The Composition Thread

[Jimmyzegg]

Originally posted by niacin When I first wandered into university (c.1988) the suggestion was that people didn't know how to listen. That they used less than ten percent of their hearing capacity or something. But the approach was something along the lines of the ideas expressed here about isolation (sorry if I'm skewering what you mean but it'll serve for my purposes) - rather than gradually developing students hearing so that they had the capacity to hear what is going on in Stockhausen or Birtwistle, we were just thrown in the deep end. I've since found my way into moving 'outside' in jazz solos only by developing my hearing. You can't just reproduce licks learnt on paper or through theory. I think you have to be able to hear what you want to play, and it doesn't matter whether you're improvising or playing something that has been composed by someone else. You have to be able to really hear it. The reason for the present state of pop music then maybe has to do with our listening habits, like music being on all the time in the background so that we are in habit in fact of having this 'white noise' going on all the time which affects our habits of perception and attention. Most people have great difficulty listening to anything - I mean paying attention - for any length of time. Maybe because music is everywhere we don't know how to listen in the way that people did when the performance of (composed) music was say once a month. So it was more valuable. Music generally has a totally different role in today's society and it has more in common with comfort food that anything. Just my thoughts. Peter

 

 

Very interesting theory there. I think that there is a very good chance that it's true.

[niacin]

Originally posted by Jeez Wow. Lots of questions there. Good to know someone reads this stuff. You're right - there are some inconsistencies there. There are probably two reasons for that: 1) I was partly making it up as a went. In other words, it wasn't greatly thought through before I posted. I was trying out combinations as I was typing them. 2) I was pretty tired. That might explain why the same chords sounded different and I didn't notice. You're probably right - the sound of the chord pair was probably influenced by the sound of the previous chords. However, I'm not so sure about the idea of the chords sounding different depending on the key. I don't have perfect pitch, and I generally don't notice a difference between different keys (apart from any obvious frequency changes - especially in the bass). Interesting point about stretch tuning, and again - I don't think I'd notice enough difference to bother taking it into account. On the other hand, I think inversion WILL make a difference. Maybe not so much in the "interestingness" of the chords, but in the voicing and "melody" of the chords. Definitely an issue when it comes to actually using the material in music. Forever, Kim.

Hey,
IMO keys make a difference. Guys don't play jazz ballads in D flat just to show that they know hteir way around all the black notes. Try playing Lush Life in the usual Db and then play it in G or A. There's a huge difference in the emotional shade. Whether this difference makes a differnce to your 'cool' rating may be another matter - obviously you feel it may not. But definitely worth exploring. I seem to remember reading that Bill Evans would sit down and play a song through all the keys and decide which shade he preferred. Try it with your own stuff if you've got easy access to a computer or midi set up and can just do it at the push of a button.
Cheers,
Peter

[Birdienumnum]

The majority of singers aren't basses, tenors or sopranos. They are baritones and altos. And the interesting and convenient thing is that the baritone and alto ranges are the same, but one octave apart. Therefore, if you are writing the kinds of material that you might want other people to sing, try to make the lowest vocal note no lower than E below middle C, and the highest vocal note you use no higher than D, a nineth above middle C. The ideal center of gravity--or "tessitura"--should be from around A below middle C to around A a sixth above it. This will insure most people will be able to sing your music more easily. Obviously if you are singing your own material and aren't a baritone or alto you can disregard this, but if you are a baritone or alto or writing compositions for the general public it's great to know that others can more or less easily sing your pieces in their original keys and arrangements/orchestrations.

Therefore, the most singable keys for a melody, assuming the range isn't over two octaves, are D/b minor, Eb/c minor, and E/c minor. But this is just in theory. In practice, most singing lines go up higher than than they go down, or to put it another way, the tonic tends to be on the low side of the line and makes a satisfactory, "settling down" conclusion, and so much melodic material is better in other keys (for the majority of singers, i.e., altos and baritones).

In my work I sometimes edit song arrangements by others, and I have to lower or raise the key of the music so the vocal is in this comfortable range. Now, it is true about every key having it's own shading. So if you lower a piece to fit a singer's range better, don't lower it too far or it will sound muddy and too dark and you might then have to raise some of the accompaniment up an octave, which can change the whole feeling of the arrangement. Conversely, if you raise a piece to fit a singer's range, if you go too far it will sound tinny and weak, much of the mid-range richness gone, and you will have to lower some of the material an octave, which can of course change the whole feel.

So, for example, if the singer can't hit the high E but it's not an important note, I will only lower the piece a whole tone so as not to lose the shading very much.

Hint: sometimes to darken or lighten a piece, all that is needed is to remove bass octaves...or add them. Similarly, thinning or thickening the texture can often be accomplished just by adding or removing mid-range octaves, changing four-note chords or arpeggiations to triads, triads to thirds and thirds to 2nds and the reverse.

[ptpenguino]

I have a lot of back entries to read through before I really get a grip on what goes on where with these forums, but I am confused about this composition thread versus the songwriting board... Why is this here, not there?

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by ptpenguino I have a lot of back entries to read through before I really get a grip on what goes on where with these forums, but I am confused about this composition thread versus the songwriting board... Why is this here, not there?

 

 

The forums tend to be divided by groups to a large extent, thus posting the Composition thread here rather than the Songwriting forum exposes it to an entirely different set of people.

 

For instance i tend to post Mac threads here cause i find the Mac forum to be dead and dull. I think there's good leeway to what kind of threads are appropriate here because we gather due to our synth interest, but we chatter out of human interest.

[Jeez]

Originally posted by ptpenguino I have a lot of back entries to read through before I really get a grip on what goes on where with these forums, but I am confused about this composition thread versus the songwriting board... Why is this here, not there?

 

 

It's because this thread is NOT about songwriting. It is not targeted at songwriters. It is about the craft of composing music. I'm pretty sure that if I posted this in The Songwriting Forum, it would turn into a discussion about verses and choruses, and lyrics... and that's not what this thread is about. Read the entire thread, and you'll get a feel for it.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Styrerra]

Originally posted by ptpenguino I have a lot of back entries to read through before I really get a grip on what goes on where with these forums, but I am confused about this composition thread versus the songwriting board... Why is this here, not there?

 

 

 

Well it's like this; boop bee boop boop beep bop, doobie doob bop dosh da doosh

 

Until 3am,

 

 

 

 

Strerra

[ptpenguino]

Yeah, as I said, I'll be reading old posts... forever.

[pagan]

A Practical Guide to Musical Composition
by Alan Belkin
http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/personnel/Belkin/bk/

Musical Composition, Theory, Songwriting, and Singing
http://www.allexperts.com/getExpert.asp?Category=652

Music Composition FAQ
http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/mcr/faq1.html

[Jeez]

Compression is not so important. Eq less so.

The most important steps are:

1) Planning what you want the kick and bass to do
2) Choosing sounds that are appropriate for your plan
3) Composing sensibly.

Planning
You should decide how you want your kick and bass to sound before getting stuck into tweaking. Rarely can the kick and bass BOTH be huge and fat on the bottom end, as well as being full in the mids and articulate in the highs... It's easier to establish a hierarchy. For example, you can let the kick take the lowest bottom, and give the bass more body in the mids, but let the attack of the kick come through in the highs. Alternatively, you could have a bottom-heavy booty bass, and couple that with a lighter, perhaps shorter kick.

Most of the time when we hear "fat kick and bass", the "fatness" comes from the two working together like that - one fills in the holes of the other. Which is which will depend on the music.

Of course, browsing presets and messing about it a good way to get inspired, but once you have a good idea of what you want, go easy on the tweaks!

Choosing
Once you've got the plan, choosing sounds is much easier. This includes programming, but I'm specifically calling it "choosing" because you will be creating a sound that you've already heard before. Yes, it might involve some synth programming, effects, whatever... but you'll be choosing the sounds from the massive bank of sounds in your memory (in your brain).

The trick with choosing sounds is to stay on target. Don't get distracted by endlessly tweaking parameters or scrolling through hundreds of samples. Know your kit well enough so you don't have to waste time working out how to get a certain sound. You should already know how to do it - just spend the time in actually doing it.

This is where you'd use EQ to shape the sounds so they become closer to what's in your head. Compression is usually not needed - most bass sounds can have their dynamics precisely controlled from the synth or sampler. The only exception I can think of is a "plucky" bass sample that could do with some compression to bring up the level of the decay after the pluck. Most kick drum samples are already compressed and don't need further dynamics tweaks (except maybe to enhance/reduce the attack - which can usually be done from the sampler). If you're using a drum synth (not a sampler) and you think you need compression - chances are you really need to adjust the synthesis parameters.

I've heard others say that layering kick drums can be a good tactic. Personally, I haven't found a need to layer them. I find I can get what I want by starting with a good (appropriate) sample, and editing (EQ, envelope, etc). Layering also opens a HUGE can of worms when it comes to workflow - the possibilities are huge. For example - let's say you have 100 kick drum samples. If you decide to layer two of them, there are 10 000 combinations! If you want to layer three, there are 1 000 000 combinations! If you want to layer them with a programmable drumsynth... well, the possibilities are endless! Not good for workflow!

You might still be asking - Why use familiar sounds? Why not create totally new sounds? Don't kid yourself. Unless you're into experimental academic art noise, most of the sounds you'll be using in your music already exist on recordings of other people's music. Is this unoriginal? Perhaps... but like I said - if you're totally into making sounds that nobody's heard before, get into art-noise. Otherwise, be content that your music will contain familiar elements. No rock music fan complains that all their favourite bands use electric guitars.

Composing
If you've done the first two steps well, then this is the easiest. If your sounds are chosen well, you'll be free to have your kick and bass playing at the same time, or not, and both will sound good. This means that your choice of notes is a composition choice, not a mix choice. Big difference. You can have the bass and kick play whatever is appropriate for the music, without being limited by the sounds.

If your bass and kick are both equally fat, then it will be very difficult to avoid mud when they're both sounding at the same time. This will limit you to compose the bass and kick to be "taking turns". Great if you're into dancefloor trance, not so great for most other genres.


I hope that helps.


... or you could just EQ and compress the fnck out of your bass and kick, and wonder why your mix can't get out of the quickmud it's stuck in.

Forever,




Kim.

[Birdienumnum]

The latest issue of EQ has an absolutely smashing article by Craig Anderton (one of the best tech writers around--I've been enjoying his work for over 20 years). There have been a lot of posts here at KSS about tech getting in the way of creativity, and what to do about it. A must read for all composers. http://www.eqmag.com/archive/1204/1204_Features2.htm

[cybermooks]

Interesting article with some good points. This is the first time I am really looking at this thread and there is a lot of good material here.

I don't know if this is a "hemispheric" situation. I have to confess that I have forgotten most of the musical theory that I learned as a child; I just hated it, although I did take to synth tech subsequently. The reason for this is that I always felt I could intuit things automatically without knowing the terminology or theory behind it. I was blessed with a good ear, the ability to repeat something back from memory after hearing it once, and have never forgotten a tune (lyrics yes but never the music). To me music was always about pure emotional power. As a result at this point I don't know if I could tell you what a diminished seventh is, but I can intuit it. I know it as a sound instinctively, but not intellectually. I always felt that overtheorizing about the functional elements would stem creativity, sort of comparable to the notion that if you think too much about walking you have difficulty doing it. So I felt musical sensibility was automatically within and was "known" via natural intuition and feeling rather than intellectually.

Not too long ago, however, I was in an academic musical discussion and I began to realize that I was ignorant as I had no idea what they were talking about. So I went out and bought some music theory books to learn or relearn things and get myself up to speed. But I was still bored to death. I could find something that indicated "aha that's what I was doing there," but the thing is I already did it.

I do realize that the terminology and theory is essential to be able to communicate with other musicians. I'm not sure about the creative process though. I find it very difficult to retain this stuff, yet I can totally recall a piece of music. I really do want to get a grip on this stuff, although it is often torture, (probably going back to fascistic music teachers)and this thread will probably contribute to that.

The question I have at this point is whether this makes any sense to you. Do you think it is sufficient to be naturally predisposed towards this, intuitively? What does one gain with the theory? Is there any way to find this more appealing? I do want to get a handle on it, if only for intellectual reasons and being able to articulate in words what is otherwise purely emotional, and learning something new is always a good thing.

[cybermooks]

Parenthetically I would also note that synth music terminology is largely undeveloped in terms of things that cannot be described in traditional terms. What does it mean when we say a "filter sweep" or "pad?" These could mean many different things that are quite distinct from one another. That would seem to indicate that synth terminology is still in its infancy, which is characteristic of things that are still in development and not fully matured.

[Birdienumnum]

Originally posted by cybermooks I I always felt that overtheorizing about the functional elements would stem creativity...I felt musical sensibility was automatically within and was "known" via natural intuition and feeling rather than intellectually...I really do want to get a grip on this stuff, although it is often torture... The question I have...Do you think it is sufficient to be naturally predisposed towards this, intuitively?

If one wants to be a composer of great songs, music theory or even mastery of one's instrument is unnecessary. Irving Berlin and the Beatles proved this. Berlin not only could not read music, he could only play and compose on the black keys of the piano. He even had a special piano constructed for him. With a pull of a lever, the piano would change the key signature so Berlin could compose in a different key still only playing the black keys.

If one wants to be a composer of great music that is not in simple song form, it is possible to not know music theory or be technically proficient, but this is rare. Schoenberg and Wagner were self-taught but they were also geniuses who also worked very, very hard. In popular music, for every do-it-yourself Aphex Twin there are literally tens of thousands of imitators whose music struggles for coherence and originality. In soundtrack composing, Danny Elfman is a "hummer" who does not read music but has gifted assistants take down his ideas for orchestration. But Elfman started out as a famous rock musician; an unknown fellow just starting out who doesn't read music breaking into the tiny film scoring scene is highly unlikely. So it is possible to not know theory or be technical adept and still compose great music in non song forms, but it is rare.

Originally posted by cybermooks What does one gain with the theory?

For the great majority of musicians, no matter how gifted or hard working, if you want to compose great music outside of simple song form, it is a huge advantage to know music theory and be technically proficient on your instrument. The advantages are obvious. A whole world opens up. For example, studying how to "develop" your ideas means that you no longer have to rely on a constant stream of tunes to maintain interest. You can simply have one really good tune instead of a dozen bad ones, and develop that one tune, or develop two tunes in contrast with each other (the essence of sonata form). And the discipline that is entailed by studying music and one's instrument is carried over to composition, where it is needed in non song forms. Songs can be written at high creative heat over a short amount of time; working with longer forms is not possible in a few minutes, and one's discipline carries one through.

Music theory, instrumental proficiency and technique in general only stifles the creativity of lesser composers (the majority of us). For the minority with the energy and discipline to apply it plus what Mozart called "taste and talent," technique can only expand the creative possibilities.

Originally posted by cybermooks Is there any way to find this more appealing?

Yes, there is. The best way to make anything appealing is to go back to the passion and emotions you felt as a child. Play children's pieces by great composers (like Debussy's Children's Corner Suite) to develop more technical proficiency, don't be ashamed but rejoice in it. Read Bernstein's The Joy of Music, which is a series of lectures he originally gave to children, and study the scores of A Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra by Benjamin Britten and Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev. Write and study trios and quartets, not symphonies. Learn clarity and quality rather than using arranging to cover up a lack of ideas. Write out Frere Jacques and study canons that way. Bach wrote for children, so study counterpoint that way. Enjoy simplicity and the original childlike quality of wonder that you have lost in your head. Be in touch with your inner child (and your right brain). Music should be FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You "play" music, so PLAY!!!!!!!

Originally posted by cybermooks Parenthetically I would also note that synth music terminology is largely undeveloped in terms of things that cannot be described in traditional terms. What does it mean when we say a "filter sweep" or "pad?" ...That would seem to indicate that synth terminology is still in its infancy...

Yes, very true. Jerry Goldsmith, God bless him, tried in the 80's to carefully arrange and score with multiple synthesizers linked with MIDI. He found he could not do this, and communicate with his players, with the precision of scoring for traditional instruments, and he eventually returned to mostly orchestral arrangements.

All we have at the moment is General MIDI and a few other conventions. It will be many years before a composer can notate a filter sweep and have an orchestra on the other side of the world reproduce it at the correct tempo, with the correct harmonics, etc.

However, there are many forms like the concerto which lend themselves to a solo synthesizer, in which each performance can be different and yet the general framework of the notes and timbres (sawtooth, pulse, etc.) maintained.

[cybermooks]

Thanks for the response. I should clarify a little though. I could read music before I could read words, I've played Beethoven Sonatas, and still recall at least all the Italian terminology. I've studied a lot of classical scores, so it isn't quite as basic as I might have indicated. I'm referring more to the theory part.

Nevertheless your answer makes it pretty clear, particularly regarding development, where you really can't intuit anything. I will go over this thread and get back to reading what I started.

[Jeez]

Good discussion. I don't have a lot of time here right now, but I'll contribute a bit.

I started composing music in early high school (when I was about 14yo I think). I'd been studying piano for several years prior, but I knew almost nothing about composition theory. To clarify, I knew classical theory - keys, chords, scales, classical forms and structures, etc. On the other hand, I hardly knew anything about how to create a piece of music.

So for the next five-ish years, I taught myself. I basically experimented and slowly discovered what worked and what didn't work. My composition skill improved slightly, but not much (eclipsed by my growing skill and knowledge of my instrument - the synthesiser).

It was not until I started to study composition theory at Uni that my skill really started to take off. I eventually gained the ability to recognise composition technique in music I heard, and identify the effects of certain techniques (and their success).

More importantly, I began to gain the intellectual tools required to understand why certain techniques have certain effects on the music, and on the listener. From this understanding, I've been developing a body of knowledge of fundamental principals of music composition - some of which are documented in this thread.

Lately my music is not as exploratory as it was several years ago. I now hear the music[1] in my head, and I know what to do to get the music out of my head (and into the world). That also includes my non-pop-paint-by-numbers work as well.

Like Birdienumnum said, one of the advantages of knowing composition theory is that I don't have to compose ten or twenty songs in order to have one good one. I don't need to take a "shotgun approach"[2] to composing. I can fix and improve works in progress much more effectively, because I can identify exactly what is wrong and why. I'm using a LOT less trial-and-error.

Theory is also a common language, and has helped my many times when explaining a compositional decision I've made (or have to make) because I can explain precisely what the decision and change is, and what effect it will have on the music and on the listener. Compared to the uneducated qualifier of "it sounds cool" or "it sounds crap", it is a little like using modern surgery to remove a tumour versus bleeding the patient with leeches and praying. Ok. that was a little extreme.

Oops... already written more than I intended. Gotta go. Hope that helps a little.

Forever,




Kim.

[1] Actually, I hear part of the music, and also the effect it will have on me.

[2] The shotgun approach - try many varied things equally and see what works.

[Teoman]

I would like to thank to everyone contributing to this thread, because I learned lots of valuable information from this thread.

The question is this: is there a certain rule of thumb when using different synth sounds in a musical piece. I mean I find it too synthetic when I use mostly analog sounds in a piece, so sometimes adding some acoustic sounds or FM timbres give a freshness to the piece. I personally found that adding metallic timbres like e-pianos, some percussive sounds, bell like sounds, wavetable tones give a natural flavor to the piece. One more thing I noticed is that there must be a good balance between thick pad sounds and rather thin lead lines. I usually find it hard to use two powerfull and thick pads simultaneously in a piece in a sweet harmony unless they are layered. So, in addition to compositional approach to the musical pieces, sonic balance and variety is also something we better discuss here. Any comments, techniques are welcome

[Jeez]

Ok, I don't have much time, but I'll have a stab at this...

Instrument selection is very much down to personal taste. It also depends on your "vision" for the piece you're composing, and what instrumentation will support the overall feel or vibe.

Going down a bit further, think about texture and colour. These are elements that are heavily influenced by instrumentation. Nowadays with synthesisers and samplers, we have almost no limitations in realising the sounds and music in our head.

Going down even further, think about instrument hierarchy. Different "classes" of instrument play different roles in a piece of music. One way of thinking of it is to consider what each instrument is contributing to the music in terms of rhythm, colour, and harmony (if appropriate). Also consider distance - typically it's better for some sounds to be in the background and some to be in the foreground (and perhaps some middle ground between them). This allows the composer to suggest to the listener which elements are more important or significant in a composition. It also helps the listener to organise the sounds in her/his mind, which in turn makes the music easier to comprehend/understand.

Further down the rabbit hole, consider the relationships between different instrument sounds, . For example, juxtaposing (jamming together) two very different instruments (such as white noise and sine wave, or piano and violin) will emphasise the characteristic differences between the instruments. Similarly, two similar instruments (such as an Oberheim saw and a Moog saw, or a violin and viola) playing together will blend to emphasise the similarities shared between the two. Also consider that two instruments performing the same role in the music (eg lead, pad, rhythm, etc) will be perceived to be more similar, and two instruments performing very different roles will be perceived to be more different.

I'm not finished yet! You should think about the effects that certain types of sound have on the listener's perception of your music. for example, thicker sounds take up more "room" than thinner sounds. Brighter sounds tend to sound closer that duller sounds, but can also sound small at extreme brightness. Deep heavy sounds often sound "bigger" - because our experience suggests that larger objects make deeper sounds.

That's about all I have time for now. I hope that helps.

Forever,




Kim.

[Teoman]

Good points Kim.

I think its a good way to visualize music as a three dimensional perception. As you suggested, some sounds must be given the background role, some in the middle and some at the very front. In my question, two different thick pads may fit together very well if they are put at different depths. Similarly, two different lead lines may go well together when located carefully in the third depth dimension. You are right, instrument choice is mostly a personal thing. But I find a piece with a wider sonic spectrum a delicious soup with lots of spice, salt, etc. in it.

[Jeez]

With the two thick pads issue, you might find that if they are similar (or contain similar elements), then perhaps one could be made redundant. Another approach could be to choose one pad to be the "meat", contributing the majority of the thickness. The other pad would then be heavily filtered (maybe not low pass, but band pass or high pass) so it only contributes its characteristic sound. Better results still could be had by filtering both pads.

Forever,




Kim.

[Teoman]

You are right, filtering one of the pads would certainly make them distinct sounding and prevent frequency fight in the mix. While we are talking about pad sounds, let me ask another question. I generally start pieces from chord progressions and try to construct the whole structure on chord progressions right from the beginning to the end. After that, I add bass, rhythm, lead lines etc. I remember you suggesting a good chord progression may well be a hook, but this is what I generally do and I can't stop myself from making hooks mainly from chord progressions. From time to time I feel that melodic lines seem weak as compared to the chord variations and I should work on melodic hooks more than chords, but uncontrollably I have a tendency to make pieces mainly based on good sounding chord progressions and thus lots of suitable pad sounds. This may be ok for one piece, but I always seem to emphasize the 7-th chords and progressions then add some simple melodic hooks to aid the piece. Am I in the wrong direction, or do you consider this to be a particular approach or style of composing.

[Jeez]

There is nothing inherently wrong with making your music chord-centric or harmony-centric, rather than melody-centric. This, like instrumentation is largely a matter of personal taste. Of course, you probably won't be pumping out top-40 hits... but chances are that's not very important to you.

You mentioned that you realise the weakness of your melodies. Consider why this is: Is it because you don't have much practice/skill/experience/etc? Or is it because melody isn't important to you? If melody is important to you, then it's simply a matter of learning how to construct better melodies. If melody is not important to you, there's no need to beat yourself up about it - compose the music that you like (unless someone's going to pay you to write melodious music).

Personally, I'm very much into rhythm and texture, as well as harmony and chords. It's not that I can't write melodies, but I don't really care enough about melodies to choose one to be "special". They're all the same to me. Not quite, but melodies don't really "do it" for me. On the other hand, rhythm, texture, and some progressive harmonies "do it" for me. Purely personal taste.

Some music is totally devoid of melody, even traditional harmonic structure. Other music is all about melody and harmony, and texture and rhythm has very little significance. Either of these approaches are valid, and as such, music should be judged on what is present, not what isn't.

I'm still undecided whether there might exists some "holy grail" music, that has everything, at sufficient quality to interest people of all tastes. At this stage I'm leaning towards "not possible", because some people's tastes might be mutually exclusive.

Forever,




Kim.

[Teoman]

I think I don't give much importance to melody. It needs some skills, some experience, but I'm sure I'm not the worst on the world. So, it seems I don't care about the melodic lines a lot and see the melody as a complement to my heavy chord progressions But, still I believe good melodic hook is really an advantage for a piece to be commercially succesfull. So I feel I have to work on this issue a bit harder in spite of the fact that I will never be able to stop finding interesting chord progressions and build pieces from them.
I agree with you that it is impossible to make an optimal music that will attract everybody on the world. Every style has its own customer base and I think its enough to make some money out of these potential listeners.

[gravehill]

Hi there,

I'm new user in this forum and since this thread is of particular interest to me it is well suited that my first post here will be in this particular thread as well.

Below are presented some ideas that I usually do. They are more like personal habits than anything else (I don't have any "formal" training"). Nevertheless you might find some new ideas there. The music I make is someting between neo-classical, (dark) ambient, ethno and experimental electronic music.

Firstly, in 95% of the cases I compose everything chronologically. I start from intro and I make it more or less finished before going to the next section. I feel that this way I give the song itself more control and as a composer I'm basically just trying to find out where it "wants" to go next. With this approach, it is helpful to have some kind of a story line in mind, especially with an instrumental piece. In vocal music the lyrics will often take care of the story anyway.

If I'm not satisfied with some part in the song I always try to work the problem out before going further. Having one part ready before moving to the next one gives me valuable feedback on what the next part should be like. Especially in terms of intensity and instrumentation.

When it comes to song structures, that's something I don't usually think very much. As long as the song remains interesting I let it go its own way. I'm not a big fan of repetition either but I'm aware that it's always good to have some repetition in there, too. So as a compromise I usually never repeat a part exactly as earlier. Actually it's more a matter of variation than repetition. And this goes for everything: rhythm, instrumentation, harmony... You name it. Of course in a variation it is enough if just one or two elements of composition are varied.

I'm a big fan of melodies. Quite often I improvise a melody and then just harmonize it as needed. An alternative approach is to work with two improvised melody lines and then add the missing notes to come up with an interesting harmony. Being uneducated I suspect this has something to do with contrapunct. Maybe someone can clear this up?

Another approach I have used is to record first some kind of an environment. This could be a part of a movie where, instead of talking, there are sounds of SOMETHING happening. Then "overdub" it using more recognizable instruments and in the end scrap the original environment recording. Or you can also keep the original there as a center point and then compose your music around it. In this case I usually mangle it somehow completely different as the original.

Since I'm originally a guitarist I often think in terms of modes. One valuable and very simple lesson to learn from there is that it makes all the difference in the world to experiment with which note you have on bass. Since I usually start from a melody line anyway I then go through alternatives for the bass note in a given section to find the one that creates a nice mode that works in its context.

Hmm, it's late and me head gets empty. Maybe some more tomorrow...

[loozrrtuba]

A cool site for orchestration stuff - tips, ranges and audio examples


http://www.vsl.co.at/english/pages/instruments/a_few_words/a_few__words.htm