6 February, 2018 at 10:40 pm #1087258
I’ve had toilet paper printed with your picture on Sceppers now every time i use it i can wipe you from my memory…..LOLOLOLOLOL6 February, 2018 at 11:48 pm #10872647 February, 2018 at 1:11 am #1087272
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 :)7 February, 2018 at 1:58 am #1087276
Where was that bucket and mop again, think forgot to deliver cleaning products, Clorox bleach and so forth..!
Will whistle a happy tune…….haaaaaaaaa, heeeeee7 February, 2018 at 7:13 am #1087278
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.
7 February, 2018 at 3:27 pm #1087291
- This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Ge.
What a pleasant surprise, coming here to find two interesting posts from Morgan and Gerry which made me go away and think rather than embarrassed.
Morgan, I have (or had) an ear for music, but struggle with the technical vocabulary.
However, while I found your post sober and rational, I didn’t find it as helpful
Saying that both Bach and Sarstedt use arpeggios is really the same as mister q saying that they both use notes, chords and voices. It’s the night where all cats are black.
As you say, Bach wrote an awful lot, but he didn’t use arpeggios to nearly the same extent as later musicians.
Moreover, arpeggios are commonly used in both classical and popular music. If you’re going to say that Sarstedt reminds you of Bach, you’re going to need a lot more than saying that he used notes, chords and voices, and that he used arpeggios.
You’re going to have to say what part of Bach is similar to Sarstedt. Is there an arrangement in a particular Bach piece which brings Where Do You Go To, My Lovely’ to mind?
I find Sarstedt is more of a sing-song tune, folk-pop, and I read (after I googled the song, I must admit) that it was like a mock European waltz. The lyrics are creepy as well as pretentious.
But if you can point to a particular Bach piece as reminding you of the song, then that would be useful.
Or perhaps mister q can finally give us a clue?
1 member liked this post.7 February, 2018 at 3:39 pm #1087292
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.8 February, 2018 at 8:34 am #1087337
It is of course possible and probable, that MrQ’s association between Sarstedt’s song and Bach is not of a musical nature but more of an emotional or sensorial association. This does seem more likely, especially as MrQ’s music theory is probably quite limited.
The power of association is an amazing feature of the mind. Maybe when MrQ listens to Bach it brings out a certain emotion or a happy and gay feeling that Sarstedt’s song also does, there we have an association made. It could be a certain image invoked in his mind of cavorting in a haystack with the summer breeze blowing through his true loves long golden hair. If it is an emotional association it could be quite mysterious and unexplainable, therefore MrQ himself maybe doesn’t fully realise why he’s making such an association.
I hope this helps :)8 February, 2018 at 8:56 am #1087339
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.8 February, 2018 at 11:30 am #1087342
I’m glad Morgan’s getting Bach to basics……LOL ….ok that was a classical joke…LOL……thing is…i ain’t the most technical guy on the planet and i don’t ever pretend to be but here’s an interesting thing…………people go on about remixes today just like it had been invented five minutes ago……..Mozart was remixing back in his day…he was altering the structure and shape of his tunes when he was but a mere teen or younger.
These days, people value pianos in monetary terms……in fact….question for classical buffs…what instrument did Mozart originate with as ok i may be wrong but the piano was not around quite yet…..