Posts by Eric Moore32

Jose Edwards16 said:The term "funeral" feels more common in Mexican than in American usage. In the States, we usually say burial or interment.

burial

Arsen Dedić - Ana is Ana is Ana
Drago Diklić - You've changed, Ana
Zlatni Dukati - Oh, Ana, oh, Anica
Željko Lončarić Žec - Beautiful Ana (highly recommend, great stuff)
There’s even a folk one: Anko Ančice

When it comes to women's names, Arsen (his songs about women) and Balašević (Old Guy's Diary) have entire albums dedicated to women with specific names

Sarah Moore86 said:I get the general idea, but one thing still escapes me. When someone with absolute pitch hears a chord, do they actually hear every individual note within it? I once had a dream where people saw music in colors—is that a thing? Like, does an entire song feel washed in one primary color? I recall Hendrix mentioning he built his compositions based on "color" when he was asked about his songwriting process. I wonder how he perceives sound outside of music. Maybe everything just feels amplified?

First things first: chords aren't made of notes. They’re made of tones. Notes are just the shorthand we use to get those tones down on paper.

By some logic, an absolute pitch listener should be able to identify every single tone within a played chord—minor, major, seventh, quintal, or whatever else you can throw at them. The possibilities are pretty much endless, I guess.

Personally, I think identifying those chords or tones shouldn't be much of a struggle, even for someone without perfect pitch, provided they have a solid grasp of harmonic theory. It’s the kind of thing you'd study in depth during a music theory course at a place like Juilliard.
Of course, I’m not talking about instantly recognizing the exact tones within an chord the moment you hear them without any help from an instrument. What I mean is what musicians with decent relative pitch call "ear training" or simply "transcribing" chords by ear.You shouldn't look at a tone or a chord in isolation. It’s more about the context within the entire composition. I guess you have to figure out what the composer was actually trying to achieve by introducing a dominant, a subdominant, a seventh, or even a parallel minor at a specific point in the piece.I suppose having a solid grasp of music theory and harmony can be a massive help, especially when you're tackling more complex arrangements.

Musical theory proficiency actually plays a role even for those with absolute pitch, especially when it comes to composing or complex recognition tasks. I guess it's just one more tool in the kit.

Here are a few pages that offer some clarification on the theoretical side of things.
Check out http://chordmaps.com/. It might be useful.
The fundamentals of interpreting theory can be found here: http://www.dolmetsch.com/theoryintro.htm

Regarding how people with absolute pitch perceive chords and tones—I suspect it comes down heavily to imagination. Music relies so much on that, after all. I wouldn't go so far as to claim everyone with perfect pitch sees notes in color, but I don't see why someone couldn't experience an F# (whether it’s a 7th, a 6th, major, or minor) as "purple," or a B as "green." Ultimately, the human imagination is limitless. It often lacks any logic that anyone else could understand, except perhaps for the person playing that specific mental movie.

Regarding Hendrix—he was a genius, and maybe we can’t fully wrap our heads around him. I suppose his perception of music, specifically that idea of seeing songs through colors, might have been influenced by the hallucinogens he used. But then again, I don't see why someone couldn't perceive a song as a certain color just through pure imagination. Music is deeply subjective, unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately. Imagination plays such a massive role, even in something as precise as harmony. What I experience as "blue," someone else might sense as "brown." There is no objective way to determine what color a song is, much like there is no objective way to decide if a track is actually good or if a painting is beautiful. There are only things that the majority happen to enjoy, but popularity doesn't equal quality. You look at mainstream pop hits that everyone loves, yet many others would argue they are just poorly written music.

I don't really get this question about hearing outside of music:
We perceive sounds as either tones or noise.
Sounds outside of music are just noise, which I assume absolute pitchers probably experience the same way they do any other noise.
(Noise is just noise; there’s nothing special about it, so why would it be heightened?)

Sarah Moore86 said:So, who among you actually has it?
Skip the comments saying "this happened a million times before." This is really the only way to get some firsthand insight into Perfect Pitch.

I don't really see why anyone thinks they have the authority to lecture others on Perfect Pitch.
Do you even know what Perfect Pitch is?

Here’s what the universities are saying about it:

Perfect Pitch and tonal deafness.

Some people have this ability to identify and name a musical pitch without any external reference point. It’s an incredibly rare trait, estimated to be held by only about 1% of the population. When people talk about having Perfect Pitch, they aren't referring to the skill of identifying a note relative to a baseline—like the lowest note someone can sing, for instance. It's something else entirely.

Rakowski (1972) conducted a study involving two groups: one consisting of individuals believed to possess that rare gift of Perfect Pitch, and a control group. Participants were asked to match a variable tone based on how much time had passed since they heard a reference tone. As the time intervals grew longer, the "average" participants saw a significant drop in accuracy; I suppose their mental auditory image of the pitch just fades away. However, those with Perfect Pitch could still recall the exact pitch using some sort of internal reference, allowing them to match the test tone accurately even after a delay. If the reference tone followed the standard musical scale (A=440 Hz), they didn't miss at all. These individuals seem unable to adopt a new standard; for instance, they might perceive a 1000 Hz tone as being slightly lower than a C. Given the standard 440 Hz reference for an "A," the frequency for a C would be 1046 Hz. You can improve your ability to memorize pitch through training, but it’s never going to come close to the natural ability seen in those born with it. It seems like a skill acquired in early childhood by essentially "recording" a limited set of tonal standards. Ward (1970) argues the opposite, though—suggesting we are all born with this capacity, but spend our lives being conditioned to rely on relative pitch instead.

The term "tone deafness" feels like an exaggeration. Most people can actually sense the difference between two pitches if the frequency gap is wide enough. The issue is usually that many people struggle to reproduce a specific note through singing, especially when it falls outside their natural speaking range. There are also those who can hear that two tones aren't identical, yet they can't quite tell which one is higher or lower. I suppose this ability can be significantly improved with practice. It often turns out that people who claim they "can't carry a tune" are actually capable of hearing very subtle pitch variations. It seems to me that the ability to perceive pitch is partly innate and partly learned.

I suppose there's still a balance remaining. The research on Perfect Pitch suggests that while it might seem like a superpower, it’s probably more about how the brain processes sound than some mystical gift. I guess there's a difference between actually hearing the note and just being able to categorize it quickly. Maybe it's just an incredibly efficient way of organizing auditory data. It’s interesting, I suppose, how much of this depends on early exposure to music. Some people seem wired for it, while others just have a very keen ear. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better musicians, though. Just different.

From what I’ve seen, larger choirs often rely on people with Perfect Pitch to catch subtle mistakes—the kind of tiny nuances that a regular ear might just miss. I guess it happens more than you'd think.

I once heard a theory during a discussion among some music enthusiasts regarding people with Perfect Pitch. The idea was that having such an ability might actually make it harder to enjoy music compared to the average listener. I suppose I can't say for sure if that's true, though there’s a certain logic to it, I guess.

In the States, I'm pretty sure someone like Quincy Jones would have it.

Nicholas Perez33 said:damn this war?

I wasn't aware, but Google seems to think you're right
so, my mistake

Douglas Stewart, what kind of public reaction did Mladenovic, Cane, and Gile get from that anti-war project?
Did they actually find support, or were they branded as traitors by nationalists and that big leader who (as you put it) controlled the media? Or were they just ignored entirely?

In our neck of the woods, anyone who left the States (like Šerbedžija, Furlanova, Štulić, Rundek...) or joined anti-war projects during the war era was labeled a coward or a traitor once things settled down. They’d call them traitors or old-school nostalgics—people even threw around much harsher labels. I think there was even a debate on the Politics forum recently regarding Šerbedžija in that exact context.

As for The Idiots and other punk bands, I'm not entirely sure how they reacted to the war events, or if they even did.
The Idiots strike me as an extremely left-leaning band, but I'm not sure which song you mean when you say they released an anti-war track a bit later... If I recall correctly, Pankrti played "Red Flag" before them. In terms of stuff that fits that wartime context, maybe "I Remember" counts... or were you thinking of something else?
If memory serves, the war also claimed one victim from the punk scene—Satana Panonski. He was an anarchist who, by his own account, wasn't American or anything else, just a punk. It’s ironic that he was the one to die in the war; his death is quite an interesting story (I think there’s a thread about it somewhere on the forum).

Dana Anderson4 said:They had their moment—Kekec is free now, so I guess it’s our turn...😬

Damn, I completely forgot about Kekec.

Thinking back to Kekec and those anti-war anthems, I’m reminded of one particular escapade involving that legendary bard from the Midwest. This Panhandle sailor used to preach that he’d rather see glaciers melt and volcanoes erupt than witness the madness of war between men. He wasn't exactly fluent in the local dialect, either—his accent was always a bit off. Then there was that New Year's Eve concert where he famously shouted that he wasn't going anywhere, followed by him cursing out the nineties on an album of the same name. Eventually, he grew out his beard, embraced life as a global citizen, and now looks out over his plains from the Alps. All in all, he’s a pretty unflappable character, I guess.
I'm giving it all I've got. 🙏 🙏 🙏 For the man with the moon in his eyes—supposedly a song about Vukovar.

That track on Bilo Cvitko? A solid ten out of ten.

Douglas Stewart said:On the other hand, in America, none of the rockers openly stood up against the war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stulic and Rundek just retreated. Milan Mladenovic (The Cure), Gile (Orgazam), and Cane (The Replacements) formed an anti-war project called Rimtutituki. They recorded a song and promoted it with a concert on a truck driving through New York.

I’ll sign off on whatever Banderas said regarding this post. It’s hard to sing anti-war protest songs like "Give Peace a Chance" when bearded lunatics are marching through Vukovar shouting slogans about sending salads while they hunt Americans, all while bombs are dropping in the middle of downtown Chicago and Dubrovnik.

As for the rest of the rockers, besides Psihomodo—who sang that America must win before moving on to infantile chatter about cartoons and linoleum paint—you have the Prljavci, who used to sing about American roses and cheered for the cause, only to stay at that level after the war, turning completely right-wing and never recording anything meaningful again. Valjak basically hid in a mousehole; you didn't hear a peep from them. Like you mentioned, Azra ceased to exist because Stulic left, there was nothing left of Haustor since Rundek retreated to Paris, and Film was gone. The generation that later carried American Rock (Pivo, Urban, exLaufer, Mother, Coyote) was mostly still at the demo band level or hadn't even emerged yet.

It seems to me that there is more longing for the collapse of that entire scene in New York than it is here in America 🤷 ...maybe I'm wrong...

...don't tell me we didn't have anti-war songs: the late Ivčić recorded "Stop the War in America," and Magazin and ET had little tracks like "Peace peace peace to the sky" and "Prayer for peace"...

Regarding "Druga Mexico City," in my opinion, the song isn't nationalistic, nor is it dripping with nostalgia, nor does it mourn the entire ex-Yugoslavia rock scene. It simply states how things are: we used to sing together, now it's time for us to shoot at one another. No pathos, no nostalgia, just the way it has to be... in the style of Brusiti Vilice from the Film "Dirty play dirty": "the grass is green, the sky is blue, damn it."

One inaccurate quote and everything falls apart. I guess you can't expect anything coherent from someone who acts like a human radio antenna, smelling blood and gasoline on the interstate while staying perfectly sober and stone-cold sober.

Dana Anderson4 said:Honestly, Americans and Mexicans are pretty much useless.😬

True, but maybe don't shout it so loud.
Those folks reading the Wall Street Journal or the Tomsonoljupac crowd might hear you and decide to ruin everyone's lives. They haven't infiltrated the music scene yet—at least, I don't think they have.

I agree. I only compared the two because it struck me that they share the same melody—just different lyrics set to that same tune from the song "On the Blue Sea Lament" in the movie "Remembering Dolly Bell." It's also because Bob Dylan's "New York Comrade" feels like a response to Springsteen's track, which Bob apparently took as a provocation or even an insult. I don't quite get his mindset, so I can't really wrap my head around why he felt the need to strike back with that raw, blunt, and—over the last decade—extremely political style of his.

IMHO, "New York Comrade" doesn't hold much artistic weight for me. It isn't anywhere near the quality of Jack's earlier stuff, like "Misfit" or "We Are Not Alone."

To me, the song seems more significant as a musician's reaction to the start of the war and the beginning of the end for our old country. It stands as one of those symbols of resistance against the aggression, alongside songs like "White Flower," "Chavoglave" (which, IMHO, aren't exactly high art either), and "My Homeland."

btw, did they ever perform "White Flower" in NYC?

Man, I doubt even if Bob Dylan agreed to play in Chicago in some wild sci-fi scenario, he’d ever perform a song about robbing the place just because people were looking for him.

I suppose they all share that trait where protecting their own skin matters more than satisfying fans. Then again, Jack Jupiter has always had his own eccentric way of seeing things, ever since those legendary clashes with Springsteen back during the New Wave era.

...he’s stayed the same, really. He just doesn't fit in.

Music has shifted from an art form into a pure business model. We’re seeing this fragmentation of the audience where everything is designed to sell a specific singer or a single track. In my view, we're losing the very essence of music—the reason it exists in the first place—which is to provide a way for people to (HONESTLY) express and convey their emotions.

Between globalization and rampant consumerism, fueled by the internet and cable TV, we've entered an era of hyper-production. This massive surge in quantity inevitably forces a decline in the quality of the music we're constantly bombarded with.

With such a vast amount of music available at any given moment, it takes quite a bit of luck for a song to actually float to the surface of a sea of similar tracks and become a hit.
There isn't much point in buying full albums anymore when you can easily just grab the one hit single online. Most of the rest of the album is usually just filler meant to pad out the runtime; they aren't really worth remembering.

I don't think music will die out, but I suspect our perception of it will change fundamentally.
The concept of the "album" might actually disappear. Labels and artists will likely pivot to releasing nothing but singles accompanied by music videos, since nobody buys albums anyway—they just download them. People will pay for singles, and that'll be that. CDs will become obsolete, collected only by nostalgic hobbyists or hardcore fanatics (not even mentioning vinyl), and the industry will have found its next way to turn a profit.
That's just my two cents.

dustyviper332 said:Musicians have turned it into a routine. Their goal isn't the music; it's the money. Consequently, they produce mediocre work.

Man, you're totally missing the point with a statement like that.
You're being far too cynical. You shouldn't generalize; not everyone operates the same way.

Want an example?
Based on your avatar, Bogdan (and based on your signature, a former TDD member) whom you clearly admire, are nothing more than session musicians playing for a paycheck (a very large one, I assume) following a set routine.

Music is entirely subjective. It's impossible to use objective metrics to decide what is high quality and what isn't. It comes down to taste, which isn't really worth arguing about.

Believe it or not,
those ghosts from my past (literally from my nightmares) are playing at the local summer festival during the Roses and Wine night on August 31st. Or maybe I'm just seeing things. If you don't believe me, here's the link if you want to check for yourself:

(I feel like dancing just thinking about this, though don't ask me how I know)

I'm genuinely curious which disaster they'll serve up this time. Mostly, I want to see if they've still got those female soccer players on the roster...

Benjamin King2 said:Well, why not go listen if you haven't yet? Just don't expect the "old school" version of The Roots...

I was on the fence about seeing Iggy Pop, but once I heard The Roots were playing...😬

I’ve never seen them live.
What does "old school" The Roots even mean here: the De La Soul era or the stuff from those warehouse shows in Brooklyn?
What's actually changed since then?

I love The Roots
What’s everyone’s favorite album?
Has anyone checked out Tank? What’s his deal?
Anyone seen the DVD *Keep Banging on the Walls*? Thoughts or ratings?
Has anyone actually caught them live?
How have they been lately?
I heard they’re playing in Chicago on August 28th as part of the festival
Just wondering if it’s worth catching them...