Well yeah, for the most part. The parts that surprised me were the few songs they sang that I actually regard highly, like Under the Bridge.Rainbowloid said:It's not eerie. It just shows how unoriginal pop music is.
Exactly. The only people who think there is a clever subtext behind this are the ones with no understanding of music theory/composition.BonsaiK said:No. Blues uses the same three chords for 95% of songs. So does 50's rock. Pop also has its idioms. If anything the video just shows how important other factors like melody, texture, lyrics, and arrangement are in songwriting.
Yeah, I feel the exact same way about Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco. In fact, usually when I hear a song by one of those two I can't tell which band the song was made by.TheKruzdawg said:Great video. Found that myself a few days ago on Stumble. This kind of thing is why so many artists sound exactly the same and you only recognize who it is if you know the words to a particular song. For example, I can't tell the difference between 90% of the songs by All-American Rejects, Yellowcard, and those who sound like them. It also explains every Green Day song ever, at least their older stuff.
I agree, classical music is one of the worst offenders of all, with everything essentially being subservient to the deity of V-I.Contextualizer said:Exactly. The only people who think there is a clever subtext behind this are the ones with no understanding of music theory/composition.BonsaiK said:No. Blues uses the same three chords for 95% of songs. So does 50's rock. Pop also has its idioms. If anything the video just shows how important other factors like melody, texture, lyrics, and arrangement are in songwriting.
Up until the 19th century, classical music wasn't too different from in terms of harmonic homogeneity.
Well, when analysing harmony, transposition is moot in these days of ubiquitous equal temperament. Therefore E B C#m A would therefore be analysed as I-V-vi-IV. Whether it's actually E B C#m A or something else (D A Bm G is also very common, as it's easier to play for guitarists) is not important, as singers transpose according to their comfortable vocal range anyway. It's the relative pitches that are crucial, not the absolute pitches. All songs mentioned do in fact use I-V-vi-IV, in that order (except for "Barbie Girl"). However, you'll notice that some progressions are actually i-VI-III-VII (which is really a relative-minor interpretation of I-V-vi-IV, which is vi-IV-I-V with the cycle started halfway through and the brain thereby registering vi as the minor tonic) and in others, the progression is only used for a small portion of the song, not the whole thing.Insomniac55 said:Hilarious, but cartainly not eerie... it's not as 'perfect' as they make it seem. That chord progression is (obviously) very common... but first off, I bet they've transposed most of those songs so they are the same four chords... if you actually listen to those songs it's likely that most of them are in different keys. Also, a lot of the songs probably use chords similar to, but not identical to the chords being played (E, B, C#m and A). They're using chords close enough to sound right, but probably not exactly what is used in the original.
Yeah, I realise that it's the relation between the chords that matters, not the actual chords themselves. I'm just pointing out that the actual recorded version of the songs that most people are used to listening to probably don't fit those specific chords.BonsaiK said:Well, when analysing harmony, transposition is moot in these days of ubiquitous equal temperament. Therefore E B C#m A would therefore be analysed as I-V-vi-IV. Whether it's actually E B C#m A or something else (D A Bm G is also very common, as it's easier to play for guitarists) is not important, as singers transpose according to their comfortable vocal range anyway. It's the relative pitches that are crucial, not the absolute pitches. All songs mentioned do in fact use I-V-vi-IV, in that order (except for "Barbie Girl"). However, you'll notice that some progressions are actually i-VI-III-VII (which is really a relative-minor interpretation of I-V-vi-IV, which is vi-IV-I-V with the cycle started halfway through and the brain thereby registering vi as the minor tonic) and in others, the progression is only used for a small portion of the song, not the whole thing.Insomniac55 said:Hilarious, but cartainly not eerie... it's not as 'perfect' as they make it seem. That chord progression is (obviously) very common... but first off, I bet they've transposed most of those songs so they are the same four chords... if you actually listen to those songs it's likely that most of them are in different keys. Also, a lot of the songs probably use chords similar to, but not identical to the chords being played (E, B, C#m and A). They're using chords close enough to sound right, but probably not exactly what is used in the original.
You mean: "Thou shalt always finish V-I, or thy music shalt sounds WRONG"?BonsaiK said:I agree, classical music is one of the worst offenders of all, with everything essentially being subservient to the deity of V-I.Contextualizer said:Exactly. The only people who think there is a clever subtext behind this are the ones with no understanding of music theory/composition.BonsaiK said:No. Blues uses the same three chords for 95% of songs. So does 50's rock. Pop also has its idioms. If anything the video just shows how important other factors like melody, texture, lyrics, and arrangement are in songwriting.
Up until the 19th century, classical music wasn't too different from in terms of harmonic homogeneity.
I see your four chord song and raise you one classical music!Jedi Sasquatch said:
Hilarious, but at the same time, does anybody else find this a bit eerie?