Basic theory problem that it seems to be overlook

[Per Lichtman]

If you get serious/curious about brain activity in conjunction with music, I would recommend looking into the research by Manfred Clynes. Interesting: I had expected anybody to bring that subject up on this thread.

Also, as lighter reading, Betty Edwards does a great discussion of left vs. right brain in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.

[mhemnarch]

What percentage of listeners give a shit about what scale you used? Just curious...i figure it was in the low .30's of 2% Ive seen people make the type of scale you use a big deal often in this forum.

Listeners might not say, "Hey, I really love that D harmonic minor scale you used!" That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter; the average listener isn't going to say, "Hey, I love the way you set up the EQ on that snare," but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore effects processing. Whether the listener is aware of the methods doesn't affect whether the methods are useful or not.

[mhemnarch]

Here's the simple answer - and this goes for virtually all styles of pop music:

If the songs is in C minor, then each part uses notes from the key of C minor.

Done.

Your melody should be using notes from C minor.

Your chords should come from C minor.

You bass part (which could be played by bass guitar) should have notes from C minor.

It's really that simple (how do you think all of these talentless people out there write convincing pop music?).

This is simply untrue. Look at most Beatles songs, and you'll see chords out of the scale. Listen to an indie pop band like, for example, Belle and Sebastian or Of Montreal, and you'll see that they use chords out of the key in nearly every song. Scales are worse than useless if adhered to constantly.

[llatham]

This is simply untrue. Look at most Beatles songs, and you'll see chords out of the scale. Listen to an indie pop band like, for example, Belle and Sebastian or Of Montreal, and you'll see that they use chords out of the key in nearly every song. Scales are worse than useless if adhered to constantly.

1. I didn't say it was true for all bands, or even songs, only true of many songs in the genre at large.

2. I said "simply" and later implied that what I was writing was an oversimplification.

Yes. purely diatonic songs are less common, and are typically relatively simple. However, when someone is learning to compose music, it's far better to learn to write music in a key, before incorporating elements outside of the key. Telling someone who's trying to learn that "it's music, you can do anything you want", while true, isn't very instructive.

Steve

[frederik D]

What percentage of listeners give a shit about what scale you used? Just curious...i figure it was in the low .30's of 2% Ive seen people make the type of scale you use a big deal often in this forum.

Listeners might not say, "Hey, I really love that D harmonic minor scale you used!" That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter; the average listener isn't going to say, "Hey, I love the way you set up the EQ on that snare," but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore effects processing. Whether the listener is aware of the methods doesn't affect whether the methods are useful or not.

Very true!

A great number of people aren't conscious about the fact that they're listening to a certian scale or progression, and even more, a lot of musicians aren't aware that they are using those when writing songs. But: most of the songs in popular music use some or several scales (depending on the complexity of the song).
Now: does this mean we have to make a big deal about those scales all of the time. Surely not, because as I said most of the people work with those in an unconscious way (the "by ear" method so to speak). But when somebody tells he gets stuck when writing songs, that his bass parts or leads don't seam to fuse with the chord progression and the like, then I think this becomes very relevant, because his frustration indicates that he can't do it by ear alone. At that point scales, and theories about chord progression can become a very handy tool...

Just my two cents

[jancivil]

What Llatham was saying, is for basic pop, go for chord tones in the bass, you're safe.

[Tony Ostinato]

"This is simply untrue. Look at most Beatles songs, and you'll see chords out of the scale. Listen to an indie pop band like, for example, Belle and Sebastian or Of Montreal, and you'll see that they use chords out of the key in nearly every song. Scales are worse than useless if adhered to constantly."

all that stuff they do has been done in classical pieces and is covered well in music theory.

dont think cause a song is in d it has to have only d major scale notes and chords from top to bottom you can modulate all over the place and theres plenty of rules and tricks for doing that that are, again, well covered.

over the last eons music has been strip mined for everything that sounds remotely good.

[mhemnarch]

"This is simply untrue. Look at most Beatles songs, and you'll see chords out of the scale. Listen to an indie pop band like, for example, Belle and Sebastian or Of Montreal, and you'll see that they use chords out of the key in nearly every song. Scales are worse than useless if adhered to constantly."

all that stuff they do has been done in classical pieces and is covered well in music theory.

I never said otherwise. Classical music never adheres to one particular scale; in baroque and classical modulation occurs all through the piece, and in romantic and modern classical chromatics are pretty much ubiquitous. That's why it's pointless to try to adhere strictly to a particular scale.

over the last eons music has been strip mined for everything that sounds remotely good.

If that were true, there would be no reason to keep writing.

[mhemnarch]

1. I didn't say it was true for all bands, or even songs, only true of many songs in the genre at large.

You said, "this goes for virtually all styles of pop music." But it doesn't; a lot of pop has a blues influence, and blues breaks with the conventions of standard diatonic harmony all the time. It's not going to ruin a song to stick with in-scale notes, but it will completely prevent a "bluesy" sound.

Yes. purely diatonic songs are less common, and are typically relatively simple. However, when someone is learning to compose music, it's far better to learn to write music in a key, before incorporating elements outside of the key. Telling someone who's trying to learn that "it's music, you can do anything you want", while true, isn't very instructive.

I did give advice as to the bassline and such, but I would maintain that any advice only goes so far. Hearing the rules recited isn't any more helpful than hearing "do anything you want." If someone is told to stick with all diatonic chords, they'll quickly be frustrated if the sound they are looking for is one that commonly uses chords outside of scale.

[tapper mike]

What is the primary sound? that always should be your first question.
The primary sound is supported by the other parts.

Get your primary part down first. Think of ways you can support the primary part without trying to squeeze out the message you are trying to deliver from your primary part.

Prolly the best lesson in arrangement for pop/rock

[Sascha Franck]

To the OP: Do you have a small snipplet of stuff you are particularly unhappy with? Might be a good idea to listen to it and then have a look what might not be in line with what you want to achieve.

[duncanparsons]

It certainly can be that simple, but it rarely is. Convincing someone that 7 tones is all he needs may turn quickly from a nice simplification into a harsh restriction if he tries to avoid every chord with a "wrong" note in it. 7 tones is plenty for writing church hymns, and a very limited pallet of pop songs.

hmmm.. I think you'd be surprised by the twists and turns of decent hymns.. the counterpoint and harmony of many 'classic' hymn tunes would put many 'pop' tunes to shame.

[Sascha Franck]

hmmm.. I think you'd be surprised by the twists and turns of decent hymns.. the counterpoint and harmony of many 'classic' hymn tunes would put many 'pop' tunes to shame.

Indeed!

[The Fex]

Exercise for OP:
Download some MIDI of rock songs you've never heard. Load them into your DAW. Mute the bass before listening. Write your own bass track for the song, without having heard the original. Pay attention to what the drums are doing.... it might help to think of bass and drums as one instrument. When you've finished, compare with the original bass. Ask yourself which is better.... and why?
HTH

[tapper mike]

Learning to play along with other tracks is all fine and well
However parts fit together in a song for a reason.
The pursuit you outlined is just jamming.
Jamming is fun but it's hardly a way to develop your own music/sound.


If your can't find grooves in your head due to a lack of metre, starting off writing find simple drum patterns
Try to play something anything over that pattern preferably a riff.

Melody, Harmony, Bass are all places to build riffs. Then build outwardly from there.
Pop Rock is riff laden and often works as a launching point for melody and harmony. Blues had a baby and called it rock and roll. Which is why classic blues licks are constantly bastardized into rock licks with simple changes to tempo key and meter.
If your riff is clouded, crowded or obtuse it won't catch anyone nor will it hold anyone.

Most of the developed songwriters already have a groove in mind from the first note. The Beatles didn't need a drum machine or a daw to draw inspriation. Howard Jones didn't use prepackaged tracks to write. He scored loops on the fly.