New producers forum

  On 3/2/2016 at 1:15 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

 

  On 3/1/2016 at 10:53 PM, Test Fforet said:

 

 

Doesnt matter how you do it, wether you got some "classic" lessons or you become a self-taught composer. The only difference would be that you will use different words for the same techniques.

 

 

Yeah, this. Anyone who is naturally musical, listens to a wide variety of music, and is also creative, is bound to instinctively use many of the same techniques in composing as someone who is classically trained. And I think this can often lead to more interesting, original results, because the artist who is composing intuitively is not going to be going from point A to point C based on rules of logic... they're more likely to go a less well trodden path. I've witnessed some musicians rely mostly on theory when working out ideas, and it often leads to very predictable results. That's not to say you should ignore the logic aspect... I mean, it's there whether the composer's aware of it or not. And if you can learn the theory and not have it dictate where your composition leads, it can show you some interesting alternate paths to take that you may not have considered otherwise. The most important thing is to know what you love in music, and then pursue that tirelessly. I like music that surprises me, and music that moves me. The music that does both is the music I love most.

 

Wait, what is this thread about again?

 

I've actually come up with some really nice melodies that I wouldn't have thought of before knowing music theory. I think it comes down more to a willingness to fit a mold. If you've been formally taught, you're more likely to think of those musical guidelines as concrete, whereas if you know nothing about them, you can get some interesting results by mucking about, and doing things "the wrong way." However, there will come a point when that person that isn't formally taught will hit a wall and will stay in a mold unless they're the type of person that is willing to break rules anyway.

Well I'm all for theory learning. Maybe my post doesn't quite come off that way. But however much theory I learn, I still find when I'm making melodies, coming up with chord changes, beats, etc. I still just go with what's in my head. my brain's like "I want to hear this" and then it happens to be a maj7 with the melody going from the 5th to the 3rd, or whatever. It would feel so unnatural to do it the other way around. That said, i like to deliberately try stuff like that, for funsies.... hmmm, track concept on the way.

like I said once you think about it in purely verbal terms/list of steps you need to take you're fucked imo!!

You can think about it this way as well: you're conditioned to think about music in a certain way. If you grew up in the 'western sphere,' then you're likely to think of a melody to be comprised of 7 of 12 notes. In other cultures, you have a wide variety of tunings and tonal structures. Sometimes these take a while for you to get used to them if you aren't already familiar. Western music theory can help you along in a lot of ways, but also thinking of the entirety of music as a set of notes is limiting in and of itself.

Do what sounds good. If it works, there's probably a reason why. If it doesn't work, there's probably a reason why. This is the theory of music and how we're trying to make it make sense as a system.

this is probably not what you mean but I am approaching every instrument as percussion first/initially, if it develops into some sort of pad or something that's fine but trying to approach it as SOUNDS HAPPENING as much as possible, like just resonating something without regards to what note it is/isn't. Or patching until I have something that sounds voice-like or like singing but not necessarily musical?

I guess I'm just saying that it's another toolset that will give you a different perspective. But to keep creating new and inventive things, you'll need to continually gain perspective from different angles and techniques.

I'm intrigued by the idea of a music theory exclusive (or at least entirely tailored) to electronic music, mostly because electronic musicians deal with an entirely different set of tools than classical/tangible instrument players do. we can put tonal theories to use for sure (and it would behoove us all to understand that knowledge), but what of the heavy layering of unique (to electronica) timbres, the strikingly different compositions we experiment with, the tonal relationships that stray away from 12-tone scales (microtonal parts in acid, for example), the effective use of breaks & samples and how to manipulate them for listener impact, layered FX, real time synth parameter movement, automated parts, live performance, etc? we have a lot of tools and opportunities to use traditional theory while also bending it in new & innovative ways that are specific to the tools we use. we are hybrid composers & producers, because production is inherent to our compositions, unlike a guitar player, who can write and play without needing to create an entire backing track alongside the work.

is there a book on this sort of thing? (besides "music theory for the electronic musician" -- which is great, but not quite what im talking about)

  On 3/3/2016 at 10:53 PM, Braintree said:

I guess I'm just saying that it's another toolset that will give you a different perspective. But to keep creating new and inventive things, you'll need to continually gain perspective from different angles and techniques.

It is definitely a valuable skillset that can give a different perspective. I just find the new perspectives/angles/techniques come to me a lot faster by listening to new music and new styles than by reading about it. It's like "here are the chords, textures and rhythms they're using. Go." The absorption of the information is more immediate. It's the same thing with learning new software for me. I always find instruction manuals make things sound a lot more complicated then they actually are, and then I get confused. Whereas if I just try to crack the problems intuitively it makes more sense, and I learn more from that. I can see how it would logically work the other way around though. There is no doubt that musical theory is a useful tool, and I would never discourage anyone from learning more about it. The trick is to not let it interfere with finding your own voice in all that book-learnin'! (this emoticon was the closest thing I could find to southern-hillbilly.)

Great post, zeph

yeah, good thread

I nominate this thread for 'most idm 2016'

  On 3/4/2016 at 11:56 AM, Djeroek said:

I nominate this thread for 'most idm 2016'

edit: also, dancecore!! that'd be awesome lol

  On 3/4/2016 at 3:12 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Great post, zeph

  On 3/1/2016 at 2:09 PM, MIXL2 said:

imma go see if I can start a dancecore/shitcore movement on there

 

This please.

  On 3/5/2016 at 3:03 AM, RSP said:

 

  On 3/1/2016 at 2:09 PM, MIXL2 said:

imma go see if I can start a dancecore/shitcore movement on there

 

 

This please.

There are hobbyists and there are artists. Just because you are the former doesn't mean you must say the latter doesn't exist.

Humility is good and vital to art, but you also need a fair bit of some quality like delusion to propel yourself. It's like delusion but sometimes it comes true.

vtgnike / myown is good.. chill jungle and footwork, i think he's in russian prison right now though

https://radology.bandcamp.com/album/sueta-nebitiya

  On 3/7/2016 at 12:12 AM, sheathe said:

There are hobbyists and there are artists. Just because you are the former doesn't mean you must say the latter doesn't exist.

 

Humility is good and vital to art, but you also need a fair bit of some quality like delusion to propel yourself. It's like delusion but sometimes it comes true.

A hobbyist makes next to no money. An artist makes money mainly through grants and other government funded avenues. A professional makes enough money in the private sector to live.

The spectrum of quality of art, from terrible to brilliant, spans throughout all three of these. Differing approaches, from no education to having a doctorate, still spans through the same spectrum.

Creating brilliant art, if not in presented the right environment, context or time, can be hated and/or ignored. Creating terrible art, given the same criteria, can be loved and/or popularized. The opposites of both occur as well.

Make art in any way you want. As a delusional egocentric narcissist to an self-conscious paranoid introvert. Enjoy yourself! Or don't!

oh?! philosophy? ok! yes, i agree, we need it. somehow we lost it in this 'age of knowledge' :facepalm imo

what is knowledge? what is art? what is talent? what is genius and what's not? is only a genius art an art? what/where are the limits of mind and art? what's the purpose in making and what in consuming art? how and why music differs from other types of art?

much has been said/written about this but i agree with kant and schoppenhauer on the matter the most (also with bach, beethoven, duchamp, picasso, da vinci, stockhausen, kubrick, ligeti, celibidache, bernstein, pogorelich, chaplin, mead, mckenzie, brown, booth ...)

  On 3/1/2016 at 10:00 PM, Blank said:

cum

 

Long time ago I studied a bit the theory of harmony ... it took me a while to realize that it, meaning the so called standard practice/minor major tonality/ functional harmony doesn't really apply but to a small chunk of Western music, and electronic "dance" music doesn't follow the rules/prescriptions very much at all ... ...modal jazz, funk, blues are different, also rock music started to behave in a harmonically deviant way in the 60s... and if one thinks early British Hardcore/ Break beat stuff, for instance playing sampled minor chord stabs randomly over non changing bass line, that was so outside of the Theory that one must be grateful they didn't know the theory.

I mean taken as a prescription, a normative thing, as it seemed to be in the books I read (wrong books?) how tension was supposed to be resolved, going thru the motions around the circle of fifths ... don't do that!

learning the Roman numerals stuff I-ii-V7 etc doesn't hurt ....

Jazz theory books have lot of the same harmony stuff, but are kind of broader is scope than classic western harmony 101...