composition question

[botkiller]

felipescalador: What you're bringing up here is a pretty common issue for most composers/songwriters. The question is, does one use a formula, or does one step outside the box, and do something that is entirely non-formulaic?

I think the answer falls into somewhere inbetween - and it also depends on what kind of music you want to make. In rock and roll, if one does a million chord/scale changes, you end up creating something that isn't really easy for mass consumption. People like a groove to grab onto, that they can memorize and hum to themselves - so in that case, using the formula helps.

But, people also like, or at least used to like (I don't think most modern music is very good, honestly), a little variation - and that's where the non formula part comes in. Where Hendrix could really shine was in his improvisation, and ability to use accidentals within his songs. If he'd played scales that were solely in the key of the song he'd written, his music would not have had the flavor that it did.

Now, with respect to what you've stated, I think I would say that yes, if you solo/jam over something you've created, you want to stay tonally within the range of what you've done - don't go too far to the point that it's not a part of it anymore - but don't be afraid to step outside the lines a bit. If you end up resolving back to your original key, you'll be just fine. As we always learn in theory, if we can make it home eventually, we should be ok.

What kind of music are you making, what instrument do you play? I would be interested to know, for applying it to what you want to do.

[Ogg Vorbis]

How do you compose..

diatonically? I mean like saying lets compose a song in C aeolian. Made a chord progression of C aeolian and then jam over the progression using all the notes of C aeolian but when stopping/landing in a chord usually use the 1, 3, 5, 7 of the chord that is currently sounding, and use the rest of the notes as passing notes???

Hey felipe,

Your question seems to assume that there is a conscious application of theory that is followed like a road map in music. Maybe there are people who treat it this way, but I think that it usually works in a more "absorbed" way.

We are all taught to speak our native language. We start to learn the parts of speech and whether a word is a noun or adjective, the sentence structures, verb tense, grammatical structure, etc.

But all this is not really used best when it's used consciously. When I write these sentences, I am not thinking "noun, verb, adjective, subject, predicate, verb case, subject/object agreement," etc. I am just thinking of the CONCEPTS and my words come out (hopefully clearly and correctly).

So to me, the idea is to understand scales, keys, harmonic functions, phrase structure, and then learn to HEAR THEM., not just think about them.

Where my hearing goes, so goes my imagination. Where my imagining goes, so goes my music.

And hopefully theory will also give me a common language with which to speak to other musicians and describe certain musical concepts so we can understand what is to be accomplished today.

Hope these ideas make sense.

[dandmkirkwood]

This is awesome!

[Aleatoriac]

Really neat thread, I was reminded of some things I forgot when reading this. Thanks for sharing.

My composition method is probably useless. I flail about and desperately attempt to remain conscious and coherent. Then I go and stea... borrow heavily from true masters of the art.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to."
-Jim Jarmusch

[jancivil]

the idea that people with talent are magically able to convey emotion per se and don't have to know anything isn't right. Talent is overrated. Talent can be learned, too.
I wasn't hearing tones worth a shit when I was a child. I now have a disturbingly acute attention to pitch and an ear I can depend on. I worked for it. I had to.

whether or not a gifted person thinks about it in terms you want to call music theory, there is empirical knowledge gained, from one's experience with what has happened before. Stealing is de rigeur (you'll 'borrow' until you know enough to make it your own).

There are principles that you can talk about in terms of music theory that are consistent, practically scientific applications of known phenomena.

EG: get out a guitar and play an A minor chord. Sing or play a B against that thing. There's that little poignant twinge, that little sad feel. That's completely reliable. That 9th, or 'add 2' will always give you that. (tho, in some contexts it's going to be less effective. It might not work real well in a trombone against the rest of the marching band, the textures could pretty much obviate it and you have another quality of dissonance).

Not that you should seek to formulate say a chart of correspondences, paint-by-numbers or anything, but many things are known about effects that can be described pretty accurately.

[Loki Fuego]

Talent is overrated.

Wrong. Talent is misunderstood.
Talent is not a magical stuff which helps someone do wonderful things.

Talent can be learned, too.

Oh, come on. You don't really believe this, do you?

Talent can't be learned. It's just that talented people a better at learning. Talent is not something, which makes you excel at certain task. Talent is something which helps you to excel at almost any task you dare to learn.

Of course our psychology and physiology put a limit on tasks we can excel at. Blind person hardly can paint anything meaningful, deaf person hardly can produce any decent track.

So if you want to excel at music making make sure that: 1) you are interested and study everything related to the music; 2) make sure that you psychology doesn't put any unwanted constraints on you (if it does, try drugs, seems it helped many famous but dead musicians ).

[Meffy]

Aether, we have the same workflow. How about that?

[tapper mike]

(if it does, try drugs, seems it helped many famous but dead musicians ).

Does wonders for living musicians as well.


Speaking of which, KR was a mediocre gutarist at best before exile on mainstreet. Afterwhich he "got his style" that everyone now identifies him with. How did he do it? He brought in Ry Cooder to record the rhythm tracks, then he recorded over the tracks mastering/mimicking everything Cooder did. A similar story holds true for SRV. In the words of Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn was just another Albert King wannabe till SRV stopped trying to imitate King and started to play like himself.

I've seen and heard players who weren't worth crap but developed an intense desire to better their performance abilities who did through hard work (myself included) I've also seen people with permanent potential who never tried to better themselves because they thought they "had the magic gift" which meant they didn't have to develop themselves. Pure lazyiness is all it was. Lack of disciple kept them from fulfilling their own potential. A one trick pony can only fun on that trick for so long.

[dandmkirkwood]

That's so true. I'm a guitar tutor and all the time I come across really talented people who are just lazy. They pick things up so fast but they won't apply themselves in there own time. When I was learning I was busting to get home from school just so I could practice guitar. I'd pick it up as soon as I got home and would only put it down when my mum just had enough of the racket. Where is this kind of passion these days? Is it that kids just don't believe on themselves? Or is it just that they are so used to sitting their ass in front of the idiot box all day and have mum and dad do everything for them? Who knows. As for the topic of talent, I have students that are 15 yo + that try so hard to learn, then my son who's only ten will pick it up in 2 minutes flat. Sure you can get the best training in the world but it doesn't create tallent. Put great talent together with very good training and you have a wicked combo. This is what makes brilliant musicians, I beleve.

[tapper mike]

It's the same for sports.

Alot is linked pschologically. Sometimes I think the world needs more music shrinks then sports shrinks. Sure some people are just extroverted and some just introverted. There is a lot of space between those extremes. I also find great disparity in performance based on emotional state. I knew guys who played best when they were pissed off and yet other players who played best deppressed a third group who played best when they found their happy spot. The happy spot doesn't always (but sometimes) can be found in the audience.

As for society being players and posers I've watched too many youtube videos to believe that one can't blame television, the internet or video games on a persons musical ability or desire. I love youtube it serves as an inspiration to play. And I see some very hard working young people applying themselves to their instrument because of it.

Your son lives in a musical environment. Your students may not. Proper exposure with positive results in early years can yield faster response. As well kids go thru various stages of development. While one can learn to play at anytime the younger the better.

During Adolecense a lot of stuff is going on in a kids mind. They may try and want something really bad but baggae from the subconcious seeps in.

[tapper mike]

Just to qualify some things though. My playing goes through a lot of rough patches regardless of how much I practice or how much I want things. Years ago I tried to pick up the piano. I tried hours on end diligintly practicing, only to be able to instanly play many of the same ideas on the guitar which were effortless. Honestly it was wasted time that could have been spent watching tv because I never was able to attain anymore then the most mediocre of things. And even today I spend time which I think is not wasted on a new instrument. The guitar bores me. I've played so long now that I don't see the challenge or the benefit in playing the same stuff the same way as I've been doing for the past 35 years. I know what I can do I've worked at it, I consider myself an accomplished guitarist. It is both the challenges and the potential of my new instrument that keep me moving foreward. I'd rather have the challenge before me then no challenge and no reward.

[tapper mike]

We speak a lot of theory in this forum but rarely do we discuss the songwriting process from a songwriters perspective. Unless it is an excercise the music that endures is music with a lyrical quality. It does not need lyrics but it needs a sense of phrasing which lifts the melody. Songs that are remembered are songs that can be hummed.

The question becomes do you want to write memorable music or do you want to simply write faceless sounds devoid of emotional content. If you want to write music to be sung or hummed then it's not a bad idea to write lyrics even if no one is going to sing them as a measure of your melody building. The motific development of the song stays more inline rather then endless mianderings of half baked ideas. Singing helps you to stay the course of a melodic idea while still being able to add variation into the mix.

[sjm]

There are many ways to write a song. The different approaches also often give a song a bit of its flavour. Here's my experience...

There are songs that are written in the jam room. Someone plays a riff or lick, and everyone joins in. These songs are often vibrant pieces with a unique groove, but a relatively simple harmonic structure. There is practically no forward planning beyond people knowing how the others play, the basics of musical theory and the basic structure the genre. The song key tends to be in whatever key the first person was playing in.

There are songs written while playing your instrument. Maybe you're just doing random stuff, maybe you sit down and play a chord. Maybe you have an idea in your head, like a melody you want to pick out, or a melody that comes to you when you start playing. The difference to the jam room situation is that you can stop and rethink and replay and retry. You can apply more theory to your composition if necessary. These pieces can be more intricate because the songwriting process is less immediate. The song key is generally determined by whatever got you inspired in the first place. If you have a favourite chord, you'll be writing a lot of songs in the same key

There are songs that are "composed". You might hear a piece in you head, or just you sit down with the intention of composing a song. This can be on a traditional score or on your PC. Because you're not playing an instrument, it really helps if you can apply (at least some) theory to quickly put what you hear in your head into practice. In this case, saying, "the song is in Am" can really make sense, as it gives you a framework within which to work. These songs can obviously be far more intricate, given that this is very much a mental exercise.

There are songs written with the intention of sounding "a bit like" something else. "Smells like teen spirit" is a great example. This involves imitating something you like while trying to impart your own flair to the piece. This is a more limited approach to song-writing because the type of song you're trying to write is that kind of song for a reason - you need to apply those criteria to your song as well. The key can be whatever you choose - but you have to start somewhere.




The best way to write songs it to write songs. You won't learn to play an instrument without playing it. You won't learn a language without using it. You won't learn to write songs without writing songs. And, like with everything else, you'll get better at it as you practice. You need to find what works for you.

However, if you want a recipe for hit songs, try "The Manual".

[tapper mike]

The best way to write songs it to write songs. You won't learn to play an instrument without playing it. You won't learn a language without using it. You won't learn to write songs without writing songs. And, like with everything else, you'll get better at it as you practice. You need to find what works for you.

I really dug your entire post as it mirrors many of my earlier songwriting experiences. but the quote above says it all.

[dandmkirkwood]

I agree, you pretty much summed it up bro. Experience is the key, finding out the hard way what works and what doesn't. In my early years of writing I would have dozens of mediocre stuff that most people would turn their nose up at. But sometimes I would get lucky and pretty much everyone who heard this random' lucky' song would rave about it. Over time I would know how to compose. If I came up with something that sounded terrible, instead of thinking it was ok and subjecting everyone to hearing it over and over again, I could just say- nup, it's no good, and scrap it. My best pieces though, I have to say, was when I was overcome with a certain emotion and the music and words would seem to just spill onto the paper. These treasures are rare though. Pieces with a message. I think of early Pearl Jam. Songs like 'alive' and 'daughter. ' 'betterman' these songs where straight from the heart and carried a message an entire generation could relate to. It give the youth of that era a voice and touched millions. these are the models I aspire to. To be able to create music that people can put on and all of a sudden they feel everything's going to be ok.