sfd wrote:Sound is of interest. Yes.
But I think melody is way more imporant.
A melody by Mozart. What instrument? It doesn't matter.
Everybody knows that popcorn melody. Not so many really know or even care about the sound.
It's not because of the Minimoogs people know and remember Kraftwerk's "The Model". It's the melody. You can play it with a classical orchestra or with a roc klband. It's still that good song.
Sound can support your song. But it won't make the music for you.
Compsing should not be based on sound but on good melodies.
What I'm saying is that the latest super ultra fantstic synth won't make any music for you. We are, again, lead into the idea that with this or that new synth we'll revolutionise the sound and thereby make greater music. This is just as untrue today as it was in the early 80s.
Look at KVR. Everybody is talkign techknology. Nobody is talking music.
Everybody have a hundred plug-ins and sound libraries with zillion rimshots. What are you going to do with a zillion rimshots?
I'm not saying that there's no importance to sound. But it's really less imkporant then melody. A great souding guitar is of zero interest until you play somethign beautiful on it.
I agree with you to a point.
But you can't take a kazoo and play Beethoven's 9th with it and expect it to have the same impact on people as playing it using a full orchestra.
Yes, of course it starts with the melody and harmony. But it doesn't end there. And as important as those things are, you can ruin them with poor instrument arrangement, vocals, recording and any number of things.
If you think I'm kidding, I can make a cover of a song considered one of the greatest of all times and totally butcher it to the point where you can't listen to it.
What? You've never heard a singer so bad that you couldn't listen to the song anymore, even though it was an established "standard?"
Back in the day when I was so bad at doing this stuff, one agent was totally honest with me. He said, and I'll never forget these words"
"Steve, I honestly can't tell if your songs are any good or not because your performance and recordings are just terrible. And no publisher is going to be able to listen to these and tell if there is anything commercial in them."
Granted, it's just one man's opinion. But it sure supports all the rejection letters that I got from all the publishers I submitted to.
And then I started to improve with my playing and recording and I got my first song contract. And it was on a song that was generally believed to be a "hard sell" because it wasn't the kind of stuff that was popular at the time. But the production and everything about the song made it so that the publisher just couldn't pass on it.
Now of course this was all in the early 90s when you actually could rely on publishers to take your work. Today, everything is do it yourself because of the Internet so it doesn't matter how good my stuff is or isn't. I'm on my own. But the same rules still apply. I can't take a great dance track and play it on a kazoo. I'll be laughed off the Internet.
A great song will only get you so far without the proper presentation. Hell, I've had people tell me they can't listen to my music simply because I use Vocaloid. They can't get past that synthetic oriental sound. So how can you say it's just the song that matters?
Everything matters. And in today's day and age, maybe more so than back in the 60s when you had Tin Pan Alley and could play your song on an out of tune piano and still get a deal. Today, the production has to be near radio quality to begin with before a label will even bother talking to you.