Debussy and Chopin are great.... so are Bach, Corelli, and Vivaldi, though. There's room for both. I would put the chord progressions used in most Britney Spears music as late Baroque/Early classical. There's tons of sequential movement, very symmetrical progressions, and strong tonality. I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I think it's too simple like most four-chord rock songs.
(and if you think Debussy and Chopin are so harmonically interesting, try Bartok or Stravinsky, it'll blow your mind) (if you think Bartok and Stravinsky are interesting, try... )
Holy shit, it's actually a perfect palindrome with one modification. If you represent III as IIV (2 less than 5) instead of III, the chord progression looks like this:
i-V-VI-VII-IIV-iv-V-i
... which is a perfect palindrome (not counting capitalization [which indicates major/minor], and the inversion of the iv chord at the end, which makes it a iv6).
No particular chorale, it is just grammatical (to borrow a linguistics term) by the standards of common-practice blah blah western art music 18th-19th centuries. It's something Bach could have written, is what I meant by that.
Incidentally, the chord progression for the chorus, if i remember correctly, is as follows:
Dbmin: i-V-VI-VII-III-iv(6)-V-i
it's got a nice symmetry, as well as a very pleasing temporary tonicization of the relative major in the VII-III section, then a perfectly formulaic (that's good) cadential formula, iv-V-i.
If you want to have some fun with your classically trained friends, you could have them play this chord progression through (they'll know what to do with the numbers) once, and they'll probably tell you it's pretty nice. Then have them play it again and sing back the chorus while they play...
Also, Coons (analyst guy) is talking about the chord structure of the song, not the depth of the lyrical content or even the realization of the chord structure. It's actually really well written from the standpoint of tonal western art music, and compares to a simpler bach chorale when you reduce it to just chords. I remember when I heard this song I was really impressed with it and got a lot of flack for it. A couple days later I played a reduction for some fellow (classically-trained) musicians who thought it was a very nicely laid out chorale. I added the melody on top to reveal the source and everyone was really surprised to find it was Britney Spears:)
I may not personally think very highly of Britney Spears as an artist or performer, but her arrangers/composers know their shit and write some pretty robust stuff. Another example is Autumn Goodbye, which has even more complex chords, lots of counterpoint, etc.
yes, why is this? my speakers/headphones have some beep/click/buzzes when my phone communicates sometimes (it isn't necessarily an incoming call, although that triggers it most often). From my basic understanding, it seems that there's some kind of induction in the speaker/headphone cable going on, but if it's going on in the 2-4GHz range why would I hear it (even if, obviously, it's not a pure sine wave).
Well, I guess most emacs users aren't geek enough to understand then... My thinking:
I type at around 108wpm with two hands.
Mousing requires a hand.
Efficiency will decrease by at least one half if I lose a hand to type and mouse at the same time (unless in some CAD or photo app where mousing is necessary)
Perhaps the case is, if you haven't figured out how to replace one-hand mousing & typing with all keyboard navigation, you're not geek enough!:) (ahem..let the geek contest start, you try and hack me first. my IP is 127.0.0.0;-)
As to OSX handling keyboard and mouse control improperly, I guess I don't know the gold standard for "proper" -- but would be interested in your explanation of what's wrong or could be fixed.
I can understand why some people -- even programmers -- might want to use the mouse, but for me, when I'm coding, it's all keyboard. And I can get anywhere I want faster than anybody I know can using the mouse (considering the keyboard shortcuts for character/word/line/paragraph/page traversal built into OSX, and even more in my editor of [cough emacs] choice.
I can't stand using OS X. Compared to Linux it's a major pain if you're a programmer used to being able to use all the keys on your keyboard and having one click cut n'paste and nice features like that.
Wait, doesn't clicking require using the mouse? I'd much rather keep my hands on the keyboard while I cmd-C, navigate wherever I need to (using the keyboard), and cmd-V to paste.
I never got this -- Linux zealots ranting about how they can't use OS X, it's not keyboard-centric enough, it doesn't even have middle mouse button functionality!...
WTF man, I've been using a mac for 5 years now and rarely use the keyboard. And it's gotten better and better as the OS has improved (I only spent a little time in OS9, but OSX has gotten more and more keyboard-nav friendly). Plus, considering you can script the manipulation of ANY user interface item, I'd say there's almost nothing you can't do using the keyboard on a Mac.
Maybe not a public beta, but those intel-based dev boxes will be shipping in what, a couple weeks? And once that all gets leaked, it will be public enough (and beta enough, I'm sure).
Vital capacity (aka the part of your total lung capacity that you regularly use) varies greatly between individuals, 5L is quite a bit even for an adult male. I'd say the average runs from 2-4L for a healthy, adult male, and a bit less for a healthy adult female.
Lowell Greer (a professional horn player) once told me he had an 8L capacity when he was at his max (he mostly teaches and makes instruments now).
The late Arnold Jacobs, one of the world's greatest tubists, had only one lung but it had a 5L capacity! That's quite extreme though.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_capacity for more information.
Slashdot Mirror
Debussy and Chopin are great.... so are Bach, Corelli, and Vivaldi, though. There's room for both. I would put the chord progressions used in most Britney Spears music as late Baroque/Early classical. There's tons of sequential movement, very symmetrical progressions, and strong tonality. I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I think it's too simple like most four-chord rock songs.
... )
(and if you think Debussy and Chopin are so harmonically interesting, try Bartok or Stravinsky, it'll blow your mind)
(if you think Bartok and Stravinsky are interesting, try
Holy shit, it's actually a perfect palindrome with one modification. If you represent III as IIV (2 less than 5) instead of III, the chord progression looks like this:
... which is a perfect palindrome (not counting capitalization [which indicates major/minor], and the inversion of the iv chord at the end, which makes it a iv6).
i-V-VI-VII-IIV-iv-V-i
No particular chorale, it is just grammatical (to borrow a linguistics term) by the standards of common-practice blah blah western art music 18th-19th centuries. It's something Bach could have written, is what I meant by that.
Incidentally, the chord progression for the chorus, if i remember correctly, is as follows:
Dbmin: i-V-VI-VII-III-iv(6)-V-i
it's got a nice symmetry, as well as a very pleasing temporary tonicization of the relative major in the VII-III section, then a perfectly formulaic (that's good) cadential formula, iv-V-i.
If you want to have some fun with your classically trained friends, you could have them play this chord progression through (they'll know what to do with the numbers) once, and they'll probably tell you it's pretty nice. Then have them play it again and sing back the chorus while they play...
Also, Coons (analyst guy) is talking about the chord structure of the song, not the depth of the lyrical content or even the realization of the chord structure. It's actually really well written from the standpoint of tonal western art music, and compares to a simpler bach chorale when you reduce it to just chords. I remember when I heard this song I was really impressed with it and got a lot of flack for it. A couple days later I played a reduction for some fellow (classically-trained) musicians who thought it was a very nicely laid out chorale. I added the melody on top to reveal the source and everyone was really surprised to find it was Britney Spears :)
I may not personally think very highly of Britney Spears as an artist or performer, but her arrangers/composers know their shit and write some pretty robust stuff. Another example is Autumn Goodbye, which has even more complex chords, lots of counterpoint, etc.
maybe metonym?
yes, why is this? my speakers/headphones have some beep/click/buzzes when my phone communicates sometimes (it isn't necessarily an incoming call, although that triggers it most often). From my basic understanding, it seems that there's some kind of induction in the speaker/headphone cable going on, but if it's going on in the 2-4GHz range why would I hear it (even if, obviously, it's not a pure sine wave).
- I type at around 108wpm with two hands.
- Mousing requires a hand.
- Efficiency will decrease by at least one half if I lose a hand to type and mouse at the same time (unless in some CAD or photo app where mousing is necessary)
Perhaps the case is, if you haven't figured out how to replace one-hand mousing & typing with all keyboard navigation, you're not geek enough!(ahem..let the geek contest start, you try and hack me first. my IP is 127.0.0.0
As to OSX handling keyboard and mouse control improperly, I guess I don't know the gold standard for "proper" -- but would be interested in your explanation of what's wrong or could be fixed.
I can understand why some people -- even programmers -- might want to use the mouse, but for me, when I'm coding, it's all keyboard. And I can get anywhere I want faster than anybody I know can using the mouse (considering the keyboard shortcuts for character/word/line/paragraph/page traversal built into OSX, and even more in my editor of [cough emacs] choice.
I never got this -- Linux zealots ranting about how they can't use OS X, it's not keyboard-centric enough, it doesn't even have middle mouse button functionality!...
WTF man, I've been using a mac for 5 years now and rarely use the keyboard. And it's gotten better and better as the OS has improved (I only spent a little time in OS9, but OSX has gotten more and more keyboard-nav friendly). Plus, considering you can script the manipulation of ANY user interface item, I'd say there's almost nothing you can't do using the keyboard on a Mac.
Maybe not a public beta, but those intel-based dev boxes will be shipping in what, a couple weeks? And once that all gets leaked, it will be public enough (and beta enough, I'm sure).
Vital capacity (aka the part of your total lung capacity that you regularly use) varies greatly between individuals, 5L is quite a bit even for an adult male. I'd say the average runs from 2-4L for a healthy, adult male, and a bit less for a healthy adult female. Lowell Greer (a professional horn player) once told me he had an 8L capacity when he was at his max (he mostly teaches and makes instruments now). The late Arnold Jacobs, one of the world's greatest tubists, had only one lung but it had a 5L capacity! That's quite extreme though. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_capacity for more information.