Re: Random Thread
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:45 pm
That Serbian one!
Well I never! I can't seem to find a more traditional recording of the same to compare it with. Could you go into greater detail as to what makes the music, in particular the harmony, anglicised? The instrumentation I can half-hear (I hear marching band drumming which doesn't seem something that would have been found (at least not a great deal) in the Highlands prior to the mid 18th century at the earliest)jmcd wrote:Salmoneus wrote:Which is more amusing because the "traditional" version is so, so Anglicised that it's hilarious. The harmony and the orchestration and the whole general style are classical music via early 20th century England music halls, with a bit of "what hippies in the sixties thought celtic music was like" thrown in. I suspect the melody has been rewritten from the original too, but that was probably done by an earlier generation.jmcd wrote:On a smilar note, here's a traditional Gaelic song followed by an unrecognisable instrumental cover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5ZxBSNjYU.Salmoneus wrote:A huge part of how music sounds is down to instrumentation. Take a classical piece and play it with a mediaeval ensemble (shawms, crumhorns, tabors etc) and it'll sound mediaeval. Or mediaeval(ish), at least. Contariwise, when I was watching this year's Screenwipe, it took me a moment to realise that the classical piece they were playing in between the bits of Satie was actually a song by David Bowie, only reorchestrated.
I wrote:I have a new blog post. Sometimes I wonder if I should just give up on blogging, given that I rarely post anything anyway.
See Dream Angus which, when I play it on my cello with a dronal D above it, sounds like something out of Mongolia/Tuva. It's also clearly in D, but ends on the dominant A, as you say.Salmoneus wrote:But a bigger giveaway: there's harmony. Traditional Scottish songs (like English ones for the most part) were sung unaccompanied; if there was accompaniment, it would be in the form of extended drone notes. Furthermore, traditional Scottish music was mostly pentatonic, with some Hebridean music being only tetratonic (i.e. with four notes allowed in the scale, compared to our seven). And even if it was heptatonic, it was still modal in construction, rather than adopting the diatonic harmonies that came out of classical music: the harmonic progressions would all be very different, because the chords built on non-diatonic scales are different - and even many of the basic assumptions don't always hold true (a lot of old Scottish songs end on the dominant, for instance, rather than on the tonic).
Surviving traditional Sami music is unaccompanied - just a solo singer, or in the past a solo melodic instrument. It's known that drums used to be used, but they were regarded as heretical and exterminated.jmcd wrote: Are there also drones in, say, Sami music?
Sami music does seem to be pentatonic.
But then again I could be just grasping at straws with this hypothesis.
Braver persons than myself may wish at this point to draw parallels with similar "genuinely primitive" aspects of human language, such as the widespread occurrence of the five-vowel system.Salmoneus wrote:Sami music is indeed pentatonic. However, everything is pentatonic. The pentatonic is so widespread that it's widely assumed to be genuinely primitive - in the sense either of it having developed incredibly early and spread everywhere, or else being inherent to human minds and/or physics and naturally rediscovered time and time again.
Similarly, development in synthesizers - which has been quite noticeable since the 80s - is mostly about sounding like existing things, these days.jmcd wrote:In the case of Autotune, the technology is simply a matter of disguise
T R A N S C E N D E N T A L B L A C K M E T A LRaphael wrote:Something random that I've been thinking about for a while:
Aren't we long overdue for a fundamentally new music style? I've got the impression that the major music styles on offer have basically stayed the same since the 1990s, except that Techno is less popular than it was back then. I mean, I'm a bald early middle aged guy now, and if I had started having kids at a fairly young age, I could have teenaged kids now - and yet today's teenagers seem to listen to the same basic music styles that people my age listened to when I was a teenager. (Though not myself - my music tastes were always a bit old fashioned for someone of my generation.) Shouldn't today's teenagers listen to something much more different, something that barely sounds like music to me?
Those kids these days, with their weird music that actually sounds like music, and not like unsufferable noise as it's supposed to!
see also: ulytauSalmoneus wrote:Regarding how much re-arrangement changes the style of the piece: here's Beethoven played with one sort of ensemble from popular late 20th century music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6rBK0BqL2w
Naaa, back then older and younger people both listened popular music, they just listened to different styles. The older generation saw that kind of music as the start of the world going to hell in a handbasket, while today they don't get as exercised about what the youngsters are listening to - which is what this thread is about. One thought is that so many things have already been tried out since the 1960s, that it's simply very difficult to upset then oldsters - they've seen Punk, Heavy Metal, Rap, HipHop, Disco, and Modern Talking; what could still shock them?Chuma wrote: Plus, we may just have more older people listening to popular music, whereas back in the mid-1900s it was more of a youth culture thing.
Indeed. There's nothing my kids could listen to that would result in more than a passing shrug from me - in fact, most of the traditional "parents'll hate this" music is well stocked in my CD collection (the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course :)).hwhatting wrote:what could still shock them?
Hey! I'm a 17-year-old CD owner and proud of it!jal wrote:the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course
Really? So how much National Socialist black metal and White Power rap is in your collection?jal wrote:Indeed. There's nothing my kids could listen to that would result in more than a passing shrug from me - in fact, most of the traditional "parents'll hate this" music is well stocked in my CD collection (the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course ).hwhatting wrote:what could still shock them?
Are they <i>musically</i> objectionable, though, or is it just the lyrics that you have a problem with? I mean, musicians can say or do all sorts of things that are offensive, but that doesn't make their music shocking. If [insert bland conventional musician here] decided to play guitar using the teeth of a woman he murdered as a plectrum, people would be shocked, and might not buy the album... but that wouldn't mean that they were musically shocking!linguoboy wrote:Really? So how much National Socialist black metal and White Power rap is in your collection?jal wrote:Indeed. There's nothing my kids could listen to that would result in more than a passing shrug from me - in fact, most of the traditional "parents'll hate this" music is well stocked in my CD collection (the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course ).hwhatting wrote:what could still shock them?
None. I was talking, in the spirit of the subject of this thread, about music styles. I didn't say my kids can't do anything to shock me (or infuriate me).linguoboy wrote:Really? So how much National Socialist black metal and White Power rap is in your collection?
this is what my parents thought but they are also of the opinion that most electronic music isn't musicjal wrote:Indeed. There's nothing my kids could listen to that would result in more than a passing shrug from me - in fact, most of the traditional "parents'll hate this" music is well stocked in my CD collection (the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course ).hwhatting wrote:what could still shock them?
JAL
Peter Buck opined that "the purpose of rock and roll is to annoy parents". Even if you generalise from "rock and roll" to "popular music", it doesn't seem possible to "annoy" much nowadays, except with mere volume.jal wrote:Indeed. There's nothing my kids could listen to that would result in more than a passing shrug from me - in fact, most of the traditional "parents'll hate this" music is well stocked in my CD collection (the fact that I have physical CDs makes me old, of course ).hwhatting wrote:what could still shock them?
Hahaha, what a bullshit. That's all so mainstreamy...احمکي ارش-ھجن wrote:https://www.maniacmusic.net/home/blog/6 ... ng-in-2016
So that is the sole purpose of dubstep?alice wrote: Peter Buck opined that "the purpose of rock and roll is to annoy parents". Even if you generalise from "rock and roll" to "popular music", it doesn't seem possible to "annoy" much nowadays, except with mere volume.