Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
 Welcome to our latest new user jobj ! (Registered 2024-12-25) You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > C64 Composing > Composing music in general, techniques, hints and tips
2011-02-10 11:46
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Composing music in general, techniques, hints and tips

What I really miss is a topic about music composing in general. If I haven't found an existing topic regarding this, but if we have any, let me know about it.
(There are many topics in Composing section, thanks god there's a good seraching engine. However it would be great to have more categories inside 'Composing' for easier browsing.)

I want to start this topic about the music composition itself, which is always a mystic topic and there's no real perfect method of teaching it in schools even nowadays.
On one hand this is the beauty of composing, that it cannot be described consciously in its entire form, and one can never say he learned everything.

I want to write a book/article in the future about the logic and lexical knowledge behind music composition, as there aren't a lot of comprehensive books or webpages that give us a complete picture and directions to improve.
One good (and possibly a standard) is Arnold Schoenberg's 'Fundamentals of Musical Composition', which gives a lot of understanding to composition itself (not music theory!).

If you have knowledge and experiences which you want to share with composers all around, feel free post your replies into this topic... and at the end we will have something at CSDB which will be a guide to refresh the spirit and knowledge of musical composition.

What this topic would exclude:
-The music theory (literature about chords, staff, etc..) - many books and videos can be found all around on the net.
-The use of trackers and analog synthesis techniques of SID, which is another topic, bit related of course...and has been discussed already afaik.

I'm looking forward your contributions with tips as well as questions/replies - discussions :)

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-10 17:41
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
The very basic question should be IMO what musical knowledge is needed for people to compose masterpieces. Let's consider it as an opening topic.

My point of view was for long time that the theoristic approach to composition can lead someone to compose more conscious rather than moody pieces. That's why I tried to use as few lexical/theoristical knowledge (e.g. chords) as possible.
That was a mistake, I was wrong, because there is very slow improvement if there is any, when someone just wants to use own inner intuition. At least a lot of impressive music must be listened in that case, to hear some idea inside when it's time for composing.

After a while I found out that gathering as many information about music (as a 'science') is very important to get into picture about how things work, in shorter time, say some years. (And of course this knowledge should be used in practice, not only in theory, hopefully we can agree on it.)
Music Theory is something that has logical part, what we should understand after all, and usually learning basic literature (the lexical part) can lead to the better understanding of logic, not the other way around.
The problem with that is, many many reading and listening is required (depending on different people's talent) to get into a state where we can say most of the relations are understood.

Therefore I started thinking about writing a book which collects the logic (such as Schoenberg's) and then gives some lexical examples in the other half, which can be investigated for occurences of logical elements.
Composers' discussion can lead to have a knowledge base here, which can discuss music composition logic from different views.

The beautiful thing about this is, that our brain starts to solve problems at composition time fairly unconsciously, what means we don't have to follow procedural points one-by-one to compose. In other words, we learn many things, and then we have to forget all of them when it's time of creation...we will build them into our work without extensively thinking about them all time. We can concentrate on the art and our brain will find the good solution when times of decisions come.

So, the first question is: Do you as a composer have opinion which of music theory or composing logic or intuitions/feelings contribute stronger for masterpieces?
(And if not only one aspect is the most important in itself, which are important too and why?....)

In any way the most important overall aspect might be to take our time (either by reading, listening, practising, meditating, whatever) when we want to become a good composer, if we really want that from vein.
(I'd say that composition skill -including one's set of own ideas and tools- is also something that can diminish over time without practice, and should be maintained and expanded regularly to be kept in shape.)
2011-02-11 01:50
The Phantom

Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 360
Great subject BTW..

Close to 4 years ago, I learned how to play an electric guitar. The guy that sold me the guitar, gave me a free 30 minute "lesson". He was also a music teacher, so perhaps it was his method of teaching that made me understand how the guitar works.

In this 30 minute lesson, I learned how to read music, write music and play.

Over the last 2 years, I've grown more into my acoustic guitar. I've flipped through various books on how to play, researched the tabs I wanted to play, even downloaded videos on how to play better. Months went by and I started playing a bit more, learning my own chords and finally coming into some sounds that sounded sweet. I went with it and composed a couple songs that I would really love to bring to the c64.

My issue is I have no clue where to begin. Is it even possible to translate acoustic guitar on c64? Will the sound still be there? Are the notes the same in whatever editor I choose to use?

For the last year, I've wanted to put these songs in my head into another medium, such as the c64, but again, without EVER composing on c64, I have no idea where to start or even if it's possible.

So good questions for me would be where to start, how to translate, what is the best editor to use and what editors to stay away from. What about things to NOT do when working in an editor? Is it as simple as putting in the notes I have written down, or do I have to learn a whole new music system?

Those are the things that have kept me from even attempting, it's not that it scares me, it's just not knowing where to start.
2011-02-11 07:13
Radiant

Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639
The Phantom: Notes are notes; they're always called the same (more or less). Composing on/for the C64 has more in common with playing on a keyboard than guitar though, but the differences are quite small (I taught myself how to play the piano helpfully in less than a month just by tinkering, after having played guitar for a year). You don't even need to know how to play to compose, it just helps to have an understanding of how the notes are laid out.
2011-02-11 07:37
Radiant

Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639
When I write music I sometimes have a mathematical idea that I want to put into practice, like "what if I keep going down four half tones" which quickly became Cloud Castles, and other times I just sit down and start experimenting with rhythms (Iron Forge). In my opinion if you want to expand your understanding of rhythm and composition and how to go beyond the standard four by four formula, the best way to do so is to listen to a lot of progressive music - artists like King Crimson, Meshuggah, The Mars Volta, Tool... you get the idea, and start imitating sections of their music.

With all the tunes I do that people actually like I always have a vision, either already when I start or after I've done the first few seconds - a kind of picture I want to paint in the listener's mind, if you like. This vision is often reflected in my song titles, and dictates the feeling that guides me when I'm composing the rest of the tune. Once that vision is in place the tune often "writes itself" in my head as I go along, something which I can only attribute to having listened to lots and lots of different kinds of music throughout the years.

Edit: Bottom line; listen to music. Lots of music, from different genres, and listen actively and analyze what they're doing.
2011-02-11 10:10
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
It's great to see replies, that means it's not an off-topic topic at CSDB :)

This guy, who sold the guitar must have had to be really aware about what he's doing, as he could teach many things in 30 minutes :)

The main question was here that where to start, and what directions to take, after we started, and still have the interest to continue.

There seem to be many approaches for music composition, one is using an instrument as an aid, and then expanding the arrangement.
However, until a certain professionalism, when one writes music on an instrument, it will resemble that instrument in the composition, because our hand will conduct our thoughts back and forth.
I prefer keyboard when I compose, as there are less restrictions for notes, and it's possible to think more universally than on other, harder instruments, like guitar. And the other good thing is that most music notation and editor tools work with keyboard-like piano roll. Of course, guitar compositions has a good character.
On C64 the trackers are very good to compose for 2 reasons. One is the keyboard-like notation, the tweakable sounds and the flexible/independent orderlists for all the channels.
The other good thing is from composer's view is the limitation of the channels. As JT said in an interview, it restricts someone to pay much attention for the composition in order to keep interest, C64 tunes wouldn't be so various without good melodies and techniques.
I follow the 'few channels' rule in all music editors, because it is the content what contributes to the interesting music, not the amount of tracks...and people can get easily into accumulating tracks into a crowded musical outcome, which at the end doesn't contain a real theme, just some moods here and there.

The book (from Schönberg) which I proposed before, contains a good statement about how people might compose generally. One can find a good idea (motive), which one can take as the basis of the complete piece in the beginning.
But no more, it is probably not possible for an average person to be able to keep a whole composition in mind...rumors say e.g. Mozart could keep a whole artwork in mind and it is said and experienced that we hear complete pieces inside when we dream or meditate.
That's why, we have to use logic, and have to make many things consciously, after we have a basic idea. And what Radiantx said, it's very important to have a theme in mind, what we would like to express throughout the tune from different views.
Without that the music would go nowhere, not telling anything to the listener.
(In my opinion the easiest start for a composer, where to start, is a theme of a game or movie. You don't have to be a poet or a writer in the case, when a game/film company tells you what to write music fo.r That sets you in the mood, what is very important, if you can get into it easily.)
And that expansion of basic idea can be accomplished with the aid of written staff/tabs/chords or midi notes, or orderlists/patterns, whatever storage.

There are many other approaches of ideas for compositions to start with, for example a nice timbre on the synthesizer, a good melodical idea, a good chord-progression or cadence, an interesting base-rhythm, etc., and I think one of them may become dominant for a composer after a while.
Usually that can be seen on the complete composition what components gave it the power. My preferred and most important approach is melodical approach, which idea seems to be reflected by many others...because an average listener can hear and remember only the rhythm and the main melody, and the other stuffs are all just icing on the cake to emphasize the well defined/invented foreground melody even better.

If you're interested, I can write down shortly what I understood from Schoenberg's book about melodical composition until now, how melodies are likely to be structured throughout the composition. (However this book may worth reading through, it's very interesting, and possibly applies to every genre, not just classical.)

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-11 14:01
Hate Bush

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 465
radiantx wrote: "listen to music. Lots of music, from different genres, and listen actively and analyze what they're doing"

couldn't agree more.
although i would recommend a very different set of 'mind-opening' music.
2011-02-11 14:11
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
one thing that pushed me a lot further regarding musik: change the style of music you are listening to on a daily basis regulary, and radically. if you were listening to d'n'b before, try some norwegian black metal. if you are into folk music, try contemporary pop. and dont give up after only a few songs because "it sucks". get a feeling for even the crap you dont like, try to see how it "works", and eventually even manage to seperate good and bad music from genres that are not your favourites.

and then for own songs, steal whatever good stuff you can. its the whole trick really =)
2011-02-11 14:41
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Yes, Listening and Listening is a very good point, if not the most important to get inspiration.
If you know Jamey Aebersold's Jazz-improvization books, it's one thing that they emphasize over and over again. Listen, listen, listen. Develop our inner ears, to hear ideas inside first, before ideas get distorted by any interface like e.g. instruments or music editors.
It's really a stealth in some ways, but after we listen enough and different types of music (regurarly), they all build into our brain and at the end we come to a mix, what doesn't really imitation of other people, but our own mixture of the musical language elements.
I can say I'm lucky, because I cannot really name any music genre which I don't like. Every style has it's point, and any music in any genre can be a masterpiece or a fault. Even some tunes get favoured after listening twice or more, and there is big difference among people in 'who likes what'. Although there are some 'secure' points in music, which are appreciated by most of the human beings.

Nowadays (some weeks ago) I changed my daily life so that I go home after work, and being tired, just take the time for listening music for 1 hour or so (usually an album). I lay down and just listen and enjoy the music, and get used to different techiques in my head, rather than listening music as a background filler to other activities. I believe that our brain can concentrate on only one thing at maximal performance, so if we want to learn, it's a good time to learn from masters, and not just listen, but hear, what is going on.
After listening to a complete album I collect the best tracks of it and copy them into a 'favourites' folder, so repeating of listening will be more effective later. Tracks that don't impress me at all are enough to be listened once.

BTW if we use an instrument to make music, it's unavoidable to get familiar with some conceptual fundamental theory material. If we don't specialize to instruments, and don't want to theorize too much, a very good way is ear-training, especially computer aided ear training with software, like Solfege (linux) or Functional Ear Trainer (win).
The musical ears are essential to hear what happens in a music, so you can name elements what you like, later you can remember them, and apply them to your own composition, even you're able to share the knowledge with others in the musical language (developed over hundreds of years). But if we don't know the names of different techniques, we are less able to HEAR/understand (and not just listen to) a good music and wonder, how they did this or that good part.
I claim that listening masterworks is a top prioroty activity for composers, but ability to capture the ideas must be improved by the other activities supporting music composition, like learning musical words/phrases and excercising on instruments, etc..
One good example of benefitting from learning is voice-leading and contrapuntal composition of supporting melodies (middleground and background material). They are hardly accessible perfectly without knowing what chords can be built onto different scale degrees. Other good example is the harmony based composition, where you must know and hear the different effects of basic cadences of tonic, dominant, subdominant, etc.)

Actively investigating music while listening can be another very good practice to improve. I mean sitting in front of a keyboard for example, and interpret/melt the heard techniques into our knowledge will improve us for sure, even on the given instrument. As most composers has a favoured instrument, many compositions can easily be captured on that instrument, sometimes a particular trick is surprisingly simple on an instrument compared to what we may think at listening time.

Concretely, I like to listen film-music very much (e.g. John Williams Superman, etc.), and melodic jazzy music (Diana Krall, Hearbie Hancock, Mezzoforte), SID tunes, sophisticated rock music, some electronic music maybe...(bit rarely folk, country and reaggae...)...sometimes even progressive rock and improvised jazz..

-----------------------------
I think I described my opinion about listening more or less.
There's another very important aspect of what makes a composer.
Very very important (Aebersold book emphasizes this too) to practice creation/improvisation of own ideas, motives, themes regularly.
I could compare this to the linguistical learning. We can get better in speech only by practicing. Not enough just to read and listen to speech, but we always have to practice composing our own sentences...otherwise the learned words don't get on our tongue in time. (Written form is a bit easier.)
The music is a kind of language too, where we form sentences to express ourselves. Therefore it's evident we have to practice creating new forms with our literature collected from listening. In this respect written language resembles to written music and improvization resembles to spoken word...
This may be the object of our next discussion...you may have some ideas about this to share...
2011-02-11 18:59
Hein

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 954
I believe it's about telling a story, it touches the soul and suprises the brain. Ofcourse, technical practice and study is very important, the bigger your knowledge of music, the larger your palet will be.

I've had a period that I just poked in stuff without thinking too much and was only going with the flow (if available) using my ears. Eventually I started to study music theory a bit, which helped me do better (structured) compositions and use scales that are bound to certain rules. These rules define the music, make it tighter and easier to work with.

Listening to and more important, hearing, (well said Hermit) masterpieces will help anybody. Personally I think all classical pieces are masterpieces compared to my simplistic musical know-how. If I can capture one or two small bits of those masterpieces and use that as base for my own tune, I'm satisfied.
2011-02-11 19:25
abaddon
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 28
Obligatory Youtube clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHE6hZU72A4

That's all I need to know.
2011-02-11 20:18
The Phantom

Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 360
I used to play keyboard, self taught actually. When I heard a jingle on TV or radio, I'd turn on the keyboard and play it. I'm the same way with my guitar, if I hear it, I can likely play it.

I listen to EVERYTHING! Trance is likely my favorite, but I listen to Rock, punk, some metal, a small bit of country and much more. I can play a few classical songs and have even tweaked them to the point of sounding better than the original, so I'd like to think I have that portion down.

My music teacher was actually my friend for several years. We worked in the same building, and he taught many students, LOUDLY.

There are even some trance songs I can play on guitar. Last ninja remix is one. Some floyd I can play. I guess my point is If I hear it, I can get very close to it.

Did I mention I'm partially tone deaf?

What music editor is the most popular and which is easiest?

If I can translate trance to guitar, I shouldn't have issues at all bringing it to c64. I find most editors very complex and it frustrates the hell out of me trying to figure out how to define specific notes. It was easy on Amiga, when I used acid tracker, so perhaps it would be easy with goat tracker? I've heard that was easy to use, even installed it, but never got around to using it.

I'm also guessing practice makes perfect. I can't expect to jump right in and start composing, which is what i am expecting, haha.

I'd love to see this topic continue, as I'm learning more and looking forward to actually making some music/sids. And that's something else. How do I make a sid? Is it easier to make a sid than say, using future composer or Jch's player?

Thanks everyone, this is one Topic I will enjoy reading.
2011-02-12 00:36
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
@The Phantom: Seems to be the suitable topic for your further reading about trackers (and even composition at the end, as I've just realized..):
SID music software recommendations?
What editors are PPL using now?
Sorry for not gaining that topic here, but as I wrote in the first post, I'd like to avoid tracker specific info here, because there must be topics already for that.
However in short, my experience after trying many trackers is, that XSID of Jeff is very featured native editor. GT is excellent crossplatform editor. (SDI, JCH, SID Factory, DMC, even simpler Hardtrack Composer and Ninjatracker are still top sound-quality editors, but harder IMO.) I'm also working on a C64 native tracker which will have all the required features...If I manage to finish.
---------------------------------------------------------

Staying at topic, I'm glad to see, we agree on many things. I'll bring up some new objectives very soon.

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-12 07:12
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Anyone who wants to get control of what he is doing musically, should take lessons.

Learn an instrument, like piano or guitar.

And anyone who wants to develop their own music style, should do as much different as possible.

If you only make eurodance, you will get stuck, and can only do... eurodance. In this way, limiting yourself.

If you ever run out of ideas, and have 10+ unfinished tunes, and no way to see how you ever gonna get them made, then its time to listen new forms of music, be open to new things.

2 years ago i had 2x6 months of piano lessons.
It took my music from "sometimes an idea" to "always an idea", and it gave me perfect hearing, so i always can play on the synth, what is inside my head.

If you develop the inner ear, you have come a long way.

As for music theory, i dont pay much attention to that.
If i want to "do something like that", then i just do it.
If its not good enough, or as i want, i keep working on it until it is. I never stop and i never give up.
2011-02-12 13:24
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
strike that, no time.
2011-02-12 14:31
celticdesign

Registered: Oct 2005
Posts: 149
well, you can learn instruments and play them very well. i never learned it for real, but i can press some keys and create some simple chords. i create some sequences and play with them around like hell; mostly until something turns out or until i give up. i've no fun to make something perfect. at least all that makes me just, lets say medium, composer.
i am not interested in any specific styles. i don't tend to compose classical stuff, orchestral, jazz, blues, latin or whatever. that is far to complex without deep knowledge. i always love it in the experimental way. i like music very much and listen to many different (mostly 80's) styles. i like rythms, sounds (especially synth sounds). i like electro, rap, dance, r&b, rock (progressive) and everything that gives a smile to my ears and to my soul (well, also pink or katy perry can do this from time to time such as rage against the machine, tool or clutch). just to mention some examples...
humm, i am not that good at composing or creating new sounds on 64. that's ragging on me. i wish i could do it as mighty as linus or jammer... ;-) i think fresh and fitting sounds are one of the most important thing as you can make some simple beats/sequencing and can really rock the show with using the right sounds.
but hey, all that has nothing to do with composing. you can't learn to be creative! making progress with his creativity is another point. at least you've to be unique. don't try to copy someone too much. find your own way with the right composing tool.
sorry if i didn't get the point. just some thoughts before launching...
2011-02-12 14:50
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
The discussion starts to be very interesting...good to think about all others viewpoints and argue a bit in a friendly manner.

I think Rambones's first point is to avoid limiting ourselves. BTW, somehow an instrument can be a limit too, until we don't really get a master on it. That's why an inner ear is the most important - the funny thing is, which so seems to be a contradiction: when we eventually learn to play an instrument by ear, our inner ear will improve.
It's not surprising BTW, we will face many contradictions, because music is not like math, not that perfectly defined.
Therefore I guess we can never have an absolute answer/method for 'how to make music'.
All we can do is to investigate until we find the best way to express ourselves (like rambones said), be it a fairly controlled or entirely feeling-aided process. The other thing we can do is to define some rules, because there are some rules, at least in a specific music culture, time and region. And I don't mean strict rules here, but some aids/tips/hints which fellow composers can grab to have a stable point, where to go from.

Bit philosophical point, but when we talk about music, sometimes it seems we talk about nothing. It's because we talk about many things on one or on the other side, and at the end we won't have any strict laws and a completely defined system. It's good, because everybody can decide which solution one prefers over the others. And it gives the possibility to find out new things and be unique more or less.

I agree on the music theory thing. We shouldn't let ourselves controlled/blindfolded by music theory, that's a good point. As you can see, this topic/article even excludes talking much about music theory in the beginning.
BTW, when it comes to scales, there can be found some theoretical occurences in the connection between modal scales and corresponding chords. One can hear by ear, and yet another person can only figure out chords by rules. Modal scales and pentatonic scales can be a good point to start even a piece that will be expanded with 7ths and 9ths later. But when someone wants to avoid limitation of modal scales at all, and wants to do something new, can invent some own scales. I think our mind has somehow adjusted to modal scales btw, as most of the music we listen builds upon these minor and major and compatible things. Hard to get into something different.

So as a conclusion we may agree there are no strict laws at all that we have to follow, because making such things would cause everybody doing nearly the same thing. Still unavoidable to get known to some rules, but we can use (or don't use) them subjectively, depending on us, whether we are able already to invent something new, specific and beautiful by ourselves or not...
Looking at Celticdesign's statement, it's really a good idea to not to strictly follow styles/genres of music. They are well invented routes to get something that will be favoured more likely by many people. Creating in a style can still result in a unique piece, up to a limit.

From now on I'll try to avoid the philosophical bloated sentences, and I feel the time has come to get started with concrete ideas on composition, like Rambones's tip about learning scales on an instrument.
2011-02-12 15:31
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
ok my example:
Theory Lesson 1

please read the trivia.


in my opinion you will need to use a kb/piano to figure out what i did with the scale, that is the basis of this whole tune.

the scale is: f g g# a# c d d# (f g)

i play it backwards, with every note before the scale note, first.

you should also try to do this, if you want a chance to see what is actually done.

and then remember in the end: its all just a single scale.

for non SDI users, press p on startup screen to choose pal.
then press shift + L to load tune, return to choose.

F1 to play, and f4 to see tracker play.
2011-02-12 15:47
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote:
From now on I'll try to avoid the philosophical bloated sentences, and I feel the time has come to get started with concrete ideas on composition, like Rambones's tip about learning scales on an instrument.


I would like to put my considerations in a few sentences.

Listen to very different kinds of music. Even those that you personally dislike. Always listen to it consciously, to get an idea of what makes up the core of it, what makes up the "feeling". Either to be able to create such a feeling, or to avoid it, whatever is your intention.

Do never listen to music consciously, as it lures you into unconsciously repeating its patterns, istead of creating something new.

Learn all the composing rules of different eras. So you are able to write somthing in renaissance, baroque, classic, impressionistic, ... style. But the most important of these rules is that you have to break the rules on purpose. To be able to do so, you have to know them.

Always remember that almost all pieces of music that follow common rules, already have been written. If you have a good tune in your mind, the probability that you remember it but don't remember that you remember it, instead of invented it, is almost 1. At least, if you have listened to music often in your life.

And the most important: even though there are some common patterns to all listeners, whether a piece of music "hits" the audience is only in small parts owed to its composition. It has to be presented to the correct audience, at the correct point in time. Much good music nowadays fails in that point, not in its composition, and this is beyond the composer's scope. Actually, they even lose against pieces that are much weaker being looked at with composition criteria.
2011-02-12 15:54
iAN CooG

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3198
Quote:

Always listen to it consciously[...]

Do never listen to music consciously[...]

I am confused now =)
2011-02-12 15:55
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
That was intentional to point out the inherent schizophrenia of good composers. :-)
2011-02-12 16:36
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Yehhah..I like jssr67's short but explanatory sentences.

I really agree, there are many confusing things, because we say listen/learn/create consciously and listen/learn/create unconsciously, because both of these are true. Maybe not at the same time, but both consciousness and unsconsciousness has the right place and time in composition :)
As I think schizophrenia is having different personalities right at the same time. Music composition too can probably be conscious and unconscious at the same time. For example, I never invent a melody more consciously on instruments, but to assign chords to it I use keyboards/arps in trackers sometimes consciously, sometimes by only what I love to hear..

When somebody understands this, will probably be able to avoid the imitation of others easier. When someone finds out why our universe exists, will probably be able to live perfect life with own aims not asking others what and why...but it is not really the case of course.

Many of my musician friends told me they hear perfect compositions just as me, time-to-time in half-asleep state. This fact votes on the side of unconsciousness, because science claims in that state we don't really think. It's the alpha-stage of mind or meditation..
However how can we be sure these are really perfect what we compose inside? Sometimes I slept with earphones in my ears or letting radio swithced on all night, and before waking up, for some seconds in subconscious stage I really enjoyed tunes which I couldn't appreciate that much when I was awake. WTF...
2011-02-12 16:42
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Reading jsr's post..

Let me try to clarify something:
people who dont make music will fall into the unconssious trap.

Composers wont.

Every note in a tune is there for a reason.
The higher goal is to create harmony and counterpoint to the lead.

The most important thing to know about music is counterpoint.

Its what glues the music together, and makes it tick.

Now use google, and find out what counterpoint is, then listen some tunes from your library, and try to identify where and how it comes into play.

You should be able to do this without any prior knowledge.


On a short version of counterpoint: the snare drum is the counterpoint to the bassdrum
2011-02-12 16:52
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Good examples for counterpoint are fugues, and I'd mention a bunch of Jeroen Tel's and Rob Hubbard's compositions too.
Classical music has a strong melodic counterpoint (somewhere between middleground and foreground) usually, the other voices usually just fill around (background).

I think btw, we have misunderstanding on unconsciousness. It has different degrees depending on how much the consciousness and logic starts taking it over. For example for me unconsciousness means that when I create melody, I do it by the first idea what comes into my mind upon a mood. Sometimes it's shit, but when it is good, I just make it wrong if i want to correct things in it. Even it's not the same when I record it on phone/dictaphone/whatever to not to lose the idea. In this method there is a more conscious step...which is the selection of good parts.
When I go home for example, I have many good feelings of the freedom after slavery of work, and usually I have happy melodical ideas in that case. When going to somewhere, there aren't many things that drives our attention to other directions than entertaining ourselves. Or when we go for a walk or run a bit.

One note about who we compose for: I would compose for myself in the first place. There are many people like me, and they will probably like it. Sometimes I make a mistake by composing for others' expectations, and that shouldn't be the good way in my opinion. How can you test people will like your music? Just from feedback. But if you compose for your own taste, it's really something that's beatiful for your soul, and for many others with similar souls. (No music what everyone likes, as said before. If there are target audiences, we have better chances that we'll find them or they will find us.)

2011-02-12 17:09
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Conssious VS unconssious: i will claim this:

as a composer, you cant cheat me.
i understand your every thought, your every emotion.

Nobody except composers, can really understand deep emotional pieces, like some from Jarre.

Its because we understand the notes involved.

Unconssious = not 100% knowing.


Trust me, as a composer, i know.

If any piece of music by me invokes some feelings in the listener, trust me, i know why, exactly.

its because of the counterpoints i put in there.
2011-02-12 17:34
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
I'll try to answer by pushing forward the topic with Rambones for composing techniques...the (let's say) 'conscious' or 'professional part'...which makes a professional composer, who knows what-where-and why he/she does.
--------------------------------------------------
In my opinion btw, the good average music can be understood by anybody, as music should be a language of feelings that everybody 'understands'. But here is a contradiction again, because it can be noticed that people who are more intelligent musically can better interpret the music above the average pop level, like many jazz and symphonic and others.
--------------------------------------------------
My idea for the starting of conscious/professional composition would be to collect the different feelings. In everyday life we have a large scale of feelings, but when we are asked, many times we cannot describe them precisely, they are usually 'GOOD' or 'WRONG', or sinonyms.
In my opinion a composer, who controls feelings, has to get in picture about the possible emoitions, even must investigate for new emotions that may be uncovered yet...
It's hard to build a system for feelings, but I've seen some trials so far. e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emotions
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OtIHqbusWrM/R7V7w09vx5I/AAAAAAAAALA/U..

And as Rambones said, when we learn what techniques in melody and counterpoints (even bass and rhythm) turns on what feelings in listeners, we should be closer to the conscious composition.
My plan will be to collect as many of this knowledge as possible.

The other very important know-how is then arranging these emotional elements in a way that keeps interest and goes somewhere.
As Schoenberg writes, a well balanced piece mowes in waves, which has deeper and peaking points, contradicting parts (consonant resolves dissonant, etc.) that keeps interest by constant motion (varying over time, isn't stagnant). And somewhere this reaches a top point, the so called 'climax', when the music turns over towards the coda/outro....
As all other rules/tips, this is broken many times, but could be an aid on young composers to follow...


2011-02-12 18:02
Hein

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 954
Quote: ok my example:
Theory Lesson 1

please read the trivia.


in my opinion you will need to use a kb/piano to figure out what i did with the scale, that is the basis of this whole tune.

the scale is: f g g# a# c d d# (f g)

i play it backwards, with every note before the scale note, first.

you should also try to do this, if you want a chance to see what is actually done.

and then remember in the end: its all just a single scale.

for non SDI users, press p on startup screen to choose pal.
then press shift + L to load tune, return to choose.

F1 to play, and f4 to see tracker play.


Did you mean F G Ab Bb C D Eb?
2011-02-12 18:30
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Emotions <=> counterpoints? True to some level. But there are other aspects, that are important beyond the pure notes. You cannot ignore them, at least when you write pieces for dedicated performers.

One important part is sound and voice. As a composer, you should have some imagination on how it has to sound like - not only what instrument, but even deeply into the interpretation. You even take into account the exact voice of a singer, should you happen to write for a certain band. But you cannot put that into notes. And the piece becomes something completely different, if you exchange the performer then - and may lose much of the intended emotional content.

As examples, some - from a compository point of view, relatively simple - examples from my C64 times would be some of Black Sabbath's pieces from "Mob rules", specifically "The sign of the southern cross" or "Falling off the edge of the world". Exchange Dio for another singer, and the songs aren't the same (they may or may not be still good then). (There are other examples with other performers as well, this is just to be taken as an example)

In other instances, this is not true. To stay with the same band: although I really like his style, I would think Iommy's moody long guitar part in "Lonely is the word" could even be transferred to other instruments, and still be as moody, here it's clearly melody and harmony that does the job.

To make it clear, I am not a "Black Sabbath/Dio" fan, but I think here we could have relatively clear examples. I may know even better compositions, but there the points may not be just as clear.

What still has been neglected yet in the discussion, is that the emotional context is additionally set as soon as you have songs with text, and an audience that understands it (not applicable to C64 compositions, but to composition in general). Not only the textual content is then important, also how you use "language" itself as an additional instrument (for example, intentionally prefer vowel-rich vocabulary over consonant-rich or vice versa, play with the effects of diphtongs etc...)
2011-02-12 21:10
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Quote: Did you mean F G Ab Bb C D Eb?

No.

Trackers have called it a# and d# since 1986, so im not gonna start calling the first black after the D for Eb, when all my music programs call it D#.
2011-02-12 21:22
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote: No.

Trackers have called it a# and d# since 1986, so im not gonna start calling the first black after the D for Eb, when all my music programs call it D#.


Nah. If you're within well-tempered, it should depend on whether you're in "east" or "west" of the quint circle.

And if you're not within well-tempered, then D# and Eb usually is not even the same pitch.

Just because your music program developers were lazy, that is no reason to drop distinctions.

Edit: for those really being pedantic: yes, I know that the so-called "quint circle" is more a "quint helix", and that you do not change again from "east" to "west" after "180 degrees" and so this harmonic model is being simplicistic...
2011-02-13 13:09
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
dear jssr and hein: it makes no sense to upload a tune as an example of something, which is using d# etc., and then write that it is using something else, no ? hope we can continue with more important matters now..

afterall that was the point to upload the tune in editor format. to show the investigator something.

what can be the next topic ?
Hermit you are directing this thread arent you ?

Else i could throw in the words, intro, part A, part B, chorus, ending, structure of a song ?

Or something that i lack words for: instruments, or pieces of the composition, which "talk" to eachother.

?
2011-02-13 13:18
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote:
hope we can continue with more important matters now..

Quote:
And if you're not within well-tempered, then D# and Eb usually is not even the same pitch.


We can and should continue with a different matter. But please take the point that, even more under the circumstances cited above, I really do consider it important, not just a notational formality.
2011-02-13 13:43
Hein

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 954
Quote: dear jssr and hein: it makes no sense to upload a tune as an example of something, which is using d# etc., and then write that it is using something else, no ? hope we can continue with more important matters now..

afterall that was the point to upload the tune in editor format. to show the investigator something.

what can be the next topic ?
Hermit you are directing this thread arent you ?

Else i could throw in the words, intro, part A, part B, chorus, ending, structure of a song ?

Or something that i lack words for: instruments, or pieces of the composition, which "talk" to eachother.

?


sure, np.. just figuring out what chord matches your scale.
2011-02-13 13:55
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
Quote:
We can and should continue with a different matter. But please take the point that, even more under the circumstances cited above, I really do consider it important, not just a notational formality.

Seems to me that especially piano- and keyboard players like to forget that c# isnt db - if you switch to guitar and start studying some classical pieces you will notice it right away, you must tune your guitar differently for different scales /o\
2011-02-13 14:27
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
I'm back.
(About equally tempered scales and 'enharmonic' notes: It was simplified even on keyboards, so coders of C64 trackers may have easily missed existence of distinct flat notes. BTW, as far as I remember, I've read about flat notes in a help, but don't remember which, maybe it was JCH's Editor...maybe the next step in composer tools will be some feature for 'real pitch' flat notes...who knows.)

I have a clue about the next topics, as I have a sketch already about the theme what we could cover..moment.
In the beginning of this topic I tried to start from the basic knowledge about music, now we have to go more specific. BTW, if you don't mind at least in some keywords I'll summarize what can generally be covered before going deeper in music elements (many of these has been covered already):

a. Some words about our existence, purpose of life, our associative brain and what emotions are, the target audience, the comfort/pleasure/mood what music can cause in listeners, interest as such.

b. Composer's life and will to create beauty for ourselves and others, aiming for (unreachable) perfection, unconsciousness vs consciousness, alcohol and sleep and meditation, variety/diverse/unique vs boring, creating new unique things. Intuition, listening, inspiration, talent, strong will to learn, need for notation and theory, cooperation, traditions, styles/genres, taking time for music, ear training, inner ear, polyphonic hearing, improvisation. Today's rushed world, lack of time, honesty to ourselves, objective sense of reality, form and content, forgetting and maintaining musical knowledge...

c. Trying to define what music really is, maybe language of emotions, from noise through rhythm to music, physics and physical/biological/emotional impact of sounds, dimensions in music.

d. Logical system of music, form vs content, construction and building blocks of a piece. Scale, melody, Phrase, motive, variation, sequence, theme, musical sentence. Intro, verse, bridge, riff, choir, climax, outro... Texture, instrumentation and orchestration, mixing...

As it is seen above, we have many interesting topics here that can be discussed. From this point I would go forward with the concrete ideas on how to start and continue a music. btw, any ideas from the other topics are still very welcome.
My plan is to continue discussion about creation of a melody or theme, which is very good start IMO, but usually (for me at least) is the hardest thing to do well.
As Rambones said, learning and well using scales can be a really good start for melody construction.
...coming back soon :)
2011-02-13 15:04
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote:
maybe the next step in composer tools will be some feature for 'real pitch' flat notes


In my (non-C64) tool under development, scales are to be freely definable, and well-tempered is only default as a convenience feature.

And since I am thinking about rewriting my lost C64 music compiler, I may add the same feature.
2011-02-14 19:39
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
ok about structure, i feel that tune that are remembered well, but are not too repetitive are made like this:

intro of material, iterattion of this material (variation), intro of new matarial, combination of the 2 parts of material that was introduced, some main theme, and ending with flashbacks to key elements.

as for structure, if you can introduce a bit new material all the time, and keeping a main form, the tune wont be repetitive, and even when it has a main theme, it will still morph in a way. so it becomes a themed evolution, that reaches some logical conclusion.

in the build and build for ever style i can mention trance, psytrance etc. its all new material, neverending, and somhow logically it always peaks around at 7 minutes, whereafter you have to build down and end it, or else the listener becomes bored :D
2011-02-14 19:45
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
yeah thats trance... it builds up for ever and never goes anywhere =)

as for song structure, i like the classic verse/refrain/verse/refrain/bridge/verse/refrain idea - even more if there is some good old halftone scale switching involved too. somehow every good "pop" song is exactly this way :)
2011-02-14 19:47
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Soooo...Melody Construction (short melodies for phrases, motives) ---in an extra long reply :)
(Sorry guys still staying at melody construction, I just see you went to the structuring, but I wrote this long reply just now, and it may be helpful for beginners.)


Until now we have discussed many basic things which helps to think and live like a composer.

This can be a very good basic to continue with melody construction topics. First with single melodies, motives, phrases.

Phrases are the smalles structural melodic elements of music. They has a certain completeness with a punctuated end. In homophonic music, the content is concentrated into the main solo voice.

Forgive me, but my aim is to define as many procedural steps in composing as possible. This can be helpful for beginners to start composing, and for advanced composers to stabilize/improve their abilities. For example when we occasionally run out of idea, some aid can be good.

WARNING: FOLLOWING GIVEN PROCEDURES STRICTLY CAN HARM YOUR CREATIVITY!!! YOU MAY LOSE YOUR OWN IDEAS AND UNIQUITY IF YOU JUST FOLLOW ME AND DON'T PLAY AROUND A BIT! :)

A little feedback wold be good from people who read this thread, whether you like it, and would like to continue with something. Questions are welcome too.





So, let's construct a phrase/motive/theme melody:

-------------------------------------------------

When we construct a melody, we do many things in parallel. The most important thing is to keep in mind, what we want to express (a theme with feelings). Everything else must be only technical knowledge, what we have to adjust to the theme.

-The melody can not only be a solo voice, but even bass, and a pedal-tonic counterpoint (simply repeated most of times, not moving with chord progression).

-Sometimes we make conscious, logical steps, sometimes unconscious steps driven by just intuition and feel (very important). The ratio depends on composing skills and attitudes. (Listening music contributes to the unconscious part.)

If we hear a given chord progression, it's sometimes easier to invent a good melody. We can use it as an aid to get into mood.

-The melody is constructed from pitches distributed in time rhythmically. They have pitch and rhythm and dynamics (strong/mid/weak velocity/loudness). These are elements what we can play with. We'll see some examples later.

-There are many methods to start, let's see some what I collected. I gave them names:



a.'First Thought method': This is the case, when ideas just come into our mind anytime. Most often without chords in the background. If we feel them good, record them as fast and precise as possible. The good thoughts can vanish and get distorted easily otherwise. Then we use these good ideas as a supply, maybe some modifications are needed, but usually too much modifications can distort them. They are usually complete forms, our brain did the work.

In the past I mostly had a bassline as a first thought, nowadays I have more lead ideas as first thought. As soon as you have the melody, you can go forward supporting it with bass, drum, chords, etc.



b.'Sculpture' method: I named it, because it's similar to make a sculpture out of a raw material, and end up with a complete form at the end. This may be good for beginners, because the work is done gradually, complicating the melody step-by-step. I tried it once, and seemed to work...you can listen the melody constructed this way in SRA Music collection's outro.

This method should start with a chord in a given key, or a chord progression which can be a typical progression of a music style or an entirely new own progression. Then we take the solo instrument, and add just simple notes to all chords, without rhythm. Easy first step, because we only have to place notes which may be chord notes, or other notes which aren't so dissonant to the chord.

Then we can complicate the melody by adding some more notes inbetween, e.g. passing notes and auxiliary notes. At the same time be careful to always follow the theme, and don't add too much variety. We will complicate parets until we get to a comfortable and various enough melody...some extra here and there (e.g. portamento, vibrato..), and we have something...



c.'Timeline' method: Better if we start with a chord progression or a rhythmic musical base, later we can alter it to the new ideas. I used this method most often in my SID composition. Similar to the 'first thought' method, but here we have a given base. I just listen to the given musical base, and thinking around what I would hear here and there (sometimes even have ideas after stopping the base). As soon I have a good idea, I try to input the data without any mistakes.

But sometimes the random mistakes in the typing lead me new ideas, usually dissonances, which are good but need to be resolved by consonances soon. Sometimes the mistyping leads me to transposition, or sometimes to completely new feelings, mood-switching, which should be good. At these points I adjust the bassline and chords to the new idea. I noticed many times, in music changes and complete altering of directions are very good tools to keep interest.

But after such changes don't forget to come back to the basic ideas...sometimes music can be left opened, but in most cases we close songs similarly as we opened them. This method is nearly linear, we start from nothing, and increase the length of a piece.





If you have other methods, you can describe them, we may learn about each other a lot, if we tell how we usually compose. I'm sure, most of us have favourite processes to compose melodies.

All of these methods has common points: What we can do to colourize/complicate a simple melody to cause interest and beauty? Good to see/know them all time, so we have a set of tools to play with:

a. Adding basic chord notes (tonic, 3dr, 5th, octave) - always a safe point, they will sound good, not dissonant. Can be in ANY ORDER, which can increase variety. Arpeggios are good tools if they're slow enough to call them melody.

b. Adding non-chordal/nonharmonic notes:

-Every notes in a scale has a degree of 'dissonancy' - you can see tips how dissonance is measured nowadays:

http://www.robertkelleyphd.com/consdiss.htm

Dissonance needs to be resolved, otherwise it will lead to nothing and will give incomplete feel. Using it well gives variety.

-We can add even 7ths and 9ths, etc., they are in the pleasant harmonic series. But sometimes they are more dissonant to the tonic or the rest, and careful placement is required. However in bass melody adding major 7ths can be a good point if handled well.

-Pentatonic/blues/modal (monor/major) scales are easier to define for a chord, chromatic/wholetone/diminished scales have to be used carefully, with taste.

-Passing notes are usually a minor 2nd away from the tonic, and are good tools as a last note before a greater music element (phrase/progression, etc.) starts again. Passing tones can sign a change/turnover, and prepare us to a change/turnover that will come soon...

-Auxiliary notes

-etc...you can find a complete list about usage of non-chordal notes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonchord_tone

c. techniques on all 12 notes (chromatic scale) - e.g. glissando

d. Adding intonation modifications - Vibrato and Portamento - they are very important effects to colorize a melody. They emphasize parts with pitches, unlike dynamics (emphasizes by volumes).



e. Adding rhythm: Rhythm can give a style and character to the melody, and time signature has to be in connection with dynamic. Triolas and rhythm breakings are good colorizing effects.

f. Game with dynamics: If dynamics are tweaked compared to the normal/natural form, we talk about syncopation, a good colorizer, especially in base rhythm.



g. Game with timbres: A good instrument can express the feeling some melody better. It's a whole topic called orchestration, may be covered later. But good to know, tweaking with tones/timbres (modes) of a single instrument (articulations) is a good way to express feelings, just as vibratos/dynamics.



The elements in this list are possibly enough to select from, when we want to create a good theme melody or solo. However always keep in mind to follow them in a right way, to strengthen the feeling what you want to express, and not to overuse them. For example, vibrato is something, what has the right place, and you don't have to vibrate every longer notes.

I have two plans, if people are interested, to show some practice like Rambones did... I'll try to do some melodies with the 3 methods, and release the phases of the construction. What more, we may start a contest by someone is giving up a chord progression, and we'll try to create a melody on that.

Anyway, we will need a discussion about creating chord progressions, which is a bit simpler procedure IMO, of course it may vary person-by-person...

My other plan for the future is to investigate, discuss masterworks of good composers together. Fortunately there is a homepage (http://soundcloud.com), where we can upload mp3, and people can leave notes in the different parts (times) of the music. We can put notes there for e.g. what technique was used at a given point, what makes the tune so good.

Still other good point could be to have the great C64 composers involved into this thread, and ask them about their experiences in their music composition carrier. I usually read about lives of great composers, and a lot of things can be understood by that way (E.g. John Williams had worked for U.S Air Force, and interestingly he had great success composing movie tracks with flying scenes, like E.T., Superman, etc.)





This is all for now...it's much text, but hopefully has an useful content. This is how I see music on melodic part...

If you read through it, I'm interested in your opinion or more ideas/methods of composing a basic melody (phrase/motive).

As soon as we have discuss writing basic motive melodies, we will go onto continuation to variations, motive-forms, and larger musical elements, sentences, sequences.

But first discuss basic melody creation a bit, and investigate around with given examples...
2011-02-14 19:57
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
i would call for some theory exploration, to all active sid makers.

lets try a simple thing, and upload example tunes.

lets try to make music based on intervals. ?

for example: C-D# or C-E
its just an example.

diss chords, and go 2-finger chords (intervals), and experiment and rape the ass out of it, lets get some tunes done this way.


as for target audience, i have to say, i have none.
i am exploring myself and my ideas, trying to recreate the extremely wonderful music i hear in my dreams, and which are so hard to get into the real world.
making music is self exploration to me, not fulfilling other peoples wishes.
2011-02-14 20:31
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
ok Hermit i will catch your ball.
basic melody creation.

i recommend humming some small melody, then try playing it on a kb, and developing it a bit with ideas that pop into mind.

3-5 tones are enough.

you will do an example ?
i will try also, after i get some sleep.
2011-02-14 20:34
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
@Rambones:
I'm up for a little practice of creating melody and music step-by-step, and sharing the construction phases and playing with given techniques...
Just let's negotiate, which tracker to use for this aim. I see you prefer SDI, and I prefer GT, because I don't really know SDI yet, but in case I'll hopefully be able to learn using it very soon...
Or, if it's OK to introduce our ideas with MIDI files, there won't be issues caused by different music editor systems...

Anyway. I think we shouldn't upload/release the half-made examples first onto CSDB, because it would create a mess here. We should share the ideas first just as a link to our own webpages/web-storages.
Then, when we have complete set of 'theory' lessons, we can upload them together at CSDB... no category like 'music composition examples', but hopefully won't be a problem if we upload them simply as 'C64 music'.

So, which tracker or option would you prefer?

(P.S: This English language is very interesting. Many call pitches 'notes', many call them 'tones', however 'tone' can be a synonym for 'timbre'...way confusing, Isn't it? :):)

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-14 21:35
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
To hermits long post:
Quote:
A little feedback wold be good from people who read this thread, whether you like it, and would like to continue with something. Questions are welcome too.


OK, I'll give it a try... a bit late but I have to work again this week, so time is limited.

Quote:
When we construct a melody, we do many things in parallel. The most important thing is to keep in mind, what we want to express (a theme with feelings). Everything else must be only technical knowledge, what we have to adjust to the theme.

No objection.

Quote:
sometimes unconscious steps driven by just intuition and feel (very important).

true.
Quote:
(Listening music contributes to the unconscious part.)

...with the dangers I indicated earlier.

Quote:
If we hear a given chord progression, it's sometimes easier to invent a good melody. We can use it as an aid to get into mood.

Actually, I often started with chords+rhythm in mind, not melody. Just because as you said, these tend to give a basis for the transported mood.

Quote:
-The melody is constructed from pitches distributed in time rhythmically. They have pitch and rhythm and dynamics (strong/mid/weak velocity/loudness). These are elements what we can play with. We'll see some examples later.

...and not to forget, depending on the instrument (especially if it is voice), sound "colour" (spectral aspects). This factor is often neglected but indeed sometimes an important factor.
Quote:

a....
b....
c....


I would not say this is a "EOR" situation. Usually these things combine through evolvement of a new piece of music.
Quote:

a. Adding basic chord notes (tonic, 3dr, 5th, octave) - always a safe point, they will sound good, not dissonant. Can be in ANY ORDER, which can increase variety. Arpeggios are good tools if
...
Dissonance needs to be resolved, otherwise it will lead to nothing and will give incomplete feel. Using it well gives variety.

Basic element of many rules, but nevertheless in its absolute way untrue. Many good pieces of music live from special effects of unresolved dissonance or "pseudo-(dis)harmonics". It is more difficult to exploit though, than to be on the safe side you indicate...
Quote:
-We can add even 7ths and 9ths, etc., they are in the pleasant harmonic series. But sometimes they are more dissonant to the tonic or the rest, and careful placement is required. However in bass melody adding major 7ths can be a good point if handled well.


In my earlier times I even liked to exploit "9-" and "4+"-interval sounds. Or "3-"-cascades. It needs some experiment to find out when it is appropriate to use these "harmonics rules violations" though. It should not be overused, that is certainly true. It also is a matter of genre, possibly. What I described is more to be found in expressionism, progressive rock/- metal or jazz, than in baroque or pop.

Quote:

e. Adding rhythm: Rhythm can give a style and character to the melody, and time signature has to be in connection with dynamic. Triolas and rhythm breakings are good colorizing effects.

OK, as a "progressivist" I'm out here. For me, breaking rhythm is more the rule than the exception, and rhythm is so essential that I cannot "add it later" :-)
Quote:

g. Game with timbres: A good instrument can express the feeling some melody better. It's a whole topic called orchestration, may be covered later. But good to know, tweaking with tones/timbres (modes) of a single instrument (articulations) is a good way to express feelings, just as vibratos/dynamics.


Here you have it, but I considered it more important so I pushed it up. Consonant-richness, Diphtong play... (which is what you indicate here, for the instrument "voice") add so much to the nature of a song that starting to think about it when you're here is a bit late.
Quote:

Anyway, we will need a discussion about creating chord progressions, which is a bit simpler procedure IMO, of course it may vary person-by-person...
My other plan for the future is to investigate, discuss masterworks of good composers together. Fortunately there is a homepage (http://soundcloud.com), where we can upload mp3, and people can leave notes in the different parts (times) of the music. We can put notes there for e.g. what technique was used at a given point, what makes the tune so good.


OK from my side. I really like to learn what others find makes up musical gems.


Edit: If I shall give C64 examples at any time, it will take me some time. I never was used to another music software than my own, and that is 23+ years ago and no longer available. I want to rewrite it, but surely not within days, as it had quite some features.
My player routine is still available in one SID that survived because I sent it in with a small contribution to a contest, but the high level music language compiler that created the data parts is vanished completely :-( ... which in total means, I would either have to wait weeks/months with my examples, compose in a tool that I don't know the details of, or hand out the editing to someone who is faster in one of the existing tools.
2011-02-14 22:34
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
jssr67, you must be much more experienced than me, full respect and thanks for reading my long post. I think I learn a lot from your comments. About me: I don't play instruments a long ago (some years), but I tried composing with several breaks on different platforms since about 8 years ago...first on C64, then Fasttracker, then much later (2008) I came back to C64, and try to improve in composing even on live instruments...

BTW, you may have misunderstood something, I didn't sign any priority or order with letters a..f , just wanted to outline the list elements a bit...because there's not a lot of formatting option here. So e.g. I didn't say rhythm is coming later, it depends on composing technique IMO...what more, I agree that rhythm is the very basic part of a complete music. This is what someone feels first... I'll have to practice expressing myself clearer, especially when time comes to write a book/article about my experiences...

I have some time nowadays, so I'll be able to make some example songs/workfiles...and I'll start that soundcloud.com uploadind as soon I register to it. Just a minute ago I finished a one-pattern example with my 'first thought' method (with bass and chords), and saved it in phases. I started with melody, then everything came just by ear...not that perfect, I'll consider whether I upload it or start another, better example...


Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-14 23:06
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Hermit, as we say in Germany: "thanks for the flowers"... ;-)

To give you a bit of personal backgounds: actually, I am not that experienced a composer on C64 - during that time, I was more involved in writing software and playing guitar than composing.
But after my active C64 times in the 80s, I had a few years in the 90s as a "hobby musician" guitarist in a progressive rock/metal band (electrified concert nylon string guitar instead of steel strings (suits my anatomy better), but played as metal instrument :-) ), where I wrote part of the music. We were just three: guitar, bass, drums where our bass player always had a hard times with the "chaotic nature" of what we other two wrote :-)
By that time, the drummer and me were largely inspired by bands like dream theater, fates warning, but also for example voivod or mekong delta - the latter ones theirselves just arranging many pieces of Chaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Bartok... so you can imagine my skight "preference" for ryhthms and harmonics that may sound "strange" to nowadays average pop music audience.

Not to say that I dislike all more "mainstream" music - I already posted black sabbath examples, which I consider mostly pure mainstream - but exploring limits just has its own fascination :-)
2011-02-15 03:10
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Well hermit, i have issues with GT, thats why i dont use it.
i use a real c64.

If you just use 1 hour on SDI, you will see its not complicated at all.

Read the manual once, without trying anything.
Then watch my videos at http://www.youtube.com/diabelez
There is over 10 SDI instruction videos.

When you know a tracker, protracker, GT etc., you can use SDI within 1 day, if you just bother to use the little time, really.

But if you just wanna do examples in GT, then just do it.
anyone should be able to load any editor, and watch a tune - you dont need to know the editor to do that.

if you use midi, its worse.
not all people have a program to use/see/edit midi.
how many here has Sonar ? how many has Cubase ?

so lets forget midi, please. ok ?

I can host all the example files, if people mail their stuff to sidwave@gmail.com - then everything can be put in http://www.sidwave.com/share/music_examples (permlink)
2011-02-15 03:20
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
you find SDI 2.07, 08 beta, example tunes here:
http://www.sidwave.com/share/sdi2_examples.zip

to be loaded in the editor..

the great force of the scene that has made people able to learn from eachother, was MOD tracking.
1000ands using the same editor, swapping modules and samples.

unfortunately, this hasnt been the case on c64.

people find it so difficult to learn sid, that they give up after only 20 minutes. its a real shame. i know many music guys who say "oh i always dreamed of making sid tunes like galway" - and even if they are cubase experts or release commercial hits, they still dont bother to use 20 minutes on a c64, even when they have this little dream inside.

its a goddamn shame :D
2011-02-15 06:18
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
Me and music theory is somewhat like adding hydraulic suspensors, intelligent control electronics and satellite navigation to a fyling brick :)

Instinct and attitude. That's all about. If you rely too much on others' ideas, it will place overused patterns into your own ideas. For a more pure stream, it is best to re-discover most of things needed by yourself.

For some method as such, I prefer the "distant island" way. While floating on the ocean of irregulated ideas, you spot an island that you wish to reach then just go with the flow while trying to organise the chaotic, gigantic mass below with a paddle, to make it work for you. No planning, tested safe method, math to follow. The ocean is way too unpredictable. Too many factors are changing, every and each journey is different. Should be so, indeed: it prevents repetition.

The only things that are to be repeated/refined/emphasized are individual differences from all the other acts that amplifies recognisable character as an echo in the listeners' minds. Small nuances that make the act identifiable and sets it apart from all the others.

Quoting jssr67

And the most important: even though there are some common patterns to all listeners, whether a piece of music "hits" the audience is only in small parts owed to its composition. It has to be presented to the correct audience, at the correct point in time. Much good music nowadays fails in that point, not in its composition, and this is beyond the composer's scope. Actually, they even lose against pieces that are much weaker being looked at with composition criteria.


The most imprtant thought in there, I assume. No one makes music for himself really. With no adequate support, I've seen so many great folks collapsing under the load of their own talents because of lack of feedback and recognition. Mind cracking, burning out, even committing suicide.

In the practice, it is approx. 30% of your energies are burned on creating music and 70% on promotion. One must be aware of that. Sadly, if you are strong in the later, you don't even have to perform well in the former.
2011-02-15 08:00
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
no, its good to learn stuff on own ways.

i more or less have every music that was ever produced in the c64 and amiga scene.

ive seen a lot of good guys, sounding more and more standard (commercial), and then i lost interest.

we cant all be rob hubbard, or elton john, but we can learn from them, and make our own version. inspiration.

what keeps the sid alive, is the fact that people try and create new styles of music. and its all made with the same instrument, the sid. that is what is the beauty of sid, that any music can be made on it. (example: you will fail if you try and make psytrance with a guitar)

sid duzz it :D

if you take a gritty distorted guitar and put it into a symphony orchestra, its gonna eat all the good frequencies, and the mix becomes horrible :D

onto the topic: a bit of theory is good, because it can show some angles you didnt think about, and give new ideas.

and also the c64 scene has never had any working collaboration about making music.

on amiga you just load any MOD in protracker, steal his samples, steal his effects, or remix his tune. it helped so many composers to try out eachothers styles, swap sounds, share music ideas, chasing the dream to make the ultimate tune.

C64 complicates this by having 300+ editors, and no general format.

this has changed a bit, as GT has become the most used editor i think..

but its fail..
you laptop lamers have no excuse, a c64 cost very little money, and its no problem to get one - and then you get the real sound. why do you keep using a pc program, and upload sid files made with psid64 ?

buy as many c64 as you can find, and preserve them, so when they die of hardware failure, you can repair one or just take a new one, so you can have a c64 for the rest of you life. im quite sure that Eric Clapton is also still using (sometimes) the very first guitar he got. such people have many guitars, and ive often read that they have the first, and still use it, and that it feels special.

I think at Datastorm, there was less than 20 C64, and 200+ people. is this how you want to continue this ? and keep asking people to hand in compo stuff on real 5.25 disks, when there is only 2 guys at a party who can transfer their stuff ? wake up please! csdb preserves the demos, so why in gods name do you not preserve the machines ?

ok i got desperate there :D

why all this, yes: if all used a real c64, then more programmers would also be working to create better music editors, and invent new routines. innovation.

thats exactly why you should throw out that laptop :D
2011-02-15 09:32
4mat

Registered: May 2010
Posts: 66
Quoting rambones

this has changed a bit, as GT has become the most used editor i think..

but its fail..
you laptop lamers have no excuse, a c64 cost very little money, and its no problem to get one - and then you get the real sound. why do you keep using a pc program, and upload sid files made with psid64 ?


Because it's a heck of a lot more convenient to fire up GT for 30 minutes rather than have a real c64 setup in the house or dragging one out of the cupboard everytime. The 'laptop lamer' mentality at people who don't use hardware is ridiculous, how many people develop their demos 100% on hardware anymore? How many people returned to the scene because they could work on projects without having to commit to keeping a rig working to do it? I only ever use hardware at the end of a project to do a final test, I don't feel any less 'hardcore' for doing that.

As to "the real sound", I think most of us know how a real SID sounds after using them for years in the '80s, you can easily adjust when using an emulated version. Besides which reSID-PF has made such great strides forward recently I'm hard pressed to tell a real 8580 from their emulation.
2011-02-15 11:32
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
I have (one of) my C64 machine with MMC64 Replay always at left-hand-side at my desk next to the PC-LCD with dedicated screen. When it comes to demo-watching, entertaining myself or testing music and software, I really prefer using this real machine, because emulation will newer reach the stability of real mass and the SID's analog quality, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, there are good approaches in emulation to the real nowadays...but feel never ever be the same.
However, despite I don't really like emulation, the time is still too short nowadays to always transfer things to C64 back & forth, and I don't know any native C64 music editors yet that is so convenient with as many features as GT. Now using Linux, at least I have a stable base for VICE and GT.

I think we can forgive people for using cross tools, because it's still better than forgiving C64 at all. It's the rushed world around, what keeps us back having enough time to develop good tools and work on real C64...and if the picture is not fully what we dream of, at leat I'd say thanx to everybody who keeps the spirit alive, be it in any way...

I'll try to learn SDI, despite I don't know about a possibility to load/save instruments. Delight me if there is.

Maybe not secret, I mentioned in a thread that I'm writing a native C64 music tool, but it's only half ready. I have not a lot of time, and can continue it only occasionally. One day it might be released, and will have to contain all features that is included in other music tools.

Back to general composing, I'm also working - just in mind yet - on a crossplatform General MIDI based PC music composer app and a good-quality SF2 GM to compose with. My idea will be for composing that every usual instrument has to be under hands (sf2 GM wavetable), avoiding the need for browsing in VSTs at composing time, and decreasing the need to connect and mix live instruments. In other words, avoiding every possible extra (sometimes time consuming) works that stands in a way of the composition process. (Don't get me wrong, sometimes live instruments are easier to play than editing e.g. a guitar-rhythm in piano-roll/pattern editor.)
I'll use JUCE library, which is very adequate for sound programming. I'm glad that I found this c++ library.

My PC tool, if it will be done, should contain more than one hierarchical step from patterns through pattern-groups (unlike e.g. SEQ24/LMMS, in Non Sequencer they exist and are called Phrases) and sequences/orderlists to complete music...
When there will be some concrete composition tips (thx to this thread) which are more generally agreed, I'm planning to implement some helper tools into the music editor, which will aid the beginners interactively in the starting and so giving them ideas on possibilities when they stuck... I don't mean drumpatterns or random melodies, but textual tips in specific points with some possible ways of tricks...
2011-02-15 13:43
Hate Bush

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 465
instead of so many words, i would like to see a topic where c64 composers would post links to what they consider greatest music imaginable, and - if they want to - explain why. let's say, one link per day max.
each of us could benefit from that and expand those horizons, so to speak.
anyone interested?
2011-02-15 14:11
Linus

Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 639
Hell yes! I´d be very interested in a topic like that.

I don´t want to go into discussion about how I disagree with stuff like ...

Quote:
Nobody except composers, can really understand deep emotional pieces, like some from Jarre.
Its because we understand the notes involved.
Unconssious = not 100% knowing.


without giving examples.

Care to start a dedicated topic, dear Michal?
2011-02-15 14:35
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote:
Nobody except composers, can really understand deep emotional pieces, like some from Jarre.
Its because we understand the notes involved.
Unconssious = not 100% knowing.


Good point you mentioned, Linus.
I also oppose this.

When I was about 7 or 8 years old, one day I spent the noon time at a friend of my parents who happened to be a visual artist.
She was making some pottery at that time, and on her stereo, some Klaus Schulze was running.
I was walking around in her flat, looking at stuff she had made, and pointed at one picture that she had painted earlier and said "You must have made this while the same music was running as of now". She confirmed that it was true, I have no reason to believe she lied. I definitely was no composer at that time, nor did I have any music theory background - I started learning piano with 10. I consider such events valid counter examples.
2011-02-15 15:13
Hate Bush

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 465
Linus: done. let's hope for some posting.
2011-02-15 15:49
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Hi, Guys.

I'm glad to see more participants in the thread.
Anyway, if you checked the latest posts, you could see we came to the same conclusion after theoretical discussion, listening and creation in PRACTICE is needed.

I'll summarize it so you don't have to read many previous posts:
------------------------------------------------------------
I found a good way: To upload good masterpiece tunes onto soundcloud.com, where we can comment on them in different time positions. If you find out better commenting ways, inform us.

We can put links for these tunes and comments here, so they would be reachable from this CSDB forum. I'd like to stay in this thread, but if other people would open a separate topic for listening/commenting practice, I'm up to it too...

On the other hand, we will create some example melodies based on Rambones's initial idea...changing examples, discussing them, competing in melody creation, etc., whatever we like to share musical knowledge and learn from each other...SDI or GT can be a good option for your example workfiles in order to show ideas to others.
2011-02-15 19:01
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
4mat:

you dont have a c64 in the cupboard, and drag it in and out, set it up, and move it away.

its a vintage music instrument, and you have it permanently set up in your sound studio :)

clapton would never sell his guitars, and install a really good guitar VST. its bollocks :D

neither jarre would disband his synths. he made one album with VST, Tao a Tea, and its his worst soulless piece of shit he ever made :d (but he did it to try it out)

anyhow, thats how i feel, and my arguments were: that a c64 is cheap to get.

consider it my 2 cents, not an attack. my way of writing is always to provoke people and make them react. to see what really ticks in them.
2011-02-15 19:23
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Quote: Hell yes! I´d be very interested in a topic like that.

I don´t want to go into discussion about how I disagree with stuff like ...

Quote:
Nobody except composers, can really understand deep emotional pieces, like some from Jarre.
Its because we understand the notes involved.
Unconssious = not 100% knowing.


without giving examples.

Care to start a dedicated topic, dear Michal?


There is such a thing as absolute music.
its the cosmic endless vibes that all people react the same to.

it has something to do with biology and how we evolved, and what sounds we learned to know as danger, or as good and so on.

no matter how rational and intelligent humans have become, we cant escape the reptike brain that we still have, it still has a lot of control, its what makes people afraid in the cinema when the sound artist has made the sfx, so you get really physically scared and your heart races for a bit.

first point: most people dont know this
second point: certain frequencies and harmonies, awaken instinct in people, as per the explanation i just gave, but they have no awareness of this, or of which chords are diminished, what tremolo is and all this stuff.

they just say "i like that, its fucking good".

they cannot make a small music without training (well, some can), but the majority not, BUT if you have a preset sound on a synth, and tell them to turn those 4 knobs, and you say "make it sound happy, or scary", they can!

again, because the reptile brain knows these things, since dawn of mankind, when he was battling tigers and other predators, while learning to become a hunter.

absolute music is when you hit the cosmic nerve that all people are born with unconssious knowledge about.

and for the record it was me who wrote what was quoted, and once again is trying to make and ass out of my claims.

well simple i know these things because i talk to other musicians, and i have read tons of biology and science, and i have asked people about these things, to make my own investigations, and this is what i have found. so i am all quite well with saying it, believing its close to the truth.

I do research, i take the train, and i play some tunes of my own for various people, and talk about stuff, and i ask how they percieve things, and thats how i know stuff. and also some very good musicians you know, know the same, at x one of them said "you dont have to explain it to me jan, i know".


about making people link "this is the best music ever" tunes from anywhere, this is gonna be fail.

there is no such thing as best music.
there is just "not so skilled rockband", and "40 years of playing rockband".

some play like gods, and are bad composers, some are good composers, and play badly. and some are good at everything.

if "billie jean" is one of the best tunes ever, then yes, in THAT style, in THAT situation. it is horribly simple, and therefore easy to like. thats the secret about hits and top chart music. if you ever sit down and try to play on the kb what they are actually building the tunes on, most of them are in the simple end where a schoolkid with 3 years og guitar learning could have made this music. and im not kidding.

doing absolute counterpoint music like jeroen tel does, where each track is linked to another, you can regard the whole composition as one big harmonic chord. simply everything fits together. this in some ears is better music, where others think its too complicated, and therefore rather will buy the latest lady gaga cd.

there is no best, there is just as forrest gump said "life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you gonna get" - everybody has own taste. music is subjective.


i think if you wanna break down and analyze some tunes, then take some from the sid library. not 80s hits and so on.

taking some tracks, and break them down, find out what they are made of, and define what makes the thing work, is a very good thing to do.
2011-02-15 19:24
Hate Bush

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 465
i know a producer who is famous for his 'soulful vintage guitar sound', whilst one of his main tools is ampfarm (digital guitar amplifier emulator).
i know a guy recording excellent rhodes parts on a supposed-to-be-shit ni elektrik piano emulation of it.
a tool is soulless by definition, be it 1974 minimoog d or 2010 arturia minimoog v. but the operator...
2011-02-15 19:36
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
well, it happens to be that both guitar and rhodes are in such a way, they emulate perfect very easily :D

i know some guitar cabinet plugs, and guitar rig.
its good.

its just, that some instruments emulate well, and others dont.
and sample based instruments, requires an inhuman amount of programmed modulations, to sound "real".

my orchestra music sounds very good, but it pops in my head all the time "it sounds synthetic", and we cant escape this, before a stradivarius is emulated 100% in a computer..
2011-02-15 19:37
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
word :) most guitarists actually use something like guitarrig atleast in the studio. no more shitty amps to deal with, crystal clear sound with much less effort than before.

and yes indeed. if someone made an album with just VSTs and the album turns out crap - it only means the guy is uncapable of making good music with these VSTs, certainly not that you cant make good music with them at all. the instrument isnt crap because you can not handle it - give me a violin and i demonstrate that problem to you :o)
2011-02-15 20:09
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quote: word :) most guitarists actually use something like guitarrig atleast in the studio. no more shitty amps to deal with, crystal clear sound with much less effort than before.

and yes indeed. if someone made an album with just VSTs and the album turns out crap - it only means the guy is uncapable of making good music with these VSTs, certainly not that you cant make good music with them at all. the instrument isnt crap because you can not handle it - give me a violin and i demonstrate that problem to you :o)


Not that VSTs or other simulations necessarily are crap.
But: a good guitarist has numerous options on how to express certain things on his instrument, just by slightly differently moving fingers.
Even if the simulation offered all the same options, the "user interface" makes it more difficult to achieve it.
It may have other advantages though: it may offer perfect reproducability, for example. Or experimenting with the same sequence all over thousands of times, slightly changing parameters, until it's perfect. Still, from the player's point of view, it may be a perfect electronic instrument but (owed to the user interface) a crappy guitar.
2011-02-15 20:32
Linus

Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 639
Rambones: I am not trying to make an ass out of you, I just disagree on certain points, please leave it like that. Let´s not turn this topic in another flamewar again, please :) Let´s smoke the pipe, ok? :)


2011-02-15 20:58
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Right, peace is important in music composition.
Hey, Rambones, I like your brief explanation very much, learned a lot from it. That thought around instinct seems to be a realistic exploration.

Hi Guys. I made an example how I imagine the music disassembly practices by creating a 'C64 composers' group at soundcloud webpage:
http://soundcloud.com/groups/c64-composers


If you sign up to soundcloud.com and create an own account, you can possibly join the group. If not, inform me, and I'll give join-acceptance or rights if it's needed....
(Anyway, this idea seems to be similar to the SID page's idea which Stainless Steel is constructing. Hopefully we gave some tips to him..)

There's only one thing that holds me back putting masterpieces from HVSC: I'm a bit afraid of Copyright issues, as I'm not an expert in that topic. Therefore I shared some of my own tunes in a 'Creative Common' license to try out whether we can use soundcloud's interface for our aim....leave comment if you'd like to, I like feedbacks :) You can put/assign comments to time-points on the blue bar. See my example comments at Funck...
If someone is aware about copyright things, and know what can be uploaded, I can give a tip: You can download the SID mp3 music from SOASC easily, and upload to soundcloud into your own profile, then you can possibly share it on the 'C64 composers' group for investigation....

(I wanted to place Rob Hubbard's Star Paws theme first, which is a great composition. Then I changed my mind, first I have to know if we are allowed by law to share these music.. At HVSC/SOASC I've read in copyriht notes that there are some SIDs which are copyrighted to disposal... Maybe we can still play around Drax's and Shogoon's tunes and demotunes without law infringement.)

Let me know if you find this a good idea or we should forget about it. At the moment I have no other tip for music investigation.
Meanwhile I'll start to learn SDI, and collecting ideas for practice types we could do together or in contest...

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-16 01:17
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
Quoting Groepaz
word :) most guitarists actually use something like guitarrig atleast in the studio. no more shitty amps to deal with, crystal clear sound with much less effort than before.


Fail. Epic :)

Mates, don't even try to approach the wired geetar topic, right? Everything has its place and guitarrig and the like are just comfortable substitutes, not replacements of what they emulate. On the field we use these plug-ins and tools in the studio as layers for expanding the sonic spectrum and yes there are folks who use them exclusively with great results but everything fails when you start to compare emulation vs real stuff side-by-side, eg any industry standard like JCM800. The most faithful 'emulation' of rigs are discrete element units like Randall RM modular system or SansAmp tools, both with no digi feed. Still, they're words apart. Clients decide: they never wanted to return to a plugin after trying one of the real rigs piled up the next room here, and there is not élitism in that: we record a short part of their music, compare the real rig with everything else, they pick what sounds right. In the practice they choose emulation only when a fast or cost-effective solution is needed.

I could post 1000s of in-house samples from the last 20 years about what is what and what is not: line-recorded, re-amped, bi-amped, VSTi, mic'ed, DI, close dynamic, distant large diaphragm, amp-sim, what-and-what-not-soever recorded guitar tracks. Or, post endless dataflow about response, saturation, moving air, pressure, mass, speaker load, cab construction, headroom, space, reflections, natural compression, clarity, upper harmonics, nuances, articulation, character, feedback, mic placement, important angles and different mics, etc etc etc - and all the methods that try to emulate these with more or less precision, and all their pros/cons.

Well, I won't. Instead just believe that there is still no substitute for shitty old geetar amps with the right and carefully placed microphone, okay? Besides, recording real rigs are much less pain (and more fun) than you would think at first ;)
2011-02-16 01:33
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
hihi. i see where you come from :)
2011-02-16 01:36
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
Indeed, mate ;)

Wasted way too much time/energy on the subject ;)
2011-02-16 02:04
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
i do, btw, also prefer my amp, an old shitty peavey deuce :)
2011-02-16 02:23
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
2x12" combo, right? Good stuff, a friend has one :)

I liked the cleans (a lot better than many big name amps) but it's a chainsaw when driven hard on its own. I suppose, you use some warm-sounding overdrive pedal for dirty sounds, right? :)
2011-02-16 02:41
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
2 x 12 plus and extra 2 x 14 box :) and yeah, great clean sounds. and i like the chainsaw =D
2011-02-16 03:00
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
2x14 expansion box? Hombre... :D

Must be heavy and rough!
2011-02-16 15:48
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Hello again

Look what I found. This reading about Haydn's and Mozart's approaches to composition holds many information which we were talking about. I especially like the 'sea' metaphor, similar to the 'ocean' principle of Necropolo :)

http://www.integralworld.net/dallman2.html


I didn't see a great interest in soundcloud....meanwhile I was thinking about other solution.
Either on C64 or based on a special Homepage I would construct a system similar to soundcloud, but with 2 differences/workarounds:
-Materials won't be uploaded, just linked. That way we might be able to avoid infringements of copyrights, as the links are just pointers to other webpages' contents which take the responsibility for sharing particular songs. (The possibility for different formats (SID,XM,WAV,MP3) is in plan too..)
-There will be possibility to leave timed comments on a tune (just as in soundcloud), but I would go even further: Why not including a piano-roll, so we could demonstrate the different parts not just by text, but by audible extracts too. (The webpage based piano roll could be used to type in notes, and to play them even with hovering over the mouse.)

I won't be so active for a while in this thread, but I'll follow your comments regurarly. I need some time to gather new information on composition, and work out the system that we can use for sharing our musical thoughts and experiments...

Hermit Software Hungary
2011-02-16 17:21
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
Anyway, I have a conclusion after the many posts and after reading from Schoenberg's book, and after thinking a lot about melodies of great tunes inside.
I would like to outline a musical theme construction recipe step-by-step, which must have been used similarly many times a good composition was born:

1. Inventing/Defining a very basic phrase (e.g. 1-2 measures/bars). Good thing if this is a short melody coming from soul, but has definistic/characteristic still playful melody and rhythm too.

2. Construct a chord progression (e.g. 4..8..16.. bars) for the theme, which is in (or related to) the tonic key what was defined by the melodic phrase at the 1st step. While choosing chord-progression directions (cadences), you might need to keep the mood in mind what the phrase in 1st step would express, and extend or push forward the musical thought.

3. Now, as you have a chord progression, you can play with the melody chunk created in 1st step in a more confident way than without chords. Play with it by copying/repeating it, and when needed, adjust it to the given (degree of) chords in given bars. (The easiest change might be transposition here). You can do many changes to the melody-chunk modifying some or all pitches or playing with it's rhythm and note-lengths. However be careful, sometimes too much modification/variation of the melody-chunks troubles/overcomplicates the melody.

4. You have a whole theme with chords and melody. You can add the counterpoint melodies or/and basses, etc., or you may select going forward with the tune, when you have new ideas for the continuation. The latter way will anticipate in the sequential structure of the song, you can make new themes for chorus and other parts. It's up to you in what order you arrange them in the end.

I'll try to compose a tune following this way, and we'll see whether I was right in the order the thing should look like...I'll share the phases with you, when I upload it...

2011-02-16 18:39
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Groepaz, ok i have a violin you can try.
Linus, ok and i know

Hermit, youre recipe, is a recipe, its more or less how things are done.

Some do it by schooling, some do it be deliberate choise, and most just do it.

i think i cannot use all the theories for anything personally, i do what feels right. i have my own vibe, and i am trying to be myself.

Music is a language, not a theory.

i am so skizo :) i both believe that you can learn from some basic rules, and i believe it not, because i am self taught.

Every time i have followed any rules, my life has gone the wrong way, i feel that everything and everybody is holding me down, its like a virus, they want to format me to a certain pattern. "be like us, be normal, do like us, be one of us" etc. its now 25 years into the sidwave and it hasnt happened yet.

i will check back, hermit.
2011-02-16 19:01
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386
Quote:
Groepaz, ok i have a violin you can try.

haha =) i tried (actually took some lessons when i was 10 or so) and i can assure you it would be horrible =) maybe a could squeeze out a real out of tune scale or something like that =)
2011-02-16 20:14
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
/MUSICIANS/H/Harries_Jan/Bachs_Violinconcert_in_C.sid
/MUSICIANS/H/Harries_Jan/Violin_for_Zoids.sid

22 years is between these 2 tunes.

now listen. you have never really listened the last tune.
i know you havent.

do it now.
2011-02-16 20:32
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Now listen this:
http://soundcloud.com/sidwave/jan-harries-skizofrenia-1

Any theory behind this will be hard to explain, but listen how it changes mood all the time, while keeping a core nerve.
That all i can say about that.
2011-02-16 20:51
Digger

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 437
How about tremolo guitar (volume+vibrato sweep), tremolo arpeggio or dubstep like modulated bass? Have you came across such SID tunes? (I can hear you Linus!)
2011-02-16 20:53
jssr67
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2011
Posts: 33
Quoting rambones
Music is a language, not a theory.

Absolutely true. But to every language, there is a theory called grammar, dealing with syntactical aspects. And another one, dealing with semantic aspects. For being able to express oneself in a language, both knowing the theories or having good intuition helps.

Quoting rambones
i am so skizo :)


...yes, we had that issue earlier in the thread ;-)
2011-02-17 00:23
NecroPolo

Registered: Jun 2009
Posts: 231
Quoting Hermit
I especially like the 'sea' metaphor, similar to the 'ocean' principle of Necropolo :)

http://www.integralworld.net/dallman2.html


Good read. Composing through inspiration, outside-in direction, tossing the mind into a raw creative state, then organising ideas into a construction, realised as blocks and patterns (C64 heritage perhaps)... All makes sense to me. Thanks for the link!
2011-02-17 01:28
SIDWAVE
Account closed

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238
Quote: Quoting rambones
Music is a language, not a theory.

Absolutely true. But to every language, there is a theory called grammar, dealing with syntactical aspects. And another one, dealing with semantic aspects. For being able to express oneself in a language, both knowing the theories or having good intuition helps.

Quoting rambones
i am so skizo :)


...yes, we had that issue earlier in the thread ;-)


Its just that: its impractical to apply too much theory to music, because it has no limits.

With a synth that can do almost endlessly different sounds, and the fact that you can mix as many tracks down as you want, the limit is gone, so only theory left, is to control your head to make music that reminds you of inspired stuff, or certain styles, or what you wanna make.
2011-02-17 08:37
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
From another aspect, I would say music has many dimensions, and as such, cannot be described in 2 dimensional theories. Just in physical view, one dimension is time (say horizontal) for sure (which can be wrapped inside a vision of a moment), one is the pitches (say vertical), and in spectral distribution (harmonies, overtones, etc.) we can talk about a quasi third dimension...what more, our creative brain adds dimension of feelings, where music theory just fails to give us thorough possibilities.

Many times I investigated my melodies which I constructed without incorporating theories, and I found out that music theory possibly cannot describe/explain all of the components.
It's good for teaching default and common observations, but there are always many exceptions and extensions to theory in real world's musical masterpieces...they can only be captured completely by smart listening (which we will do soon).
------------------------------------------

There's an interesting rule, namely the 'golden ratio' which is based on observation of the nature. It must have something in common with our sense of beauty even in music. After investigating music of masters (like Bartok), many times the golden ratio has been observed in chords/melodic intervals or in structural arrangement and place of climax.
Interesting readings about golden ratio and fibonacci related to music:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Music
http://goldennumber.net/music.htm
http://goldensectionmusic.blogspot.com/

2012-12-11 21:10
Hermit

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208
http://www.google.hu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=schoenberg%20fundamentals..
seems to be a good summary/extension of Schoenberg's book...
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
Brataccas/HF
Sychamis
MP Software/Hokuto F..
Thunder.Bird/HF/MYD!..
Hawk
Mibri/ATL^MSL^PRX
macx
CopAss/Leader
radius75
theK/ATL
Guests online: 143
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.7)
2 13:37  (9.7)
3 Mojo  (9.7)
4 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
5 The Demo Coder  (9.6)
6 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
7 What Is The Matrix 2  (9.6)
8 Uncensored  (9.6)
9 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
10 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
Top onefile Demos
1 Layers  (9.6)
2 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
3 Party Elk 2  (9.6)
4 X-Mas Demo 2024  (9.6)
5 Copper Booze  (9.6)
6 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
7 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
8 Onscreen 5k  (9.5)
9 Morph  (9.5)
10 Libertongo  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Booze Design  (9.3)
2 Oxyron  (9.3)
3 Performers  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Triad  (9.3)
Top Diskmag Editors
1 Magic  (9.8)
2 Jazzcat  (9.5)
3 hedning  (9.4)
4 Elwix  (9.1)
5 Remix  (9.1)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2024
Page generated in: 0.355 sec.