Where do you go to my lovely?………….

I think MrQ’s connection between the song and Bach is Sarstedt’s use of arpeggios and implied arpeggios, which are Bach like. Bach’s music is very much built on the use of arpeggios as is a lot of Classical music. Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata is a good example of arpeggios in music.

It’s very probable that the distinct chord sequence of the Sarstedt song are identical or similar to something that Bach composed. A chord sequence is as identifiable as a melody when it comes to our familiarity and recognition of songs. Bach was such a prolific composer that its most likely there is a piece of music he composed that has the same or similar chord sequence. Starstedt’s timing though is very un Bach like, as he uses 6/8 timing, a double waltz, whereas Bach is a solid 4/4 kind of guy.

If MrQ has perfect pitch, which he doesn’t, he probably doesn’t even have relative pitch let alone perfect pitch, but if he does have perfect pitch then it’s also possible he can hear which key the song is in, and can relate that back to Bach’s use of keys. If MrQ is a huge Bach fan and listens to him a lot and is very familiar with his works, then it’s also possible he can “hear” Bach when he listens to other music.

I hope that helped :)

1 member liked this post.

sceptical guy

@ Morgan.

It did help, thanks.

Also suggesting there is not that much of a divide, between the two genres (a good pop song), as so called classical music aficionados tend to suggest. Like all music it should always be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by  Ge.

2 members liked this post.

Morgan., sceptical guy

Gerry,

There is still a lot of snobbery attached to classical music, but not as much as there used to be.

I differentiate between good and poor music, rather than classical (which refers to a particular period of music – the late 18t and 19th centuries) and pop. Highbrow music (what most people wrongly call classical) and lowbrow music ( in the music hall tradition of ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay) has been giving way since the 1960s at least. Musical; style is a continuum from the most to the least challenging – had to take care on that last word).

However, there is bad music, and Peter Sarstedt is an example of cringe worthy, pretentious music which tries very hard to be to be highbrow.

I loved it when it first came out – I was in my teens and the head-swaying lilt of the tune and the mock profundity of the lyrics made an impression on me. A few years later I heard ti and cringed.

The lyrics are creepy. Full of references to the jet-set which cold be culled from any Sunday Time s Colour Supp so popular then, the idea that a woman should have no private place but have this oily smarmer claiming he could, look inside her head was nauseous.

On googling the song today (after morgan’s post) I found john Peel, the dj, described the song as his least favourite piece of music.  He said it was “a terrible, smug, self-satisfied, hideous record. Really have hated it from he moment I first heard it”. To which I can only give whole-hearted accord.

Back to Music theory :)

Music evolves like everything does. Bach stamped his DNA in music. Every generation after Bach carries his influence, sometimes it’s obvious sometimes it’s not so obvious. The influence will diminsh with generations, yet always remain. All the giants of Music stamp their musical DNA upon the next generations developement. If one has the musical know how, all modern music can be easily traced back to previous generations. Think of it as a musical family tree. In our musical family tree, there will be a direct line between Starstedt and Bach, just about every piece of music post Bach will be connected to him, but Starstedt wasn’t a musical giant and didn’t shape music for generations to come, so he would be on a little twig and not a big major important branch like Bach.

Find me a decent rock guitarist today who hasn’t any Jimi Hendrix in them.