Posts Tagged pop

Numerical Notation: A Minor Threat

Minor_Threat_-_Out_of_Step Hoo boy. Year of the Sheep, right? Some people only seem to notice when it’s a “cool” animal like a dragon or a snake. We have a name for these people: DILETTANTES. There’s nothing cool about sheep, except this Minor Threat cover, so get used to seeing that I guess. But wait, it’s the Year of the Ram, isn’t it? Rams are cool. What with the head-butting and…that’s it. It’s enough. Give rams a chance. Or goats, who cares.

But I’m not here to review Minor Threat. Or talk about astrology. I’ve listened to enough Minor Threat for a lifetime (since I bought the Complete Discography on CD, in 2006) and it’s unlikely to make it back in rotation, unlike the Chinese Zodiac which repeats every twelve years…of course.

Forget all this happened.

Shit, that’s still the title isn’t it. Look, I’m gonna explain.

I’ve made a system of numerical notation. I call it Numerical Notation. The notes of the chromatic scale are given the number 0-11, starting with A.

In this system, if you care about the Modes (which you should, if you care about why there is a lettered system) the Aeolian mode, or A Minor, is the base scale, not C Major(the Ionian). It’s debatable that A Minor was historically, originally the more important. I think it sounds better. That’s not important. The important thing is to make this a non-vague point. Because I have noticed some other examples using notes for numbers starting with C as 0. I even said in earlier posts that you might as well do this if it makes more sense, but it doesn’t, in the big picture, and I’m gonna make the case that this is not some kind of arbitrary nerd bullshit dicking-around.

Here we are then with example one:

The sharp/flat system has been primarily designed for use in the major/minor system; when speaking modally, it’s a lotta look, to quote a famous fashion designer. All the flats and sharps tend to obscure the simplicity […] We need a different system of talking about melody. If C is assigned the number 0, C# the number 1, all the way up to B = 11, we can study the system numerically, and also universally, as any tonic can be assumed. Zero can just as easily be G#, or E. Also, since the tonic can never change by our definition, it’s not necessary to include it. Here’s an example to show what I’m talking about.

C Mixolydian is C D E F G A Bb C. If we assume that C = 0, and continue from there, then C Mixolydian can also be described as 0 2 4 5 7 9 10 12.

This post is excellent and you should read the whole thing. I should read the whole thing. The point is that here is someone making essentially the same point as me, naming the notes 0-11 (12=0), but starting with C. (Note that is doesn’t predate my initial posts.) Not saying he stole it, but I also said it was an “open source” idea, which is a pretty dumb way to talk because it is not a computer program. But I guess that can be interpreted as “feel free to steal this idea”. I was drinking a lot at the time. It’s not like you can patent this kind of thing anyway.

But let’s run with the open source concept and say he explained the idea better. I’m gonna bring it back around and explain why it’s easier for everyone if A=0.

But first(second), example two:

0-11_terpstravid

This is from a video that goes on to explain a new type of keyboard layout for an experimental instrument called a Terpestra. Now this is the kind of thing you can patent and even sell. Good luck to him. Again, not saying he stole the idea. Even if he did, can you really expect drop-in citations in a video like this? It’s not relevant who came up with each idea in this kind of presentation. It’s also kind of an obvious idea once it’s out there. Not as obvious as starting with 1 tho.

But it’s about to get even more obvious. Check this out:

A a# B C c# D d# E F f# G g#

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

C c# D d# E F f# G g# A a# B

Which one of these makes more sense? You might still pick C if you are already trained in music, but how would you explain that to a student? The letters and numbers should be going in the same direction. It’s intuitive.

If you never start, you can never branch out into other things, like the higher concepts these other guys are talking about and the simplest way is the best way to start.

So while you are thinking about all this, here’s a video of GWAR covering the Pet Shop Boys:

%

, , , , , , , ,

6 Comments

The Beatles | S/T

DSC_3901
Alright, I’ve got two copies of this one, both the stereo mix on CD. There’s notable differences between the two, which I’m going to focus on because trying to come up with some kind of original thought on this album is insane and pointless.

But isn’t this whole thing insane and pointless? One day someone might sit me down and say, “Look, you’ve proved your point or whatever with this record review thing. Why not [do this other thing], we’ll pay you. Real job, it’ll keep you busy. I understand this blog thing is the closest thing you’ve had to a desk job and that you only keep doing it to keep from going completely insane, but that’s enough for us. Just forget it.” I might go for that. Not counting on it, but I sure haven’t turned down such an offer. But how could I make sure, even once ensconced within the cushy chair of seated gainful employment, I don’t fully lose it for good? Most people have some thing, I’m sure you’ve said it: “If I didn’t have _____ I’d go crazy!” Would you? You’d go crazy. You’d take off all your clothes, jump out of a window screaming, run down a crowded street on broken ankles and among horrified onlookers, cut your throat with a butter knife. I’ve never done any thing quite like that. But I keep blogging just to be sure.

Maybe it’s in bad taste to bring up such things in a review of this particular album, as it somehow inspired Charles Manson to…go crazy. I’m not making any effort to unravel any of the lyrics or themes on this thing except to say as an artist, you can never second guess what your supposed message could be or what it could inspire in a crazy person, because they can literally make anything mean anything. I mean Helter Skelter is about an amusement park ride. Paul’s just really enthusiastic about it. But there I go with stuff you can read elsewhere.

I bought the first version in ’94, I remember that’s when I got a CD player and the Beatles albums were some of the first ones I got. Came in a longbox, two single CD cases. I got tired of them getting separated because when I listen to this thing it’s gotta be all the way through every time. So when they started making the dual cases I put them together. I still prefer this to the fancy slipcase foldout deal of the new reissue, and the minimalist Parlophone labels are far…uh, don’t wanna say “superior”…they tie the whole design together. The new one also has some new photos and notes, who cares. I like the zero meta commentary of the first reissue. You can make whatever you want of it. Hopefully it’s not a paranoid, murderous fantasy that you tragically manifest, but what are the odds of that, more than once. Not something you should worry about. Sorry, I keep bringing it up.

Really, it’s not something I used to think about when I listened to the thing. I’m not listening to it right now. Usually when I do these things, I put the record on repeat the whole time until I’m done with it. I prefer not do that now because there’s just so many paths to go down that could go on forever and I used to have this thing where I listened to it every year on my birthday, which is so corny it’s embarrassing to admit and I also used to get very drunk for this which I try not to do at all anymore so why bum myself out with a half-assed experience.

I try to put the whole thing entirely in it’s own context. No, you can’t cut it down to one disc, or listen to it doing the dishes or anything else. You gotta lay down and put the headphones on and every stupid thing is intentional and important. It’s a conceptual album with no concept. It’s a kind of story, like a David Lynch movie. Some things are better left unexplained. It’s just pure experience.

But I’m going to point out one major beef with the remaster, and it’s got nothing to do with compression or any kind of audiophile thing which is maybe there if you really get into that but it’s just one song I notice a big difference: While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Because that is one of those songs that is just such a classic rock pop song, you know this song even if you never sat down and really listened, and everyone makes a big deal about the Clapton solo but I do not give a fuck about that—it’s that the way it’s originally recorded is so crazily cacophonous with that high-pitch organ drone, it’s almost painful. That really blew me away more than anything, that they got away with that sounding like it did. Of course on the remaster, they went back to the original tapes and turned the organ down. Wow. That pretty much says it all.

So, if you don’t have this, I really think you need the non-remastered version. On Amazon the only option for that right now is the 1990 reissue on cassette. That’s probably not worth it. Look around. I’ll eventually try to get an old vinyl copy if I can find one in good shape at a reasonable price. It depends if I live long enough to eventually get paid. Might be worth it.

%

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments