Key changing/chord progressions to differnt song parts

[shankfiddle]

You just need to "sort the melody out" eventually, selecting notes from the chords for the lead voice, adding passing notes, etc.

So, where has melody been simply the result of *sorting* notes from chords, and... additions? I'm sure it's been done, but which memorable melodies were done just like this I wonder.
you have 'adding passing notes etc'... what is that? Part-writing? Do you want the parts to work melodically or is it just some sorting routine, such as a puzzle...

I think your 'equally viable' is going to be hard to support. Feel free to show that...

I'm gonna have to agree with the equally viable folks. Unless I'm misunderstanding this is about whether melody has to come first in the compositional process?

You can compose melody first, or harmony first, or rhythm first, keep in mind, it will greatly affect your product.

Anyways, given that improvisation is composition quickly and composition is improvisation slowly.
Just last night I was at a jam session with some folks and the tunes that began on djembe or began on guitar were equally memorable. either way, I took what was there, and then improvised a melody to fit over the foundation. (Which was basically a "sorting out" process in my head that happened in real-time subconsciously... but i can only do that because I've had lots of practice coming up with melodies in studio work where the whole track's already been finished and my part's the last one.)

Yes, our improvisations it would have been different if I had started with a melody and forced the guitarists/drummer to fit to my melody... but it was all equally memorable... or viable if that's the word we're using.

The better and more flexible you are at coming up with melodies, the less necessary it is to start with them.

Similarly, if you are really flexible with harmonies, and it's more difficult for you to come up with melodies, it makes sense to start with melody and then fit chords.

[jancivil]

So Jan what's your point?
That people can't decide what's good for them and as such should have no personal choice? Cannabalism is unpopular. Perhaps you would like to share with the huddled masses why we're wrong about that one too.

I made the point I wished to make. It's clearly stated in english. My point of view is melody qua melody rather than melody as though 'sorted' from 'chord progressions' is a more apt approach to 'writing' melody.

You're not doing more there than retaliating personally for my bellicosity with some post of yours. That post there isn't very sober discourse frankly.

[jancivil]

people new to the writing of music lean hard, and over-rely on this 'chord progressions', I see it all the time here. What's going to set your chord progression apart from the last guy's very similar if not identical progression is the writing of parts. What someone in the audience is going to remember is the melodic aspect (which has a lot to do with rhythm).

melody may have a lot to do with harmonic rhythm, which is to say *when* the chords change.

"given that improvisation is composition quickly and composition is improvisation slowly"
I didn't know 'composition is improvisation slowly' was a given. I don't see that it is, with the comment 'sorting, equally viable to'. That is a process of thinking; one can make decisions intellectually that are not hearing, singing, making melody. These decisions might be arbitrary, or might consciously follow some formulation that's attractive intellectually, and arbitrary... The process of approaching a melody qua melody attacks the issue directly.

"Which was basically a "sorting out" process in my head that happened in real-time subconsciously..."
Maybe so, but I wouldn't formulate a practice out of this what you do out of the subconscious for anybody else. Afaik, 'sorting' from 'chord progressions' is concrete and seems like conscious activity to me.

Let's extend the hypothesis, 'sorting parts is as viable as singing parts'. Ok, do you check how it sounds when 'done, or will you be confident enough your intellectual machinations will suffice? If not, what you're 'writing' requires your ear. Why not get rid of this middlemen, 'sorting'? And develop techniques for melody writing. They might hAve everything to do with the 'progression' of the harmony. You might obtain more subtle things than are prescribed by your understanding of the chords.

The thing is, I don't know what the person insisting on the 'as viable as' has to work with as far as knowledge. I can't tailor to that extent. I would eschew formulating a practice assuming more adeptness than is evident and am speaking generally. Melody is melody, and you may be tethering it unnecessarily, or arbitrarily, to another consideration.

that is not the statement mike requires to have that go at me, 'you must never write a chord progression first'. The exercise may be to come up with a melody over a given progression, it may be de rigeur to do. But the harmony doesn't necessarily contain the contour, the rhythm, to the degree of being enough for melody to happen via "sorting".

that seems like a recipe for boring, bland, dead music to me.

[jancivil]

Unless I'm misunderstanding this is about whether melody has to come first in the compositional process?

it isn't about that for me. It seems like melody qua melody is ommitted from the whole consideration and that the person posting the 'as viable as' (the point of my posts: <sorting melody, as viable as 'hearing' melody>, seems a problematic conceptualization) is sticking to a comfort zone. I could be wrong but if I had to wager that will be mine.

[tapper mike]

Hey kids, Jan knows better for what you should be doing. She want you to sound like Miles Davis
After all that classical training he still couldn't play over a chord progression.

The music has gotten thick. Guys give me tunes and they're full of chords. I can't play them

Soak up all that miles goodness
Here's a catchy little tune/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AR93r-ASWI

[cj31387]

I have made so many songs, I have actually used both methods a lot, start with a melody then make the chords, and I've also used start with a chord progression and make a melody, I'm good at both but what I mainly want to figure out is why in hit songs a chorus can be so explosive after the verse, I'm thinking it has to do with the chord progression verse to chorus (But I dont also know what to base that off, the first note of the chord progression, the tonic? or the last note of the chord progression since that is what directly goes into the chorus(because its the last note before the chorus starts)?), here is a example of a song I like that has a cool verse but then the chorus explodes, and is what I'm trying to achieve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb0sjpp_16U

[tapper mike]

No, It has to do with tempo and activity.

The Chorus is often times slightly faster and has more parts active and louder. As well when the verse preceeding he chorus comes to a close there is a build up

Even monkees coud do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU615FaODCg

Starts with simple keys and very simple bass plus vocals.
Verse two adds instruments
Horns provide the build up.

Notice the chorus.
Bass is now playing harder and on all fours.
Keyboard is now playing two handed chords and not little arp/riff
Davy is singing louder and harder.
All the instruments are active.
Drums are working the front and the backbeat.

Back to the verse everything cuts out but Davy's voice and the keys and a little bass. Davy starts singing soft again. and they go thru the cycle of building up the parts again.

[cj31387]

hmm interesting, so for a full electronic song, keep all the velocities low in the verse then max them in chorus? Well i've made a lot of instrumental choruses, and alone they don't sound explosive, does the verse HAVE to come quietly first? I've used strong chord progressions too. Thanks for that song, Its probably very easy to find the notation ill check it out now.

[jancivil]

Hey kids, Jan knows better for what you should be doing. She want you to sound like Miles Davis After all that classical training he still couldn't play over a chord progression.

Quote:
The music has gotten thick. Guys give me tunes and they're full of chords. I can't play them

Is there some point you're trying to make there?

Personally I identify with Miles Davis's aesthetic of cool and the modal period, and getting away from Tea For Two in jazz... I don't do spectacularly well with a lot of changes. I admire someone who does however.

[tapper mike]

Not neccesarily

Take a look at Lady Gaga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I

The harpsichord intro is actually using a medium hard attack but the volume is low and it's compressed the heck out of. The big thing is it stands alone without accompaniment.
She comes in, the orchestra comes in and while the play somewhat intense it's not super fast just with relatively sharp attack, The orchestra vanishes and her voice comes in again this time with kick drum on all fours. This time the strings are playing staccato attacks and the bass comes in. The strings again disappear and it's all about her the drums and the bass. When she not singing the strings just handle the fill. They aren't playing all the time just when she isn't singing. Then comes the break, build up. kill the heavy kick but leave some meat behind with simple synth stabs. Which leads to the chorus

Through out the song she introduce elements and she takes them away. Such as you don't hear the thick pad synth when the strings are playing. It's not everything all the time, It's just the right things at the right time and standing out rather then being cluttered.

Velocity and synths are an oddity as some synths don't really have variation of character when you play them harder. As well you can play something hard at a lower volume and maintain the intensity of the piece without overwhelming.

[jancivil]

Hey kids, Jan knows better for what you should be doing. She want you to sound like Miles Davis

well, if all someone wants to do is do EDM and things that are sub-rudimentary, and avoid other music religiously because it's so confusing, chances are what I know isn't going to get you closer to sounding like BT or whatever, you know.

I personally would like people to do more exploration such as in the Miles Davis offering, you know with the amazing technology we have, but I fully grasp we are in the midst of an historical process which includes a kind of devolvement. the less muscle we have to bring to the act of making music - and yes your brain is a muscle - the weaker we'll become.

If your point is to show I'm every bit as insensible to the room as Miles Davis, I can live with it.

[cj31387]

Thanks for the info, I pretty much hate all the mainstream electronic music right now, but I like "Lights", and indie electronic i find on soundcloud like shoegaze electronic or chillwave. The main reason I've done electronic is because for a long time I could compose tons and i mean tons of songs just drawing with the pencil tool, and I've gotten a lot of practice writing songs doing that, but I always want to learn more. As I'm building my verse more recently I always hear the explosive chorus in my head but haven't quite figured it out yet. I've never really worked with a singer and I think that is the last piece missing, finding a singer is hard alone, and even harder when you make the music for them, they usually want to write their own songs.

[jancivil]

There's this weird little joke I read somewhere:
- What's the difference between a rocker and a jazzman?
- A rocker plays 3 chords in front of 10000 people. A jazzman plays 10000 chords in front of 3 people.

While it's somewhat sad and definitely not fair to either rock or jazz, it reflects a lot on the fact that in music, as in other forms of art, sometimes keeping it simple and real helps a lot in reaching the people you wish to reach.

That is pretty funny. Although to be serious, the jazzman who plays more recognizable choruses and less bop solos will probably have more mass appeal regardless of the chords. Which is also a matter of keeping it simple and real.

sure, and many people think Kenny G is just fantastic.

you're in an area there, 'more people like it = better'. if that's what you're about, fine. no great skin off my nose.

[jancivil]

I have made so many songs, I have actually used both methods a lot, start with a melody then make the chords, and I've also used start with a chord progression and make a melody, I'm good at both but what I mainly want to figure out is why in hit songs a chorus can be so explosive after the verse, I'm thinking it has to do with the chord progression verse to chorus (But I dont also know what to base that off, the first note of the chord progression, the tonic? or the last note of the chord progression since that is what directly goes into the chorus(because its the last note before the chorus starts)?), here is a example of a song I like that has a cool verse but then the chorus explodes, and is what I'm trying to achieve

it could be any, all, or none of these things. I wouldn't look for easy, formulaic answers. You're basically canvassing for free composition lessons at this point... I don't blame you for trying though.

[tapper mike]

It's not always about the singer or the voice. It's about the way the main melodic instrument interacts with other instruments during various sections.
Either of the above examples could have simply been instrumentals and they would have had the exact same impact because arrangement dictates it.