[HN Gopher] The death of the key change
___________________________________________________________________
The death of the key change
Author : colinprince
Score : 161 points
Date : 2022-11-18 01:53 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tedium.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (tedium.co)
| bitwize wrote:
| The last-chorus step up in key has been called the "Truck
| Driver's Gear Shift" and widely mocked as a cheap way to add
| energy to a song that is flagging, reaching its end, and needs to
| go out with a bang. Musicians started attempting to end their
| music on its own terms rather than resort to a gimmick in
| response.
| 8note wrote:
| 2005-2012 or so Canadian jazz is full of the one-semi-tone-higher
| key change
| ghostpepper wrote:
| This is an oddly specific set of qualifiers. Would love to hear
| how you arrived at this conclusion and maybe some examples
| jader201 wrote:
| I don't care if it is a trope, I miss key changes. Maybe because
| I grew up in the 80s and early 90s where it was common. But I
| have a fondness for songs that had them.
|
| Some songs did them in a way that was predictable, just following
| the formula of others, but some did them really well.
|
| One stand-out example, to me, is how Seal closes the song "People
| Asking Why" (around the 3:16 mark):
|
| https://youtu.be/qq_bfcvdN-0
|
| With his vocal range, he was one of the few that could pull
| something like that off.
| fedeb95 wrote:
| This isn't an accurate title since it only talks about a tiny
| subset of genres available and specifically concentrates on
| popular (hence historically simple) songs
| 4oo4 wrote:
| Speaking as someone that prefers weird and experimental music but
| also has some theory training, IMO, most key changes, especially
| a big one at the end of a pop song are overrated and don't add
| much.
|
| Also, if this is only looking at popular music as defined by the
| Billboard charts, that's more likely caused by the homogenization
| of music production and a very small group of producers that are
| responsible for the majority of hit songs. This is a much better
| analysis:
|
| https://pudding.cool/2018/05/similarity/
|
| I really don't like the assumption behind these types of articles
| that increased complexity of music theory-wise automatically
| means better music. Just like adding unnecessary complexity when
| writing code is always better.
|
| Both complex and simply structured music both have merit, and I'd
| argue that more simple music is harder to do well beacuse you
| need a really strong central idea/concept to make it work.
|
| For example, musically Perfume Genius is extremely simple, but
| it's still some of the best songwriting I've ever heard. It works
| so well because of the simpliclity makes the subjects he's
| singing about even more stark and makes it feel more vulnerable.
| If complexity were all it took to write good music, then everyone
| would be listening to things like Ornette Coleman (who is great
| at doing the exact opposite).
|
| You can still be an excellent musician without knowing a lot of
| theory, and it also should be pointed out that our system of
| music theory is based around classical composers who made up the
| rules as they went. All you really need is muscle memory and
| recognizing harmony and dissonance.
|
| As much as I respect people like Rick Beato that are into this
| old school view of music needing to be heavily backed by theory
| and saying "they don't write songs like they used to", I think
| it's very elitist and extremely artistically myopic to claim
| authority on something that's completely subjective.
|
| Yes it can help to know theory depending on what type of music
| you want to make, but you might also make even better music not
| having that sense of what's correct or not. This is the approach
| that Giorgio Moroder took and he's one of the most successful and
| inventive producers of all time.
|
| And just remember that pop music is a market demographic and a
| product more than it is a distinct genre/style, and that we
| should all be free to listen to whatever music we want, however
| correct or wrong someone else tells you it is.
| ano-ther wrote:
| Interesting observation about "horizontal" vs "vertical"
| songwriting, driven by technology.
|
| Can relate to that.
|
| On guitar, what I come up with will more likely be a progression
| -- which then gets layered (horizontal first). On Ableton, it
| usually starts with layering a loop before I build it over time
| (vertical first).
| kleiba wrote:
| My hypothesis is that you can choose any aspect of composition
| that musicians find exciting and note the same decline over time.
| You don't have to be a music theorist to observe that by and
| large, today's music has been dumbed down in comparison. On a
| scale from "most producer friendly" to "art" it's definitely
| leaning heavily to the left.
|
| You can especially note that when it comes to harmonies, and
| harmonic shifts (aka key changes) are not the only aspect that
| has been greatly simplified. Elaborate harmonies are just not a
| thing anymore.
|
| And that's not just the typical effect that old generations
| cannot relate as much to the music of new generations. No, it's
| that today's taste - which, of course, has been mostly shaped by
| the exposure to today's music - appreciates songs that are, from
| a musician's perspective, much simpler in almost every aspect.
| The only exception that I can think of is that the performance
| capabilities of the singer have been put much more in the focus,
| so you can find songs today that are really difficult to sing
| well. This is mostly true for female performers, though, and the
| beginnings of that trend can probably be traced back to Whitney
| Houston and especially Mariah Carey, who made a certain
| Coloratura-style of singing fashionable.
|
| I think hardly anyone will dispute the observation that today's
| music business is much more professionalized than it had already
| been since the beginning of recording technology. And that goes
| to tell. It really _is_ a business, and the process of producing
| a hit song has been streamlined tremendously.
|
| Of course, we need to keep in mind that the focus of the article
| (as well as my comment) is on chart pop music. And of course,
| this is a big-picture kind of observation, not claiming that you
| couldn't cite some (however, rare) exceptions here and there. A
| thriving alternative scene with much more elaborate song writing
| has never ceased to exist, but that's not what gets played on
| your average top-40 radio station (for the youngens: "streams").
| goto11 wrote:
| > today's music has been dumbed down in comparison.
|
| People have been saying that as long as popular music have
| existed. Jazz was considered dumb and unsophisticated, crooners
| were considered dumb and unsophisticated, rock music was
| considered dumb and unsophisticated.
|
| Each of these genres just discard previous measures of
| sophistication and introduce their own. The article have an
| interesting observation about "vertical" vs "horizontal"
| songwriting. Newer music is just different.
|
| Kendrick Lamar is not dumbed down compared to Bon Jovi just
| because he doesn't change the key before that last chorus.
| vehemenz wrote:
| While I agree with your overall point, a longstanding
| previous trend does not indicate a present trend. This is a
| popular "fallacy fallacy". The metrics of evaluation can
| change while dumbing down still occurs.
|
| If you look at the demographics of top 40 listeners today
| compared to forty years ago, the popularity of the hits are
| more narrowly confined to teens and young adults,
| particularly in the working class US and in developing Latin
| American countries. You can also look at the ethos of the top
| genres, such as rap and country, which are less broadly
| appealing than popular genres of the past such as rock, R&B,
| or even jazz.
|
| This is driven by economics. Young people have more free time
| than adults, and they have greater access to music than they
| did in the pre-Internet age. So unless we think young music
| streamers have comparable taste to music-buying adults of the
| past, it seems likely that dumbing down to a certain point to
| meet the audience's expectations is more profitable than the
| alternative.
| goto11 wrote:
| > If you look at the demographics of top 40 listeners today
| compared to forty years ago, the popularity of the hits are
| more narrowly confined to teens and young adults
|
| I didn't know that. Can you point me to the source of these
| numbers? I would like to know more.
| vehemenz wrote:
| I didn't cite any numbers. You can look up the age
| discrepancies between AM/FM during the early 80s. FM was
| dominated by the 12-24 demo, but the music industry was
| attached to AM and reacted slower to audience research
| back then. If you prefer a qualitative approach, you can
| look at the charts from the late 70s/early 80s and
| compare them to today.
| goto11 wrote:
| You said:
|
| > If you look at the demographics of top 40 listeners
| today compared to forty years ago, the popularity of the
| hits are more narrowly confined to teens and young adults
|
| So how do I look at these demographics and confirm this
| claim?
| dwringer wrote:
| Absolutely - the criticism of most guitarists only knowing 3
| chords goes back afaik to the first bard who ever strung up a
| lute. I also think although we remember the songs that break
| molds, at any moment in history most popular music tends to
| be relatively simple. There's nothing wrong with that I think
| - just as people don't (or probably shouldn't) eat caviar and
| filet mignon at every meal, much of the time music serves as
| more of an idle distraction than some intense spiritual
| experience.
| lebuffon wrote:
| Supposed quote from the middle ages:
|
| "Lute players spend half their time tuning and the other
| half playing out of tune"
| adamc wrote:
| Movable frets made of gut both allow for better tuning
| and require more tuning.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I think we are seeing a much longer tail in music consumption.
| This kinda "squeezes" the top into a much less dynamic place.
|
| As everybody has a more individual selection of music, due to
| easy and cheap access to almost all published music ever, the
| common denominator becomes smaller.
|
| I don't think music is becoming dumber overall.
| lbriner wrote:
| > Elaborate harmonies are just not a thing anymore.
|
| I think that's a niaive analysis of a lot of popular music. If
| I listen to Justin Beiber or Sam Fender or Taylor Swift, their
| songs often contain very rich harmony, not necessarily (but
| definitely including) vocal harmonies but across
| instrumentation, deviation from the 4-chord song and even a lot
| of mixing of influences in, what I have to say, are some very
| unique and refreshing ways that I have either not heard before
| or certainly not in the mainstream.
|
| I think most people just have getting old syndrome. The stuff I
| listened to when I was in my formative years was great and
| everything since then not so much.
|
| I'm personally very pleased with the quality of new music
| without having to like all of it.
| adamc wrote:
| I listen to a lot of music across a lot of eras, and I'm not
| particularly fond of the 70s or early 80s ( _my_ era). I
| agree that "in my day" is a thing, but the criticism is
| accurate anyway.
|
| I think vocal harmonies affect people differently for the
| same reasons people find vocals so compelling: we have
| wetware devoted to the human voice. It isn't just another
| instrument, perceptually, at least for most people.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The business really isn't any more professionalised than it
| used to be. The popular music business has a _long_ history
| going all the way back to popular printed sheet music in the
| 19th century. It 's always been mercenary, manipulative, and
| cynical. Simon Napier-Bell - who used to manage Wham! and other
| familiar names - has written some fascinating books about it.
| They're a must read for anyone interested in the history.
|
| There are always competing forces pulling music towards
| simplicity and complexity. Whenever the complexity is squashed
| in one place it comes back in another.
|
| The biggest change over the last decade or so has been
| increasingly ornate production. In the 80s mixes were semi-
| automated, but you couldn't do much except change levels. Now
| you can automate _everything_ - levels, EQ, EQ type, effects,
| effect parameters - with extreme precision and accuracy.
|
| So most modern mixes have constant subtle changes. They don't
| leap out like a key change, but (for example) the vocal tone
| and the effects on the vocal will often change phrase by
| phrase. Or even word by word.
| kazinator wrote:
| Key changes that just abruptly shift a repeating pop chorus
| near the end of a song by a step or half step are pretty dumb
| though; it's not clear that losing them specifically is a
| dumbing down.
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| I agree. I think it's simply that this thing which used to
| sometimes happen now never happens, thus making the music
| more predictable and further lowering the entropy rate of
| music as a stochastic process.
| goto11 wrote:
| Sure, if you ignore things which happen now in music but
| didn't use to happen.
|
| For example the article mention more different keys are
| used today.
| adamc wrote:
| Sure. But there are lots and lots of Beatles songs (for
| example) that shift keys in the main verse, often very early
| in the song (and often several times).
|
| Key changes used to be something most bands handled easily,
| and the best songwriters got a lot of mileage out of it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > My hypothesis is that you can choose any aspect of
| composition that musicians find exciting and note the same
| decline over time.
|
| Even within the pop world, contemporary percussion/drumming is
| often significantly more complex than in the past (and outside
| the pop world, almost always).
|
| Some musicians also find timbre rather exciting, and the
| possibilities (and usage) here have also expanded significantly
| over the last 60 years.
| joenot443 wrote:
| I don't think music is getting dumbed down, just that different
| aspects are becoming more prioritized than others were in the
| past.
|
| Listen to a 100 gecs or other hyperpop song and listen to some
| of rhythmic motifs being used. This isn't a fringe genre
| either, it's hugely popular with gen z. It may not have key
| changes like a rock ballad, but it has lots of musical ideas
| which songwriters from the last 60 years never even had access
| to.
| 323 wrote:
| > Elaborate harmonies are just not a thing anymore.
|
| I think one way to categorize music is harmony focused
| (European classical music) or rhythm focused (African tribal
| music).
|
| In the last 30 years we've seen a big shift towards more rhythm
| based music, especially in electronic music.
|
| I don't think it's just a fad, I think it's deeper, rhythm can
| put the brain in a trance like state, this is harder to do with
| harmonies.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| My theory is that when European classical music was being
| written, there were no loudspeakers, amplifiers, effects or
| digital instruments. To fill whole auditable frequency
| spectrum multiple instruments were needed to play multiple
| pitches at once.
|
| Reason for this is that most instruments could only fill part
| of the spectrum. Organ being one notable exception. Still,
| even on organ, to fill the whole spectrum, multiple notes
| need to be played at the same time. So, harmony was very
| important to produce a full sound.
|
| Today, a single synth can fill the whole frequency spectrum
| by playing just one note. So, to have a full sound, harmonies
| aren't necessary anymore.
| adamc wrote:
| Yes, except that I think people relate to voices
| differently than other instruments; maybe our brains lock
| onto human voices in a special way. So harmonies that are
| sung still have a different effect.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| I agree, we definitely have more fundamental connection
| to a human voice than other instruments.
| ruined wrote:
| it's worth noting that there are many more timbral manipulations
| now available. effects such as a filter can serve a similar
| purpose to a key change and can even be modulated as instruments
| in their own right. modern producers have many more options.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm sorry, but this is a silly article.
|
| Yes, key changes went away in US pop music at some point a few
| decades ago.
|
| But the idea that this has to do either with hip-hop or with
| digital music production is frankly ludicrous, and the author
| presents zero causal evidence here except that all three things
| happened very roughly around the same time. And the proposed
| explanations make _zero_ sense.
|
| The real answer is simply that the shifting the key up in a
| dramatic energy-raising fashion _just went out of style, like a
| thousand other things in music_. As the author themself notes,
| they 're "heavy-handed" and "trite". I could add corny, old-
| fashioned, and overly earnest to that list.
|
| Everything in music gets overdone and then fades away to make
| room for the next new thing. There's no more reason needed for
| this than people just got tired of the old thing -- which they
| always will.
|
| Claiming it's because of hip-hop or digital music is just
| strange.
| jdontillman wrote:
| I don't think you can separate music, or any art form for that
| matter, from the artist's craft, skill, expressiveness,
| resources, and materials.
|
| ---
|
| Digital isn't inherently bad, but...
|
| If the ENTIRETY of your music production is done on a DAW
| (Digital Audio Workstation) app, with its available tools and
| plugins, that's gonna have an effect.
|
| And I think that's what we're seeing.
|
| If today's music producers used the DAW only for recording, and
| stayed away for composing, arranging, and becoming proficient
| at playing instruments, things would be much better.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sure using a DAW has an effect, mainly in providing _more_
| tools, but the idea that one of its effects is _no more key
| changes_ makes... just utterly no sense. DAW 's handle key
| changes just fine, they don't do a single thing to make them
| more difficult or lead you to forget about them.
|
| It makes as much sense as saying the popularity of young-
| adult novels is due to authors using word processors instead
| of writing by hand. The two have nothing to do with each
| other.
| Kreutzer wrote:
| Yes, those 'lifting' key changes in MJ's songs may seem
| gratuitous, but key changes were used more subtlety by, for
| instance, Beatles to enrich the music with expressiveness even
| at the expense of musical common sense. And if anything, pop
| music today is just too uniform.
| blue039 wrote:
| I don't think it's that strange. Perhaps calling out those two
| in particular might seem a little vindictive but I'd say
| _modern music_ in general.
|
| Modern music is watered down and simple. The drums are all 4x4,
| the chords are all the same, the progressions are predictable,
| etc. I'm not talking about just a genre using a particular set
| of chords, I am talking about literally being able to predict
| the next note using only 10 seconds of audio. Moreover, there
| is so much tooling around making absolutely talentless hacks
| sound good (auto-tune, quantization, very clever filtering)
| it's hard to actually know if someone is even real sometimes.
|
| More than ever I've also noticed modern music videos are simply
| advertisements for luxury brands. I just think the new
| generation lacks the sophistication to enjoy _good_ music.
| Every generation since the invention of arguably the highest
| most supreme form of musical arrangement, orchestral
| arrangement, has resulted in slowly stripping away any sort of
| intellectual endeavor listening music had held. There 's a
| reason classic rock is called classic rock and stuff made in
| the 90s onward doesn't qualify. It was probably the last period
| of time where music actually required talent rather than a
| ghost writer and an advertising deal. This isn't just my age
| speaking. I suspect in 50 years people will still remember
| Zeppelin, but no one will remember Jay-Z.
| jdontillman wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| The author is referring to the up-a-half-step modulation that
| Barry Manilow tactically used all over the place.
|
| I call it a "Manilow".
|
| ---
|
| But yeah, it's just one of the many elements of musical craft
| that's missing in today's popular music.
|
| Sampled sounds are (by definition) lifeless.
|
| Sequenced rhythm tracks are unnaturally consistent.
|
| See Paul Lamere's "In search of the click track":
| https://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/02/in-search-of-the-
| click...
|
| A lack of rhythmic variation. Consider the folk tradition of
| wandering from the time signature; Pete Seeger and early Paul
| Simon for instance. And the Beatles, certainly
|
| Generally a lack of pickup notes, or "anacrusis".
|
| And the lack of an inspirational melody or chord change.
|
| ---
|
| 60's pop music was, I think, a special case because the hit
| songs had to get noticed and appreciated in a worst-case
| listening environment; typically a crappy AM radio.
| msla wrote:
| > There's a reason classic rock is called classic rock and
| stuff made in the 90s onward doesn't qualify.
|
| Of course rock made in the 1990s is classic rock now. That's
| how it works: Music made when the target demographic was in
| its teens and young adulthood is classic, and the music from
| the era when the currently dying generation was young gets
| aged out. When was the last time you heard Dion and the
| Belmonts on terrestrial radio? How about Frankie Lymon and
| the Teenagers? That's music. That's how all this works. Soon
| enough, Jay-Z will be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I
| mean, if Jelly Roll Morton (look him up, kiddo) can make it,
| they obviously abandoned the "Rock and Roll" part of their
| name long ago.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_.
| ..
| msla wrote:
| I must correct myself: Jelly Roll Morton is in the "Early
| Influences" section of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
|
| Jay-Z, on the other hand, is in the main category.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| Tbh I think we look at older music with rose colored cglasses
| cause only the best of the best pop music survives. Pop music
| has always and will always be simple and shitty by and large.
|
| However, in modern times, the barrier to entry of record an
| album is virtually 0. You can make a masterpiece in your
| bedroom if you want to. There is SO much interesting music
| happening right now I really resent this idea that music has
| somehow lost its way.
|
| Examples : king gizzard and the lizard wizard, the dillinger
| escape plan, bjork, death grips, tim hecker, danny brown, etc
| etc the list is damn near infinite. Lots of incredible,
| boundary pushing music has happened in the last 15 or so
| years, and continues on a daily basis
| blue039 wrote:
| ilyt wrote:
| Pretty much. Ask anyone to name top pop artist from top off
| their heads from 5, 10, 20 years ago and the list of those
| names will be very, very short.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| Also, key changes are actually pretty common in hip hop. Its a
| really really common technique to shift everything down a half
| step at some point in the song or to do a tape slowdown effect
| which pitches everything down. Not technically a "key change"
| but effectively the same thing.
| adamc wrote:
| I don't think it's just a fashion thing. There is a real
| outcome of this: the music is simpler and less interesting.
| Modulation isn't the only missing ingredient, though.
| Quantization and click tracks and pitch-correction and sampling
| have all combined to reduce the variation in songs.
|
| Part of it is driven by the need to make production cheaper
| (since music is less profitable now), so it's hard to say if it
| will come back.
| hammock wrote:
| Pitch correction is harder to do live, if there are key
| changes, since you can set your auto tuner to a specific key
|
| Also, key changes present some increased difficulty (not
| insurmountable of course) in live performance on certain
| instruments like guitars. And the fact is (at least frontman)
| music artists are getting less talented at their instruments
| on average
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Having never performed live I'm just guessing, but
| theoretically changing keys on autotune should be as simple
| as pressing a single button at the correct point in the
| song, no? Conceivably it could even be programmed in with
| everything else
| hammock wrote:
| Yes it is programmed for, e.g. Taylor Swift shows. For us
| regular guys there's a separate autotune box for each
| voice and it's sometimes not as simple as pressing one
| button.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _the music is simpler and less interesting_
|
| _If_ you listen to top 40 only, then _maybe_. (Although a
| lot of top-40 music back in the 70 's was pretty bad too. We
| only continue to listen to the cream of the crop from back
| then, not the average radio station song.)
|
| _But_ if you 're listening to top 40 music these days, well
| that's your fault. _Outside_ of it, there 's never been more
| complexity and variety and interest and genre-mixing in the
| history of music than today. You're not stuck with the radio,
| you've got Spotify and the stuff you can find outside of the
| mainstream is _amazing_.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Shouldn't the move to digital recording also made the ability to
| make key changes much easier? Frequent key changes in music are
| supposed to be difficult for musicians to handle, but in the bass
| example shown adding a key change would have meant you need to
| record four notes rather than two.
| narag wrote:
| Not so much a problem of recording.
|
| The difficult part is finding a nice change and the right
| chords and notes to work as a bridge. Also if sung, not getting
| out of range.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| Technically, it is easier. But I think the article makes a good
| point that the specific tools and techniques chosen influence
| the artistic expression.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| ...also that the tech that made it 'technically easier' was
| easily aquired by less-trained musicians who really didn't
| care about key changes. Happy to say i grew up stoned and
| listened to some of the dirgiest drivel you could ever find -
| and loved every moment of it. Learning to compose introduced
| 'choices': should it change....why...what am i trying to
| achieve...is it required?
|
| Sorry - Cant get to link but there's a canadian musician on
| yt that plays guitar solos for quite some time over the same
| looped backing tracks. Lovely stuff.
| jws wrote:
| One reason to use a key change is to move the lead vocalist to a
| different part of their range. You can get a different sound to a
| too often repeated chorus or let them do a variation on the
| melody which would have been undelightful in the original key.
|
| Also, as a bass player. I don't care. I mean, I'll whine if you
| go to Gb, but it's mostly just for form. Any awkwardness in
| fitting low lines on the instrument is more than made up by
| telling a guitar player to play the Cb chord.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| The simple answer is that Sergio Mendes already used up all the
| key changes in 1983, nothing's left for modern-day musicians:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOPh3bTglak
| jader201 wrote:
| Yeah, whenever I hear song, I'm not thinking about the lyrics
| or anything else except "yeah, this song has a lot of key
| changes".
| chx wrote:
| goto11 wrote:
| You can dance to pure rhythm, without melody. You can't dance
| to a melody without any rhythm. If follows that rhythm is more
| fundamental to music than melody, even though you usually need
| both.
| kweingar wrote:
| Are drummers not musicians because they don't play melodies and
| harmonies?
| ghusto wrote:
| That, is an excellent simile-example (?), and made it clearer
| for me. Clear enough to say "I don't know!".
|
| It feels almost as if the answer is "they are a component of
| the whole, but not musicians by themselves". i.e. the beat
| can't be music by itself, but the vocals for example, can.
|
| I don't fully believe that though, and am leaning more
| towards a beat being able to be music by itself too. You can
| see my dilemma though :P
| kweingar wrote:
| I don't really understand your dilemma. Why are drummers
| not musicians?
| bmacho wrote:
| I guess GP sat down, and thought about it. I do that
| myself time to time, then I realize that despite to my
| best efforts I can't defend some common sense ideas, and
| must accept it as false. Usually hard to even explain.
|
| .. just think about it with an open mind, or try to even
| defend that drummers are musicians. I think most
| definitions of musicians don't include drummers much more
| than the costume designers or the publishers. (They work
| in the music industry, make music better, but can't and
| don't create music themselves alone.) I lean towards that
| they are not musicians.
|
| Also if GGGP doesn't classify hiphop or rap as music,
| then the "but the drummers are usually classified as
| musicians too" argument doesn't work on many levels.
| midoridensha wrote:
| I'd call drummers "musicians" because the drums (which
| have rhythm) are a necessary part of the musical
| composition, and the drummer is performing that integral
| part of the music.
|
| What's harder to decide, IMO, is whether a drum solo
| really constitutes "music".
|
| If rap isn't music, then is a drum solo also not music?
|
| Personally, I can't stand most rap, but I also get bored
| with drum solos and usually skip them, even if I
| otherwise really love the drum parts of the band's other
| songs.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| your enjoyment as an individual has nothing to do with
| musicality but portraying them as related does display
| reactionary tendencies
| bazoom42 wrote:
| > What's harder to decide, IMO, is whether a drum solo
| really constitutes "music".
|
| That is not hard to decide. Of course a drum solo is
| music.
| 8note wrote:
| Just practicing the drums can be highly musical:
| https://youtu.be/SSlEQNoCAXM
|
| Or, I just spent a while whistling a long to take the a
| train at the end of https://youtu.be/crZ8ALG3tm4
| omnicognate wrote:
| There is no dilemma. Rhythm is an utterly fundamental,
| inseparable part of music. If anything, it's arguably more
| fundamental than melody (and certainly more so than
| harmony).
|
| Just try getting a computer to play the notes of some of
| your favourite tunes with equal - or, better, random -
| duration and weighting if you want to be convinced of that.
| Also observe that music without melody can be found
| everywhere, from rap to Steve Reich to the Kodo Drummers,
| but to exclude rhythm relegates you to the really out there
| stuff like 4'33" (complete silence) or music composed of
| randomly timed or continuously varying sounds.
|
| We have perfectly good terms to distinguish between rhythm
| and melody such as, you know, "rhythm" and "melody". Your
| instinctive desire to define "music" so as to somehow
| exclude rhythm is simply wrong.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Also observe that music without melody can be found
| everywhere, from rap to Steve Reich
|
| Steve Reich would dispute this, with gusto. You can only
| possibly make the claim that he ever composed non-melodic
| sound in his earliest years (e.g. "Come Out"), but even
| then he was fascinated by the implicit melodic signatures
| of otherwise non-melodic music (realized later in a piece
| like Different Trains, where he explicitly has
| instruments play the melody of spoken words).
| omnicognate wrote:
| I didn't say he only made non-melodic music. I don't see
| on what basis he or anyone would describe Clapping Music
| (which I recently saw performed at a school concert,
| hence it being on my mind), for example, as melodic.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Fair enough, though Clapping Music is AFAIR the exception
| that proves the rule.
| froh wrote:
| > simile-example
|
| analogue - the thing which is compared
|
| analogy - the act of comparing
|
| in this case you'd use "analogy", as in "this is an
| excellent analogy ..."
|
| the analogue is the musical characteristics of the drums,
| in reference to musical styles, moving from style to
| instruments by, well, analogy.
| ghusto wrote:
| Thank you! I _knew_ there was a word for it :P
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Old joke:
|
| Q: What do you call someone who hangs around with musicians?
|
| A: A drummer.
| 8note wrote:
| When I played drums, I played them melodically. It's not
| particularly out there, you're just limited on which notes
| you have available
| earleybird wrote:
| Of course they are, just ask Charlie[0]
|
| [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2021/0
| 8/2...
| parenthesis wrote:
| Roy Haynes is one of the greatest musicians I have ever
| heard.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| I think drums are more expressive than rap, in comparison rap
| sounds monotone, but monotone drumming isn't used in music.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| People have felt that way about folk music, blues music, atonal
| music, pop music, bebop music, avant garde electronic music,
| rock 'n roll music, hip hop music, EDM, etc etc etc etc
| bazoom42 wrote:
| > I really wish I had a better word for these two categories
|
| Maybe "music you like" and "music you dont like"?
|
| It is totally fine to not like certain genres of music. But it
| is pretty dumb to say "I don't like this book, therefore it is
| not a book".
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Simply racist/reactionary nonsense
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| it's a ben shapiro talking point:
| https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/ben-shapiro-thinks-
| rap-... there's a reason they (nonsense reactionaries) focus
| on black music over anything else that these flawed
| argumentations would also apply to
| goto11 wrote:
| OK that is hilarious!
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| word for word. it's anti-black culture war nonsense,
| whether they know it or are just parroting it. and it's
| not even accurate, showing a basic ignorance of the genre
| [deleted]
| adamc wrote:
| The formatting of that article is a bit hard to read.
|
| People have been pointing out how little modulation there is in
| modern pop music for a while. Combined with click-tracks, pitch-
| correction and sampling, there is just less variation in most
| modern pop songs.
| codeulike wrote:
| _With that in mind, it's probably not a coincidence that the only
| number one hit to use a key change during the 2010s is also one
| of the most iconic: Travis Scott's "SICKO MODE."_
|
| That can't be true, surely? Only one number one song with a key
| change in a whole decade? (I assume we're talking US charts?)
|
| Crazy by Gnarls Barkely has some nice key changes but it only got
| to number 2 apparently.
| b450 wrote:
| I thought Beyonce's "Love on Top" might qualify. Pretty iconic
| use of key changes, but it apparently peaked at #20 on the hot
| 100.
| re wrote:
| > Crazy by Gnarls Barkely
|
| Starts and ends in the same key. There's some minor<->major
| mode shifting over the course of the song, but the tonic
| remains the same.
| codeulike wrote:
| Ah I see, it does some unusual stuff with chords, I was
| hearing it as a key change
|
| https://flypaper.soundfly.com/produce/the-flurry-of-
| harmonic...
| kevinwang wrote:
| Do people not consider parallel key shifts to be key changes?
|
| (btw whoever invented the name "parallel key" for majors and
| minors with the same tonic did a terrible job)
| bena wrote:
| I mean, key changes may not be popular right now, but things have
| a way of coming back around. Sooner or later, someone is going to
| make a really good song with a key change and then it's going to
| be back in rotation.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| That's not necessarily true.... Swelling vibrato-heavy string
| backing on choruses were a staple for decades, have been gone
| for just as long, and are probably never coming back thank god.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I'd take that bet. I'd bet you that backing by full-blooded,
| real bowed strings, with plummy vibrato and all, will come
| back in style at some point in the next thirty years.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| aight
| bena wrote:
| To be fair, later can be very later. On the order of decades
| even.
|
| And maybe it just winds up with a dedicated niche audience.
| Never fully mainstream, but never out of the current culture
| either. It's hard to predict what people will like in the
| future. The best we can do is just do things _we_ like.
| circlefavshape wrote:
| I normally think the up-a-semitone key change is kinda trite,
| with the exception of The Rainbow Connection from The Muppets.
| Changes key in a non-obvious way after the middle-8 and really
| gives the song a lift
|
| (FWIW I write songs with key changes all the time (usually
| tonic->dominant). If only someone would listen to them ...)
| progre wrote:
| In Swedens top 20 (Svensktoppen) the key change became a
| ridiculed trope. See, Sweden top 20 is for Swedish musichians
| only. The imported (American and British mostly) music had a
| separate list, "Tracks".
|
| Neither of the lists was based on sales by the way, since the
| state media monopoly was supposedly non-commercial.
|
| Anyway the Sweden top 20 stuff stayed dance-based (think
| jitterbug, not rave). Somewhere someone started talking about the
| key change. Even non-musichians learned to hear and point out the
| key change (easy, almost always the last refrain). Sweden top 20
| leaned in to it. More humor oriented songs now include the key
| change in the lyrics ("here comes the pull-up).
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Key is described as choosing a certain set of notes from all the
| available ones. The picture shows that the F key is missing in G
| major.
|
| Is there any popular music that belongs to multiple keys because
| they only use the notes that are shared between them?
|
| Or, is there anything that doesn't belong to any key because it
| uses more notes than are allowed by any key?
| torotonnato wrote:
| > Key is described as choosing a certain set of notes from all
| the available ones.
|
| Not exactly, take for example the Cmaj scale. You can write
| different melodies that "gravitate" around one of the 7 notes
| and that effect makes up for a particular mode of the scale of
| C. Even if the notes are exactly the same you can easily hear
| the different flavor of each mode.
|
| The easiest way to hear the modes is to play continuously the
| Cmaj scale against a C drone (a long note), but each time
| starting from a different grade of the scale of Cmaj. Same
| notes, different feelings. It's unclear to me (and I think
| controversial even among musicians) if you should use the mode
| name as a qualifier for the key and usually people just say
| that a song is in the key of $note, but you can definitely hear
| the difference. In particular, it is (was?) common to modulate
| to the relative minor/major key to highlight a section of a
| song (e.g.: key changes from Cmaj to Amin, same notes).
|
| > Is there any popular music that belongs to multiple keys
| because they only use the notes that are shared between them?
|
| It's very common in jazz, a classic example: Giant steps by
| Coltrane. The song continuously modulates in major thirds and
| loops around three keys.
|
| > Or, is there anything that doesn't belong to any key because
| it uses more notes than are allowed by any key?
|
| Look up "serialism" and "atonal music".
| codeulike wrote:
| _Key is described as choosing a certain set of notes from all
| the available ones._
|
| A key is not just a collection of allowed notes, there is a
| kindof frequency distribution to them too, so that the tonic is
| either the most used or the most implied. The fifth is often
| the second-most-used. Its sortof like a key has a 'center of
| gravity' in the tonic note. Either it will be used a lot or
| alluded to a lot by the other notes.
|
| _Is there any popular music that belongs to multiple keys
| because they only use the notes that are shared between them?_
|
| Sortof - the notes might technically be part of a few different
| keys - but usually there is an 'implied center of gravity'
| pointing to a tonic note and that tells you what key you are
| actually in. But if you make it ambiguous for a few bars it can
| be a useful musical effect, sorotf suspense. And then you
| resolve to one or the other possible candidates and it sounds
| cool. But if you do it for too long it sounds muddy.
|
| A good key change is sortof like that, you hover in a space
| that could be either key for a bit then resolve to something
| specific.
|
| _Or, is there anything that doesn 't belong to any key because
| it uses more notes than are allowed by any key?_
|
| Jazz goes all over the place. Accidentals, key changes. An
| accidental is like a single note that isn't 'in' the key.
| Perhaps like a one note key change. The keys are still part of
| it but its more adventurous.
|
| If you completely ignore key altogether its polytonal and it
| sounds kindof annoying.
|
| Or people invent their own ones, e.g. Aleksi Perala and the
| Colundi Sequence https://thequietus.com/articles/20493-aleksi-
| perl-perala-col...
|
| Althought there's a big argument as to whether western keys are
| all just conditioning or something intrinsic. e.g. Does Major
| sound 'happy' and Minor sound 'sad' to all humans? Octaves are
| pretty universal in human music but after that it gets
| complicated. I think there's some good pointers to how
| overtones in in inner ear correspond to frequency ratios which
| correspond to classic intervals such as the third or fifth. And
| then how best to construct a scale that squeezes in the most
| useful thirds and fifths and so on. If you follow that exercise
| then the white keys/black keys on a piano start to look quite
| optimal. BUT social conditioning, anthropology and so on so
| maybe not.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| What does it mean to "imply" or "allude" to something in
| music?
| codeulike wrote:
| A melody or a chord sequence sets up an expectation. How
| you meet that expectation (directly, or shades of
| 'slightly' to 'completely subverted') is where the art
| happens. You can imply the tonic note without having to
| actually go there sometimes.
|
| It's all patterns, and getting the balance between
| repetition and change.
| rjmill wrote:
| Check out "Entrance of the Gladiators" (ie, the stereotypical
| circus song.)
|
| It uses all the notes on the chromatic scale, so it doesn't
| "fit" into a specific key. (But it's still considered to be in
| a specific key. The notes outside that key are the exception
| not the rule.)
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| No, and no. It's not that you can't write multi-key music
| (polytonal is one word for that) but it sounds esoteric,
| "modern", "difficult", and not something you're going to use in
| a chart hit.
|
| There are probably one or two examples somewhere, but it's
| certainly not common.
|
| Keys are like the rails that keep a train on the tracks. If you
| don't have them, or if they're too non-linear, you lose a sense
| of momentum that keeps untrained people listening.
|
| Classical music meanders for a while and then stops at
| cadences, which reinforce the key. It's like a train ride with
| stations. A key change switches the ride to a different track,
| but you always get a series of pauses and restarts.
|
| Modern music uses ambiguous chord sequences - usually four
| chords - that repeat over and over but never come to a climax
| or a pause. The chords are ambiguous because they fit with a
| couple of keys - usually related major and minor, or perhaps a
| mode - but without the stops there's no clear sense which
| applies.
|
| So you get continuous but repetitive motion on a single track
| without the stops. It's like being stuck on a loop and going
| through the same station over and over without stopping.
|
| Sometimes the scenery changes between the verse and the
| chorus/drop/whatever. But without the clear key stops _you can
| 't get off._
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I don't think this is particularly true, a lot of pop music
| is very hard to pin to a single key if you analyze it
| strictly through the lens of western art music theory. You
| end up having to say weird stuff like "well the song is in
| one key but the chorus is in another, but with the third
| borrowed from the first key, but that note is left out of the
| final chorus..." when "it just has two roots" is a complete
| explanation.
|
| It's not even "modern," people still sit around arguing about
| which key certain beatles songs are in, when again "more than
| one" is a more useful explanation.
|
| And I mean I know you know this but for other readers: music
| theory isn't like a math formula where song goes in, answers
| come out. It's a practical framework and a vocabulary for
| communicating about music, and evaluation of a successful
| analysis has to be based on the _usefulness_ of the
| evaluation. There can be multiple "correct" analyses of the
| same piece of music, with different usefulness to different
| people at different times.
|
| Pop music has influences from outside the mainstream european
| music traditions, and so certain assumptions that almost
| always make sense within those traditions (eg songs have a
| key, with a tonic) will lead you to goofy places sometimes.
| codeulike wrote:
| _Modern music uses ambiguous chord sequences - usually four
| chords - that repeat over and over but never come to a climax
| or a pause. The chords are ambiguous because they fit with a
| couple of keys - usually related major and minor, or perhaps
| a mode - but without the stops there 's no clear sense which
| applies._
|
| I don't agree with that.
|
| A key is not just a collection of allowed notes, there is a
| kindof frequency distribution to them too, so that the tonic
| is either the most used or the most implied. The fifth is
| often the second-most-used. Its sortof like a key has a
| 'center of gravity' in the tonic note. Either it will be used
| a lot or alluded to a lot.
|
| So a chord sequence might technically fit into different keys
| but usually there is an implied tonic and that 'tells' you
| what key you are in.
|
| So within a (well constructed) chord sequence in modern pop
| you can still have suspense and resolutions and so on. Kindof
| the same as cadence but done in a different way.
|
| And the trick to a good key change is to subtely shift the
| 'weight' in the direction of the new key just before you make
| the change.
| egiboy wrote:
| The author, by making this claim, lays bare the fact that they do
| not know about Eurovision.
|
| Key changes are so common in Eurovision songs that it is
| mentioned in the ultimate Eurovision spoof song "Love Love Peace
| Peace", which also features at least one key change:
| https://youtu.be/Cv6tgnx6jTQ
|
| The reports of the death of the key change, dare I say, are
| greatly exaggerated.
| TylerE wrote:
| Eurovision is irrelevant to the US market. Those songs do not
| chart here.
| peterkelly wrote:
| So what? The US has less than 5% of the global population.
| Pretending the other 95% of the world is "irrelevant" seems
| odd.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Espacially for art, since a song can have decades of
| success without the need to make billions on the us market.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| thesuitonym wrote:
| This article is about US charts, so any conversation about
| the other 95% of the world is, by definition, irrelevant.
| 323 wrote:
| But probably 50% of the global population listens to US
| music.
| narag wrote:
| I don't have the numbers but I would be cautious there.
| _Some_ US music is listened in other countries, but not
| all of it. Not everything is easily exportable.
|
| Also there are local musicians popular in each country.
| And there are musicians from countries other than the US
| that are international but unknown in the US.
|
| Anyway, Eurovision is quite irrelevant in Europe too :)
|
| Edit... for native English speakers, consider this:
| there're songs in which the lyrics are more important
| than music. That kind of music is usually boring if you
| can't understand what they're saying.
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| Anecdotally, most of the music I heard when I was
| travelling in South America wasn't American music. Same
| thing with South East Asia.
|
| Look at the Billboard (or equivalent) charts for Germany,
| France, Argentina, or any other non-Anglo country; maybe
| 10% of the entries are English language or from American
| artists.
| [deleted]
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| They chart nowhere. That's not the point. Noticing that key
| changes are still popular at what is one of the most popular
| song contest in the world is however very relevant to a
| discussion about the public taste.
| unwind wrote:
| They most certainly chart in Sweden, here's the chart from
| May 14th (the day after the the Eurovision finals) [1].
| This is "Svensktoppen", a very long-running list of top-
| played Swedish songs in Swedish radio. Off the top of my
| head, positions 1, 3, 4 and 5 were all candidates for
| Eurovision (and the song in position #3 was the one that
| competed in Eurovision).
|
| In Swedish, this key change is generally called a
| "schlagerhojning", where "schlager" [2] is the broad genre
| word for the type of songs that compete in the Eurovision.
| The term is old, obviously there's a rather wide genre
| spread these days but it used to be more same-same.
|
| Edit: added a "Swedish" above, I did not realize that the
| chart only lists Swedish music, saw another comment mention
| this. Very weird of me.
|
| [1]: https://sverigesradio.se/topplista.aspx?programid=2023
| &date=...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlager_music
| mkl95 wrote:
| They don't chart that much in Europe either. Eurovision is
| _tone deaf_.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| I'd rather say that what works in that huge party simply
| doesn't necessarily work outside of it, at least not
| everywhere. The ESC is still crazy successful, at 161
| Million viewers this year worldwide.
| andybak wrote:
| At least in the UK - people are watching with a mixture
| of morbid fascination and ironic glee. I've never met
| anyone who thinks it's a valid forum for good pop music.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Is chart performance really the only marker we have left
| for cultural relevance?
|
| Eurovision is hugely popular and continuously and
| commercially successful outside of the charts world.
| ilyt wrote:
| It's coz everyone wants to watch a good clown fiesta, not
| because it has any relevance to music
| recuter wrote:
| I didn't know charts matter anymore.
| bambataa wrote:
| Well shucks, maybe they should just cancel it then.
| tomcam wrote:
| Is there a way to watch the Eurovision contest in the US?
| pionar wrote:
| Peacock broadcast the last Eurovision contest hosted by
| Johnny Weir in the US. I assume that'll continue.
| sorenjan wrote:
| The same people that have produced Eurovision for something
| like a decade is now making American song contest, where
| states compete against each other. I'm not convinced it will
| work, but we'll see.
| josteink wrote:
| > The author, by making this claim, lays bare the fact that
| they do not know about Eurovision.
|
| Historically I would say that to be an accurate statement. It
| used to be a Eurovision-staple.
|
| The latest few years though, I've been surprised that literally
| none of the songs making it to the finals have key-changes like
| this any more.
|
| When it's usage is decimated, _even in Eurovision-songs_ , I
| think that clearly shows the author has a solid point.
| taylorius wrote:
| I watch Eurovision for the laughs, and because I enjoy it as
| an anachronism that flies in the face of the internet's
| frictionless free market optimisation. But lately the acts
| have started all singing in English, and generally getting a
| bit X Factor-ish, so maybe its time is sadly drawing to a
| close.
| sorenjan wrote:
| The winners in 2021 sang Italian metal, the winners in 2022
| sang Ukranian rap and folk music. I unfortunately think
| it's inevitable to get more bland and optimized
| contributions, but the last winners have shown that the
| audience likes novelty.
| taylorius wrote:
| This is true, and a very good sign I'd say!
| Finnucane wrote:
| The article literally limits its context to the billboard top
| 100. It's right there in the title.
| 323 wrote:
| Key changes are very popular in song contests because they
| allow the (live) singer to show off their skills.
|
| But key changes are not popular in popular (sic) songs. Very
| few EuroVision songs transition to the radio/....
|
| You can easily tell which songs were mostly influenced by a
| singer (made for them) or by a producer (made for
| plays/profit). Stuff which is popular with singer, elaborate
| vocal constructions don't typically make for a good song.
|
| Which is why you need a producer to say NO to the singer if you
| want a popular song. Of course, the singer can be the producer,
| but it's a different skill set.
| steeleduncan wrote:
| This is related to the real reason key changes no longer chart,
| they are a cliche. You are no more likely to get a song with
| cheesy modulations into the Billboard top 100 than you are a
| book that starts "it was a dark and stormy night" into the New
| York Times bestseller list.
|
| In Eurovision though, the cheese is part of the fun.
| adamc wrote:
| Trying to comprehend the idea that "key changes are cliche".
| No. Maybe certain patterns are cliche, but there are so many
| interesting things you can do with key changes that the
| remark is just silly.
|
| But it isn't just key changes that have gone away. We used to
| let drummers speed up and slow down with the emotion of the
| song. Now we want everything on a grid for ease of
| production, we pitch-correct even when it isn't really
| needed, we sample sounds rather than have real musicians
| play. The result of all that is that songs have a narrower
| envelope of variation, and they tend to be more simplistic.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I used to make fun of Medium by calling it Tedium, then this site
| came out which is one of the wonders of the web and makes me
| think, 'why the hell does anybody care what happens to Twitter?'
| I mean, this guy listened to more than 1000 songs and explains
| music theory and how you edit music on a computer today, while
| Medium bloggers tell me how impressed they were to get 70 views
| on an article and people on Twitter think it is their
| constitutional right to say "A TRANS WOMAN IS A WOMAN. PERIOD."
| or a "A TRANS WOMAN WILL NEVER BE A WOMAN. PERIOD."
|
| What's priceless is having the opportunity to think something
| through and explain it and Tedium rises above the shitposting
| world. Bravo!
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| That's particularly extremely important when the thread is
| fresh, because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions.
| Tossing flamebait in like this risks ruining the entire thing.
| mahoho wrote:
| Incidentally, one of my favorite modulations in pop music is the
| transition to the chorus in Scritti Politti's "Perfect Way".
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxIB_lrwk0
| yesenadam wrote:
| Thanks, never heard that, I didn't realize Miles Davis' version
| was so close to the original! e.g. Finland 1987
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eaTwj6NTzU
| jader201 wrote:
| 100%. I've always liked the modulation between the verses and
| chorus of this song.
| kevinwang wrote:
| The first point about the rise of hip hop seems good. The second
| point about the rise of digital production seems like incorrect
| conjecture.
|
| If chord changes had become more, not less popular, I'm sure that
| the rise of digital production would be cited as the reason,
| since it makes it much easier to modulate all the instruments.
|
| I think a better hypothesis is what was alluded to in the
| editorial at the end:
|
| > Say what you will about key changes. Maybe you find them at
| best heavy-handed and at worst trite. I know that I often do.
|
| They have just fallen out of fashion as being gimmicky.
|
| I don't really buy that vertical production would kill the key
| change. After all, beat switches are alive and well. We still
| have verses and choruses and interludes and beat drops.
| mariusmg wrote:
| Pop music and (semi) complex music composition. Name a more
| unlikely duo.
| rjmill wrote:
| And all the concertina, melodeon, and harmonica players of the
| worlds couldn't be happier.
|
| I feel personally attacked whenever I want to learn a song, and
| it has a key change in the middle of it.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Reminds me of this breakdown of "Never Gonna Let You Go" by
| Sergio Mendez:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRxTW8GxT8
|
| That song makes everything else look like amateur hour. Somehow
| it hit #4 on the Billboard Top 100 in 1983.
|
| I think I'll stick to bluegrass. In G.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-18 23:02 UTC)