How was Elliott technically (music theory) innovative?

[Dylan Thomas]

Was Elliott innovative with his tunes?
If a music theory buff were to analyze elliott's music
would they be impressed with what he's theoretically doing?
Would Jazz dudes give him respect
for pushing the musical boundaries
and still keeping the music beautiful and catchy?

I dont know much about music theory
but I do wonder what he's doing technically.
One thing I do know is,
I cant ever tell what key his songs are in

[Ian]

Was Elliott innovative with his tunes?
If a music theory buff were to analyze elliott's music
would they be impressed with what he's theoretically doing?
Would Jazz dudes give him respect
for pushing the musical boundaries
and still keeping the music beautiful and catchy?

I dont know much about music theory
but I do wonder what he's doing technically.
One thing I do know is,
I cant ever tell what key his songs are in

Does impressing "jazz dudes" matter?
Does impressing a "music theory buff" matter?

Personally I love Elliott's chord sequences and melodies I think they're unusual yet completely in tune with the canon of brilliant pop and rock'n'roll music he fed off.

But seriously, the sooner you stop asking these questions the happier you'll be because all that matters is whether you like it or not.

[aural near]

from what i know (and its not much), yes. His music was very well thought out. He never really pushed the musical boundries, but he constantly pushed his own boundries. The chords he used were very unique yet fit the songs perfectly.

[Hummingbird]

i did music theory at school and then some at uni before i gave it up in favour of music which doesn't need analysing.

sometimes i analyse songs to see what the writer has done. but a lot of the time i consciously avoid doing that because it can somehow... take some of the magic out it?

i think that elliott figured out some of the compositional techniques employed by his favourite songwriters, and used them to help his own writing. and perhaps when he wrote something he liked the sound of, he'd think about it terms of harmonic theory - just to see what he'd 'done'.. er, it's hard to explain. but even coming from a classical background, i never think about it that way when i write stuff, but sometimes afterwards i'll go back and 'analyse'.

as for the keys of elliott's songs...
some are more ambiguous than others - elliott seemed to have such an intuitive grasp of what things worked, to the extent that he was able to write beautifully constructed songs without the necessity of a strong tonal centre.

some of elliott's music fits perfectly with harmonic theory (voice leading rules etc) and some of his music is distinctly against convention. but that of course shouldn't be the measure by which we judge songs.

[Dylan Thomas]

Does impressing "jazz dudes" matter?
Does impressing a "music theory buff" matter?

Personally I love Elliott's chord sequences and melodies I think they're unusual yet completely in tune with the canon of brilliant pop and rock'n'roll music he fed off.

But seriously, the sooner you stop asking these questions the happier you'll be because all that matters is whether you like it or not.



Are you seriously trying to tell me what questions I can ask?

Shut the fuck up douche bag.
Why are you trying to tell people
what the fuck they cant ask or shouldnt ask?
you sound like a fasscist prick.

None of it might matter to you,
but what doesnt matter to you,
means jack shit to my curiosity.

The question isnt about what sounds good idiot it's about the theory of what sounds good you obviously cant answer that....Next please.

[Dylan Thomas]

Thank you guys for the honest replys. :yes:

[Ally]

Are you seriously trying to tell me what questions I can ask?

Shut the fuck up douche bag.
Why are you trying to tell people
what the fuck they cant ask or shouldnt ask?
you sound like a fasscist prick.

None of it might matter to you,
but what doesnt matter to you,
means jack shit to my curiosity.

The question isnt about what sounds good idiot it's about the theory of what sounds good you obviously cant answer that....Next please.
uncalled for.

[defubar]

http://www.weaselcircus.com/funnypics/chillpill.jpg

[Dylan Thomas]

uncalled for.

look who's talking

[Ally]

look who's talking

you have forced me to say this...

i dont think that someone with a whole whopping 121 posts should be calling a respected member of this board for, oh, i dont know, YEARS, a douche bag....


yeah, i fucking said it.

[defubar]

http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/oh%20snap.jpg

[EvanCarmen]

These images = 10/10

[defubar]

http://thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/thumbs-up-matt.jpg

[Dylan Thomas]

you have forced me to say this...

i dont think that someone with a whole whopping 121 posts should be calling a respected member of this board for, oh, i dont know, YEARS, a douche bag....


yeah, i fucking said it.

Oh wow, or what?
Huh?
what the fuck
You're a douche bag for saying that.

I didnt start this I was just curious and someone's gotta come in and talk down like what I was curious about is stupid. Well I really dont care if you think it's stupid and if you want to act like a smart ass then that's what you get in return, I dont care who you are or how long you been anywhere if you dont respect you're not gonna get it.

[aural near]

aww just as this thread was going somewhere it suddenly got all pathetic. This is why I rarely come to addy any more.

can we hear more about Elliotts technical musicality please.

[The Sellout]

can we hear more about Elliotts technical musicality please.


okay!

i don't think Elliott pushed any musical boundries; but what he did do was something very unusual for the 90's - he looked back at bands that had already pushed said boundries (see: the beatles), and took it further. Because it was in the 90s, this might be percieved as pushing boundries; but in reality, i think he wont be remembered so much for his uniqueness, but more for making a bunch of kickass tunes.

I'm not saying he wasn't original though

[donnyidk]

elliott was damn clever musically, not innovative in the sense that he invented serialism no, but clever.

but mozart was the same - not so much creating new ideas as shaping ones already in existence.


but now lyrically, elliott was damn innovative. maybe he didn't think so himself, but you put his tricks beside the standard habits of rock/pop, the ideas and techniques he's got are way out there.

[JacksonAlbracht]

Elliott I don't think knew a lot of terminology but he understood harmony. There is some interview that's on sweetadeline -- I think it may have come from a guitar magazine... Anyways the quote is awesome. He's asked about his favorite chord progressions and he says he likes anything with a chromatic melody in the bassline (singin' caaaaathy's clooooown) and he goes on to say something to the effect of "chords have a way of changing where some notes only move a little bit but the important ones blah blah" Elliott ruled, I miss him.

[Failure's Art]

Well, he had a relatively good list of terminology that he used. At least he could describe what most of the unsual chords he used were. Considering he didn't take any courses (that I know of) studying music theory, he knew quite a bit. Obviously not as much as a Theory Teacher but he figured quite a bit out on his own. :)

[Ian]

Are you seriously trying to tell me what questions I can ask?

Shut the fuck up douche bag.
Why are you trying to tell people
what the fuck they cant ask or shouldnt ask?
you sound like a fasscist prick.

None of it might matter to you,
but what doesnt matter to you,
means jack shit to my curiosity.

The question isnt about what sounds good idiot it's about the theory of what sounds good you obviously cant answer that....Next please.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't ask them, I was advising that its best not to worry about these things.

[Ian]

uncalled for.

meh. Says more about him/her than I ever could
- e.g. not what sounds good, but the theory of what sounds good.

But at the same time, cheers.

[Ally]

Oh wow, or what?
Huh?
what the fuck
You're a douche bag for saying that.

I didnt start this I was just curious and someone's gotta come in and talk down like what I was curious about is stupid. Well I really dont care if you think it's stupid and if you want to act like a smart ass then that's what you get in return, I dont care who you are or how long you been anywhere if you dont respect you're not gonna get it.
your flippant use of the phrase " douche bag" makes me believe that you dont really believe that ian or myself are "douche bags", but that you are just projecting on to others what you think of yourself

[technofear]

Are you seriously trying to tell me what questions I can ask?

Shut the fuck up douche bag.
Why are you trying to tell people
what the fuck they cant ask or shouldnt ask?
you sound like a fasscist prick.

None of it might matter to you,
but what doesnt matter to you,
means jack shit to my curiosity.

The question isnt about what sounds good idiot it's about the theory of what sounds good you obviously cant answer that....Next please.

hahahaha. C'mon. It's Dylan Thomas.

[ilovemusic]

getting back to the questions-
Elliott Stillwatter Rotter wrote his music about things he thought about during the days, he read alot of music theory when he was a kid so that helped him develope quicker and to expand his mind in music, and he just plainly expieremented with chords he thought sounded cool and beats on the drums he liked...same for all the other instruments he played.


i dont have time to listen to all of these but i think they are all the same (pick one of the first three) i dont know if you have seen these before- http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elliott+songwriting

[brothertupelo]

i'm not a respected member of this board, and i don't have a lot of posts, and all that shit, but that doesn't change the fact that you're all a bunch of idiots.

[ilovemusic]

i'm not a respected member of this board, and i don't have a lot of posts, and all that shit, but that doesn't change the fact that you're all a bunch of idiots.

name calling is just going to get them more upset, its best to just try to get back on subject. they will learn sooner or later ;)

[placeholder86]

I think its prettyamazing that he taught himself and became so good, I heard an interview with one of his school friends who he learned the guitar with and he said that Elliott picked things up quickly and showed natural ability from the start so it just goes to show that maybe some people are just meant to be talented muscians!

[RyanNath]

At the beginning of the video of the music lesson Elliott walks back through the door of "the wall" Still doesnt show whats behind it though!

[JacksonAlbracht]

Well, he had a relatively good list of terminology that he used. At least he could describe what most of the unsual chords he used were. Considering he didn't take any courses (that I know of) studying music theory, he knew quite a bit. Obviously not as much as a Theory Teacher but he figured quite a bit out on his own. :)

Well... that quote I was trying to recall about important notes moving a lot and lesser important notes moving in smaller increments... that basically describes the concept of voice leading but without calling it that. Also, in that youtube songwriting video he is talking about Son of Sam and how one of the chords is, "like a D7 but has an E in it" which would be a D9 chord. So those are two instances of Elliott demonstrating a very clear understanding of theory principles but not really knowing what to call them. And obviously, it's the music not the terms that are important and I think this serves as a testiment to Elliott's natural abilities.

[JacksonAlbracht]

i'm not a respected member of this board, and i don't have a lot of posts, and all that shit, but that doesn't change the fact that you're all a bunch of idiots.

Well you have been here longer than I have. Why am I an idiot?

[The Sellout]

if we're going to go into technical ability, which is what you were asking about from the get-go, then i'll expand on my initial post.

He definately knew what he was doing; even if it was established beforehand

and lyrically - Damn Son. the fluidity of all his lines is technically, and personally amazing

[pazmush]

I agree

[pazmush]

look how long ive been here for and how few posts

[TempodiMorire]

look how long ive been here for and how few posts

what i wanna know, is how u got all that rep for 26 posts!! you must have said some great stuff:D

[:::::::::::::::::::::::::]

EVERYONE SUCKS!

[placeholder86]

lol

[placeholder86]

if we're going to go into technical ability, which is what you were asking about from the get-go, then i'll expand on my initial post.

He definately knew what he was doing; even if it was established beforehand

and lyrically - Damn Son. the fluidity of all his lines is technically, and personally amazing

clearly, no-one could just hit and hope and come out with that stuff!

:eyepop:

[FingerpickingFanatic]

You may find this interesting:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml

[McCoy]

He did a good job. If you want to break down a song into little bits* then you get an decent and changing rate in the change of chords, implied melodies, good use of inversions and dissonance and creative chord progressions and non-chord tones. I've been taking theory for as long as I've studied piano and have taken a college course in it as well. That being said I don't see anything particularly ground-breaking. Jazz dudes wouldn't be impressed from a purely theory standpoint (mostly because they never are, but he also doesn't change keys often enough to even approximate your average jazz tune) though I think they'd appreciate it aurally.

*Disclaimer: I hate breaking songs into little bits and I avoid it whenever possible, but a lot of times my guitar teacher does it with my songs and recommends other things I could do (which I never have done) to make it more theoretically interesting. I personally only do it when I'm trying to rip someone off. Recently I sort of analyzed and ripped off Angeles, which is where most of my post comes from. I've noticed these things in other songs too though.

[JacksonAlbracht]

Miles Davis loves the modulation in Everything Means Nothing To Me.

[Junk Bond Sam]

You may find this interesting:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml

If anything this thread was worth it for this.. :yes: thanks man.

As far as Elliott being innovative, I don’t necessarily think he came up with anything that hadn’t been done before, but the way he combined the things that had been done was completely amazing and beautiful sounding.

His chord voicings were pretty unique and the way he used them, with tension and release and dissonance and consonance.

I also think his vocal melodies are pretty innovative, they never sound generic. I think it was uh chris oriely who said something in the new moon liner notes about one of the songs that Elliott never really came to a rest on the tonic note for very long. So to me the melodies sound like they're in constant motion and have direction, like you're traveling forward with the song, I guess you could say.

I think Elliott was pretty innovative with traditional tools.

[brothertupelo]

Well you have been here longer than I have. Why am I an idiot?

it's probably due to genetics.

[brothertupelo]

yeah, i don't think you can point to any one thing he did as being groundbreaking musical theory. he just wrote great music. it's like an author doesn't have to invent new words to be a great writer. conversely, there are musicians who tried to push the envelope of musical theory with time signatures based on pi, odd new musical inventions, etc etc... but that shit's all concept, and no music.

[pianissimo]

One thing I do know is,
I cant ever tell what key his songs are in

Possibly one reason for this is that most music clearly comes "home," that is to say ends in such a way that the key is easily defined. Many of Elliott's songs don't end on the tonic chord, and sound a bit "suspended" - I know some of you have a better way to word this. The part of the song that sounds like "home," and thus defines the key for me, is often somewhere in the middle of the song.

Edit: oops, sorry Sam, I think I just restated something you said.

[MrGoldAndMrMud]

I'll take Elliott's originality rather than any musicians innovations any day. I can't think of one song of his that anyone could hear and honestly say "well this sounds just a bit too much like ..."

I saw some professor talk about a Beatles song once (don't remember which one) and he was pointing out things "see, here they did *insert one theorethical term or another*, but of course they weren't aware that that's what they did. It just sounded right to them."

That's what I think most "good" artists do.

[Adam981]

I'll take Elliott's originality rather than any musicians innovations any day. I can't think of one song of his that anyone could hear and honestly say "well this sounds just a bit too much like ..."

I saw some professor talk about a Beatles song once (don't remember which one) and he was pointing out things "see, here they did *insert one theorethical term or another*, but of course they weren't aware that that's what they did. It just sounded right to them."

That's what I think most "good" artists do.

I entirely agree, Elliott loved music and explored the instruments he played and in doing so stumbled upon some great tunes.

[brothertupelo]

I'll take Elliott's originality rather than any musicians innovations any day. I can't think of one song of his that anyone could hear and honestly say "well this sounds just a bit too much like ..."

I saw some professor talk about a Beatles song once (don't remember which one) and he was pointing out things "see, here they did *insert one theorethical term or another*, but of course they weren't aware that that's what they did. It just sounded right to them."

That's what I think most "good" artists do.

they may not have called it by the same term to them, but the beatles spent a lot of hours learning cover songs before they started writing their own songs, and they knew all about song structures. pretty much all good artists have a working knowledge of at least their field's music theory. not necessarily the terms, but definitely what works. elliott used a lot of stock melodic lines, often holding together some farther out chord or melody sequences. plus, didn't he know how to play rachmaninoff on the piano? you have to have picked up some music theory to be able to do that.

[bikes]

....I think it was uh chris oriely who said something in the new moon liner notes about one of the songs that Elliott never really came to a rest on the tonic note for very long....

Can you give me an example of this please?

[JacksonAlbracht]

it's probably due to genetics.

I really do not like having my intelligence insulted, even on the internet and with no reason. Let me just say: fuck you.

[MrGoldAndMrMud]

they may not have called it by the same term to them, but the beatles spent a lot of hours learning cover songs before they started writing their own songs, and they knew all about song structures. pretty much all good artists have a working knowledge of at least their field's music theory. not necessarily the terms, but definitely what works. elliott used a lot of stock melodic lines, often holding together some farther out chord or melody sequences. plus, didn't he know how to play rachmaninoff on the piano? you have to have picked up some music theory to be able to do that.

What I mean is that I think good song writers know these things instinctively. Not necessarily that they're born with it, so I'm sure it can be learned. I believe that most good songs are/were written without thinking in theoretical terms.

Someone with absolutely no theoretical knowledge can write amazing songs. I'm not sure it works the other way around though.

[donnyidk]

What I mean is that I think good song writers know these things instinctively. Not necessarily that they're born with it, so I'm sure it can be learned. I believe that most good songs are/were written without thinking in theoretical terms.

Someone with absolutely no theoretical knowledge can write amazing songs. I'm not sure it works the other way around though.

what?! no.

i've got to disagree. you're confusing linguistic theoretical knowledge - the ability to talk through the music theory - with the actual theoretical knowledge itself. sure most pop artists can't put words on what they're doing or why, but that doesn't mean they don't know why they're doing it. (it's the same for classical composers as well anyway, the actual knowledge to be gleaned from any words you'd use is so slim that everyone who writes music does it in a way beyond simple linguistic explanation)

what this makes me think of is a bunch of footballers playing football, and one of them - because he can put words on some of the actions his friends are doing - is regarded a better footballer, even though a) his friends may be clearly more skilled, and b) his words don't allow him any new insights or a profounder understanding of the sport, it just describes what's going on anyway, it just identifies things that have happened, nothing more.
this footballer can't guide or instruct new players, or if he can it's in a way so glib and superficial that they're going to reject his words in favour of the actual wordless action very early on in their education.

not all knowledge fits inside language, and just because it doesn't doesn't make it any less true or valid. football, music, driving, wine-tasting, whatever. and the experts of these things definitely aren't the guys that talk about them.

[Junk Bond Sam]

what?! no.

i've got to disagree. you're confusing linguistic theoretical knowledge - the ability to talk through the music theory - with the actual theoretical knowledge itself. sure most pop artists can't put words on what they're doing or why, but that doesn't mean they don't know why they're doing it. (it's the same for classical composers as well anyway, the actual knowledge to be gleaned from any words you'd use is so slim that everyone who writes music does it in a way beyond simple linguistic explanation)

what this makes me think of is a bunch of footballers playing football, and one of them - because he can put words on some of the actions his friends are doing - is regarded a better footballer, even though a) his friends may be clearly more skilled, and b) his words don't allow him any new insights or a profounder understanding of the sport, it just describes what's going on anyway, it just identifies things that have happened, nothing more.
this footballer can't guide or instruct new players, or if he can it's in a way so glib and superficial that they're going to reject his words in favour of the actual wordless action very early on in their education.

not all knowledge fits inside language, and just because it doesn't doesn't make it any less true or valid. football, music, driving, wine-tasting, whatever. and the experts of these things definitely aren't the guys that talk about them.

So what are you saying? You seem to disagree at first and then agree at the end of your statement.

[Junk Bond Sam]

Can you give me an example of this please?

just read the new moon liner notes, it's all in there.

[donnyidk]

So what are you saying? You seem to disagree at first and then agree at the end of your statement.

i'm saying true theoretical knowledge does not equal being able to talk about it - musicologists make crap composers.

someone like paul mccartney has great theoretical knowledge. can he explain what he's trying to do when he writes music? no, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the knowledge, just means he doesn't have the words (and anyway, the words used are so inadequate that having the words doesn't imply having the knowledge)

clearer?


problem with me here is, i have the knowledge but not the words ;)

[Junk Bond Sam]

yeah okay I get what you mean now.

[Fantasy Paradox]

Sweet Adeline.
Waltz 2.

The end.

[JacksonAlbracht]

I was thinking earlier: Between the Bars and Waltz #2 are in the same key, the first few notes of the verse melody are the same and they both feature the classic Elliott C major first inversion chord. Yet they are so different.

[MrGoldAndMrMud]

what?! no.

i've got to disagree. you're confusing linguistic theoretical knowledge - the ability to talk through the music theory - with the actual theoretical knowledge itself. sure most pop artists can't put words on what they're doing or why, but that doesn't mean they don't know why they're doing it. (it's the same for classical composers as well anyway, the actual knowledge to be gleaned from any words you'd use is so slim that everyone who writes music does it in a way beyond simple linguistic explanation)

what this makes me think of is a bunch of footballers playing football, and one of them - because he can put words on some of the actions his friends are doing - is regarded a better footballer, even though a) his friends may be clearly more skilled, and b) his words don't allow him any new insights or a profounder understanding of the sport, it just describes what's going on anyway, it just identifies things that have happened, nothing more.
this footballer can't guide or instruct new players, or if he can it's in a way so glib and superficial that they're going to reject his words in favour of the actual wordless action very early on in their education.

not all knowledge fits inside language, and just because it doesn't doesn't make it any less true or valid. football, music, driving, wine-tasting, whatever. and the experts of these things definitely aren't the guys that talk about them.

What?! Yes.

I think we're just looking differently at what it means to have theoretical knowledge. If someone writes very complicated songs but can't put words to what they're doing, I wouldn't say that they know theory. They go by their instinct of what works and what doesn't.

I mean, being able to put songwriting in words IS what the theory part is all about, isn't it?

Sure, good songwriters know what works, but not because they've studied theory.

I think it's more like language. Music is like the good songwriters mother tongue. Ask them about the grammatics of it and they probably can't answer you.

[Hummingbird]

I was thinking earlier: Between the Bars and Waltz #2 are in the same key, the first few notes of the verse melody are the same and they both feature the classic Elliott C major first inversion chord. Yet they are so different.

mmm...

in between the bars the C first inversion is used in downwards chromatic motion,
and in waltz #2 it's used in upwards chromatic motion.

[dannys]

i don't know much about music theory, but i'd say elliott was innovative for pop

i read somewhere he had piano lessons as a kid with a teacher who opened his mind to avant garde and/or atonal piano music, so i think that probalby stretched his mind quite a bit, and i assume his mind was able to absorb some advanced concepts at an early age...

i think that would help explain some of his more unusual (to me, for pop) song sections like the dissonant verse chords of "st ides heaven", maybe the bridge to "southern belle", the chords to "pretty mary k" (album version)...maybe that early influence at least partly explains his interest or ability in trying to reach for atypical ideas...

[Fantasy Paradox]

I really like the E voicing in Memory Lane. Its like 4x2400.

I just thought i'd say that.

[donnyidk]

What?! Yes.

I think we're just looking differently at what it means to have theoretical knowledge. If someone writes very complicated songs but can't put words to what they're doing, I wouldn't say that they know theory. They go by their instinct of what works and what doesn't.

I mean, being able to put songwriting in words IS what the theory part is all about, isn't it?

Sure, good songwriters know what works, but not because they've studied theory.

I think it's more like language. Music is like the good songwriters mother tongue. Ask them about the grammatics of it and they probably can't answer you.

oh ok, yeah. i think we (nearly) agree.

but saying it's from instinct and they've not studied theory, i wouldn't agree with without a bit of sorting out first.
because instinct implies immediate "bingo!" stuff, and that's not the case. a lot of guys would sit at the piano or guitar and work it out, and yeah it's instinct in the sense that they're not using any words to do it, but not in the sense that they're not thinking about it.

and they've studied theory definitely! i mean, learning to play a song and having that moment of " oh i see why he does that in the chorus!" - even though you're not explaining it in words, it's still an example of learning and studying theory isn't it?

but i'd definitely agree that music is like another language, and the inability to explain it in some other language (i.e. english) doesn't mean a thing about how well you know the first language.

[Fantasy Paradox]

And Southern Belle:

A tune in D (assuming the guitar is tuned normally, just for the sake of everything)

The progression is something like:

D Bb A G F A/C#

He doesn't play the full chords, but that's the jist of the progression.

Its in D, and Bb is in the key of Dm, so thats just a little modal thing. A and G are both in key. F is also from Dm, so more modal.

The riff between verses is essentially the same.

The bridge is:

Bb, C#, F, A, Bb, C#, D, A

We get into the bridge because the Bb is familiar, it doesn't sound weird. C# is in the key of D, and F is in the key of Dm. we get out of the bridge by sitting on A, because its the last chord of the verse as well.

The whole song is bscly a modal change.

[JacksonAlbracht]

mmm...

in between the bars the C first inversion is used in downwards chromatic motion,
and in waltz #2 it's used in upwards chromatic motion.

I didn't say that it was the same chord progression or function. However the melody in Between the Bars (people you've been before) from the Eb to F chord is very similar to the melody over Eb D65 F in Waltz #2 (singing Cathy's clown)

The point was not to say that the songs were similar, but rather that they share a lot of raw content that was shaped into two very different things. It seemed applicable in an Elliott Smith music theory thread.

[JacksonAlbracht]

And Southern Belle:

A tune in D (assuming the guitar is tuned normally, just for the sake of everything)

The progression is something like:

D Bb A G F A/C#

He doesn't play the full chords, but that's the jist of the progression.

Its in D, and Bb is in the key of Dm, so thats just a little modal thing. A and G are both in key. F is also from Dm, so more modal.

The riff between verses is essentially the same.

The bridge is:

Bb, C#, F, A, Bb, C#, D, A

We get into the bridge because the Bb is familiar, it doesn't sound weird. C# is in the key of D, and F is in the key of Dm. we get out of the bridge by sitting on A, because its the last chord of the verse as well.

The whole song is bscly a modal change.

I have never tried to learn this song. When you refer to C# is that a diminished chord?

[Hummingbird]

I didn't say that it was the same chord progression or function. However the melody in Between the Bars (people you've been before) from the Eb to F chord is very similar to the melody over Eb D65 F in Waltz #2 (singing Cathy's clown)

The point was not to say that the songs were similar, but rather that they share a lot of raw content that was shaped into two very different things. It seemed applicable in an Elliott Smith music theory thread.

i was agreeing with you :D

really, i was just observing how he used the raw material in different ways.
it is very much applicable :yes:

[Hummingbird]

i was going to ask the same question about southern belle.
but i haven't tried to learn it either :\

[JacksonAlbracht]

i was going to ask the same question about southern belle.
but i haven't tried to learn it either :\

You and me -- we're not so different!

Except you are a bird and I am a human and I can never have you. Oh well.


Sorry if I seemed snappy or even sassy. In any event, long live the Elliott style C6!!!!

[placeholder86]

listning to tomorrow tomorrow can give you a glimpse of elliott showing his virtuosity. On this song he pulls out all the stops, many classical techniques ( finger-picking and tremolo - like intro ) are employed and used well.

[MrGoldAndMrMud]

oh ok, yeah. i think we (nearly) agree.

but saying it's from instinct and they've not studied theory, i wouldn't agree with without a bit of sorting out first.
because instinct implies immediate "bingo!" stuff, and that's not the case. a lot of guys would sit at the piano or guitar and work it out, and yeah it's instinct in the sense that they're not using any words to do it, but not in the sense that they're not thinking about it.

and they've studied theory definitely! i mean, learning to play a song and having that moment of " oh i see why he does that in the chorus!" - even though you're not explaining it in words, it's still an example of learning and studying theory isn't it?

but i'd definitely agree that music is like another language, and the inability to explain it in some other language (i.e. english) doesn't mean a thing about how well you know the first language.

Yea I think where we don't exactly agree is on what it means to "know" theory. I know swedish because it's my first language. I haven't really studied it in the sense that I've been sitting with my nose in books, understanding why words go where they go. I really suck at grammar and up until a few years ago I wasn't sure about the most basic stuff.

I guess I'm comparing grammar and music theory. And if I understand you correctly, I think what you're saying is that to be a good songwriter you know the things that are discussed in the theory part, without knowing how to express it in words. Which I totally agree with.

[Dylan Thomas]

this has been really interesting for me
I've learned a few things at the same time.

I appreciate all the responses.

thank you

[brothertupelo]

I really do not like having my intelligence insulted, even on the internet and with no reason. Let me just say: fuck you.

relax, it was just a joke. nothing personal.


idiot.

[MedicalBravado]

I think Elliott did this and that because "It just sounded cool"

[JacksonAlbracht]

relax, it was just a joke. nothing personal.


idiot.

If your first insult post was as charming as this one we would be best friends.

[JacksonAlbracht]

I hear Bach wasn't very good with terms.....


Winkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

[Hummingbird]

:spit:


nah, he just got high and wrote shit that sounded cool

[Fantasy Paradox]

I'm fairly sure its a normal C# chord.

Its tuned down a whole step, btw.

[placeholder86]

Fuck Theory.

[thedoublehelix]

These images = 10/10

amen

[thedoublehelix]

Fuck Theory.

amen

and wow this post is kinda old

[brothertupelo]

If your first insult post was as charming as this one we would be best friends.

it was. you're just too dumb to get it.

[placeholder86]

it was a bump, born out of boredom

[CanopuS]

He wasn't. But he had his own sound and was emotionally honest.
Oh wait... bit late aren't I...

[brothertupelo]

he was pretty innovative. you don't hear a lot of people that fingerpick like him, and he was pretty creative with his chord progressions and sonic layering. first dozen times i heard his version of because, i nearly lost my mind.

[pcianciaruso]

hahah, best bump ever

anybody want to recreate the argument? ill be dylan thomas

YOURE ALL DOUCHE BAGS

[neoancient]

I want to cast my vote against the being afraid of knowledge.

I saw an interview with Mose Allison (excellent jazz/blues singer/pianist, quite minimalist style, hugely endearing vocals) where he talked about practice and exercise and how it's all what he had to go through just to be ready to accept and take advantage of inspiration whenever it hit, cos it doesn't hit so very often, and when it does it doesn't last long. It isn't the inspiration itself, but the practice reduces the distracting need to concentrate on what to do with his fingers and he can focus more completely on the important business of receiving inspiration.
He's talking about inspiration in terms of performing improvised jazz, but I think it can apply to composition too. In this case, I see theory like he sees practice. You can spend less time hunting for chords or how to bridge sections together so you get to complete more of what you're working on while still in an inspired state.

I'm fairly sure that Elliott knew at least as much theory as me (not a whole bunch, but a bit) -- he had an analytical personality and liked to read books, I'm sure he would have read about composition, plus he was very prolific at his peak and it takes so much longer if you don't know what you're doing. I don't for a minute believe that he couldn't identify a 9th chord -- that one in son of sam either isn't a 9th (doesn't quite sound like a classic 9th, which wouldn't have an octave sound between the 7th and 9th notes), or he was affecting ignorance so as not to alienate his audience.
That video has a quote of his I use a lot: slightly paraphrased "it would be a drag to battle with convention the whole time." -- like, it's ok to use well-used changes or even cliched lyrics, be imaginative with it but don't be afraid to use them if that's what you want. So, I don't think he redefined western music, or that he wanted to, it would have been a drag.

There are some things in heatmiser which were more ambitious in that direction (eg. bastard john, maybe everybody has it as well, they've got cycles of unresolved chords which I find quite interesting and very effective).

Also I wouldn't say that the beatles were music-theoretically groundbreaking either, in terms of harmony and melody they did the same things as other songwriters did, but better.

[JacksonAlbracht]

Fuck Theory.

Theory fucks you!

[placeholder86]

And you
And you and you
BA BA PA!!

[brothertupelo]

hahah, best bump ever

anybody want to recreate the argument? ill be dylan thomas

YOURE ALL DOUCHE BAGS

i consider this a valid argument