BassTractor

Certainly a sympathetic view, with some merit, but if he could just switch "song" and "composition", it would sound more realistic to me, also avoiding a bandwagon fallacy: Any composition in the top 40 is a great song because it speaks to the souls of a million strangers. That I can begrudgingly*) agree with. Any such song deserves respect for speaking to souls. *) thanks to @Franticsmurf for the perfect word

You are soooooo wrong! I can say that with great confidence, coz I knows a guy on the innerwebz who found a few notes on side 4 (Tantras: "Ritual") that were a repercussion of some notes on side 1 (Shrutis: "The Revealing Science of God"). Notes straight from Shrutis to Tantras, I tell ya! That's not crackers, that's compositional density, and, as said guy professed, people who can't appreciate that are lured by "the mating call of the short-time attention span". 😁 (Yeah, I love that guy. 😉 )

In several documentaries and interviews, the criticism was referred to, but not quantified further. Sadly I have no idea who these people are, and can't give an example, but Joni has certainly felt the need to defend herself, and this has been a theme throughout her career. Of course there are people who not only reckon they know better than Joni, but also do in fact know better. It's just how the world is, unless of course Joni is the exact one person who knows best, and for example knows better than Herbie Hancock (whom I suspect is that name musician) or Krzysztof Penderecki to name but a few. I'm not saying these two people are examples of people who are always right, but I can say Joni can't explain her chords to them whilst they can explain her chords to her, they can explain why the well-developed musical ear responds as it does, and how she could've reached her musical aims more efficiently with a changed chord here and there. I think this should not surprise anyone at all, but your wording seems to indicate it does surprise. Maybe I misunderstand. Yeah, but then again, I'm not aware of anyone having said Coyote is formally weak, or contains a chord that could've been exchanged with one that more firmly supported what she was aiming for. We don't wanna risk straw man argument territory, do we? In what I've seen of this, Joni defended herself against unknown claims of unknown scope, and instead of either relaxing or using formal arguments she used a highly flawed argument from authority. I was saddened twice, so to speak: both long-time, by seeing this has gone on for five decades, and by seeing her seemingly being oblivious to the actual content in the reaction she got from this musician. My point is that, while I basically agree with the formal side of it (not being that critical myself, that is), she'd probably be served by recognising she isn't perfect and does not need to be - especially since she's an artist with a large body of highly respected work. Of course it's her life experience and her choices, not mine. We can still love her music, as do I and apparently as do you. As a side note, if she were to decide to take teachings from say Herbie Hancock, this does not mean she will stop making Joni music or become one of the slick guys I dislike. Music theory doesn't work like that. Hancock would teach her to write Joni music even better, potentially giving even greater musical joy to the listener. As to your last sentence, no: highly gifted, highly educated people like for example Herbie Hancock do not need to change their concept of music theory. There is no need this type of people be zealously subsurvient the moment Joni's name is mentioned. She is not above everyone.

Aw, you elegantly, beautifully brought it back to "Free Hand" by Gentle Giant ("Just the Same" being its opening track). 😃 As to the talent show, I have no idea how scripted this was, but at any rate: you just don't kill a decent instrument (if that's what it was, and not a stage prop), and you don't treat people this way. Edit: Sorry! In my mind we were in the "Tried listening to Yes thread" - hence my last two posts.

Hm. I thought he started a bit weakly, but got a lot better when he came to "And achieve it all with music that came quickly from afar, Then taste the fruit of man recorded losing all against the hour And assessing points to nowhere, leading every single one".

Apparently I have a much more balanced view than you: I love Joni and hate Joni. 😃 Or, spoken in more serious terms, I love many of her songs and at the same time react with slight unease to some strictly amateuristic chord progressions where she displays an abundant lack of ability to understand why those choices are unmusical and what she could've done about them. Still love those songs though, as well as her sense of continuing musical lines so they never seem to stop, AFAIK rare in pop music, and I far prefer her meanderings to some overtly slick offerings by many formally educated musicians who just go through the motions without offering something new and exciting (you know the type: Juilliard educated studio musician types and the lot). So far so good. I have no essential beef with her music, own many of her albums and love them - even live recordings from '66. I won't be seen buying albums by the mentioned slick ones. At the same time I'm saddened by Joni's apparent need to defend her chord progressions (supposedly after criticism by unknown sources) by means of arguments from authority (Yeah, but <name musician> says my chords are "interesting" so these people who are negative should ... ), as if <name musician> wasn't just being kind and polite after shaking his head in disbelief. In this she also effectively tells her audience that if you can hear weaknesses she can't hear, then it's you who has the problem. Er ... no, Joni. We all do our best within the limitations of our resources, and so do you. Oh, and I'm with Leonard Smalls as to Ornette Coleman and people of his ilk.

Yeah, nice documentary. From memory it spawns: The Mamas & the Papas CSN (&Y) Joni The Band The Eagles The Monkees and probably many others. Twas quite the 'milieu' there and then, and I found the documentary well worth several looks and listens.

😄 Yeah, normally it's a strange suggestion, but happily @meterman already likes Roundabout. Sound Chaser ain't no Owner of a Lonely Heart (a song I lurve, so it's not about that), and I thought it spawns some of the same drive and intensity as Roundabout does.

Maybe so. To me it feels like that if you do like Roundabout, there must be other Yes songs for you. Have you heard "South Side of the Sky" - also from "Fragile"? Another possibility, as @ezbass says, might be "Siberian Khatru" off "Close to the Edge", and I feel a third one possibly could be "Sound Chaser" off "Relayer". I was wondering whether you've heard their songs many or few times, coz I gather there's a difference. Me, I started my Yes career listening to "Yes" and "Time and a Word" and not buying them, stating to the startled girl behind the counter that the music was nice, but "they sing too much." 😄

But how are you gonna vacuum clean a VST for mite, eh? Eh? BTW, I "played" the viola da gamba for two or three years during my youth, and lurved the instrument. Great thread, zbd!

Yeah, but he had a hard time not hitting all eight strings at the same time with his bow! 😉

Gladwell initially seemed blissfully simplistic (see how I avoided "ignorant"? 😉 ), and later has modified and softened the notion, but that doesn't mean that the entire thought is without any value. Not that we needed Gladwell to tell us that you need a number of hours of focussed, efficient practising in music, arts, sports etc, but you do need a number of hours ... If that be 5,000 or 15,000 hours to me is of less importance, as the point remains: put in the hours. To me, the core seems to be how fast the brain can set aside sections for certain tasks and use those sections at speed. I know that the knowledge is out there, but have forgotten what I've read. At any rate: your fingers need to put in the hours and so does your brain. Oh, and define what "mastery" is. I've seen hard working people finish music college after six years and coming out on wildly different levels of proficiency and the ability to tell something interesting about the pieces they played. Just for fun, I put down some rough typical numbers as I've seen them in Holland, with the Dutch system of teaching at music colleges: 3,000 h - beginner to music college (my most efficient pupil did this in 1,750 hours; others will need a lot more and some even less) 5,000 h - music college first three years (theory and piano taking a lot of time too) 7,000 h - music college last three years -------- 15,000 h - roughly and typically

This is far from the first time you post exactly this, or very similar stuff. Now please share with us your advanced thoughts about the concept the thread is about.

You've reached another low with this, Jack. Question is how low you can get, and that's a serious question coz I honestly can't see what I'm looking at. Is it a regular Drop D so to speak? Or something special? Nice one, at any rate.

To be mind-numbingly pedantic, actually it is a hole. A sock is a planar surface with a hole, not entirely dissimilar to a holed flower, with a number of long, narrow leaves, but in the case of the sock the "leaves" are bent in such a fashion that their sides and ends meet neatly, thus providing sometimes ample space for your feet without there being a planar-surfaceless bit where your toes tend to be. The knitted wool is there to keep the "leaves" together. You don't want surprises when visiting Her Majesty and she goes: "In our house we ask all guests to take off their shoes; it's for the carpet, see?" 😉

Hm. I was kinda positive/lukewarm, but it's spreading too much now. Yesterday's Ivankatar was the last drop. 😉

BTW, and in all seriousness this time, I've had quite some bass players play my Squiers, StingRays and Bongos, and they unanimously were very enthusiastic about the Squiers - probably because they were pleasantly surprised. At any rate: never any scoffing. Personally, as a keyboard player I've always tried to coerce good sound out of cheap gear, whilst at the same time advising pupils to get better gear, as they could not expect themselves to be able to coerce likewise. IME the same goes for string and wind instruments (not being a pro in this, mind).

OK then, I'll come out, put my head on the block and admit I'm one of those people. I scoff at someone like me. BTW, thanks for tomorrow's Wordle word to guess.

Aye, and in any style IMHO including jazz, even though I love jazz. I suspect this is a popular opinion and thus off-topic, but I hear way too many standard licks and runs that have very little to do with the essence of the composition, runs that could be used (and sadly are used) in just about any piece. Slight exaggeration, but still. My jazz teachers stressed the necessity to build up a wide range of standard runs in every key, as a library of sorts. Er ... no. No effin' way.

Ha! Good call. I suppressed mentioning him for the sake of attempted brevity. See below. Must say the same, without the word "always". I loved the ideas, liked the music initially, but that soon faded - giving me thoughts about lacking meat to chew on. This is mid 80s, so things may have changed since. Similarly with Henryk Górecki's Symphony no. 3 "of Sorrowful Songs", which I loved right away but which soon became one negative answer to the question: "Can you compose emptiness and still write a good composition?". This thread has led my thoughts to areas where brevity becomes an impossibility, but I'll attempt it anyway: Why do I love really old blues and love BB King, but can't listen to Freddie King? Why do I love honky tonk and some C&W/Country rock (some Carrie Underwood, Dixie Chicks, Lady A, Little Big Town etc.) whilst strongly disliking most of the styles? I think part of the answer is in having sensitivities for certain aspects of the songs, and another part, with certainty, is that I don't expect Mozart's 42nd symphony from Taylor Swift. Taste? Has to do with it, I think, but to me seems overrated. One thing I do know: today I might "need" to hear Taylor Swift, and tomorrow it might be Iannis Xenakis. A friend of mine exclusively listens to the Grateful Dead. I like them, but that sounds like a prison to me.

Over an hour of Steve Reich and over an hour of Karlheinz Stockhausen? You just made me realise they require much less commitment from me than an hour of ClassicFM. So really, ClassicFM is for the committed elite. Demn elitists! 😄

Coincidentally, a music producer on tv just referred producer, songwriter and singer Espen Lind's comment about pop music: "Good pop music is like a sausage: it tastes lovely, but you prefer not knowing what's inside..." 😄

Ah, but there are several aspects in this. I do like that they exist and that they provide a service to people like me mom who has it on the whole day. However, I can't listen to it myself. Also, the elitist vs populist thing is another aspect altogether again, and sadly often has a lot to do with how people wish to place themselves in their social circles and what they want to communicate about it to others. From a personal perspective, I've loved electronic classical music and the like since I was a kid, and have been met with distrust and accusations for six decades because of it: I can't possibly love that noise, so I must have ulterior motives. Right. That's six decades of time and money spent at lying. I'm almost impressed with myself for having the stamina! 😄

Ah. Don't know those and will check them out. Thanks for mentioning them. I do appreciate some of Vivaldi's music, mind, like some of those string concertos for everything between violins, lutes, celli and mandolins, and my use of the word "hack" was not entirely scientific. That broad brush was about Vivaldi's tendency to set up a structure with some depth where, as soon as he got in trouble he'd run back to the main key at ticket-inducing illegal speed. In basically identical circumstances, Bach would come up with his trademark physics-defying magic, never hurrying back to safe ground. Not entirely unrelated, I'm reminded of an earlier thread on BC where people said things along the lines of "Derek Bailey can't play and just plays random emperor's-new-clothes notes". I'm sure you defended him, as did I. The point is: Derek Bailey could play everything, and he mastered every style of jazz. He just didn't play that on record or during gigs, coz that was not Derek Bailey music. Like Bach was on another level than Vivaldi was, Bailey was on another level than most others are. BTW, ClassicFM, as mentioned by @zbd1960 to me is evidence for the notion that my stating Bach was one of the greatest composers still is an unpopular opinion - though of course not unpopular amongst classical musicians, who are in a minority. ClassicFM never plays Bach's more demanding pieces, and never plays complete works. One could well joke a little and say that ClassicFM is classical music for people who hate classical music. 😃 Another unpopular opinion, I gather. 😃

Yeah, and I've never understood Bach's reported enthusiasm. Then again, we don't know the details and are also looking at this from the comfort of centuries of further development as well as hindsight overview. One of Bach's sons reported how Bach had seen or heard a fugue theme and had immediately commented on all the structural implications for the fugue of said theme (a story I have no trouble believing after having experienced the same from a good teacher). I'd expect Bach to be quite able to look through the weaknesses in Vivaldi's structures, so can only assume he was enthusiastic about certain aspects of Vivaldi's music ... ... or was just happy Vivaldi was no Telemann! 😄