[ghporter]

I was introduced this morning to a bit of awesomeness that I hadn't yet encountered.

OK, maybe it's not that awesome, but it's pretty darn awesome. And quite entertaining.

Click ME!! for a YouTube video - which may contain some NSFW language, so be warned.

Here's another version that's maybe even more fun. More NSFW language though...

[Sealobo]

i liked.

but... i don't know half the songs... are they aussie hits?

[ghporter]

"Canvas Bags," and "Waltzing Matilda" are...most of the rest seem to be 80s and 90s pop tunes. Which immediately struck a chord (no pun intended) with me.

[seanc]

I know almost all of them, they've all been in the charts at some point in the last 20-30 years.

[brassplayersrock²]

[ajprice]

Yes, they are awesome .

[Laminar]

Without clicking, I'm guessing 4-chord song.

[Laminar]

Yep. And also http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...s/#post3992721

[ghporter]

I had missed your post back in August. No plagiarism intended here...just fun.

[Spheric Harlot]

And still not half correct.

If you harmonically simplify every song and cut it off after one fourth of the verse, you can make ANYTHING work.

[ghporter]

The fact that most popular songs are based on a simplified chord progression is not a shock. "The blues in 8 bars" is "formulaic" if you think of it only as the bass' part. But indeed, many, many pop songs ARE formulaic. For that matter, you can also see a lot of "prior art" in a lot of popular songs. As demonstrated here, there is a whole lot of similarity in many fairly recent pop songs and some classical music.

None of this makes current music "invalid," nor does it say anything more about the songs mentioned other than that they share a common musical approach. My god-daughter can't understand why I like Pachelbel's Canon; "it's just a bunch of scale exercises-what's the big deal?" (Her first BS was in music, by the way.) That doesn't mean that the music itself-particularly the melody built atop the foundation of a set of pleasing chord progressions-is any the less, does it?

I actually thought the Axis of Awesome did a very good job of segueing from one song to another in spite of the pretty substantial variation in the songs they put in the mix. Basic chord progressions don't make songs. Melodies, lyrics, and performers do. The I V vi IV progression forms the foundation of many songs. Because it works in a whole lot of 4/4 applications. Not because all those songs are "identical."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The fact that most popular songs are based on a simplified chord progression is not a shock. "The blues in 8 bars" is "formulaic" if you think of it only as the bass' part. But indeed, many, many pop songs ARE formulaic. For that matter, you can also see a lot of "prior art" in a lot of popular songs. As demonstrated here, there is a whole lot of similarity in many fairly recent pop songs and some classical music.

None of this makes current music "invalid," nor does it say anything more about the songs mentioned other than that they share a common musical approach. My god-daughter can't understand why I like Pachelbel's Canon; "it's just a bunch of scale exercises-what's the big deal?" (Her first BS was in music, by the way.) That doesn't mean that the music itself-particularly the melody built atop the foundation of a set of pleasing chord progressions-is any the less, does it?

I actually thought the Axis of Awesome did a very good job of segueing from one song to another in spite of the pretty substantial variation in the songs they put in the mix. Basic chord progressions don't make songs. Melodies, lyrics, and performers do. The I V vi IV progression forms the foundation of many songs. Because it works in a whole lot of 4/4 applications. Not because all those songs are "identical."

Yes, but the blues is based on dominant chords which are very unstable and allow for a lot of harmonic creativity since so many note choices can work. The "blues scale" that is often used as a teaching tool for teaching the blues, for instance has a 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7 in it even though the chord tone itself is arpeggiated 1, 3, 5, b7. You can make practically any note choice work. On major chords, not nearly as easily.

The formulaic aspect to music doesn't necessarily come from the progression, but the presence or lack of harmonic flexibility and room for exploration. The blues is a pretty vast canvas which is why I could play people tons of different examples of the blues that many would say all sound different (there are literally thousands of examples to choose from ranging from traditional classic blues to many different styles of jazz to 50s rock to whatever else), whereas I V vi IV starts to sound incredibly old quickly when the Axis of Awesome does their thing.

[Laminar]

Besson, I don't understand. Please explain more.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Besson, I don't understand. Please explain more.

Serious? What do you want to know?

[Laminar]

Well I've always been under the impression that all genres of music are basically the same. I really doubt there are minute, obscure difference between any genres or subgenres. Is this true? If not, please explain.

[brassplayersrock²]

That’s like saying there’s no difference between Indian Motorcycles and Harley s.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Well I've always been under the impression that all genres of music are basically the same. I really doubt there are minute, obscure difference between any genres or subgenres. Is this true? If not, please explain.

Western music theory is designed to be applicable to all forms of western music.

Lose the attitude, it's unnecessary.

[ghporter]

My point was not that specific types or genres of music were based on specific details. I was trying to point out that observing that many pieces of music share a basic foundation does not diminish the individuality of those pieces of music. It's like realizing that Paris and Washington, D.C. have similar basic street plans; nobody is going to say "they're exactly the same" because of their circle/spoke street configurations, but noting the similarity is interesting.

I'll also note that my background in music theory is quite limited. I had a college course in "Appreciation of Music" (taught by a jazz and big band performer who actually played with Benny Goodman-what an experience!), but it was far less technical than informational.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My point was not that specific types or genres of music were based on specific details. I was trying to point out that observing that many pieces of music share a basic foundation does not diminish the individuality of those pieces of music. It's like realizing that Paris and Washington, D.C. have similar basic street plans; nobody is going to say "they're exactly the same" because of their circle/spoke street configurations, but noting the similarity is interesting.

I'll also note that my background in music theory is quite limited. I had a college course in "Appreciation of Music" (taught by a jazz and big band performer who actually played with Benny Goodman-what an experience!), but it was far less technical than informational.

Quite true, I didn't mean to come across as overly nit picky

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The fact that most popular songs are based on a simplified chord progression is not a shock. "The blues in 8 bars" is "formulaic" if you think of it only as the bass' part. But indeed, many, many pop songs ARE formulaic. For that matter, you can also see a lot of "prior art" in a lot of popular songs. As demonstrated here, there is a whole lot of similarity in many fairly recent pop songs and some classical music.

None of this makes current music "invalid," nor does it say anything more about the songs mentioned other than that they share a common musical approach. My god-daughter can't understand why I like Pachelbel's Canon; "it's just a bunch of scale exercises-what's the big deal?" (Her first BS was in music, by the way.) That doesn't mean that the music itself-particularly the melody built atop the foundation of a set of pleasing chord progressions-is any the less, does it?

I actually thought the Axis of Awesome did a very good job of segueing from one song to another in spite of the pretty substantial variation in the songs they put in the mix. Basic chord progressions don't make songs. Melodies, lyrics, and performers do. The I V vi IV progression forms the foundation of many songs. Because it works in a whole lot of 4/4 applications. Not because all those songs are "identical."

Thank God they're all related, otherwise The Ramones would never have existed.