I got lost in harmonics

Theory is a tool... Use it when it's needed. At this point, use of theory is very secondary to me. I use it as an analysis/organizational tool for material I've outputed (ie I'll go back and look at a sketch, and apply theory retroactively to it, to see what i've done, what is implied, where things can progress to.

Then once you know what you're dealing with, you can make informed decisions on what to do next/where to go with it.... On both micro and macro levels.

  On 3/19/2010 at 4:11 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

(I have strongly agreed with 96.69% of the relevantly small amount of strong opinion's I've seen Maus post.) ((maybe at some point I will realize Maus is a complete ricky retardo but so far I would confidently vouch to trust in teh way he/she/tranny/granny thinks))

aw, thanks for the warm fuzzies. there is no warm fuzzy emoticon, so this:

also, to add to the conversation, you could try noatikl or some other generative program, but i dare say you'll end up more perplexed and frustrated by it, as in order to get it to work well, you more or less have to familiarise yourself with an entirely different dialect of 'theory'.

you could also steal melodies you like, play them backwards, and change a few notes. or don't change any notes.

the same thing happened to me (re: piano lessons) and I'ma sucker for good melodies so this thread is very interesting to me. (btw i'm playing the first linked song over and over, especially around 1:49-2:29, i really like it!)

Have you played around with a Chord Wizard before? it has a huge library of chords and you can make arpeggios; and then take it from there? that's what i've stuck with for a few years now hehe, hope that helps?

http://buzzmachines.com/utils.php (MC Arp) this one is for Buzz, i don't know if other programs have those kinds of things. But it's kind of a stand-alone program actually.

The way I see it, here's how learning harmony/music theory (and anything else) works:

(and "incompetence" is not an insult)

1. Unconscious Incompetence: At first you don't know what you're doing and can just hit things that sound good, but they won't always be good and you won't always realize when they're not.
   
2. Conscious Incompetence: Then you start to learn more and glimpse the methods behind the madness, but you can't wrap your head around them immediately.
   
3. Conscious Competence: You have to climb a bit to hit a healthy plateau where you can really recreate the sounds you hear in your head accurately.
   
4. Unconscious Competence: Then it's just a matter of internalizing it so you can stop thinking and just do it.
   

There are people who get along fine at the first stage, which is cool. For me, maximizing potential is far too mouthwatering a prospect, so I'm always scarfing information left and right. The "conscious incompetence" is the hardest part, as knowing but not being able to apply it properly is frustrating and can actual hinder you.

That being said, don't let any musical rules hold you down and don't lean on them too heavily when your idea reservoir is dry. Ears first, then brain.

--

As far as learning an instrument goes, it really helps, at least for me. There's nothing quite like hammering out music in real time straight from your head, avoiding that buffer of "Alright, now I can hit play to make sure it sounds right."

I'm a fan of approaching music abstractly though. That is, without the barrier of "So this is a major chord and this is how you play it on the guitar/piano/accordion/beach ball." You can look at it on a much higher level if you learn/think of it as "This is a major chord and you make it by playing these two intervals." That way you can choose instruments to use for their timbre and/or mechanism rather than for your personal proficiency on them.

Plus, computers are super-powerful, multi-purpose, modular instruments. You build chops on it, just in an abstract and somewhat indirect manner compared to traditional acoustic instruments, what with all the training of muscle movements and whatnot.

Tips:

• Whether learning from a teacher or learning on your own, try to immediately and thoroughly explore and apply new things you learn. When I was taking theory in college, I would run back to my dorm after class and pick up my guitar to play with the different things I'd learned.
  
• Sing/hum your parts before you play/program them. Get them stable in your head before you even touch the keys. I do this a lot.
  
• Analyze/figure out songs/musical phrases you like. Try to find out why they rock.
  
• Like Blanket Fort Collapse said, some of the best melodies focus on only a few notes. They're usually driven by a good chord progression. Holding one note is awesome when the chord progression is changing that note's context every bar or two.
  

My ability to play the piano greatly improved after I took a music theory class in high school. Not only playing the compositions of others, but writing my own stuff. Like what Wall Bird said, being able to define what you're hearing, and compare it to other works, has helped me a lot.

  Quote

do you think its absolutely necessary to know some instrument very well to write epic melodies or do you have a way to deal with harmonics on a theoretical level that sufficient enough to reach the goal?

I don't think you need to be a virtuoso, but I do think you need some ability. There's no use knowing which intervals are dissonant if you have to mouseclick them into your piano roll. You should be able to bang out the melody in your head without counting the semi tones between the keys. I think the reason good jazz is so expressive is because the performers were so at home on their instrument that they didn't have to think about it. Their emotion went straight from their heart to their fingers and out of the instrument (like what wahrk called "unconscious competence").

One thing that also really helped me, and others have noted similar things, is being able to recognize certain intervals, and also voice them. An easy way to do it is to use common jingles as mnemonic devices. e.g.

• 
   
  
• The Jaws theme is a minor second.
  
• The first interval in Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is a perfect fifth.
  
• The
  NBC chimes are a major sixth up, then a major third down, which means the first and third tones are a perfect fourth apart.
  

Sometimes placing yourself inside a box will do more than giving yourself total freedom. For example, I think the rigid structure of a sonnet has given us more good poetry than free verse. I like setting a goal for myself (like, in one song recently I wanted to include a diminished fifth to see if I could make it sound good as it's apparently the most dissonant interval) and then making a path to it. That way, you can have freedom in your direction, but still have some overarching purpose to the work (unlike this post, which has no direction or ultimate point!).

thanks so much for your help all of you

I will give the guy a try and will take some harmonic lessons

I was on holidays last week and while thinking about it I came to the conclusion that I have to learn to play the piano again (I did take lessons when I was a teen).

the main reason for it was that I became clear about the fact that all of the artists that are doing melodies in a way I want to do are into playing some kind of instrument

examples:

aphex (he said he does not know how to play but look at the old pictures where he is sitting right in front of a piano in case you still need prove after all he has done)

helios (he plays very good -> see goldmund alias)

dictaphone (he is totally into flutes and guitars)

I could go on and on with examples so this will be my goal during the next time to find somebody who can teach me the stuff

but I am still not sure I there is a best learning method or if I could learn it better by myself with books

A friend of mine said he learned the piano with a special kind of technique I have to ask him what it was

anyway I am totally clear that learning the piano is no way of bypassing the artistic part sure

even if you have perfect knowledge in painting skills you still have to have a great idea and a very good taste but this was never the problem I had

Its more the "I want to draw a very real looking face and I can't" problem

is it harmonics when you tap two or three fingers (or anything) at the same time and they make that clangy sound when the sounds combine? i've always wanted to know why that happens.

  On 3/30/2010 at 4:04 PM, o00o said:

anyway I am totally clear that learning the piano is no way of bypassing the artistic part sure

 

even if you have perfect knowledge in painting skills you still have to have a great idea and a very good taste but this was never the problem I had

 

Its more the "I want to draw a very real looking face and I can't" problem

Good description.

I think knowing a bit is very important but I think a lot of people half-learn this side of music and then get put off by the 'suggestions' it makes. When you have a pretty complete understanding of the 'framework' you realise it tells you everything, nothing is wrong, it just has a different name! If you learn a bit with the mindset that you are just putting names to things you already instinctively know then I think it will hep a lot. Many peoples mistake is that they learn a bit and then believe it suggests 'this note' over 'that note' is wrong when really it is explained in full a bit further down the line. Its kind of like a dictionary thats not missing any of the words.

I think the thing about Aphex saying he doesn't play is valid, but I think that accomplished musicians are far more likely to say 'I don't play x or y' than those starting out or learning. I play a couple of instruments very well, enough to earn my living from doing it. I would say I that I don't play piano, but I know what its all about, can play a few tunes well enough to write and record them etc.

I think if you are experienced enough a musician you realise what it actually means to 'play' an instrument and realise how far away you are from being able to declare that. I would guess thats what Aphex means, he can undoubtedly 'play' the thing but nothing like an actual piano player, who has a deep and incredibly well rehearsed understanding of the instrument and how to use it in a huge number of situations!

But, goes to show, you don't need to be an actual 'player' of a certain instrument to be able to use it to create great music.

  On 3/30/2010 at 4:13 PM, mafted said:

is it harmonics when you tap two or three fingers (or anything) at the same time and they make that clangy sound when the sounds combine? i've always wanted to know why that happens.

This called phasing, and the effect on the sound is called a comb filter. It happens when two similar or identical sounds happen out of phase to some degree. Sound is oscillation between positive and negative pressure, and when one of the sounds is on the negative side of the wave and the other is on the positive at the time they reach the ear, the equal/similar but opposing pressure will cancel each other out. Some of the frequencies you don't normally hear will line up as in phase as well and be audible (usually high frequencies). So some of the normal range of the sound will be inaudible and new, typically higher frequencies will sound.

It's an awesome effect. That's how a phaser works.

  On 4/2/2010 at 5:06 AM, welcome to the machine said:

 

I think knowing a bit is very important but I think a lot of people half-learn this side of music and then get put off by the 'suggestions' it makes. When you have a pretty complete understanding of the 'framework' you realise it tells you everything, nothing is wrong, it just has a different name! If you learn a bit with the mindset that you are just putting names to things you already instinctively know then I think it will hep a lot. Many peoples mistake is that they learn a bit and then believe it suggests 'this note' over 'that note' is wrong when really it is explained in full a bit further down the line. Its kind of like a dictionary thats not missing any of the words.

Well said. I would just add that I wouldn't say it's complete. It's all a system we made up, and we kinda suck at completely explaining things. It's fairly comprehensive though.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread so i'll respond to the initial page.

There's a certain constriction to knowing exactly how something works. There's no 'let's see what happens if...' followed by you starting to do something an educated musician would dismiss outright perhaps even subconsciously. I've only kept writing music for this long because I honestly have no idea what i'm doing. No training whatsoever, just a lot of trial and error.

If I get too used to a scale I can feel restricted and have trouble. Like my old favourite c d d# f g a# (probably the most basic ever) so to confuse myself and keep myself guessing i'll start from a note I normally wouldn't and forget the scale, forcing my ear to do the work instead of my alleged brain.

I can only speak on my own behalf but the more I learned about music, the more serious and predictable and less fun it has become

Haha i've just realised two things.

My post is mad redundant, and

I'm probably not a very good example of someone who knows how to write melodies:-P

  On 4/5/2010 at 12:35 PM, od++ said:

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread so i'll respond to the initial page.

 

There's a certain constriction to knowing exactly how something works. There's no 'let's see what happens if...' followed by you starting to do something an educated musician would dismiss outright perhaps even subconsciously. I've only kept writing music for this long because I honestly have no idea what i'm doing. No training whatsoever, just a lot of trial and error.

 

If I get too used to a scale I can feel restricted and have trouble. Like my old favourite c d d# f g a# (probably the most basic ever) so to confuse myself and keep myself guessing i'll start from a note I normally wouldn't and forget the scale, forcing my ear to do the work instead of my alleged brain.

 

I can only speak on my own behalf but the more I learned about music, the more serious and predictable and less fun it has become

A ha, but (as you may have read later in the thread) thats the whole point, learn a bit and it will restrict, learn a lot and it in no way tells you what to do and what not to do! A really experienced musician will not hear something and play whats 'right' based on 'the rules', because you get to a certain point in learning it and realise that at no point does a complete knowledge of theory etc give you any clue as to what you SHOULD play. It just tells you whats happening.

So you play a Bb over a G major chord. Someone with a bit of theory knowledge will dismiss that straight away as dischordant, someone with a lot will say 'its just a G#9, a normal chord and a normal sound, used thousands of times in soings that sound really normal'. Someone with a bit of theory knowledge knows that playing notes out of the scale you start with in a tune is so standard it was being used hundreds of years ago, but understanding it gives a name to what you are doing.

The one and only rule is that if you are doing something that theory tells you you shouldn't, then it means you don't know enough theory to understand what you are doing yet! I have a pretty thorough grasp of theory, jazz theory anyway, and I NEVER feel it tells me what to do, but it sure as hell helps give a name to everything I do! and is always there to give me ideas if I run out of them.

I don't think its necessary though, it is not a sure fire way to make music, but if you understand it well it will help a lot.

I've never heard of a #9 chord but I also haven't studied jazz theory. It would technically be an add#9 though, as there's no 7th, which just saying "9" implies.

In my theory training we called a major chord with a minor third on top (or vice versa I believe) a "split third" chord. Some circles also call it a "Jimi chord" as Hendrix used it a shit ton.

Interpretation varies, but it still sounds the same. It just depends on context really as to what you call it.

i hate this thread

  On 4/8/2010 at 8:36 PM, sneaksta303 said:

i hate this thread

why?

Well, and no offense to anyone, but it seems like the soul is being sucked out of music when broken down into such clinical formula.

  On 4/8/2010 at 9:13 PM, sneaksta303 said:

Well, and no offense to anyone, but it seems like the soul is being sucked out of music when broken down into such clinical formula.

I believe that the point that was made was that there is no formula, just named pieces based on context. There are no rules, just precedents of prior usage, which exist in your ears regardless of whether or not you know theory. Knowing them just gives you more insight to use to your advantage.

quick tip for composing on guitar, mess with the tuning.

tune the low E to a low C, and the A to a G, etc , etc. this helps disorient yourself and changes the proximity of notes making previously unplayable intervals more discoverable.

also, you won't be able to play the chords/fingerings you are used to and this forces you to create music solely based on what sounds good, and not based on comfortable and over-used chords and voicings.

  On 4/8/2010 at 3:59 PM, wahrk said:

I've never heard of a #9 chord but I also haven't studied jazz theory. It would technically be an add#9 though, as there's no 7th, which just saying "9" implies.

 

In my theory training we called a major chord with a minor third on top (or vice versa I believe) a "split third" chord. Some circles also call it a "Jimi chord" as Hendrix used it a shit ton.

 

Interpretation varies, but it still sounds the same. It just depends on context really as to what you call it.

Ah, you got me, you're right but my intention was to describe a dom 7th with the added #9, hence a #9 chord :) A #9 chord is a normal chord in jazz, and is used in the same context as when you say a '7' '9' 'b13' or whatever, they all describe a dominant 7th with said extension. Normally you can add any other extensions leading up to it, too, but what you choose and when is a bit more of an in depth discussion!

I like your post below,

sneaksta303, you have missed the point a bit I think. The whole point is that if you use the knowledge properly, and have a good understanding of it it is a fine tool. Its an explanoratory system and thats how it was designed. The trouble is that people too often see it as a set of rules etc which is completely wrong.

You don't think about it when writing or playing, only if you need to. Its like a map, you can wander off exploring but know that you've got something to help you if you get stuck.

  On 4/11/2010 at 6:27 PM, welcome to the machine said:

Ah, you got me, you're right but my intention was to describe a dom 7th with the added #9, hence a #9 chord :) A #9 chord is a normal chord in jazz, and is used in the same context as when you say a '7' '9' 'b13' or whatever, they all describe a dominant 7th with said extension. Normally you can add any other extensions leading up to it, too, but what you choose and when is a bit more of an in depth discussion!

In that case, nifty.

  On 4/11/2010 at 6:27 PM, welcome to the machine said:

sneaksta303, you have missed the point a bit I think. The whole point is that if you use the knowledge properly, and have a good understanding of it it is a fine tool. Its an explanoratory system and thats how it was designed. The trouble is that people too often see it as a set of rules etc which is completely wrong.

I guess. I just don't have to deal with the issue myself really. I already get next to nothing done. If I were to over analyze what I DO do (heh doo doo), I'd just be second guessing myself to the point of NEVER getting anything done. Thinking about my history as a musician however, I think I inadvertently ingrained a lot of things said in this thread when I was a teen playing guitar, so maybe I don't think about it. I don't know how to say what I mean right now.

  On 4/2/2010 at 4:03 PM, wahrk said:

  On 3/30/2010 at 4:13 PM, mafted said:

is it harmonics when you tap two or three fingers (or anything) at the same time and they make that clangy sound when the sounds combine? i've always wanted to know why that happens.

 

This called phasing, and the effect on the sound is called a comb filter. It happens when two similar or identical sounds happen out of phase to some degree. Sound is oscillation between positive and negative pressure, and when one of the sounds is on the negative side of the wave and the other is on the positive at the time they reach the ear, the equal/similar but opposing pressure will cancel each other out. Some of the frequencies you don't normally hear will line up as in phase as well and be audible (usually high frequencies). So some of the normal range of the sound will be inaudible and new, typically higher frequencies will sound.

 

It's an awesome effect. That's how a phaser works.

nice! thanks for that.

  On 4/11/2010 at 8:14 PM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 6:27 PM, welcome to the machine said:

sneaksta303, you have missed the point a bit I think. The whole point is that if you use the knowledge properly, and have a good understanding of it it is a fine tool. Its an explanoratory system and thats how it was designed. The trouble is that people too often see it as a set of rules etc which is completely wrong.

 

I guess. I just don't have to deal with the issue myself really. I already get next to nothing done. If I were to over analyze what I DO do (heh doo doo), I'd just be second guessing myself to the point of NEVER getting anything done. Thinking about my history as a musician however, I think I inadvertently ingrained a lot of things said in this thread when I was a teen playing guitar, so maybe I don't think about it. I don't know how to say what I mean right now.

Yeah, I think a lot of the important stuff works best when it just sits in the back of your mind. An example stems from jazz music college, where students are expected to know all of this stuff through and through but get ridiculed if it SOUNDS like they know it. you get taught all the theory and are expected to know it all but if you play with all the clever techniques you can quickly be accused of 'just playing the scales' or 'just going through exercises', and 'not making music'. So even in the genres classically so dependent on theory there is a big awareness of not relying on it for some form of creativity.

The idea is for those guys is they learn it so well they never have to try and find a sound, the map they have learned means they have all the potential sounds lined up in the back of there mind which they pick and choose from subconsciously while playing and hopefully it just comes out as music. If you want to get into it that deeply then its about learning so in depth that it doesn't tell you what to do, it simply gives you the ability to call on one of any of the possible ideas you cold go for in split second..

All the scale practice and such is not about learning a formula, its about internalising that particular sound SO well that you don't need to think about the theory in the slightest when playing. Every possible sound is there in the forefront of your mind when playing and then you can just think of what you want to play and just do it, regardless of whether it is the simplest major scale line or the crazyest esoteric dischordant passage. Then you are so comfortable with the crazy odd thing you just played it takes a split second to return to playing normal stuff accross the next change.

Thats all for a very specific area of music of course, but the way it is approached is the way it should be approached for everything, if you are in the position of knowing it and being able to use it.

I don't think it is necessary, of course, but if you have an inquisitive mind and understand how to use the stuff you learn then I think it can be very useful.

  On 4/20/2010 at 4:04 AM, welcome to the machine said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 8:14 PM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 6:27 PM, welcome to the machine said:

sneaksta303, you have missed the point a bit I think. The whole point is that if you use the knowledge properly, and have a good understanding of it it is a fine tool. Its an explanoratory system and thats how it was designed. The trouble is that people too often see it as a set of rules etc which is completely wrong.

 

I guess. I just don't have to deal with the issue myself really. I already get next to nothing done. If I were to over analyze what I DO do (heh doo doo), I'd just be second guessing myself to the point of NEVER getting anything done. Thinking about my history as a musician however, I think I inadvertently ingrained a lot of things said in this thread when I was a teen playing guitar, so maybe I don't think about it. I don't know how to say what I mean right now.

 

Yeah, I think a lot of the important stuff works best when it just sits in the back of your mind. An example stems from jazz music college, where students are expected to know all of this stuff through and through but get ridiculed if it SOUNDS like they know it. you get taught all the theory and are expected to know it all but if you play with all the clever techniques you can quickly be accused of 'just playing the scales' or 'just going through exercises', and 'not making music'. So even in the genres classically so dependent on theory there is a big awareness of not relying on it for some form of creativity.

 

The idea is for those guys is they learn it so well they never have to try and find a sound, the map they have learned means they have all the potential sounds lined up in the back of there mind which they pick and choose from subconsciously while playing and hopefully it just comes out as music. If you want to get into it that deeply then its about learning so in depth that it doesn't tell you what to do, it simply gives you the ability to call on one of any of the possible ideas you cold go for in split second..

 

All the scale practice and such is not about learning a formula, its about internalising that particular sound SO well that you don't need to think about the theory in the slightest when playing. Every possible sound is there in the forefront of your mind when playing and then you can just think of what you want to play and just do it, regardless of whether it is the simplest major scale line or the crazyest esoteric dischordant passage. Then you are so comfortable with the crazy odd thing you just played it takes a split second to return to playing normal stuff accross the next change.

 

Thats all for a very specific area of music of course, but the way it is approached is the way it should be approached for everything, if you are in the position of knowing it and being able to use it.

 

I don't think it is necessary, of course, but if you have an inquisitive mind and understand how to use the stuff you learn then I think it can be very useful.

/thread