We have scales but why??

[fmr]

So exactly how did Mozart compose? Enlighten us, please. What was in his mind as he wrote music? You seem to know a lot about him.

Mozart didn't left anythink written about it, nor did he ever got pupils (this AFAIK), so, about the way he composed, I can oly imagine. Being someone who was playing by heart since very young age, and with a prodigious memory, he could easily assemble "variations" of well known formulas, and create something new. Was everything he wrote genial? I personally don't think so. Actually, the works I like and respect more are the ones he wrote in his maturity, after haviong travelled extensively and have studying more. Because he studied, and played extensively, and was constantly developing his skills. That's why his technique (compositional technique) evolved.

Did you not read the quote I included from Shankar? He said "this isn't something you can learn from a book". And he used the word "spiritual" several times.

Do you "really" think that being "spiritual" is all it takes to do the ragas? Shankar told, in your own words "this isn't something you can learn from a book". He didn't say it's something he didn't need to learn... just that it can't be learned from a book, and I easily understand why: Because it's a complete cultural inheritage that the musician has to learn. But the musician HAS TO LEARN, just learns from someone else. It was like that that Bach and all the other great masters were taught (in Bach's case by copying the manuscripts from the old masters), and it was the same way that Mozart was taught too, in this case beginning by his father. Simply, there are people who learn more, better and faster.
Also, any music needs to be spiritual, otherwise it would be an empty exercize (that's what I believe, at least).

I'm sorry, that just isn't what people encounter in academic music training in the West, and I know because I've studied it at university too.

And as far as McCartney's greatness coming down to money, that's silly. He wasn't rich during the time he wrote most of his best music, that came later.

If you think it's somehow easy to write truly great and memorable popular music, you are deluding yourself.

But I'll be glad to hear your song that is every bit as good as Hey Jude, which I assume you can dash off without much effort, because of your extensive training.

I'm really not interested in any dissonant or experimental academic music you have, though. Doesn't interest or impress me at all, and it simply doesn't matter to me that you have a theory degree if that's what you use it for. Nor do I think it will ever mean much to most other people.

I will not comment the majority of what you told, because these are senseless words, that just want to attack. I am deeply sorry you found your training useless. But remember that the University biggest lesson is not to teach you something, rather to teach you how to investigate and where to investigate in order to learn something. If you cannot reach the knowledge on your own, then you are lost, no matter what.
Regarding what I think of McCartney (which is far from being bad or prejudicious) I will keep that to myself, because it's completely off topic. I just would like to remind you that, using your example, the author of "Happy Birthday" sould be the greatest composer ever existed, because that's the most played and covered music ever. Also, Franz Xaver Gruber should be a great composer too, because Silent Night is a piece of geniality.
Just to finish, let's make a parallel with literature. The basic skills needed for writing a novel are to know spelling, grammar and language. A good and solid cultural background is good and helpfull, as well as deep knowledge on the field one is going to write about, although perhaps not completely necessary. Having something to say is also a must, of course. Now, if someone comes to you and ask about the validity of collecting the preferred sentences of some great books and concatenate them, because he/she has little knowledge of grammar and spelling, what would you answer?

[tapper mike]

So much conjecture going on in this thread. One popular song in a lifetime does not a song writer make no matter how long that life is or how popular the song is.

Yes, Paul McCartney was a great natural who nurtured his abilities. Which is not the case with many naturals because they fail to force themselves to go beyond their initial skill sets. Not everyone is a natural some people require a little or a lot more education to develop abilities. However, too much education can be just as bad as it stifles creativity. There has to be balance between creativity and acquiring knowledge/physical ability and developing confidence in ones own creative (not scored on paper) pursuits.

I take the whole "Only the master can improvise" with a grain of salt. Rock and Roll is all about "Play it like it is" not "How I imagine it to be" If you are a cover artist or a touring artist with a label deal the public has a level of expectation regarding the live representation of the song. The more a rocker or pop act "Sounds like the record" the greater draw they have. Which is why in part for the reason of acquiring more gear. The close you sound to the record the more money you'll make playing covers.

In jazz and blues we do things a little differently. Blues for the public still requires that you know and can play the song as performed by "an artist" because there can be many interpretations on record. Bobby Blue Bland does not play "Stormy Monday" the same as the Allman Brothers or T-Bone Walker. In blues you are expected to improvise as in jazz. Improvisation can be a lead in to composition as you are forging different rhythmic and melodic approaches to the same progression. The form gives one a nice pocket so that your co musicians or even you can follow along with.

I reject the whole Ravi Shankar thing. One can improvise at any stage of development. I've studied improvisation in class and on the stage. I've taught students to be improvisers to be able to think on their feet and while there is muscle memory to be learned and standards to apply they were expected to play "straight" and improvised. It doesn't take a lifetime you don't have to be a master. The reason why many study music is the pursuit of personal expression. Improvising is just that.

Re "Hey Jude"
I wrote a lot of songs like that back in the 70's. Mainly because it was one of the first songs I'd ever learned. When you remove the backdrop of too much information which is what technology has dropped on our lap you free your mind for internal pursuits. Chasing plugins, figuring out daws, learning songs are distractions just like all other distractions which detract from not add to the creative writing process. Now, I'm guilty of all the above myself. And I do on occasion try to justify "just the right sound" to make things happen. However and moreover people don't spend enough time critically about song structure and content because they are always chasing for the new cure all that will "fix" it all in the end. And usually when they find it they have removed themselves so much from the original point of inspiration that the moment is lost.

[DinDoes]

I didn't even used to use scales I used to play what sounded good by ear. A friend used to tell me if you have a foundation for understanding then you must stand o n it and you can use creativity.

[tapper mike]

You have to know the rules in order to break them is a time honored cliche. Playing scales and scalar patterns help you to develop muscle memory. Muscle memory means you don't have to think as hard to perform a passage. It's already under your fingers. When you listen to music and try to learn songs these patterns surface again although be it in a slightly less "clinical" representation as the performer has changed the dynamics and rhythm.

The same holds true for writing. If you are not born super creative with amazing relative and perfect pitch you can use muscle memory and dynamics to create melodies without banging your head against the wall and it will open possibilities that you may have not considered in your writing adventures previous to having muscle memory.

Muscle memory builds on muscle memory. If you play in a certain style gathering the inflections of that style they stick with you. At a certain point everything you do no matter how well you do it may bore the heck out of you or it will infuse the style that you learn to accept it as "This is my sound, this is who/how I am"

I remember being a young rocker. I thought I had it all down. Ny 20 I was playing paying gigs regularly with a great deal of cred. One day I met a bluegrass player who shook my foundation. He played all the same notes and chords I did but played them in a way I couldn't emulate to save my life. It took me down a notch and made me rethink my approach in general. I never did become a bluegrass player but it made me look harder at drilling down the basics before trying to infuse my "Persona" into my playing. As a result it was much easier for me to mimic other "styles" and come up with my own ideas from a wider range of music.

[Arr0wHead]

Re: McCartney

If it's all about his learning and education, why did he have less popular success further into his career? I mean, at this point he, Elton, Billy Joel, and Phil Collins should do nothing but poop out top ten hits every other weekend? So the less successful, less interesting material they are instead releasing is just a smokescreen, right? So people will beg them to play the old hits instead, thus saving on practice time for the band?

Nah.

Learning is important. Some study to learn. Some are surrounded by music, and simply absorb it. Some are savants, and are just born with it. But no matter how they learn and build their abilities and repertoire, they are still just vessels. The inspiration is typically both internal AND external. It's quite possible to lose that external element and find you're no longer "plugged in". (I mean you, Carlos Santana.)

[tapper mike]

Because he was no longer young. McCartney actually produced a great number of songs and had several hits with them after the Beatles and still produces great songs today. The problem is no one is listening. The only time they do listen is when he pulls an old favorite out of his hat. That's not a commentary on his writing ability or performing ability simply a societal one.

[fmr]

Because he was no longer young. McCartney actually produced a great number of songs and had several hits with them after the Beatles and still produces great songs today. The problem is no one is listening. The only time they do listen is when he pulls an old favorite out of his hat. That's not a commentary on his writing ability or performing ability simply a societal one.

Which takes us to irrelevance of success as a measure of quality in music. He probably writes as good music now as he did with the Beatles (in average terms). He probably makes it even better, because he developed his skills. But he is no longer "a Beatle", therefore, the vast majority of people don't care what he does. I think the last successful album was "Give My Regards to Broad Street" where there are some great songs, but I bet the vast majority of people who quotes "Hey Jude" or "Yesterday" don't know this album. And an old favourite of mine, and IMO one of his best is the Rupert Bear song "We All Stand Together".

[Trakstar]

just in case you are a lizard asking,(what with all this talk of beetles and all) you have scales because its similar to as we humans have skin, without scales you wouldnt look very bright and not survive very long, I mean imagine a human with no skin, if he fell in some salt or vinegar the pain would be unbearable so think yourself lucky,what a stupid question, you have scales because without them you would die silly ,
I mean if mr chameleon had no scales he wouldnt be able to turn invisible and catch all the sweaty insects they like to mush on, and hide from its predators, so do you see my point I am trying to make

[Arr0wHead]

Because he was no longer young. McCartney actually produced a great number of songs and had several hits with them after the Beatles and still produces great songs today. The problem is no one is listening. The only time they do listen is when he pulls an old favorite out of his hat. That's not a commentary on his writing ability or performing ability simply a societal one.

No, I'm not talking about charts, sales, or success.

This isn't about society, it's about a guy who pretty much perfected the ability to write pop songs, and lost that ability as he aged. He's pursued other styles, instrumentation, and outlets, but even his post Beatles projects showed a gradual decline in appeal and content. He grew up. Things weren't as shiny, new, and constantly analyzed. His perspectives changed, and his hormones subsided. It's not a bad thing, it's life!

Want a better example? Let's talk about when Metallica ran out of things to be angry about.

Or maybe we can talk about Ani Difranco finally settling down, and becoming comfortable with herself.

We all have things that drive us to create, and fuel the music we make. Sometimes we keep going, but lose that muse. And no amount of education, analysis, or repertoire allows us to fake it. I try though... I try

[lotus2035]

Music, is, after all, sound. It isn't math and it isn't theory. If someone finds that they can develop a grasp of how to shape sound to create impressive musical effect based on instinct and a more natural grasp of melody and harmony within their own mind, then their lack of theory knowledge is irrelevant, and indeed theory might simply be an impediment to them.

This.

[vurt]

You have to know the rules in order to break them is a time honored cliche.

what if one just wants to ignore the rules rather than break them?
what if one makes ones own rules or finds different rules to the ones you follow?

(you in the plural)

[debra1rlo]

You have to know the rules in order to break them is a time honored cliche.

what if one just wants to ignore the rules rather than break them?
what if one makes ones own rules or finds different rules to the ones you follow?

(you in the plural)

how does one know if they are successful at ignoring the rules if they don't know what the rules are?

and if one makes their own rules and they don't know what the "real" rules are (anyone remember eduardo?) how do they know they're not being redundant or absent mindedly stealing someone else's rules?

eh?





/mind blown

[vurt]

just ignoring them as in doing my own thing and if it sounds good whether it follows "the rules" or not then its right as far as im concerned...

and not making ones own rules to try to be different, but just because one can, and if they coincide with "the rles" then its no issue, suppose that gives em summat to talk about when they study ones compositions in colleges...

success is measured by the ears at the end of the process, not by how well it sticks to or avoids any arbitary rules set down by dead people.

[vurt]

btw
"jam, yay!"

[debra1rlo]