I was about to bring up Sir Paul as well.

{quote]Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history.[1] More than 2,200 artists have covered his Beatles song "Yesterday", more than any other song in history. Wings' 1977 release "Mull of Kintyre", is one of the all-time best-selling singles in the UK. McCartney has written or co-written 32 songs that have reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, and as of 2012 he has sold over 15.5 million RIAA-certified units in the United States.[/quote]
wikipedia

Irving Berlin was no slouch either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
And was quite a bit less knowledgeable the Paul McCartney

Well, the pop and rock landscape is littered with people who have no formal training and yet figure out their own approach to melody, harmony, and rhythm (including learning or discovering scales, modes in some cases, and learning a wide palette of chords in some cases as well).

Some of the most striking chord progressions and sweet turns of melody that I've heard have been in both Celtic and Andean folk music, and this wasn't stuff that was formulated at universities. Indian traditional music is also heavy on spontaneous improvisation and can be quite ingenious.

Ravi Shankar said this:

"In terms of aesthetics, a raga is the projection of the artist's inner spirit, a manifestation of his most profound sentiments and sensibilities brought forth through tones and melodies. The musician must breath life into each raga as he unfolds and expands it. As much as 90 percent of Indian music may be improvised and because so very much depends on understanding the spirit and nuances of the art, the relationship between the artist and his guru is the keystone of this ancient tradition. From the beginning, the aspiring musician requires special and individual attention to bring him to the moment of artistic mastery. The unique aura of a raga (one might say its "soul") is its spiritual quality and manner of expression, and this cannot be learned from any book.

It is only after many long and extensive years of "sadhana" (dedicated practice and discipline) under the guidance of one's guru and his blessings, that the artist is empowered to put "prana" (the breath of life) into a raga. This is accomplished by employing the secrets imparted by one's teacher such as the use of "shrutis" (microtones other than the 12 semitones in an octave, Indian music using smaller intervals than Western music: 22 within an octave): "gamakas" (special varieties of glissando which connect one note to the other), and "andolan" (a sway - but not a vibrato). The result is that each note pulsates with life and the raga becomes vibrant and incandescent."

He is clearly talking about a student/teacher relationship, but it doesn't sound like one in which formulas are memorized, as in Western academic theory. This seems more like a "rubbing off" kind of process, after which the student, through an enormous amount of practice, is able to draw upon his or her own spontaneous insights and natural understandings in order to begin to create new works in the raga form.

There are a lot of rubbish being written here. As always, the myth of the "inspiration", and the inevitable Mozart come to the arena. Those who talk about Mozart seem to know nothing about him. First: he was a genious, and geniality is not what we are talking about here. Second: His father was himself a composer, and he was his first teacher. Back then, children were taught everything at the same time. He was taught the keyboard, he was taught notation, improvisation and also rules of composition.
Regarding Paul McCartney, I just quote a small conversation between Ravel and Gershwin. Gershwin came to France to study composition, and went to ask Ravel to teach him. Ravel asked him how much did he earned making music. When Gershwin told him how much, Ravel replied: "It's me who should take lessons from you, not the opposite". I believe that nobody will place Gershwin above Ravel in terms of compositional and musical knowledge. This is to those who measure music in terms of money.
Regarding the ragas, you should see what George Harrison himself, (which was a great fried of Ravi Shankar) told about that. The indian musicians start to be taught in early ages, and ony the most gifted proceed, and mastering the indian music is a task for a lifetime. Sure it is improvised. Bach also improvised, as well as the vast majority of musicians in the baroque. But the improvisation, quoting a teacher of mine "is what we study the most". Improvising is not an anything goes art - one has to master the basis of that kind of music to improvise well, being it jazz, folk, indian or balinese. In western music, improvisation was mainly banned, but in the 18th century it was still common. Mozart himself was a master of improvisation - his piano concerto cadences were never written, because he improvised them in the moment, every time.
So, to resume, no matter what is your goal, you have to study to master your art, or else you are just taking a bet as if you were playing in the lottery.
Last edited by fmr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hi Fernando,
at that time, discussions about temperaments were quite usual among musicians.
Kirnberger e. g. developped an equal temperament, but in the same time wrote that such a thing isn't useful, since all keys sound same...
Also, different instruments were tuned in different ways according to the acoustic properties (this is quite important if one works with different harpsichords, clavichords etc.
p.s. you're right, you didn't say Bach was "against" modes...
in fact, Mattheson (who was the first to write a collection of pieces in every "key" - that is 24 pieces) was and some of Bach's sons mentioned modality in not a very nice way.




A usual name for g-minor in baroque was "dorius transpositus" (see Mattheson, etc)
But: the "dorian" signature has not a big importance in reality:
first, "modern" minor was seen rather as a new version of the dorian (see the title in the WTC: re-mi-fa (for minor)
second, the standardized signatures only developped at that time.
There is an aria in g-minor of Bach, where he wrote the first line with one b, the following ones with two b-s.
Ab major sometimes is used as if it would be Lydian (3 b-s, e. g. in "Ach, Golgatha").
In Matthesons 24 pieces, the signatures are totally pragmatic; C#-major with 6#; d-minor without b, etc.

p.s. thanks for your comment on the "Mozart-bullshit".
It's really easy to read a book about Mozart and find out that he - as the child of one of that times leading musical pedagogues - not only was absolutely super-trained in theory, but also that he hated composers with lacking skills...

Best regards,
AD

So exactly how did Mozart compose? Enlighten us, please. What was in his mind as he wrote music? You seem to know a lot about him.

Did you not read the quote I included from Shankar? He said "this isn't something you can learn from a book". And he used the word "spiritual" several times.

I'm sorry, that just isn't what people encounter in academic music training in the West, and I know because I've studied it at university too.

And as far as McCartney's greatness coming down to money, that's silly. He wasn't rich during the time he wrote most of his best music, that came later.

If you think it's somehow easy to write truly great and memorable popular music, you are deluding yourself.

But I'll be glad to hear your song that is every bit as good as Hey Jude, which I assume you can dash off without much effort, because of your extensive training.

I'm really not interested in any dissonant or experimental academic music you have, though. Doesn't interest or impress me at all, and it simply doesn't matter to me that you have a theory degree if that's what you use it for. Nor do I think it will ever mean much to most other people.

Mozart didn't left anythink written about it, nor did he ever got pupils (this AFAIK), so, about the way he composed, I can oly imagine. Being someone who was playing by heart since very young age, and with a prodigious memory, he could easily assemble "variations" of well known formulas, and create something new. Was everything he wrote genial? I personally don't think so. Actually, the works I like and respect more are the ones he wrote in his maturity, after haviong travelled extensively and have studying more. Because he studied, and played extensively, and was constantly developing his skills. That's why his technique (compositional technique) evolved.


Do you "really" think that being "spiritual" is all it takes to do the ragas? Shankar told, in your own words "this isn't something you can learn from a book". He didn't say it's something he didn't need to learn... just that it can't be learned from a book, and I easily understand why: Because it's a complete cultural inheritage that the musician has to learn. But the musician HAS TO LEARN, just learns from someone else. It was like that that Bach and all the other great masters were taught (in Bach's case by copying the manuscripts from the old masters), and it was the same way that Mozart was taught too, in this case beginning by his father. Simply, there are people who learn more, better and faster.
Also, any music needs to be spiritual, otherwise it would be an empty exercize (that's what I believe, at least).



I will not comment the majority of what you told, because these are senseless words, that just want to attack. I am deeply sorry you found your training useless. But remember that the University biggest lesson is not to teach you something, rather to teach you how to investigate and where to investigate in order to learn something. If you cannot reach the knowledge on your own, then you are lost, no matter what.
Regarding what I think of McCartney (which is far from being bad or prejudicious) I will keep that to myself, because it's completely off topic. I just would like to remind you that, using your example, the author of "Happy Birthday" sould be the greatest composer ever existed, because that's the most played and covered music ever. Also, Franz Xaver Gruber should be a great composer too, because Silent Night is a piece of geniality.
Just to finish, let's make a parallel with literature. The basic skills needed for writing a novel are to know spelling, grammar and language. A good and solid cultural background is good and helpfull, as well as deep knowledge on the field one is going to write about, although perhaps not completely necessary. Having something to say is also a must, of course. Now, if someone comes to you and ask about the validity of collecting the preferred sentences of some great books and concatenate them, because he/she has little knowledge of grammar and spelling, what would you answer?

So much conjecture going on in this thread. One popular song in a lifetime does not a song writer make no matter how long that life is or how popular the song is.

Yes, Paul McCartney was a great natural who nurtured his abilities. Which is not the case with many naturals because they fail to force themselves to go beyond their initial skill sets. Not everyone is a natural some people require a little or a lot more education to develop abilities. However, too much education can be just as bad as it stifles creativity. There has to be balance between creativity and acquiring knowledge/physical ability and developing confidence in ones own creative (not scored on paper) pursuits.

I take the whole "Only the master can improvise" with a grain of salt. Rock and Roll is all about "Play it like it is" not "How I imagine it to be" If you are a cover artist or a touring artist with a label deal the public has a level of expectation regarding the live representation of the song. The more a rocker or pop act "Sounds like the record" the greater draw they have. Which is why in part for the reason of acquiring more gear. The close you sound to the record the more money you'll make playing covers.

In jazz and blues we do things a little differently. Blues for the public still requires that you know and can play the song as performed by "an artist" because there can be many interpretations on record. Bobby Blue Bland does not play "Stormy Monday" the same as the Allman Brothers or T-Bone Walker. In blues you are expected to improvise as in jazz. Improvisation can be a lead in to composition as you are forging different rhythmic and melodic approaches to the same progression. The form gives one a nice pocket so that your co musicians or even you can follow along with.

I reject the whole Ravi Shankar thing. One can improvise at any stage of development. I've studied improvisation in class and on the stage. I've taught students to be improvisers to be able to think on their feet and while there is muscle memory to be learned and standards to apply they were expected to play "straight" and improvised. It doesn't take a lifetime you don't have to be a master. The reason why many study music is the pursuit of personal expression. Improvising is just that.

Re "Hey Jude"
I wrote a lot of songs like that back in the 70's. Mainly because it was one of the first songs I'd ever learned. When you remove the backdrop of too much information which is what technology has dropped on our lap you free your mind for internal pursuits. Chasing plugins, figuring out daws, learning songs are distractions just like all other distractions which detract from not add to the creative writing process. Now, I'm guilty of all the above myself. And I do on occasion try to justify "just the right sound" to make things happen. However and moreover people don't spend enough time critically about song structure and content because they are always chasing for the new cure all that will "fix" it all in the end. And usually when they find it they have removed themselves so much from the original point of inspiration that the moment is lost.

I didn't even used to use scales I used to play what sounded good by ear. A friend used to tell me if you have a foundation for understanding then you must stand o n it and you can use creativity.

You have to know the rules in order to break them is a time honored cliche. Playing scales and scalar patterns help you to develop muscle memory. Muscle memory means you don't have to think as hard to perform a passage. It's already under your fingers. When you listen to music and try to learn songs these patterns surface again although be it in a slightly less "clinical" representation as the performer has changed the dynamics and rhythm.

The same holds true for writing. If you are not born super creative with amazing relative and perfect pitch you can use muscle memory and dynamics to create melodies without banging your head against the wall and it will open possibilities that you may have not considered in your writing adventures previous to having muscle memory.

Muscle memory builds on muscle memory. If you play in a certain style gathering the inflections of that style they stick with you. At a certain point everything you do no matter how well you do it may bore the heck out of you or it will infuse the style that you learn to accept it as "This is my sound, this is who/how I am"

I remember being a young rocker. I thought I had it all down. Ny 20 I was playing paying gigs regularly with a great deal of cred. One day I met a bluegrass player who shook my foundation. He played all the same notes and chords I did but played them in a way I couldn't emulate to save my life. It took me down a notch and made me rethink my approach in general. I never did become a bluegrass player but it made me look harder at drilling down the basics before trying to infuse my "Persona" into my playing. As a result it was much easier for me to mimic other "styles" and come up with my own ideas from a wider range of music.

Re: McCartney

If it's all about his learning and education, why did he have less popular success further into his career? I mean, at this point he, Elton, Billy Joel, and Phil Collins should do nothing but poop out top ten hits every other weekend? So the less successful, less interesting material they are instead releasing is just a smokescreen, right? So people will beg them to play the old hits instead, thus saving on practice time for the band?

Nah.

Learning is important. Some study to learn. Some are surrounded by music, and simply absorb it. Some are savants, and are just born with it. But no matter how they learn and build their abilities and repertoire, they are still just vessels. The inspiration is typically both internal AND external. It's quite possible to lose that external element and find you're no longer "plugged in". (I mean you, Carlos Santana.)

Because he was no longer young. McCartney actually produced a great number of songs and had several hits with them after the Beatles and still produces great songs today. The problem is no one is listening. The only time they do listen is when he pulls an old favorite out of his hat. That's not a commentary on his writing ability or performing ability simply a societal one.

Which takes us to irrelevance of success as a measure of quality in music. He probably writes as good music now as he did with the Beatles (in average terms). He probably makes it even better, because he developed his skills. But he is no longer "a Beatle", therefore, the vast majority of people don't care what he does. I think the last successful album was "Give My Regards to Broad Street" where there are some great songs, but I bet the vast majority of people who quotes "Hey Jude" or "Yesterday" don't know this album. And an old favourite of mine, and IMO one of his best is the Rupert Bear song "We All Stand Together".

just in case you are a lizard asking,(what with all this talk of beetles and all) you have scales because its similar to as we humans have skin, without scales you wouldnt look very bright and not survive very long, I mean imagine a human with no skin, if he fell in some salt or vinegar the pain would be unbearable so think yourself lucky,what a stupid question, you have scales because without them you would die silly ,
I mean if mr chameleon had no scales he wouldnt be able to turn invisible and catch all the sweaty insects they like to mush on, and hide from its predators, so do you see my point I am trying to make

No, I'm not talking about charts, sales, or success.

This isn't about society, it's about a guy who pretty much perfected the ability to write pop songs, and lost that ability as he aged. He's pursued other styles, instrumentation, and outlets, but even his post Beatles projects showed a gradual decline in appeal and content. He grew up. Things weren't as shiny, new, and constantly analyzed. His perspectives changed, and his hormones subsided. It's not a bad thing, it's life!

Want a better example? Let's talk about when Metallica ran out of things to be angry about.

Or maybe we can talk about Ani Difranco finally settling down, and becoming comfortable with herself.

We all have things that drive us to create, and fuel the music we make. Sometimes we keep going, but lose that muse. And no amount of education, analysis, or repertoire allows us to fake it. I try though... I try

This.