth and I wish those people a lot of 14-style bliss.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The title of this post, I Had Almost Given Up On You – This Chord Didn’t Want To Change, came to me a few minutes ago.  I was at a deposition once for the Expert from the opposing side.  She/He was talking too much (that’s always fun as too many words can get one in trouble – just look at the trouble I could cause myself  – the Expert who types/spouts/rants/posts too much!).  Back to our story….  In a very long ramble, the Expert went way beyond simply answering the question – she/he stated that it is unusual for a chord to last more than 8 measures/8 bars and that in one of her/his cases she/he looked “far and wide” for songs that featured chords this lengthy.

My immediate reaction was —-  do you listen to music?  There are a lot of songs, and famous songs, that stay on one chord for long times, more than 8-meaures even.  And there are great songs that have only one (1) chord.  (If a song has only one chord, it can be considered “chord-less.”  I’ve gotten into this before in other posts, so I’ll refrain from developing this discussion.)

Back at the deposition, these songs, that feature extended time on only one chord, came to my mind IMMEDIATELY that day.  And then many more songs came to mind.  This isn’t something for which a musicologist should need to search “far and wide.”

What follows are the songs that first came to my mind that feature significant static harmony.  What are your favorites?  (And let’s keep musical styles/worlds that do not have harmony, such as Indian classical music, out of the discussion as that could be considered, “cheating.”)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

One of the most famous songs that stays on one chord for a long time is the first and only song I know responsible for the name of a great band and a magazine.

Muddy Waters  –  Rollin’ Stone  (1st new chord occurs @ 2.05)

The Doors created one of those “must-know” ubiquitous guitar riffs with the opening of “Roadhouse Blues.” This guitar riff and song open the album, Morrison Hotel.  Morrison Hotel is the origin of the famous name, “Hard Rock Cafe.”

Doors  –  Roadhouse Blues  (1st new chord occurs @ 1.19)

One of Hendrix’ best known songs and longest recorded jams featured Steve Winwood on organ.  This is from Electric Ladyland.

Jimi Hendrix  –  Voodoo Chile  (1st new chord occurs @ 2.52)

A shorter blues, also from Hendrix’ Electric Ladyland.  This is the album where Hendrix demonstrated his great knowledge and love of the blues, and especially Chess Records blues.

Jimi Hendrix  –  Voodoo Child (Slight Return)  (1st new chord occurs @ 1.43)

Not a great Steppenwolf song, ironically, because it needed to change chords sooner.

Steppenwolf  –  Sookie, Sookie  (0.06-0.56 features only one chord)

Because it is Little Walter, the harmonica playing is superb, and the lyrics are either subtle or screaming at you, depending on your familiarity with blues.

Little Walter  –  Mellow Down Easy  (1st new chord occurs @ 1.20)

There are a lot of other songs that feature chords that last for more than 8 measures.  As one who is often CHORD-CENTRIC and has a bias towards thinking harmony before other aspects of music in my own composing, I think it’s a great idea to go to the other side.  To study music that is contrary to your thinking and preference.  This is also a great practice for life, in my opinion.  Do what is not normal, expected or comfortable and see where such an adventure will lead you. (That is a good topic for another post, or many other posts.)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Again, the songs:

Muddy Waters  –  Rollin’ Stone

Doors  –  Roadhouse Blues

Jimi Hendrix  –  Voodoo Chile

Jimi Hendrix  –  Voodoo Child (Slight Return)

Steppenwolf  –  Sookie, Sookie 

Little Walter  –  Mellow Down Easy