# Me Improvising on a Pop Song



## Captainnumber36

I took a song by my favorite band, Phish, and took a main melody form it and then proceeded to take a solo over it.

You don't need any knowledge of the pop song to appreciate this, I'm mostly interested in critiques of the improv style I use, all of you will most likely be able to pick up on where I begin my solo.


----------



## dzc4627

I like your hat, it looks like you are a big fan of my "Largo for Orchestra" (http://www.talkclassical.com/46671-largo-orchestra-played-orchestra.html)

The music was pretty terrible. The same four poorly voiced chords over and over again, with the same scale being used (one that lacks a leading tone no less). It's just a recipe for boring music. Parallel fifths *all * over the place.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> I like your hat, it looks like you are a big fan of my "Largo for Orchestra" (http://www.talkclassical.com/46671-largo-orchestra-played-orchestra.html)
> 
> The music was pretty terrible. The same four poorly voiced chords over and over again, with the same scale being used (one that lacks a leading tone no less). It's just a recipe for boring music. Parallel fifths *all * over the place.


I'm glad you like the hat, I got it custom made since I tend to enjoy slower tempos.

As for the music, ya, it's not jazz, it's more jam band influenced improvisation which tends to be modal.


----------



## ST4

dzc4627 said:


> I like your hat, it looks like you are a big fan of my "Largo for Orchestra" (http://www.talkclassical.com/46671-largo-orchestra-played-orchestra.html)
> 
> The music was pretty terrible. The same *four *poorly voiced *chords over and over again*, with* the same scale being used* (one that lacks a leading tone no less). It's just a recipe for boring music. * Parallel fifths* *all * over the place.


It's called a style, a genre even. Glad to help :tiphat:


----------



## Pugg

Captainnumber36 said:


> I took a song by my favorite band, Phish, and took a main melody form it and then proceeded to take a solo over it.
> 
> You don't need any knowledge of the pop song to appreciate this, I'm mostly interested in critiques of the improv style I use, all of you will most likely be able to pick up on where I begin my solo.


Video not available in my neck of the woods Captain.


----------



## dzc4627

ST4 said:


> It's called a style, a genre even. Glad to help :tiphat:


And? What does that have to do with how boring it sounds?


----------



## ST4

dzc4627 said:


> And? What does that have to do with how boring it sounds?


Everything :tiphat:


----------



## Vasks

I've said this before, to other TC posters who've used copyrighted material, but I'll say it again. Unless you requested and received permission from the copyright owner to do your arrangement, you can be sued by that owner for violating copyright laws for using their music in any manner, shape or form.


----------



## ST4

Vasks said:


> I've said this before, to other TC posters who've used copyrighted material, but I'll say it again. Unless you requested and received permission from the copyright owner to do your arrangement, you can be sued by that owner for violating copyright laws for using their music in any manner, shape or form.


I'd like to see them try :lol:

They wouldn't sue because they would be able to get much monetary benefits from it (unless Captain is secretly a superstar making $9,999,999,999 an hour)


----------



## nikola

I can't hear anything on video. Only silence. Is it something like John Cage then? 
dzc4627, you're too much oldfashioned and you'll never understand new styles and directions such as 'minimalist' or 'silentist'. Go listen to fugues!


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

> I'd like to see them try
> 
> They wouldn't sue because they would be able to get much monetary benefits from it (unless Captain is secretly a superstar making $9,999,999,999 an hour)


Online copyright issues don't quite work like that, especially not on YouTube anyway. If this was true, copyright holders would love it every time a well-known YouTuber uses their music (so long as it's credited), but this isn't the case. Even YouTubers with millions of subscribers lament the difficulty they have licensing music and the fact that their videos can be taken down by a simple copyright claim - if it happens enough times their account can get suspended.

The problem is that, at least for music, copyright is not usually held by the artists themselves but by the label or record company that produced the music, and on online platforms like YouTube, these companies utilise automatic search bots that check all new videos for copyrighted material. So, you're right in that they almost certainly won't sue - but they'll take down your videos. The only reason I could see them suing is if you find some loophole around it and you repeatedly refuse to stop using their music.

For the record, I hate our current stance on copyright law. Especially when it comes to educational/cultural media.


----------



## ST4

Yes, they'd take it down if they detect their own recorded media used, but if you're covering it there is no chance you will even be touched. Reviewers on Youtube though have gone through a lot of strife with big companies abusing "fair use" copyright law  but this is a very different situation to someone like Captain covering or arranging a song, performed by himself in his own video. :tiphat:


----------



## dzc4627

nikola said:


> I can't hear anything on video. Only silence. Is it something like John Cage then?
> dzc4627, you're too much oldfashioned and you'll never understand new styles and directions such as 'minimalist' or 'silentist'. Go listen to fugues!


This is a classical music forum. Old-fashioned is not an insult here.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> This is a classical music forum. Old-fashioned is not an insult here.


But none of the greats became famous for being "old-fashioned".


----------



## dzc4627

Captainnumber36 said:


> But none of the greats became famous for being "old-fashioned".


This is a non sequitur. But I'll humor you. The greats (common practice period greats and beyond in some cases) largely became famous because of their ability to temper rigorous compositional craft founded in tradition with a thriving creative talent and ingenuity. It takes both, but each are equally important.

Oh, and none of the greats became famous for melodramatically grooving out some sick relaxational grooves on their electric keyboard, for the record.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> This is a non sequitur. But I'll humor you. The greats (common practice period greats and beyond in some cases) largely became famous because of their ability to temper rigorous compositional craft founded in tradition with a thriving creative talent and ingenuity. It takes both, but each are equally important.
> 
> Oh, and none of the greats became famous for melodramatically grooving out some sick relaxational grooves on their electric keyboard, for the record.


The greats are not remembered for being old-fashioned. And yes, many have become famous for grooving out in unique ways on youtube for all to see. And also, the majority of my channels consists of acoustic piano recordings now.


----------



## Captainnumber36

And if you can't make the connection between your post and mine, the underlying common factor is the term old-fashioned and how you claimed being called that isn't an insult when in fact, it really is.

No one is remembered through the years for mimicking what's already been done.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I'm about 100% sure that this forum isn't the place for that type of music


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I'm about 100% sure that this forum isn't the place for that type of music


1. It's not defined.
2. The mods do not seem to care.
3. Stop listening if it is painful for you to do so.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I never said this one was painful, not that it isnt. But I'm not sure a Pop song impromptu belongs on "talkclassical"


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I never said this one was painful, not that it isnt. But I'm not sure a Pop song impromptu belongs on "talkclassical"


1. It's not defined.
2. The mods don't seem to care.
3. Stop listening IF it is painful for you to do so.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Have you considered finding a similar forum intended for your genre?


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Have you considered finding a similar forum intended for your genre?


1. It's not defined.
2. The mods don't seem to care.
3. Don't listen if it's painful.
4. I'm not exactly sure what genre my music fits into.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Your music is definitely new age/easy listening. It would be better received in such circles


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Your music is definitely new age/easy listening. It would be better received in such circles


People around here seem to enjoy my art, so I'm not going to stop. There are always going to be people in any circle that will dislike it.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> And if you can't make the connection between your post and mine, the underlying common factor is the term old-fashioned and how you claimed being called that isn't an insult when in fact, it really is.
> 
> *No one is remembered through the years for mimicking what's already been done.*


Um... Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, Brahms, even Stravinsky and Shostakovich, to name a few.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Um... Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, Brahms, even Stravinsky and Shostakovich, to name a few.


Their most beloved and cherished pieces showed extreme ingenuity.

Beethoven's 9th
Mozart's 41st
Bach's Brandenburg Concertos
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring/Firebird

Yes they mimicked their elders first, but went on to do great things that were highly original, and that is what they are remembered and loved for throughout the years, by the majority of listeners.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Not that I even care about fame or anything like that. The only thing I care about is making art that makes me proud and sharing it with an audience that appreciates it. If a lot of people or a few people appreciate it, it doesn't matter.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

It really seems that all you care about is getting compliments. You couldn't possibly care less about improving your compositions.


----------



## Bettina

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> It really seems that all you care about is getting compliments. You couldn't possibly care less about improving your compositions.


Actually, that's completely untrue. I gave him some critical feedback on his composition "Gough" and he was very receptive to incorporating my suggestions. He's definitely open to critiques and suggestions for improvement, as long as the suggestions are somewhat consistent with the overall style and vision that he has for each work.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Bettina said:


> Actually, that's completely untrue. I gave him some critical feedback on his composition "Gough" and he was very receptive to incorporating my suggestions. He's definitely open to critiques and suggestions for improvement, as long as the suggestions are somewhat consistent with the overall style and vision that he has for each work.


I don't doubt your experience with him, but all I've seen is someone who is always hostile with his critics. And he seems to drag out a grudge that affects other threads, just like that lad Jamie


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I don't doubt your experience with him, but all I've seen is someone who is always hostile with his critics. And he seems to drag out a grudge that affects other threads, just like that lad Jamie


Well, visit the forum more if you want to see other sides of my personality, ones that aren't directed towards persons that are frustrating me.

Or, you can keep the thoughts you have about me in your limited experience with me, and ignore when someone else, besides myself, defends me and expresses a different viewpoint/interaction with me.


----------



## dzc4627

Captainnumber36 said:


> The greats are not remembered for being old-fashioned. And yes, many have become famous for grooving out in unique ways on youtube for all to see. And also, the majority of my channels consists of acoustic piano recordings now.


Did you comprehend my post? Here, maybe you'll understand it this way:

Greats= old-fashion + creative talent and ingenuity

I don't think only respecting "old fashions" is the 100% sure way to success and I have never stated that. That would be a straw man courtesy of you and others (Nikola).


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Someone pls bring out the banhammer


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> Did you comprehend my post? Here, maybe you'll understand it this way:
> 
> Greats= old-fashion + creative talent and ingenuity
> 
> I don't think only respecting "old fashions" is the 100% sure way to success and I have never stated that. That would be a straw man courtesy of you and others (Nikola).


And let me spell it out for you:

The greats are great because when they were alive and the contemporaries of their time, they were not stuck on what was considered old fashioned for their time, which would be even more old-fashioned to us today.

They were on the edge of new ideas and had strong creativity and had unique/individual voices that caught people's ears. They didn't spend very much time replicating composers of the past, but certainly studied them and were inspired by them.


----------



## dzc4627

Captainnumber36 said:


> Their most beloved and cherished pieces showed extreme ingenuity.
> 
> Beethoven's 9th
> Mozart's 41st
> Bach's Brandenburg Concertos
> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring/Firebird
> 
> Yes they mimicked their elders first, but went on to do great things that were highly original, and that is what they are remembered and loved for throughout the years, by the majority of listeners.


Wow man. Beethoven and Mozart inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) the Symphonic form from Haydn and others. Mozart inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) fugal theory of Bach and others. Bach inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) the concerto form and concerto style from Vivaldi and others! Firebird is pretty much an actuall mimicking of certain aspects of Rimsky Korsakov, especially the orchestration.

The aforementioned examples you provided are all (besides the Rite of Spring) examples of incredible grasp on tradition, theory, and form. They are also examples of incredible ingenuity. Those two things don't cancel themselves out, they temper each other.

Mind you, Bach and Brahms among others were both criticized during their day for being sticklers to the rules, and being old fashioned! Look at them now!


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> Wow man. Beethoven and Mozart inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) the Symphonic form from Haydn and others. Mozart inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) fugal theory of Bach and others. Bach inherited (used/_*mimicked!*_) the concerto form and concerto style from Vivaldi and others! Firebird is pretty much an actuall mimicking of certain aspects of Rimsky Korsakov, especially the orchestration.
> 
> The aforementioned examples you provided are all (besides the Rite of Spring) examples of incredible grasp on tradition, theory, and form. They are also examples of incredible ingenuity. Those two things don't cancel themselves out, they temper each other.
> 
> Mind you, Bach and Brahms among others were both criticized during their day for being sticklers to the rules, and being old fashioned! Look at them now!


All work is based on ideas of the past, all work has fresh ideas, how much those balance each other out depends on the work. Your work is highly ripped off ideas of the past and shows very little ingenuity.


----------



## dzc4627

Captainnumber36 said:


> Your work is highly ripped off ideas of the past and shows very little ingenuity.


If I considered you someone who knew your stuff, I'd be honored to hear from you that my music resembled that of the masters. But I know you that you don't know your stuff, as you have demonstrated, and thus I can firmly say that my work that I have posted here (Fugue in D major, Fugue for String Trio in C Major, Fantasy for Orchestra, Adagio from Adagio Pathetique and Rondo for Flute, Largo for Orchestra, Symphony in D# Major, Symphony in F minor, Trombone Concerto Movement 1, Larghissimo for Brass Choir, Music for Brass Trio in Three Movements etc.) is for the most part the result of an amateur limited knowledge of theory combined with inspiration and natural creativity, but mostly the latter two, depending on the work.


----------



## ST4

dzc4627 said:


> The aforementioned examples you provided are all (besides the Rite of Spring) examples of incredible grasp on tradition, theory, and form.


The Rite of Spring is still firmly planted in tradition actually  :tiphat:


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

ST4 said:


> The Rite of Spring is still firmly planted in tradition actually  :tiphat:


Yes, but isn't *all* music part of an ongoing tradition? nothing exists in a vacuum

Daniel


----------



## dzc4627

ST4 said:


> The Rite of Spring is still firmly planted in tradition actually  :tiphat:


Yes yes yes kinda but way less than the other ones. And still not really (diatonic harmony, one key at a time, consonance, resolution, recapitulatory content [lack thereof in the rite])


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> If I considered you someone who knew your stuff, I'd be honored to hear from you that my music resembled that of the masters. But I know you that you don't know your stuff, as you have demonstrated, and thus I can firmly say that my work that I have posted here (Fugue in D major, Fugue for String Trio in C Major, Fantasy for Orchestra, Adagio from Adagio Pathetique and Rondo for Flute, Largo for Orchestra, Symphony in D# Major, Symphony in F minor, Trombone Concerto Movement 1, Larghissimo for Brass Choir, Music for Brass Trio in Three Movements etc.) is for the most part the result of an amateur limited knowledge of theory combined with inspiration and natural creativity, but mostly the latter two, depending on the work.


You don't have to take my word for it, but that is my stance. You're music is greatly rehashed ideas, nothing fresh in my book.


----------



## dzc4627

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Yes, but isn't *all* music part of an ongoing tradition? nothing exists in a vacuum
> 
> Daniel


No. Unless you mean an ongoing tradition of "music" in which sure, but there is music that clearly is a part of tradition A that is not part of tradition B &c. To say that all music is part of an ongoing tradition is a pretty useless statement given how different music is. It's like, "all recipes are under one big recipe tradition!" ... uh ok, and? So what?


----------



## Captainnumber36

To make the most general statement possible, all music is part of an ongoing tradition. That is, to create art that serves as entertainment for an audience.

Some are have more ingenuity than others, and those are the ones that are remembered across time.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> And if you can't make the connection between your post and mine, the underlying common factor is the term old-fashioned and how you claimed being called that isn't an insult when in fact, it really is.
> 
> No one is remembered through the years for mimicking what's already been done.


This is true. I can hear many composers here obsessed with musical technicalities from 19th century instead of moving on and make something meaningful and their own. Who needs to listen to Mozarts or Schoenbergs copies now!? Some people probably think that copying styles of musicians that already told everything they needed to tell a few hundreds years ago is more superior than composing something they would actually like to compose and bring something interesting and new into this world. It seems that they would like to be schoolboys forever - always learning and never realize what music actually is.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Um... Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, Brahms, even Stravinsky and Shostakovich, to name a few.


They actually evolved from mimicking. You mimick when you're 10. After that you start to MAKE music. Also from 2nd half of 20th century, term "classical" music doesn't mean anything anymore. Popular music took over. What Beethoven represented in early 19th century, that were The Beatles in 1960'es. And McCartney didn't even know any musical theory. Vangelis either... or Yanni... or Hans Zimmer. Ok, I'm not big fan of Zimmer, but they actually mean something today. Mimicking old classical music means nothing. It only means that you guys tries too hard, but you won't become the next Beethoven. There are some youtube kids mimicking Zimmer and that is also annoyingly awful just like mimicking Mozart.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

nikola said:


> They actually evolved from mimicking. You mimick when you're 10. After that you start to MAKE music. Also from 2nd half of 20th century, term "classical" music doesn't mean anything anymore. Popular music took over. What Beethoven represented in early 19th century, that were The Beatles in 1960'es. And McCartney didn't even know any musical theory. Vangelis either... or Yanni... or Hans Zimmer. Ok, I'm not big fan of Zimmer, but they actually mean something today. Mimicking old classical music means nothing. It only means that you guys tries too hard, but you won't become the next Beethoven. There are some youtube kids mimicking Zimmer and that is also annoyingly awful just like mimicking Mozart.


Hans Zimmer definitely knows theory. And also it is unwise to parade ignorance.


----------



## nikola

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Hans Zimmer definitely knows theory. And also it is unwise to parade ignorance.


He doesn't know notes.
It's also unwise to parade snobbery while being chronically non-talented for creating anything meaningful.


----------



## Phil loves classical

It's most important to have good ears. Although self-taught, McCartney did follow the formalities in music instinctively which is why he created some great music. Vangelis created some interesting sonorities, and is more a new age composer than classical type, so his music is not formally interesting but has and interesting sound. Yanni sounds like a cross pop classical guy.


----------



## Captainnumber36

We should probably keep the mods happy and stop this discussion, or take it elsewhere since we aren't discussing the piece at hand anymore (esp. since I took it down).


----------



## Captainnumber36

I decided to re-up the video:


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Captain, you give your pieces the most bizarre names!


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Captain, you give your pieces the most bizarre names!


This actually isn't my song, I took the chords and guitar solo melody from a pop song, played through it twice, and then proceeded to improvise on it, and then come back the the guitar solo melody at the end to finish it off.

But I'm just show all of you my improv side, it's in me, but nothing something I'm really trying to pursue.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> I decided to re-up the video:


Alas, not available here. And I notice the thread has evolved into a discussion of everything from copyright issues to the merits of pop music. 

I wonder whether, under current copyright law, composers can still freely write sets of variations on themes by other composers (when these are still under copyright). Or write things similar to Vaughan Williams' Tallis fantasia (and once again, using themes by contemporary composers that are still under copyright). Seems to me current copyright law is largely there to help big publishing companies make money, and for the rest mostly stifles rather than encourages creativity.

Seeing as I can't hear the piece in question, I have no particularly passionate opinions on whether it belongs here or not. While I would not be amused if general discussions were to be taken over by discussions of Justin Bieber, I think here in the composer section we need more tolerance. How can we really tell if a piece for solo piano is "really" classical, or should rather be seen as New Age or pop? I can't think of any clear criteria.

No one is forced to listen to anything they don't like. And as my high school principal said, if you can't think of anything nice to say, then rather say nothing.


----------



## Pugg

Captainnumber36 said:


> I decided to re-up the video:


Did you remove it again captain, noting to been seen.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Pugg said:


> Did you remove it again captain, noting to been seen.


Ya, Pugg, you always come in once I've taken it down!

:lol:


----------

