KVR :: Music Theory » Boring melody rhythms? [View Original Topic]
There are 122 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2

---

Functional - Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:57 am

---

I've realized lately that my melodies have usually boring rhythms. Does anyone have any tips for getting better at there? This seems to be even problem with arpeggiators. Sometimes I get them right - but very, very rare occasion.

This also doesn't seem to be a problem with drums. Would it be helpful if I just create a drum loop that I like and try out to make a melody with rhythm that compliments the drums?

Any other way around? I've been really tired of doing trial & error with usually no results

---

Nanakai - Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:32 am

---

Swing, dotted notes, syncopation, repetition.... lots of discrete ideas, but not exhaustive. Don't think of melody writing as "trial and error" but "practice and exploration". Drums might help or might not, it's really up to you and why you think your melodies are boring.

You should post a melody that you've written and get some feedback on it. Learning the craft is hard and there's no reason to go it alone. I would do the same thing if I weren't a wimp

---

jancivil - Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:25 am

---

good idea, I say. but drums do have a pretty different role typically than carry the satisfying melody. But I used to write drum parts as though they were to be melodies, before I got proficient at anything else... I think you could maybe find out some things with such an exercise.

also notice how the rhythm of words affects how a tune works...

I'll say it yet again: the people that gain facility with these things have played music by people that mastered the art of writing music for a while before they decided to write music. just as a writer of prose studied composition, understands syntax and grammar to the necessary extent, and has clearly read some things...

---

tapper mike - Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:35 am

---

If you try to map drum rhythms to melodic rhythms your melody will get un singable very very quickly. As melodies need to breathe just like humans do.

A melody is something that has both repetition and variation. If you are trying to spice up your melodic playing try playing it to speach patterns. Sing what you play. Even better still sing lyric to your melodic line. And if you want the whole enchilada play a melodic line to a lyric while you have a harmony in the background.

Ya know those singer songerwriter types with guitar in tow who strum rhythms while singing a song as a method of writing....That's what they are doing. Same with singer pianiat types.

Covers never killed anyone. They help you to develop your own style while strengthening your skills. If you cant go that route at least try working out lyrical structures against harmonic/rhythmic backgrounds.

---

Functional - Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:41 am

---

Thanks for all the replies, let me make a quick summary. First of all - It's sort of a principle for me to just try to avoid as much as possible using anything that is created by someone else - apart from software & hardware. But everything else that I can actually affect.

But yes, I've started lately to practice some piano melodies that are relatively simple but very, very effective. Coldplay - Clocks, as a good example. Very easy to play and I think it's very clever, gave me a whole new aspect.



And about melody according to singing, brilliant idea. It just happens to be so, that I'd love to have lyrics in my songs and probably the first composer ideas I've ever had was lyrics themselves. If I ever were to produce professionally, lyrics would probably be where I certainly shine. Especially given my gross vocabulary of English that extends further than the space ever will!


Yeah, I'll try out these tips Thanks and happy practicing/composing!


Oh and by the way, I do have them public for my facebook friends for them to hear out, but they never actually criticize them

I guess they just don't understand that it would be a great thing if they did so!

And another friend of mine will review them honestly (yeah, he usually says that they suck and if they don't, he will use them himself! But I don't find a problem with that), but he's rarely available

---

jancivil - Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:48 am

---

well, that's a bit daft isn't it. Are you about to reinvent the wheel as though in a vaccuum?

---

jancivil - Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:58 am

---

well, you know if you're gearing a melody for a singer, one should heed that singability quotient no doubt. Depending.

however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eADuDAIVfA&feature=related
So, was Mozart a bad melodist owing to the difficulties of execution of this? I would say it's pretty thrilling, even though I don't care for this style, owing to the virtuosity of the women than can do this, and its melodicism. whether or not one digs this scene particularly I think arguing it isn't melodic will be a tough road to hoe.

as per your disagreement with my point, <putting pitches to 'drum rhythms' might be a good exercise...> look, you have stated an overarching truth, or so one would think reading that, but it smells just like a personal opinion to me.

which I will counter thusly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4Jt9LV5Rc&feature=related

became this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFygTTtA63Q

(via this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDwRJK8bpb4)

IMO this is great melody. I have, and other people have, interests which may exceed yours in this regard.

---

Functional - Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:06 pm

---

I have to say, I agree with the previous statement that a melody can be great, even if not singable.

The Knife - Silent Shout
( http://vimeo.com/29093748 )

Not sure if this can be exactly applied here, but I think it's brilliant and beautiful, and no doubt to it, it doesn't breathe. I think it's more like a fist that beats you down until you're on your knees and know that there's nothing else to accept than what they just gave you. And no other way of accepting it than thinking "This blew my mind".

Okay, maybe went too far there, but that arpeggiator can be considered as a quick melody, right?

(But either way, it has nothing to do with drums, on the other hand)

---

Functional - Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:13 pm

---

Oh and by the way, I'm not reinventing anything! I just like to DIY, it's sort of a my thing. I'm not saying nobody should use samples, hell no, I think if people find them useful, it doesn't matter, hell, they can spice them up themselves if they wish to do so!


What I am saying is, I'm just a person who likes to do things myself. If I make a generic pluck in sylenth1 that fits to dance music, I don't think that's really unique. Even if I add FX to it, it's gonna sound probably similar to something else that already exists.

And if it does, then so be it. It won't make me say "No, this I can't use, feels too familiar...", that logic would make any instrument useless except for FM synths, because else the sound might be like something in the past.


I did like a week ago something similar that sounds to the pads used in Marble House by The Knife (accidentally) and instead of thinking "oh damn", I loved it and made up a quick demo for friends to hear it out! And I loved the progression I put to there, but it's just a progression for pads

---

ntom - Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:35 pm

---

I am actually glad someone decided to ask this because I have been struggling with my writing lately too.
Hopefully good answers are given that help with my problem so I don't have to start the same topic but about MY lack of writing ability.

Per the actual topic; I can understand the DIY attitude about things - i hate using any samples other than drums. I refuse to take a loop or something created by someone else and use it in a piece I call my own.
But, that's not to be resistant from covering music. I have only done a few covers/remixes of songs, but when I did them it gave me some insight and fresh ideas.
I remixed the Russian folk song Korobeiniki (made famous by Tetris), covered a song by my favorite artist, The Gathering (And they said they loved my cover, one of the best days in my life ), and about a year and a half ago I remixed "I gotta Feelin'" by the black eyed peas.
One thing that always helped me was hearing a song's melody out of context with the rest of the music. Finding some remix stems on songs you are familiar with might help. You can hear exactly how the band played the melody without being distracted from the rest of the instruments.

---

tapper mike - Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:55 pm

---

I can never do that. As soon as the first note is played I've got key and chord in tow. My mins is always thinking harmony. Though I do vary rhythm for the melody as well as the supporting features.

One thing I've been doing recently is to read poetry/lyrics where there is no reference to a song. I'll build my melodic rhythmic structures to how the words flow and while exploring motives.

In regards to singable melodies they don't need to contain words they do need to contain enough repitiion and variation along with rests so you can sing/hum them. Jan is prolly stewing right now. but the acid test of melody is that you could sing/hum it while driving in your car. Or that someone else actually would. That for me is the definition of good melodic writing as opposed to simply soloing over something no one hums eruption by EVH although people do hum quite a bit of classical, jazz and other instrumentals where the melody is memorable and easy enough to follow.

---

shankfiddle - Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:43 pm

---

listen to classical music.

if most of the music you have been exposed to is rock/folk/pop then you will have fairly simple ostinato-esque melodic (and harmonic) ideas. what you write is influenced by what you have experienced, simple as that. that's true in any creative endeavor- if you want more interesting output, go out into the world, have more experiences and grow.

and when using the umbrella term classical, I mean all:
(g.chant)-baroque-classical-romantic-modern-jazz

there's orders of magnitude more melodies, countermelodies, textures, there than in what's being put out these days.

AND get this: composers quoted each other ALL THE TIME and stole melodies before the advent of trademark and copyright law... So guess, what? you can steal from the geniuses, cause, hell, that's what they did too!

you don't have to lovvve it (around your friends), just cop a Brahms melody, take one from Mahler down a couple octaves for a bassline... add a beat... and no one will ever know, it'll be our little secret

---

shankfiddle - Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:06 pm

---

as a little analogy: melody mining is kinda like going on a forum, and finding people who have thoughts I want... then i steal them.

---

tapper mike - Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:27 pm

---

Listen to stuff you like. Hendrix didn't study Holst, The Beatles didn't study Brahms. Zimmer did study Wagner.

Isn't it better to study the music you like then to study the music you don't like?

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:33 am

---

You're SO right:
We should all just eat candy and chocolate all the time!
And read playboy, screw philosophy and the classics!
And kids should never go to school, play play play, only what I like!

sorry, that was a little much. but the point is that in learning and growing sometimes you gotta have a little discipline and do something you might not like- because the payoff in the long-run is worth it.

Everything you write is influenced by what you've heard, those ideas remix and recrystallize in your own writing. so if you only listen to music from the past 30 years, you will only have those ideas in your memory to work with. want more interesting output, study what's out there, what the masters have already done. If you listen exclusively to gaga and bieber your music will be simple and one-dimensional. listen exclusively to classical, you'll be restricted in different ways, what if you study EVERYTHING, and not just what you find appealing? that's called learning and that will make you a much more powerful musician.

What would happen if scientists didn't read the established literature and everyone just ran experiments on what they liked... we'd have a helluva lot of psychedelic researchers- and a scientific community that gets progressively stupider.

I've made my point.

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:59 am

---

How tall can a sapling possibly grow if it doesn't first dig into the earth and develop its roots?

now I'm done

---

tapper mike - Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:22 pm

---

I studied jazz because I liked it and because I wanted to. I didn't study jazz because someone told me to. I've yet to hear a b13th chord played in a heavy metal song. Nor have a heard it in a classical song. I have heard b13th chords in jazz, blues, fusion, rockabilly. As a matter of fact it was the fusion stylings of Steely Dan that lead me to study jazz. Had someone slammed down The Well-Tempered Clavier shook ther fist at me and told me that I must learn it to worthy I'd be out of there so fast it would make your head spin.




People who want to get good at what they do don't need outside discipline they develop internal discipline because they want to get better. No one ever told me I have to play scale xyz 30 times or I wouldn't get any supper or slapped my wrists for not excuting x pattern correctly. I did it because I wanted it for myself.

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:47 pm

---

Ok wonderful, and we've all heard your credentials, it's great that you've been so successful with your art. and i mean that in the sincerest way, it warms my heart to see someone succeeding through their passion, it doesn't happen enough in the world.

but if you EVER start to think you are done learning that is the day the artist in you dies. you can always improve, there's always more to learn.

If you went back and learned the Well-Tempered Klavier now (i'm not shaking my fist or threatening your food supply...) and perhaps a couple other pieces, it would only help you in your writing jazz/rock/whatever. that's all i'm saying. this is not a "which genre is superior" argument, so please stop turning it into one.

there's more to music than b13s
hahahahahaa

---

tapper mike - Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:25 pm

---

I doubt that. My Jazz studies taught me jazz, my rock studies taught me rock and my blues studies taught me blues. My studies included learning jazz blues and rock standards. I doubt I'll find the richness of harmony found in popular music over the last 100 years in the classical era. Another thing I won't find are pentatonics or the wide assortment of rhythms found in popular music

If I wanted to perform the well tempered Klavier in hopes of studying classical works or enhancing my abilities in the classical realm I most certainly would. However I have studied several pieces from it and while I can say I performed those pieces well it in no way shape or form enhanced my jazz playing or writing.

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:15 pm

---

Bullshit, Mike. You were there with Hendrix the whole time were you? Jimi Hendrix was interested in many types of music he was not personally involved with and didn't have a relationship with outside of curiosity (if I take him at his word in interviews). Do you think the things he did in Star Spangled Banner happened because he stuck to blues? Get Real. There is a lot of Hindustani in Hendrix music, there is a lot of avant-garde jazz, there is avant-garde classical, electronic music influences...

Stockhausen is on the cover of Sgt Pepper's. That's because McCartney was interested in that music. I don't know what his extent of 'study' was... but I know he was interested in quite more than Beatles music, pop, or the influences that are clear on the surface. McCartney had the golden ear. He was doing things that were talked about in serious 'theory' terms, along with eg., Schubert or another earlier innovator in harmony... with no formal study. McCartney is an anomaly, like a Mozart. Also some of Lennon's ideas were striking and I don't think his mind expanded like that just out of LSD. It is of NO relevance to say, 'The Beatles didn't study _'. It has no reasonable relationship to your advice to a kid here. And it's not the truth; what it is is a projection of Mike.

Besides, Harrison studied with Ravi Shankar. Was he doing that so he could *be* an Indian Classical Musician? He had more humility than that, he never presented as a sitarist in that setting. He studied it to become a better person and a better musician overall.

You're actually creating an excuse for your own insularity with that pseudo-argument. If you 'played some classical' and it didn't rub off in other areas, you failed yourself.

You've been around for a while. You carry that attitude in every post these days. There are areas for all of us where we just are not big experts. You present as if one on many subjects I have caught you out as no expert a'tall, in fact you maybe just scratched the surface, and really pulling arguments out of your ass, such as here.

No skin off my nose, but you are talking in a lot of cases to impressionable young minds, and you always present as uber-authoritative. Here you're bullshitting the class completely. Cut it out, man.

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:27 pm

---

yeah you doubt you'll find where you didn't search.

the reality is there were people such as Ravel who were making jazz changes and things you DO NOT FIND in popular music for half a century or more, where the jazz cats found it that much later and this is where you'll have reccived it from.
a nice little ditty from 1909:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlc_S9bJTJg
check out that change at 1:05.

Pentatonics you say. Well, Claude A. Debussy attended the World's Fair in 1889. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_Universelle_%281889%29
At the Exposition, Debussy first heard Javanese gamelan music, performed by an ensemble from Java
Do you know what he found and what he did with it?

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:43 pm

---

isn't it better to narrow your influences, nay, narrow your spectrum of information, and pretend I know what I like and I like what I know is something wise?

I don't think so.

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:59 pm

---

I should counter that in the positive. That's SUCH a BAD idea to spread, '[classical study] in no way shape or form informed my ..."

I prepared the Violin Partita #3 by JS Bach for jury and was allowed to write a paper on it as I worked on it.

I will say that in every way it informed my later rock playing, my compositional approach eventually, in myriad ways, and it is a seminal moment in my understanding of MUSIC. On one hand I learned to form a performance of a whole, large form, and I had to make arguments for my understanding of The Form. Invaluable.

It isn't a piece I'll listen to again all the way through ever probably. I'll get antsy, it isn't my thing, that whole sound. But I got the most out of that work.

---

tapper mike - Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:13 am

---

If say hendrix was indeed influenced by holst it would have shown up in his playing.

Malmsteen was influenced by Beethoven and it's all over his music.

Now would someone like to show me a 16th century blues progression?

---

quayquay17 - Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:32 am

---

$**T you could say so!

The point of music is that it is an art. Just like painting. If my passion lies with abstract art, I don't need to go to school to create it. If my passion lies with photorealistic portraits, school would probably help me achieve the outcome I want. Whatever path I choose doesn't make me more childish, or an idiot.

Just like if I wanted to create soundscapes, I could probably create a pleasing product on my own, but if I wanted to write sonatas, school would be pretty useful.

School is there so that you can learn from the trial and error and exploration of hundreds before. Depending on what you want your end product to be, that could be very useful, or not so much, you could write any music without schooling, or write any music with schooling.

Chill with the musical facism

---

shankfiddle - Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:01 pm

---

just to put it back IN context...

---

jopy - Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:39 pm

---

just to add to what's already been said, nearly every jazz artist i've studied or read about took influences from other musics. the most extreme example is possibly miles davis, who studied bach, elgar, james brown, jimi hendrix, african traditional music, and much more (if his autobiography is to believed), but charlie parker often said he wanted his music to be considered alongside classical great like brahms and beethoven and took great pride in his performances with a classical string group, jim hall played the conceirto de aranjuez (as did miles davis of course), nearly every jazz pianist from herbie hancock to chick corea to john lewis to keith jarret to fats waller has not only played but also recorded credible renditions of classical works, john coltrane spent years studying hindustani music, charles mingus was a classically trained cellist before he started playing jazz, duke ellington was a great fan of ravel and debussy and their use of harmony, wynton marsalis has a grammy for his classical performances, etc. etc. etc.

the idea that jazz music has ever been isolated from classical music runs aground really fast.

---

tapper mike - Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:15 pm

---

I never said that you shouldn't reach out to different styles. I simply am stating that you follow your muse where it takes you. Not have someone else's ideals shoved down your throat.


Hanon controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtuoso_Pianist_in_60_Exercises#Criticisms_of_The_Exercises

Some people believe that every student of the piano must study hanon simply because they did.

---

Functional - Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:50 pm

---

Holy moly! This thread got attention?

Alright, let's now clear up with the reinventing the wheel thing.

I understand the fact that you learn from what exists. Every time I study musical theory, I study a work (or research) that has been done before.

That wasn't the point. The point was, I'm not into making covers of anything. I do, often, check out the midi files of a song that has melody/harmony that I found very clever and try to study on from there slowly and then proceed to make something that is heavily influenced by it. Usually it's the melody with changes. Though I don't publish them ever, I just see how they work out.



Now to proceed, I've done more reading on musical theory (today mostly about motives and melody indeed) and made some progression in this department as well, nothing major, but it's the slight bits that make up the whole, right?

I guess this is yet a matter of reading more about the theory as well as studying existing work.


As for the flaming in this thread; some people just prefer things one way or another, doesn't matter if it's harder or easier always. Just like turtles. They love obstacles and always try to get across them instead of simply going around them. If it's in the nature, why can't it be the nature of some of us as well?

---

shankfiddle - Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:07 am

---

hahaha, I like turtles!

It's just silly when people want to improve their skills without doing any work. Everything you just described, cherishing the challenges as a way to grow and exceed your potential is what we've been saying.



seems to me you are doing hard work (without ever publishing results), for the sole purpose of learning new skills, and enjoying it \

i could go on speaking in analogies, but if my point hasn't been made by now, discussing further is a waste of energy... I'm going on a bikeride.

which is hard work, borderline painful, but it makes me happier, healthier, and stronger in the long-run.

---

Loki Fuego - Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:46 pm

---

Isn't it better to skip something that is irrelevant to you rather than to waste time on it?
If someone into jazz and blues, it's better for him to first study jazz and blues. And the after that if he finds it relevant he could study classical music. Not the other way round.

---

shankfiddle - Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:37 am

---

I can see what you're saying, but I would argue that even if your passion lies in jazz and blues (ok go ahead and study them first) but studying other genres is in no way a "waste of time". ALL MUSIC IS INTERRELATED if you find a genre to be "irrelevant" then you don't know enough about the history of music and its development from chant-baroque-classical-romantic-modern-jazz-Cage/noise-rock/electric-SYNTHS

This is one whole big chain of events, it's silly to say that any piece is "irrelevant". I'm having a conversation with your face, so your torso, arms, and legs must be irrelevant...?

To all you DAW composers out there, a computer is nothing more than an extension of the mind. Computers have infinite potential ONLY BECAUSE the human mind has infinite potential. A computer cannot do anything that hasn't first been done in someone's mind... if you seed your mind with different genres, and different skills, your computer-based music will be better.

If you refuse to open your mind to new skills and experiences... then how is the computer going to generate better music?

---

shankfiddle - Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:41 am

---

ALL of these threads about "I can't compose complex rhythms" "i can't come up with complex melodies" "I can't figure out this rhythm"

Is that an issue with technology that you can just find some new plugin to solve your problem?

Nope, that is a USER problem that can only be solved through learning

"but you don't have to learn skills to write music"
"true but you just asked me how to learn to write better music"
"but I don't wanna"
"ok..."
"but how do I get better?"
"learn new skills"
"but I don't wanna"
"ok...um..."

this is where we're at in these threads

---

Loki Fuego - Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:00 am

---

When having conversation with me you're trying to reach my mind, thus my body becomes irrelevant

Of course it's always good to learn as much as possible. I.e. it's generally a nice idea to study physics in order to learn how musical intervals appear, or to study a psychoacoustics to learn how we perceive and react to sound, etc. But you can't learn everything. In order to achieve something you need to focus on achieving exactly that. So whenever someone tells person asking for a specific advice to go study classical music, music theory or to learn playing an instrument I consider it to be counterproductive and a symbol of elitism (or whatever you call it).

Well, my opinion on some parts of musical knowledge being irrelevant is based on the fact that after studying some classical music I'm still finding it to be quite irrelevant to the modern electronic dance music. While studying classical music might give you some creative ideas that you would be able to use in making house music, it won't directly contribute to the quality of the music.

---

geroyannis - Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:18 am

---

Ridiculous, of course it will.

---

vurt - Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:29 am

---

william orbit would probably disagree, as would bt and many others i imagine.
that is to say, all music is music and therefore relevant to the musical experience.
when you start dividing into tribes, it stops being about the music...

---

vurt - Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:22 am

---

not that im saying everyone should go and study this that or the other
but if you find your progress slowing and youre asking such questions as the op, then why not try something different? if it doesnt inspire, try something else...
follow your own path but be prepared for a little guidance along the way, everyone gets lost sometime or other

---

Functional - Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:02 am

---

Yeah, I do enjoy music a lot, my results so far are not published but I do have few people that I force to listen the stuff I've made, simply because hiding from everyone isn't something reasonable either. My own opinion perhaps is the most important to me, but disregarding others opinion will just slow you down.


And yeah, about hard work, ironically, my job kind of turned into the worst job around the terminal I work in. They took me in a couple of months ago, the people from union told me not to work too hard. Didn't listen and basically the thanks for that was that I got the worst job. And not the kind of, "someone has to do it anyway" way. Really complicated to explain the situation and well, irrelevant. Just ironic remark about working hard

Anyways, I enjoy challenges. I'm terrible at piano for now, for example, but I remember the moment when I could play the melody from Coldplay - Clocks, for the first time. It's not impressive feat, but it sure did make my day. I think that's the way it should go.

Playing with two hands is still a mystery to me, though, but I keep working on that, whenever I feel like it.

---

Functional - Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:23 am

---

And honestly, about studying, it ain't a problem for me to study. Even know, I probably know too much about too many things. I never went to school to learn psychology, but I was interested in psychology, cognitive and behaviour psychology to be specific.

Was never good in history at the school, yet I know the details of second world war and most parties involved with it. How the germans could have had the atom bomb ready if it wasn't for a smart scientist who knew that it would be a disaster to have atomic bomb at disposal for Führer.

Or physics, wasn't good there either, but I sure do know a lot about space or how they try to seek out the god particle that was named Higgs Boson, even though the theory reminds me a lot about Leibniz (the guy who invented binary system) and his theory that would explain the whole world. But, it had a god in it. And without god, he would lose his head in those times.

Let's not even go into philosophy.

Downside of this all is, I only really try to seek out as much information as I can (and think of it myself as well) out of subjects I'm interested in. This was the primary reason for failing generally at schools. Couple of things that didn't interest me and there seemed to be no way around it, felt like forcing myself to learn subjects for which I don't care is just not the reality for me.



In the end, I'm happy for my choices. Maybe my wage ain't the best, maybe my job sucks, maybe my personality is something that many can't understand. But, I grew free.


So, anyway, TL;DR section!

As I've said before, it's easier for me to name genres I don't like than genres I do like, unless we count in subgenres. Any genre up to date originates from another that originates from another. They are all connected or even intertwined in one way or another.

In no way would I think that understanding classical music would not help me, or infact, for most other genres. I do have a feeling that rap for example wouldn't help me too much. Though I think rap itself can be amazingly impressive. They can come up with rhymes in a second, that I can't come up with possibly ever.

And learning things I like is like a passion to me. Even though schools never were.

---

Nanakai - Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:48 pm

---

Man, this topic sure has gone off the deep end.

It matters less what you like and more why you like it. No one can write a post that tells you how to make music that interests you, but they can write to help with specific problems. Take a song you do enjoy and recreate the melody on the piano. Play something in the same vein. When you reach an impasse, consult the internets. You may not feel like it for a while, but you'll be internalizing the music you love. Every minute spent in this exercise will pay off for the rest of your life.

---

tapper mike - Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:06 pm

---

I wonder about the last one.. consult the internets. Someone may find themselves here and the bitch session that ensues.


The topic title had to do with melodic rhythms. Not melodic lines or motif's or ostinato. Which is why I pointed out using lyric or even poetic content. Yes rhymes do rhyme but they don't have the same amount of syllables per line.

Working with what you have is always easier then working with what you don't.

---

Nanakai - Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:10 pm

---

Inspiration from other media is a great way to get ideas, but it doesn't really solve the OP's problem. If they feel they write boring melodic rhythms, then it begs the question, What do they find interesting? Never mind poetry or lyrics, rhythms can be generated by software and grafted on to a melodic pattern. But what would anyone actually gain from that? Even if that produced interesting melodic rhythms - which I do not doubt it would - unless the OP learns why they are interesting, no real gain has been made. If, as you say, "Working with what you have is always easier then working with what you don't" is true, then I would think that working with the OP's already established musical tastes is more reasonable than pursuing works divorced from the songs they love, no?

---

tapper mike - Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:12 pm

---

fair enough.

---

Functional - Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:21 pm

---

Then so be it, I'll focus more into what I like and try to understand why I like that.

For now, I do know, that the most interesting melodies I've really enjoyed seem rather foreign. A friend of mine, hardstyle producer, is about to finish off his track. While I couldn't care less for the genre, but I liked that specific song a lot, because it sort of was influenced by Egypt. Same goes to the melody of that popular song from Swedish House Mafia & Knife Party, Antidote. Well, not sure if I should rather call it motif.

But, if I had to choose most impressive that I know out of the dance genre, must be REJ by Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzpS7LGmaPk

The shorter one starts at around 0:45, but the one associated with second climax is what sold me in this song.

However, synthpop (for the lack of better name) also kind of pulls me into it's direction. Hearing the older stuff from Röyksopp, anxiously waiting for The Knife 2012 album and appreciating the less known artists in the genre (Modwheelmood, Sonoio and other bands mostly somehow affiliated with Nine Inch Nails), it's still open option.


But for now, I'll focus on dance music.



On a sidenote, I've been experimenting with motifs, and gained generally results that I've searched for.

Though I had another thread earlier about melodies, but to affiliate that with here, I'm still kind of lost with them. For now, it feels that when I play safe with them, they become too safe, predictable probably by even people who never heard music and such.

But still, it was pretty amazing how much a motif can change something. It sure adds to it.

---

Loki Fuego - Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:12 am

---

Yeah, sure studying classical music is they way to learn how tune kick drum to the sound of the track. Or maybe it will teach how to develop tonal texture over modal melody.
Have you ever tried to teach someone who has studied classical music and piano for 10 years to make modern electronic dance music?

---

Functional - Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:48 am

---

Though we're talking about melody rhythm (or well, melody?) in this topic, not exactly how to program drums. So I think it's fair to say that one can learn a thing or two from classical music. Then again, melody persists in every piece of music, so I do wonder, why classical is so often being referred in this context?


Perhaps because classical music is the clean form of music?

But on the other hand, how about something simple as Coldplay? Their melodies sure hit the sweet spot of most people. What makes studying classical music better option?

Though I do have a guess, more data available. I don't think anyone has specifically ever researched that much of the way that a certain band or group writes music.

---

Loki Fuego - Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:06 am

---

Classical music won't help you much in this context. It mainly focuses on melodic development and performance. The rhythm plays much lesser role compared to electronic dance music.

Back to your original question...

The key to making interesting melodic rhythm patterns is to mix predictability with unpredictability.

If you play three 8th notes, the listener would expect to hear another 8th note. If you will not satisfy his expectation, it would create some tension which would add some interest to melodic pattern.
In addition consider what other elements in your track are doing. E.g. drums provide strong rhythm foundation, and therefore you could play a lot around the drums. I.e. if you play two notes over your kick drum and then syncopate the next note (by moving it early or late) it would give more interest to the pattern.
In addition consider melodic elements when defining the rhythm of the melody. For example if you syncopate the note it might sound quite awkward if you in addition move that note melodically. Therefore to create the interest you could change the pitches with notes that play on beat, while syncopating the notes which has the same pitch.

---

thecontrolcentre - Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:56 am

---

I have, yeah. Have you?

---

Loki Fuego - Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:00 am

---

Yeah.

---

seismic1 - Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:56 am

---

The last 2 "classical" works I listened to were The Firebird Suite, and The Four Seasons. The rhythmic components deployed within the melodies are a major factor in the success of these compositions IMHO.

---

thecontrolcentre - Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:17 am

---

So did you find it hindered their ability to make music in a DAW?

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:12 am

---

I haven't sat down at Ableton for about 5 months till today, my main focus has been and will continue to be teaching. I started on violin and grew up in the orchestra/quartet/chamber/ensemble culture, so music to me is a spiritual endeavor in which humans develop their bodies and minds together, helping each other, ourselves, simultaneously while putting out beauty into the world. Music is eternal, and will long outlast me.

I wrote this piece today cause I'm sick of this discussion. You the forum-reading public judge for yourselves if you think classical influences and learning how to play real instruments helps or not. Just cause I'm heavily influenced by it, would you call this "classical" at all? And keep in mind, this track was born at 8 am and mixing started about 1:15 which took about half an hour. So start to finish in about 6 hrs. (if you feel like it check out the other day-projects from back in November on soundcloud)

I'll make another one using entirely synths (won't try to emulate any real instruments) on sunday (or monday if it takes a little longer) after i finish teaching and post it to this same thread. Then you can see for yourself just how much learning music helps writing music even if its computer-generated music. PS the only "real" instrument you hear in this one is that infernal fiddle.

What if the wave of the future is an integration of technology AND heritage??? IMHO the best way to "progress" the musical community is to use our daws AND our instruments to resurrect the great concepts of past composers, rather than straight up ignoring them. The sapling digging in its roots and reaching for the sky simultaneously.

http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/3-30-ignorance-be-gone

Now, it may not be your cup of tea, but it sure as hell's got:
complex evolving melodies (played AND sequenced)
accomp. counter-melodies
counter-point/4-part harmonies (which break voiceleading rules sometimes, cause I felt like it)
multiple modulations
phrasing/mood shifts
rhythms
development
complex structures
in the context of midi orchestration
AND a real instrument thrown in there just to make a point. (i have an arpeggiator in my brain, do you?)

- so even if you only want to write techno (or whatever they call it these days) don't you want to know how to artistically manipulate all these elements? (i mean a lot of you edm-ers have been asking questions about how to do just that) They can all be utilized in whatever genre you choose to explore! Gimme a couple days and I'll show you an example of what it sounds like to apply these same skills to a purely electronic-dance piece. Get ready for complex time signatures

I know most EDM-ers don't have the patience for a track like this and will have plenty of shit to talk "it's boooring I want to feel a beat from the git-go, too much developmenttt, this doesn't fit my preconceived notions of what 'music' is... it's as if he completely ignored genre boundaries... is that even allowed?"

but as I was mixing a group of robins and sparrows gathered outside my window and started jamming along (they seemed to like the twinkly bells in the recap at the end). Good enough for them is good enough for me.

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:13 am

---

For those of you with the education/skills/background to follow along, here's the structural framework:

Starts with a 2 bar drone on C then
cm: [A][A][A][B]
C: [preC][C][C][C] [D][D]
em: [E] [A][A][B]
E: [preC][2nd half of preC][C][C][D]
C: [first half of D][end]

[A]
i | i2 | i(2-m)| V | i2 | iihd i2 | III+ V |
i | iv | III | V | i2 | III+^ | i | III+ |

[B]
i VII | i | i(o) | II | iihd | iio | iv | viio III/I | (= V/am but it settles in C major so for convenience...)

[C] (the preC is the last 4 bars of C)
I | I2 V | I(9) | I9 | vi | I(9) | ii | ii4 ii2 |

[D]
iii | vi | I | vi | ii IV^ | i iii4 | IV | I4 |
IV( 9) | iii- | III | IV | v | ii | {iihd/em | V7/em}| doesn't change when the D repeats in the new key.

[E]
i | II i | i viio | iv | iv | V | i | io |
III | VII | III | VI | vio | VII7 III | V | V7 |

[end]
ii | ii4 | IV | I4 | IV | I4 | IV | I | IV | I | - plagal candence cause I felt like being cliche


the smile is mandatory, I composed it into the piece.

"but I don't wanna"
"yaknow you've finally convinced me, musical training doesn't mean shit when it comes to music..."
hahahahaha

Write me a piece in one day, and see how it turns out
as someone else mentioned in another thread: time limits are one of the BEST tools a composer has at his/her disposal.

enough talk, enough excuses, we don't need to hear about how you learned some history or philosophy at one point... Let's continue this argument creatively.
Post your work, DO IT, and let's have the public compare the results of disciplined study vs. Not.

www.soundcloud.com/shankfiddle

---

Functional - Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:44 am

---

Posting my work is pretty irrelevant, because for starters, I only started on the subject about 6 months ago. Secondary issue, I have nothing against learning an instrument. And I'm practicing with piano and hope that in future, it would be my primary tool for composing.

(And to be honest here, this may make me look bad, but I'm willing to admit that I can't follow exactly along your work. And I'm sorry for that, because I'd love to try and see!)

However, I'm getting some material lately and possibly going to publish soon my first track. I've read from another thread, that it's a really good way to learn music by forcing yourself to do something you can do in a certain timeline, just like what you did.

And I'm quite interested of trying that out. Though, it may be cheating a little since I practically have the notes already. Well, some of them. I'm yet missing the part that I really want, the sweet catchy part. Something, even a little catchy would do.

So far, I'm limited to a piano roll, since practicing even my own work (so far) is impossible task. My finger positioning needs a lot of work still.

Not to mention the fact that using two hands is still a mystery to me. I can only loop something really short with two hands, but progressive melody will fail at one point. But I'm working on that as well.


EDIT: Kind of mixed up two threads, obviously.

I don't see an issue with learning theory behind classical music at all.
But I do believe that it might not be exactly something to start with. If you want to focus on electronic music, I think that should be your primary subject. But I do agree that at some point, it certainly will not hurt you to learn concepts behind different genres and see what you can bring out of them into your music.

---

shankfiddle - Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:40 am

---

Thank you. I think my point's finally been made.

So in the future, when we're advising that people study music that has greater complexity such as classical...

Don't chime in with brilliant advice "studying classical is irrelevant for electronic music..." if you have not studied it! Cause as I've said before, how the f**k would you know?

And just think about it... if you have an orchestra with a minimum of 5 parts all playing melodies and countermelodies... That's 5 times more melodic ideas you'll get than one coldplay song

And you're right, unless you start at an early age, classical is not something to start with, you'll just get overwhelmed. But if you want more complex melodic/structural ideas, then just LISTEN, you don't have to understand all the theory, just throw some on a shuffle list on yer ipod, and those melodic ideas will still help you!

You have no clue how deep the world of music goes, if you haven't even branched out and studied the different facets of music, stick to asking questions and leave the teaching/advising to those who have done the disciplined work.


Nothing wrong with being honest and realistic about your abilities. We are only trying to help you (remember that before you think about arguing). Before you even try to follow the chord progressions, FIRST try to hear the repeating forms. It's a good exercise for your ear because you have to listen for when harmony repeats. I tend not to do a literal copy/paste of melody unless I'm using it motivically.

Also, if this wasn't apparent: the roadmap at the beginning tells you what key the forms are in. The roman numerals are all relative to the key except where otherwise noted.

---

thecontrolcentre - Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:08 pm

---

Touche

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:28 am

---

I think one can learn that with no training at all. Some people might even know innately when something's out of tune with the other thing. But...

Knowledge of music, and experience WITH A DRUM would tend to disabuse you of inchoate ideations such as <tune your 'kick drum' to the sound of the track>. *Which* sound? Tonic note, root note of key?

Drummers do not retune to every new key. A kick drum is not a pitched instrument anyway. Of course you're talking about a synth patch... but once you have really dug a drum you will have a more subtle conception than you have.

Now, in Indian Classical music, the open tone of the tabla should usually be Sa or Pa, 1 or 5 and in tune pretty much. But forcing 'the kick drum' to be the same as the most frequently occurring bass note is a recipe for DULL. If you had experience with an instrument you'd have a subtler, more musical rationale to work with.

But, do whatever, limit yourself to what you know and argue to yourself what you know is as good as someone with far vaster experience with and knowledge of music, that's on you and it's nothing to me.

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:42 am

---

Amazing confidence you display talking abut something you reveal you don't know much of anything about.

"classical music" study certainly deals with rhythm. Now, one can argue that western european classical music of the common practice period is deficient compared with some other classical musics, or what-have-you, as regards rhythm, but the notion of melodic consideration separated from rhythmic consideration is just ignorant.

I rather doubt you have felicities in the rhythm dept that are going to be terrifically novel for a classical musician, guy.

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:49 am

---

I have had various musical experiences, including training as an instrumentalist at conservatory for a year and a half, and advanced theory training. This work goes back to 1970. I started in earnest with a DAW in late 2005.

Somehow none of that managed to make anything of sequencing more difficult... I even taught myself... imagine that. What problems ought I to have experienced?

---

jancivil - Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:05 pm

---

What about Coldplay? I know one of their songs, 'Yellow' I think it must be called, is pleasant to me on the melodic front. OTOH I've heard them do a couple things I couldn't believe I was encountering on TV it was such crap. I guess they had exceeded their understanding, were trying to be cute.

"Most people do _" is poor. It's a known fallacy in argumentation.

What makes study of music that was done by masters, and as great and wide a variety that term 'classical music' seeks to describe, better than just following Coldplay? Is that your actual question?

---

clocklogic - Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:27 pm

---

So to sum up this thread and the few contributions I've read by the januncivil person above, classical musicians are better, and know everything, and electronic music doesn't have any special requirements of its own. Nothing is new, to someone who has been taking violin lessons since childhood. Nobody can tell a classical musician anything. There is nothing in the rhythms of electronic music, and by implication in polyrhythmic structures, that wasn't done by great classical composers. The answers to these questions of mine, although rhetorical, is 'yes, now understand vee are superior'. Classical musicians are superior authorities on electronic and computer music and the inheritors of classical Greek and Roman culture. We engineers and synth musicians are a lower species and should be eradicated by a form of eugenics...

OK. HAHAHAHA. But to me it's ironic you have to TELL people in writing about how superior you allegedly are. You talk about famous bands as if you're an authority because you know a few scales. But I've never heard of you. You have to use the written word to express your 'music'. There is no jancivil, pioneer of digital/electronic music creation, using wizardry of technical skill over music theory. Nobody has heard of you lot. That is where your facade of fake superiority shatters. You are nobody and your words are worthless.

I have no wish to argue and I realise arguing and vying for 'superiority' on a forum is probably how you arrogant types make up for your failure in classical music. So I'll leave you to troll yourself. Have fun with your life on KVR.

---

Ogg Vorbis - Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:37 pm

---

As a classically trained musician, I'd like to go on record as NOT subscribing to the philosophy as summarized above.

---

thecontrolcentre - Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:07 am

---

---

KBSoundSmith - Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 am

---

[quote="clocklogic"]So to sum up this thread and the few contributions I've read by the januncivil..."


So, your response is to be even more uncivil, and paint a broad, unflattering, and grossly incorrect image about a group of people who aren't participating in this discussion and thus can't defend themselves?

And as far as your point about things "already have been done in classical"; the truth is that, yes, they have. But not in the same stylistic way--which is why electronic is a different genre to begin with.

The bricks and mortar of music are the same in all genres; the way are used, however, will be slightly different or much more different depending upon the relationship of one genre to another. So when someone says to study classical music: 1) you will come across every element you need, but with stylistic differences; 2)they are suggesting you study a form of music that has a strong history of pedagogical use; 3) they are suggesting you study a form of music that has a solid, logical, systematic progression in the way material is presented to aid learning; 4) gives you a broad understanding of the way musical genres evolve over time; 5) the ability to understand and utilize differences in genre.

No one is (or should be suggesting) that classical is the only thing you should study or participate in. They are suggesting you show a little humility, cut the arrogance and the mouthing, and be willing to learn from other people who might just actually (and probably do) know more than you.

---

Loki Fuego - Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:32 am

---

1. You make incorrect assumption that you know what I know and what I don't know.
2. As I see from your comments you agree that classical music won't teach you how to tune kick drum to the sound of the track. Even more you don't even clearly understand what I'm talking about, as you have never experienced it. If you have ever tried tuning kick drum by ear, you would understood.


The only arrogance I've heard was from people, who were saying that classical music is an ultimate form of musical art.

And by the way no one of those who are saying that the study of classical music would help you to do electronic dance music has posted a decent house track. I did post one. What we are talking about?

---

thecontrolcentre - Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:56 am

---

That's very much a matter of opinion.

---

KBSoundSmith - Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:28 am

---

Loki, if you want to hear arrogance from someone not on the classical "side" (...eh ...), then check out the post I was responding to. And out of curiosity, why only quote the least interesting portion of my post, which was directed specifically at the person I quoted? And I don't recall anyone saying that classical music is an ultimate form of musical art (although I will certainly agree with you that certain individuals who were arguing in favor of the ...classical side... could certainly stand to check their tone and arrogance as well).

As for your second paragraph, no one needs to specifically post a "decent house track." There are classically-trained people all throughout the music industry working in many different genres of music; I hardly think anyone at this forum has to prove that classical training has a very large degree of applications, and I don't think someone has to go out of their way to compose in every imaginable style of music in order to prove the point. The point of classical training (for most people) is to gain a solid foundation that can then be used in any musical style, not just to try for a life in classical music; I think that's actually true of the vast majority of musicians who go to study. This is one of the reasons why classical training has such a strong emphasis on analysis (and performance geared toward mastery of each of the following elements); you learn to view musical style objectively. What is objectively there in the music (pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, articulation, meter, tempo, register, cadence, density, texture)? How are those elements being used? The answer to those questions define genre and style. Knowing how to analyze in that way, a trained musician will be able to listen/analyze a piece of music, understand its stylistic traits, and then be able to produce music in that style by writing within those traits.

That said, rather than there just being a lot of hot air being blown around by everyone in this thread, why not post a track you'd like everyone to try to emulate? I may not have time to do so myself, but if I can, I'll offer an analysis of the work as well as compose in that style of music to demonstrate the type of approach I mentioned in my previous paragraph. Perhaps others might be willing to do the same? Not to prove any type of superiority, but simply to demonstrate how a certain level of formal training can be of benefit for working in diverse styles of music. It would certainly benefit more people than all the word games going on.

---

shankfiddle - Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:56 am

---

just got back from lessons, starting production NOW!

I'm actually going to remix a "classical" piece to fit a "dance" genre

ok, NOW!

---

KBSoundSmith - Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:04 am

---

Love the enthusiasm! Can't wait to see what you come up with.

I'll try to fulfill my own suggestion as well. I've never actually attempted a dance track, so I'll really try to squeeze this into my schedule. If someone would like to link a track that they'd like to have analyzed and then used as a model for a new work, I'll try to give it a go.

---

shankfiddle - Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:50 am

---

well since ya asked

Here's a couple from back in November. They all had the EXACT same process. Melody first (came up with 2-3 segments), then fit chord progressions to them (yielding 2-3 form chunks, as in verse-chorus-bridge organization). then copy-paste ad nauseum, making subtle layer changes each iteration.

http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/11-07-peer-pressure-prion
http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/11-10-dreary-overcast-days
http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/11-11-trinumeral-trance

I PERSONALLY think these are simplistic and one-dimensional (legos as opposed to architecture), soo much copy-paste, I get bored listening to these, but hey, it's a model. Mebbe different melodies, more form chunks?

I'm trying to make today's new piece a lot "more musical" so it might take a little longer than a matter of hours, my hard and fast deadline is Monday 4:20pm eastern standard time.

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:12 am

---

That's known as a straw man argument. It's baseless, it surely can't be based on what I have said. It's clear enough you don't even vaguely understand what I have said but it upset you so you just had to share.

FOR THE RECORD:

I do not think classical musicians are superior. I do not identify myself as a classical musician. I have found in my experience, which isn't trivial, that most of these classical musicians are slaves to the page, to notation. People that don't have musical ideas but regurgitate them like trained seals, as skilled mechanics. There are truly exceptional musicians among them, however, that obtain a deep understanding of what they play; for instance a soloist pretty much had to have more on the ball than someone whose job is going to be playing parts they have played since they were chidren.

Like most things, mediocrity and laziness rule ok.

OTOH, "electronic music" is a wide, deep field of music. However, most people that use the term at KVR mean 'EDM', which to me is mostly a lot of infantile, pathetic rubbish. There will be exceptions, like anything else.

But as revealed to me in music theory board here, most of its proponents are ignorant.

(edited for [punctuation and] TYPOS)

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:15 am

---

There is one insurmountable problem there: no one has said that. I for one don't believe that. At all. Not even close.

OTOH your arrogance (as revealed in your actual point, which you've already walked back some*), is simply astonishing.

(*: You can do just as well never playing any insrrument/you can get better at music from playing an instrument)

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:28 am

---

Your argument, Loki, is with yourself. It's anti-growth, anti-knowledge, and at the center of it is anti-active.

You're only cheating yourself.

I feel it needs to be countered strongly because we have a tendency to find what we want to convince ourselves we're right... you're RIGHT to do less, to pretend that doing nothing is every bit as good as doing as much as possible.

no, kids, don't listen to that guy, he's talking shit to prop himself up.

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:33 am

---

skankfiddle has posted something quite good. Your piece, loki fuego is mediocrity personified. IMO,

---

coquillo - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:34 am

---

And the rest are arrogant egotistical bass players. What happened to the OP and his question?

---

KBSoundSmith - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:41 am

---

A more than fair comment, I'd say. But I think this thread stopped being about that a long time ago. However, I may PM the OP, so there's no chance of that going off topic.

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:41 am

---

Sure, you're not wanting an argument, but you wanted to have a quick bash at a person rather than address any of what they said. Hit and run. What a guy.

---

jancivil - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:43 am

---

KVR did.

---

Sendy - Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:07 pm

---

---

Loki Fuego - Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:45 pm

---

Dear jancivil,
Let me tell you this: I started making music around mid-90s. In yearly 2000s I had enjoyed a limited success and was performing in clubs. That was before I had spent even single hour studying musical theory. The success was limited due to personal reasons.
During last ten years, I invested my time in studying music theory (and classical music among those). I took piano lessons, and I continue studying piano just for my own sake.
You made ignorant assumptions regarding what I know and what I don't know. Shame on you.

And statements like this only reveal that you can't make something like this infantile, pathetic rubbish. However you do bother yourself with commenting threads where people ask questions related to that rubbish. Ain't it stupid?
If enjoy making avantgarde keep yourself to it. And stop giving advice in the areas where you have no experience.

---

Loki Fuego - Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:32 pm

---

I listened to your tracks. In my opinion the main problem why they sound one-dimensional is because there's no breakdown at all. They just keep going and going. And that gets boring. You should develop texture and tone. For example it would be good taking beats and bass out somewhere in the middle of the track, then increase the intensity and drop everything back. That would add much more dynamics to your tracks. Right now the energy level is almost constant throughout the whole tracks.
In your first and third tracks the bass play very prominent role, therefore you need to make sure that sometimes it goes in and out. So it would be good to apply some low-pass filtering. Let the bass play throughout the first section open, then close the filter and start slowly opening it.
Throwing more melodies won't help that much, as you would need more time to develop it and without doing things I mentioned above, it will make your tracks much more boring, as for example keeping the bass going for two more minutes will introduce the highest state of boredom.
Speaking about production, I suggest you using more EQ, as for example your last track 'Trinumeral Trance' sounds like a soundtrack to 90s game. That was ok for 90s but right now, nobody will take it seriously. Using EQ to cut resonance would give much smoother sound, which wouldn't be so tiring for ears.

PS: As a reference try listening to Orbital - Technologicque Park:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmvZBtN7nnc

Notice how almost everything taken out around 1:57. Only one synth and some fx are playing. The same is around 4:30. In addition pay attention to how beats are being stripped down or completely removed for a couple of beats throughout the track.

---

shankfiddle - Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:10 am

---

Great advice (play with instrumentation), i'll keep it in mind next time I work with legos.

And I want YOU to write me a track that demonstrates your principles. We've established pages ago that this argument has hit a brick wall. Create me something, walk the walk.

---

Loki Fuego - Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:10 am

---

Unfortunately, I don't have time to write a track specifically for this thread (at least not right now). Instead I'll post some of my old stuff:
http://soundcloud.com/re-vibe/end-of-world
http://soundcloud.com/re-vibe/no-funk
These tracks are close in style to what jancivil calls 'a lot of infantile, pathetic rubbish'.

---

shankfiddle - Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:23 am

---

Decent tracks, but please drop the bickering!
You've already conceded to most of our points, you've admitted to studying theory (including some examples of "classical" music) and learning to play piano. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ARGUMENT musicians should make music, leave the bickering to politicians.

We were in jazz improv class a few years ago, asking questions that were irrelevant to the professor's point, and he said:

"I'm sure you've heard the saying that music is about the silence between the notes..."

"of course, sir"

"well what that means is that a true musician knows when to shut up"

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:31 am

---

It can't reasonably 'reveal' my capabilities. you're just having an emo moment some more again. I have experience with music. There is nothing real novel about the elements of EDM. Really.

(after a few years of the kind of garbagio in this thread, I finally 'revealed' my actual opinion on this thing. I've hald back, it's bad politics, it's going to be offputting and obviate my message to enough people, so it's not a good idea. But I've had it with motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane.)
EDIT and disclaimer: A lot of this is general, ie., not directed at any given individual

There are skills that apply to ANY music one chooses to make. Skills some of the people here don't demonstrate anything but an allergy to.

I'll tell you why I'm being a cop here:

What we have here is technology that, if you want to take this path, allows us to avoid the use of muscles. It is a fact that when you do not use muscles, they atrophy. If one does not have the muscles, never develop them at all, one is weaker accordingly. Creating musical lines, or blocks of chords, rhythm, whatever flow in our decoration of time IS informed by the act of playing, or it isn't. There is music posted here, youtube usually, that is made by people that obviously never obtained the skill set you'd have if you were pro-active in fifth grade band class. and not even close.

When one can get away with presenting music that, seems like music, it has a beat, it has a tune, even a bass line... Here we have a situation, where one can present some object like they made it and get strokes for it, we have a tempation to go with it. People, nature, seeks a state of stability, really seeks a state of repose. Slack. So, we have a situation where people do what people have done always, get into music for reasons other than interest in music. Ego drives. You can now 'produce' music and pretty much not have great skill in any aspect of it. So we have people that are celebrated, and videos posted here of tutorials where the celebrity doesn't have the capacity to know how to deal with triplets vs duplets. But he's a pro! he's great, because he has that sound, he uses the right synth, the right 'kick' everyone can relate to. No, dude, he's not.

When I first had a band eons ago, there were or course people in music to get up there and get some strokes, people that won't ever become musicians... no problem, it's normal. But after a time, people can tell you can't play. That weeds out a lot of people that didn't have any business doing music, because the evidence is in... Now you can get around that. So you have enough people in music getting their egos stroked by the others with the same idea, fostered by the enabling aspect of the technology, that just aren't real interested in music. (That isn't directed at you, 'loki fuego', but we have seen it here enough.) But it's a great vehicle for the ego.

'it has a beat, it has a tune, even a bass line...' but the person hasn't ever beat on anything, they haven't sung any tune... they haven't learned any one's song, hasn't felt the interaction with another musician in real time. IT SHOWS.

And we see people that are seriously resistant to the idea 'learn from someone else's song', and allergic after a point to anything but the comfort zone of EDM. We see it a lot here, in fact.

Consciousness is a field. It isn't atomistic, you don't put out an idea and it evaporates into ether, someone noticed it, it can have a ripple effect.

We have people here actually contending they can do every bit as well without the fundamental experience of making music happen in the physical realm. that is not a good idea; that is not an HONEST idea. Others seize on it and it validates, verifies their desire to be noted and stroked, now we can be noted for 'some beatz' but just didn't get very dirty or develop the usual muscles to get it. And one has succeeded in spreading one's consciousness, it's disseminated into the field.

Ultimately it's bad for consciousness, it's bad for music, it just degrades the whole field.

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:32 am

---

based on your other track I heard almost a minute of, I doubt it. I'm referring to other music.

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:41 am

---

My assumptions are based only in the language you have presented. I'm arguing with your words, I can't know 'you'. You were trying to convince us that one can do every bit as well only ever sitting in front of the computer as someone that went for instrumental skill as a fundament. I don't know why you'd be that argumentative from a different position. It's... interesting.

It's combative, which I can empathize with, but it's also someone bullshitting me and I'm just too old for that shit.

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:56 am

---

yeah, you know skankfiddle has actually gone to the trouble of whole productions, in a great drive to teach people a lesson they ought to heed... part of the message there is 'look, these skills have me doing this is this amt. of time, so they are valid skills maybe, check it out'

you 'don't have the time'. you have the time to type this stuff in the thread, though don't you.

actually my honest opinion is, you have gone far with what you have to work with. OTOH, it seems pretty cookie cutter to me.

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:06 am

---

stop giving me advice, child.

---

Loki Fuego - Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:23 am

---

Don't call me a child in front of others, mom!

---

jancivil - Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:30 am

---

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:41 am

---

Ha, wow.


A fun thing to do in this subforum is to count how many posts happen without someone either insulting everyone elses intelligence, or squeezing in a mention of their resume', or both.

Oh, or disparaging entire genres, whilst trying to give the ultimate advice on them.

Well, somehow that turned into someone cranking out an 'electronica' tune in six hours and daring anyone to match it, so as to prove the point that his path in life lead him to a greater artistic destination than the next guy.
I suppose there was a lesson to be learned there.
Oh, or am I mistaken and that was the same players in the other multi-page thread in this subforum?

---

shankfiddle - Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:37 pm

---

And then the posts from those like this guy, who have absolutely nothing to contribute... if you were speaking instead of typing, that comment woulda been a waste of valuable oxygen.

http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/mischevious-spirits

This one's called "Mischevious Spirits". This title refers to both the spirits of dead composers who explore and experiment with their centuries-old-pieces through me AND the beverages I was imbibing throughout the compositional process it started as a "cover" of a chopin etude. For those not familiar with the "classical" jargon, an etude is an exercise to develop skills and dexterity, etudes are very rarely performed, it's like a scale, only meant to give you skills to use later in other contexts.

The whole point here was to contrast the last one. So this one has almost no melody, it revolves predominantly around harmony/rhythm (I don't consider arpeggiators to be melody) while still maintaining complexity. I was so tempted to add at least a couple melody layers with phrasing-automation and perhaps later I will, but I was approaching my deadline and that was that, hand's off. If it wasn't for my internet connection and soundcloud being slow, I would have met it... but alas, 15 minutes late means complete and utter failure!

Here's my process: i started by transcribing the solo piano part, great ear-training practice. I only "sampled"/stole the first couple phrases, so it wasn't that gargantuan a task. That midi clip was the foundation for the whole track. The piano part Chopin composed gave me both a spicy progression and a nice bassline in the left hand to work with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA6bZFDsZpM

Actually stole isn't the right word, i "quoted" chopin, because this was done without ever drag-n-dropping a single sample into my DAW. But since I only used a tiny portion of the etude, it wasn't quite enough... The next two pieces on my ipod's shuffle were a Dvorak quartet in F maj and a Beethoven symphony. So I started with quality source material and THEN got creative with form, feeding these classical pieces into each other and whatnot. And get this: it's not piracy because I've educated myself enough to work by ear, you can't prosecute me for that!

I actually never think of the product I want to produce, I just imagine a process and do it, see what comes out. I can generally make accurate predictions of what a track will sound like, but my attitude is that as a composer I'm not in control, more along for the ride- and in that state of mind, more cool discoveries/surprises pop out at me. The music shows ME where to go, not the other way around.

Such as at the end I discovered that the descending chromaticism nicely prepares a m3 (square) modulation, even though Chopin decided to stay in key. So at the end, "Spirits" modulates every phrase, oscillating between two keys, cause I like how just as you're getting settled into a key, the floor drops out from underneath and the ear has to readjust.

I'm really glad I took the time to learn about modulations so that when the music asked for them, I had the skills to be able to notice and realize it. I'm glad I did all the ear training I did so that the "sampling" process was quick and automatic, not requiring any technology (for the transcription, obviously i used a daw and synths to process the transcribed parts). I'm thankful for my extensive study of counterpoint and 4-part harmony so that I can "quote" a melody and recompose different chords underneath it. All very valuable skills to have.

---

coquillo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:11 pm

---

Indeed but it sounds like something Band-In-A-Box might produce.

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:41 pm

---

Id say all the LOLing I did reading the big circle jerk here made up for it.
But fair enough. I dont have much to contribute on your level. Im just one of the peons trying to glean some hint of knowledge from all the experience here.

I do see the points of frustration that have been noted about this subforum. Mostly that advice on 'complex' melodies is being asked for while the asker might not have the comprehension, or the motivation to comprehend, the "answers".
Fair points. I can see how it is frustrating and 'childish' to someone who has such expertise in classical theory, etc.
But what did you expect to find? A forum full of willing learners, taking your words of wisdom and running off to study?
I wonder who you think the audience is here and what they are doing. While I think learning theory is definitely valuable, to everyone, I think that it is more useful in some genres than others. And I do disagree with the assertion that this theory knowledge by default means someone is a better musician, and thus creating better music.
It is not a direct correlation.
Maybe people with background in theory also have high student loan bills?
How do student loan payments influence "good" music?

Runners tend to wear nice shoes.
People who are wearing nice shoes are not necessarily runners.


So do you think that track is somehow 'great'?
I do not mean that as an offense, and I do not mean that it is a bad track.
But, you seem to imply that because your four paragraphs of theory went into it that it is better, or that it should be more respected than the last or the next.
Not taking genre into consideration is.. childish.

---

shankfiddle - Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:52 pm

---

what you need to realize is that this is a public forum and the audience is much wider than those posting in the threads. you're the one responding here, but the audience is much much wider. the smartest and most mature are those who read the forum for new ideas and learn, and actually DO go off and think and process these ideas on their own, study. investigate the theory. you don't and that's you, but that doesn't mean other people aren't learning.

there's orders of magnitude more 'views' to each thread than posts. these aren't personal conversations.

Let's hear your music, guy

"taking genre into consideration" you mean fit a cookie-cutter? or something else...demonstrate for me please. I'm hearing much talk and seeing no walk, hahahhahaha

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:05 pm

---

I just meant that the sites userbase as a whole is possibly not as geared in the classical/theory direction as some other general 'Music Forums' might be due to the focus on plugins, which until recently were used by 'kids doing techno' only.

My music is in my sig, on SoundCloud.
Its hiding in the punctuation cuz I dont give a shit if anyone hears it casually.
Obviously not much theory, or even melody is going on in there. Im not sure what genre half of it is.
Anyway, I would be interested to know what someone from your point of view thinks of it if you are inclined. Im listening to yours and Jans now.

edit:
'Ignorance Be Gone' is great. I do feel like its heading towards something that doesnt happen, but its great.

---

coquillo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:08 pm

---

Me too. Your track is totally cookie cutter stuff. Ten minutes work with BIAB.

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:10 pm

---

Well, if thats someones thing, then yeah.
If someone says they want to make xyz. Or even worse, if they say they want to sound like xyz, then yeah Id say there are considerations to be made about what knowledge is more useful to one person or another.

e.g.
A up and coming hip hop producer better know how to work Twitter a lot better than he knows how to work the circle of fifths.
And if he knows both, he better pronounce it "Fiffs".

Hey, can I 'quote' "Gypsies roll in packs"?
I cant play it. Its cool though. I'll resynthesize it.
Nice one though.
http://soundcloud.com/shankfiddle/gypsies-roll-in-packs

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:19 pm

---

Here ya go:

http://soundcloud.com/highkoo/badger-stay-vector


Dont judge me!
I used to make House music...

---

There are 122 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2