Not terribly long ago I did a thing, where the general plan was, to take a particular idea somewhere based on what I knew about what it contained, and what it did in the initial statement. New ideas got 'in the way' of what you might call a schematic idea. It was irritating, for a moment, how I just could not manage to stick to improvising the line according to what I'd had in mind, which was a good, solid idea. A more manageable idea, also, in a number of ways.
But, the thing I did make was very likely the better idea, in practice. Certainly more surprising sounding.
The upshot, is, how formulaic a context is it you're hoping to manage, to 'predict'?
You will learn some craft by keeping to parameters, and even cliches, but if you want to act creatively, don't let that means to an end become the end.
Is predicting outcome one of music theory's strengths?
-
- KVRAF
- 2028 posts since 18 Mar, 2004 from New York, N.Y.
This reminds me, a while ago when I demoed the Zebra VST - I was unaware that one of the demo restrictions is that after a period of time, the notes that you play trigger random notes. For a while, I thought I was speaking in tongues, in the jazz sense of the phrase - I had never improvised with such harmonic complexity, never did I get such wonderful tensions and releases with a simple diatonic scale!
I was a bit saddened when I realized what was happening...
I was a bit saddened when I realized what was happening...
-
- KVRAF
- 2028 posts since 18 Mar, 2004 from New York, N.Y.
Unfortunately, it wasn't recorded...And the catch-22 is, after a while the demo ran out, and if I bought the software, it would never have that feature again!jancivil wrote:yeah, but you were responding to the thing and making it work, you might be pleased. was 'record' pressed?
-
- KVRian
- 1471 posts since 8 Jan, 2008
Trial and error will provide benefit(s) in proportion to how well one understands error.MOK19 wrote:Unfortunately, I've been doing a lot of trial and error without success yet.
I believe that your intuition is correct.MOK19 wrote:I'm under the impression that if I just understood my theory a bit more, I'd have a better grasp of what my options were in this situation, and what guidelines will lead me in the right direction. Is this true?
FYI: the type of teacher that one works with is a huge factor in working with students that can already play and/or mature people who know what that want to be able to do. Sometimes, the answer is working with a number of teachers- one for each type of benefit (e.g. basic theory; improvisation; performance; etc...). So, as long as you're able to plug in useful bits that you're absorbing through the teacher, you're improving (i.e. value).
I've got nothing to sell...am I on the right site?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1595 posts since 17 Nov, 2007 from Seattle, WA
Thank you everyone for replying so far. This has been a wealth of information, many valuable viewpoints.
The impression I have now is that it's kinda 'half & half' so to speak. Meaning that on one hand, there are well documented progressions and chord interplays and whatnot, and if I hear something I want to emulate, theres some theory knowledge out there that will help me get to such a predefined destination. On the other hand, I could put twists on anything, without regard to theory, and get amazing results. In the end, the only thing that matters is does it sound good, and theory cannot predict whats good.
As well, regardless of whether I bothered learning theory at all, pure firsthand experience, I've found, is my biggest creative muscle. I'm bolstered by the knowledge I'm getting, but repetition and experimentation are a bit more of a driving force.
In short, I think I'm on the right track, just keep doing what I'm doing(emphasis on DO). Experience is power, knowledge adds some finesse.
The impression I have now is that it's kinda 'half & half' so to speak. Meaning that on one hand, there are well documented progressions and chord interplays and whatnot, and if I hear something I want to emulate, theres some theory knowledge out there that will help me get to such a predefined destination. On the other hand, I could put twists on anything, without regard to theory, and get amazing results. In the end, the only thing that matters is does it sound good, and theory cannot predict whats good.
As well, regardless of whether I bothered learning theory at all, pure firsthand experience, I've found, is my biggest creative muscle. I'm bolstered by the knowledge I'm getting, but repetition and experimentation are a bit more of a driving force.
In short, I think I'm on the right track, just keep doing what I'm doing(emphasis on DO). Experience is power, knowledge adds some finesse.
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
[quote="MOK19"]Thank you everyone for replying so far. This has been a wealth of information, many valuable viewpoints.
The impression I have now is that it's kinda 'half & half' so to speak. Meaning that on one hand, there are well documented progressions and chord interplays and whatnot, and if I hear something I want to emulate, theres some theory knowledge out there that will help me get to such a predefined destination. On the other hand, I could put twists on anything, without regard to theory, and get amazing results. In the end, the only thing that matters is does it sound good, and theory cannot predict whats good.
quote]
The difference is whether or not you can explain how you achieved that 'good' result, and whether you can derive a method from that experiment to repeat and develop upon the technique. Happy accidents are great, but only if you can actually learn something from them. What good is it to write a nice harmonic progress but have no idea how you reached that end or how you can develop upon it?
I don't see that theory is about doing music by the math. It's about being able to explain and make sense of things rather than ambling around blindly. It's about finding ways to come up with musical concepts that help to channel creativity and experimentation. Ultimately, it's about being knowledgable of your art.
TB
The impression I have now is that it's kinda 'half & half' so to speak. Meaning that on one hand, there are well documented progressions and chord interplays and whatnot, and if I hear something I want to emulate, theres some theory knowledge out there that will help me get to such a predefined destination. On the other hand, I could put twists on anything, without regard to theory, and get amazing results. In the end, the only thing that matters is does it sound good, and theory cannot predict whats good.
quote]
The difference is whether or not you can explain how you achieved that 'good' result, and whether you can derive a method from that experiment to repeat and develop upon the technique. Happy accidents are great, but only if you can actually learn something from them. What good is it to write a nice harmonic progress but have no idea how you reached that end or how you can develop upon it?
I don't see that theory is about doing music by the math. It's about being able to explain and make sense of things rather than ambling around blindly. It's about finding ways to come up with musical concepts that help to channel creativity and experimentation. Ultimately, it's about being knowledgable of your art.
TB
-
- Banned
- 89 posts since 30 Jun, 2008 from Knowsley/Liverpool
I read a great inspiring set of article's on music in New Scientist, a music special a few months back. Scales are naturally international theme, where a note starts and ends in a line up, but the progressions inbetween are culturally based. So often when a new chord progression is popularised in a song, in is not so much a question of the genius of the Artist but the Artist taking music to a new theme that that culture is ready for, it is a response.
They gave a great example from tribal music, this music had two scales one with 7 notes, the other with 4 (maybe slightly wrong, but thinking back) They then played these two scales ontop of each other, to a western tourist this sounds like a pile of shit, to the tribes people this music is the shit.
Therefore if you what to come up with great new progression, the world needs to be ready for that progression. And truely speaking we have no know account of any original idea in society, not just in music but anything we do. Everything we are is a collective response to experiance, combining, changing, altering and editing to come up with a new theme. Don't believe me, name one original idea that you have had, that anyone has had, you cannot - as such a thing doesn't exist.
It is like a lot of music geeks I know in bands, they hate the thought of computer music, but I try to explain useing the start of the film 2001 as an example that we are still at the same basic level, a stick hitting a rock, a guitar, a laptop, these are all basic technology tools to create beats and tones. Get over it. A guitar doesn't grow on a tree, and is picked readymade, it is designed, shaped and formed - in the same way a computer is, of a vsti tool is. The reason why instruments exist is that was the best technology around (in the past) to produce that tone. If Mozart was alive today he wouldn't be hunched over a piano, he'd be on a workstation with motor controls at his finger tips, and midi pedals at his feet. Sorry I'm rambling now....
Sometimes if you are stuck on a song, it is a good idea to forget it, put it to rest, not for good, 6 weeks, 6 months, then go back to it, try this a few times, if you get nothing, then bin it - sometimes it is heart breaking to work for a long time on something to forget it, but sometimes we need to do this. Again Kubrick, the greatess filmmaker to ever live, worked for 7 years on a project then only to dump it, if it's not good enough, or right for you dump it - you haven't lost anything, but gained uselful nuggets from the task that will be useful in the future.
Be inspired. I look to science, film, art, nature,anywhere and everywhere, the last place I often look is within music itself - all you will find there is what everyone else has been doing for generation's.
Ie. Another thing gained from a New Scientist article was on a Chormatic scale effect, this professor oversampled every not, so when you play C you play every note of C on every scale, same with D,E,F, etc. Then you play a simple one scale riff, and depending on the direction of the notes, people believe that the music is moving constantly up/down in tone, great effect for banging Chemical songs - and it takes a professor of science to teach use this not the beatles or the stones, who ripped all their stuff from combining the folk music of their own people, with the stolen black music songs, and do you see Jagger or Ringo paying this stolen cultural back with all those million's, do you funk, Shame on them... Ringo even came back to Liverpool, during Capital of Culture year, to bitch about the place that gave him the tunes to do what he did with the Beatles's(not much in his case), at the same time the retard was promoting new tunes. The tosser was playing ontop of St. Georges Hall (big historic building in Liverpool) never wised more for someone to do a stage dive in my life... I'll stop not, rabbling again.
They gave a great example from tribal music, this music had two scales one with 7 notes, the other with 4 (maybe slightly wrong, but thinking back) They then played these two scales ontop of each other, to a western tourist this sounds like a pile of shit, to the tribes people this music is the shit.
Therefore if you what to come up with great new progression, the world needs to be ready for that progression. And truely speaking we have no know account of any original idea in society, not just in music but anything we do. Everything we are is a collective response to experiance, combining, changing, altering and editing to come up with a new theme. Don't believe me, name one original idea that you have had, that anyone has had, you cannot - as such a thing doesn't exist.
It is like a lot of music geeks I know in bands, they hate the thought of computer music, but I try to explain useing the start of the film 2001 as an example that we are still at the same basic level, a stick hitting a rock, a guitar, a laptop, these are all basic technology tools to create beats and tones. Get over it. A guitar doesn't grow on a tree, and is picked readymade, it is designed, shaped and formed - in the same way a computer is, of a vsti tool is. The reason why instruments exist is that was the best technology around (in the past) to produce that tone. If Mozart was alive today he wouldn't be hunched over a piano, he'd be on a workstation with motor controls at his finger tips, and midi pedals at his feet. Sorry I'm rambling now....
Sometimes if you are stuck on a song, it is a good idea to forget it, put it to rest, not for good, 6 weeks, 6 months, then go back to it, try this a few times, if you get nothing, then bin it - sometimes it is heart breaking to work for a long time on something to forget it, but sometimes we need to do this. Again Kubrick, the greatess filmmaker to ever live, worked for 7 years on a project then only to dump it, if it's not good enough, or right for you dump it - you haven't lost anything, but gained uselful nuggets from the task that will be useful in the future.
Be inspired. I look to science, film, art, nature,anywhere and everywhere, the last place I often look is within music itself - all you will find there is what everyone else has been doing for generation's.
Ie. Another thing gained from a New Scientist article was on a Chormatic scale effect, this professor oversampled every not, so when you play C you play every note of C on every scale, same with D,E,F, etc. Then you play a simple one scale riff, and depending on the direction of the notes, people believe that the music is moving constantly up/down in tone, great effect for banging Chemical songs - and it takes a professor of science to teach use this not the beatles or the stones, who ripped all their stuff from combining the folk music of their own people, with the stolen black music songs, and do you see Jagger or Ringo paying this stolen cultural back with all those million's, do you funk, Shame on them... Ringo even came back to Liverpool, during Capital of Culture year, to bitch about the place that gave him the tunes to do what he did with the Beatles's(not much in his case), at the same time the retard was promoting new tunes. The tosser was playing ontop of St. Georges Hall (big historic building in Liverpool) never wised more for someone to do a stage dive in my life... I'll stop not, rabbling again.
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
As with anything though, we must stand on the shoulder's of giants. The scientific basis of sound and therefore music in no way detracts from the artistic value imo. Not that you were suggesting this ofcourse, but there are times when I perceive a kind of apprehension in modern muso's to use ANYTHING they deem already done. These days we make our own sounds, sometimes even our own instruments... I guess many of us like the notion that what we're doing is totally unique. This can never be the case! But that certainly does not mean we aren't doing wonderfully creative things.
Science is no different. In any field, scientific or artistic, we will always go on what has come before us. The art is in bending that knowledge to our will, making it fit our own intentions. Yet while I fully accept that everything I do is based on work of others, I certainly resent the idea that we're simply picking musical 'components' off trees to piece together our music, as some might imply.
I think your comment about culture dictating when or when not we will find a progression aesthetically pleasing is very apt. The treatment of dissonance and chromaticism as witnessed during the late romantic era would certainly have been perceived as horrific pre-Beethoven. Likewise, much atonal music remains unpalletable to the majority even now (see the other thread). Take some of the less academic styles of music... Flamenco for instance. You'll find melodies that originated in the Arabic world. Jazz music often breaks our sense 'the rules'... yet in it's cultural setting makes perfect sense.
Regarding the 'stealing' of black music material by rock groups... I'm sorry but I have little time for that victimisation bollocks. Does a guy in a metal band owe an artistic debt to 'black music'? Not imo. People who divise their musical language from the evolution of various influences, creating new and artistically authentic works in the process owe no great debt to anyone... they are not thieves. Ofcourse, a respectful nod towards the origins of their style would be wonderful, and I think most muso's are more than happy to do just that. But to suggest that a musical language (itself a cultural mongral... ever see Chopin and Joplin in the same room together?) is property of a particular cultural group, to me, sounds absurd and radical. It's a shame that we have hear such tosh (not from you... in general I mean).
Maybe we should ask Jesse Jackson what he thinks on the matter?
TB
Science is no different. In any field, scientific or artistic, we will always go on what has come before us. The art is in bending that knowledge to our will, making it fit our own intentions. Yet while I fully accept that everything I do is based on work of others, I certainly resent the idea that we're simply picking musical 'components' off trees to piece together our music, as some might imply.
I think your comment about culture dictating when or when not we will find a progression aesthetically pleasing is very apt. The treatment of dissonance and chromaticism as witnessed during the late romantic era would certainly have been perceived as horrific pre-Beethoven. Likewise, much atonal music remains unpalletable to the majority even now (see the other thread). Take some of the less academic styles of music... Flamenco for instance. You'll find melodies that originated in the Arabic world. Jazz music often breaks our sense 'the rules'... yet in it's cultural setting makes perfect sense.
Regarding the 'stealing' of black music material by rock groups... I'm sorry but I have little time for that victimisation bollocks. Does a guy in a metal band owe an artistic debt to 'black music'? Not imo. People who divise their musical language from the evolution of various influences, creating new and artistically authentic works in the process owe no great debt to anyone... they are not thieves. Ofcourse, a respectful nod towards the origins of their style would be wonderful, and I think most muso's are more than happy to do just that. But to suggest that a musical language (itself a cultural mongral... ever see Chopin and Joplin in the same room together?) is property of a particular cultural group, to me, sounds absurd and radical. It's a shame that we have hear such tosh (not from you... in general I mean).
Maybe we should ask Jesse Jackson what he thinks on the matter?
TB
-
- Banned
- 89 posts since 30 Jun, 2008 from Knowsley/Liverpool
I was wrong to imply that, it was suppose to be a statement of people hoarding hundred's of million in wealth having been influended by a specific culture, and I used the folk culture of Liverpool and the Beatles, rather than black music as an example. We all have a right to plunder whatever music vault we find. Ringo does not have a responsibility to pay back that culture he stole from, but it would be nice and respectful if he did, this was more of a point I was making - a question of moral's and ethic's of someone. In the same way when Moby plundered the plantation chants of black music, he gave a respectful nod - and used those vast commerical 'Play' coffers to do some good charity work - still not enough, every penny that you hold is a life that's been sad. Sorry to get all political, but I hate those tainted ego's that hoard wealth - I'll give 10% to charity and that will get me in to heaven, well if your twisted little god's exist she'll be too busy putting camels through the eye's of a needle.tee boy wrote: Regarding the 'stealing' of black music material by rock groups... I'm sorry but I have little time for that victimisation bollocks. Does a guy in a metal band owe an artistic debt to 'black music'? Not imo. People who divise their musical language from the evolution of various influences, creating new and artistically authentic works in the process owe no great debt to anyone... they are not thieves. Ofcourse, a respectful nod towards the origins of their style would be wonderful, and I think most muso's are more than happy to do just that. But to suggest that a musical language (itself a cultural mongral... ever see Chopin and Joplin in the same room together?) is property of a particular cultural group, to me, sounds absurd and radical. It's a shame that we have hear such tosh (not from you... in general I mean).
Maybe we should ask Jesse Jackson what he thinks on the matter?
TB
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Standing on the shoulders of giants is honest thievery. IMO.tee boy wrote:As with anything though, we must stand on the shoulder's of giants.
CUT TO:
Regarding the 'stealing' of black music material by rock groups... victimisation bollocks. Does a guy in a metal band owe an artistic debt to 'black music'? Not imo. People who divise their musical language from the evolution of various influences, creating new and artistically authentic works in the process owe no great debt to anyone... they are not thieves. Of course, a respectful nod towards the origins of their style would be wonderful, and I think most muso's are more than happy to do just that. But to suggest that a musical language (itself a cultural mongral... ever see Chopin and Joplin in the same room together?) is property of a particular cultural group, to me, sounds absurd and radical. It's a shame that we have hear such tosh (not from you... in general I mean).
Maybe we should ask Jesse Jackson what he thinks on the matter?
Stravinsky liked to say that a great artist steals, the lesser artist 'borrows', meaning that if you can absorb a thing from the past and make it your own, you've stolen it, it now belongs to you; and the implication is that you've moved it forward in some way. EG: Le Faiser de la Fee, doesn't pretend not to rip off Tchaikovsky, it acknowledges a debt. Does any rock music fail to have a debt to its precedents? Or is it now the property of a particular cultural group?? You take from the past and pay it forward. Some people don't pay it in either direction.
What is a mongrel? It means 'not pure bred'. On the other hand, what is a hybrid? Some things in music might be a hybrid, which suggests a certain care and respect towards its precedent breeds, which personally I think is more de rigeur than the innuendo 'victimisation bollocks' seems to suggest.
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
I'd like to think that through ones contribution to music, they are paying for their influences and more. Indeed, it's the 'sample and be sampled' mentality - take freely in the creation of your own styles, and in the process allow others to benefit from your work in the exact same way. It's evolution. And while I appreciate the point Stravinsky was making, I'm always cautious of using the word 'steal'. I'm quite sure he didn't intend to de-value his or other composer's contributions to the musical art, yet there are people who'd interpret that way.Stravinsky liked to say that a great artist steals, the lesser artist 'borrows', meaning that if you can absorb a thing from the past and make it your own, you've stolen it, it now belongs to you; and the implication is that you've moved it forward in some way. EG: Le Faiser de la Fee, doesn't pretend not to rip off Tchaikovsky, it acknowledges a debt. Does any rock music fail to have a debt to its precedents? Or is it now the property of a particular cultural group?? You take from the past and pay it forward. Some people don't pay it in either direction.
Indeed, my comment implied that the relevant musical styles are derived from such diverse sources that it could never be considered property of ANY one ethnic group. Imo, that is a very good thing. I think that jazz illustrates just what fantastic things can result when cultures meet and share in their arts.What is a mongrel? It means 'not pure bred'. On the other hand, what is a hybrid? Some things in music might be a hybrid, which suggests a certain care and respect towards its precedent breeds, which personally I think is more de rigeur than the innuendo 'victimisation bollocks' seems to suggest.
The comment on victimisation I feel was just. I used to work in a guitar shop and was accused more than once of being a 'thief' for playing a blues lick or two. I find this attitude pretty tough to swallow... and can't describe as much more than the aforementioned 'bollocks'.
TB
-
- Banned
- 89 posts since 30 Jun, 2008 from Knowsley/Liverpool
That is bad, if someone has a pop for playing a blue's lick, or two. But circumstance prevails on intent. I always have a problem with Hip-Hop, I love the music, and what to do something that will fit that genre - I can't as I am a white middle-class guy. When white people do hip-hop it always comes across as a joke, Beastie Boy's, Slim Shady, Goldie Lookin Chain, or the unintentional funny Vanilla Ice. So when I produce these sounds I need to add something or take it away, not because I'm stealing from black-culture, as the influence came from the Beastie Boy's - so I'm stealing from a bunch of middle-class Jewish men, how stole from black-culture. I need to add something to make it mine, to make it honest. So that hip-hop became a celtic twist on hip-hop, and this is how music evolves. Nobody slams the stones for playing Blues, and that is because they are not trying to sound like a black man that has been working the plantation all day, they sound like the Stones, did is a higher energy twist on blues.tee boy wrote:
The comment on victimisation I feel was just. I used to work in a guitar shop and was accused more than once of being a 'thief' for playing a blues lick or two. I find this attitude pretty tough to swallow... and can't describe as much more than the aforementioned 'bollocks'.
TB
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
You're right about one thing - white guys cool terrible trying to do hip hop, lol. I'm not sure why... it just doesn't work! I guess we shall have to make do with working behind the scenes in that particular branch of the musical universe.
TB
TB
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Were these kvetchers saying 'thief' steeped in the blues or something like it?tee boy wrote: And while I appreciate the point Stravinsky was making, I'm always cautious of using the word 'steal'. I'm quite sure he didn't intend to de-value his or other composer's contributions to the musical art, yet there are people who'd interpret that way.
It's an honest observation. If someone doesn't get the remark, they missed it, and who cares.
Indeed, my comment implied that the relevant musical styles are derived from such diverse sources that it could never be considered property of ANY one ethnic group. Imo, that is a very good thing. I think that jazz illustrates just what fantastic things can result when cultures meet and share in their arts.jancivil wrote:What is a mongrel? It means 'not pure bred'. On the other hand, what is a hybrid? Some things in music might be a hybrid, which suggests a certain care and respect towards its precedent breeds, which personally I think is more de rigeur than the innuendo 'victimisation bollocks' seems to suggest.
The comment on victimisation I feel was just. I used to work in a guitar shop and was accused more than once of being a 'thief' for playing a blues lick or two. I find this attitude pretty tough to swallow... and can't describe as much more than the aforementioned 'bollocks'.
Cause, if you really 'stole' it according to my aesthetic (stolen from Igor S.), complaints are indeed 'bollocks'. And, my experience with the real Magilla, is these cats only complain if you didn't make it work. Every person that's played a blues stole something from somebody, and is by definition <a thief>.
There are people, on the other hand, who think they can present something they haven't absorbed and get away with it, which is far less honest IMO than a good "thief".