The Composition Thread

[Jeez]

No mega-post tonight. It's already 2:30am and I'm dead tired.

 

Maybe I shouldn't go reading up on CPU architecture before going to bed??

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Jeez]

Ok, tonight I'm going to talk about Stability.

 

What is stability? Stability is the effect of a number of factors - rather than try to describe what stability is, I'll list some techniques that can produce a sense of stability:

 

. This is the opposite of stability - where tension is easier to create, where the listener has to work harder to understand the music.

 

Instability is often where things get much more interesting as well - this is where the music strays from the proverbial beaten track.

 

It should be farily obvious that it's a good idea to aim for a balance of stability and instability. Play around and see what you get... or at least, keep it in mind when you're working on current and future projects.

 

That's all I can think of for now. I'm tired.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Raymar]

These days I'm into the improvised woven winding river style of ambient/electronic classical/newage music that for the most part doesn't have any repeating segments. It would be impossible for me to play it live so what I'd probably do is memorize some of the basic jist of the tunes, maybe some favorite parts and wing the rest for a different performance every time plus I could interject parts on the fly. You can check out some of my stuff here to get an idea of what I'm up to. Some of it involves the crossfade-parts-of-tunes-together-that-weren't-long-enough-to-be-a-composition-on-their-own approach.

 

Lately I've also done some play-a-couple-of-notes-tweek-the-synth-parameters stuff too. No more conventional use-the-metronome-and-watch-how-many-bars-for-each-section method for me.

[Kirumamoru]

Hey, DodgingRain, it looks like you maybe should start a thread of your own.

 

Hint. Hint.

 

Kiru

[hypnotic]

Originally posted by rockafeller Yes, the original inspiration and good general compositional approach does transcend genres, but if thats all you are concerned with you wont make much more that 15 second comercial tunes. Understanding the compositional structure specific to your genre is completely necessary. General music theory will only get you so far. I can write a thrash metal riff on my guitar because I have general music theory and understanding of chord progressions, but that wont be enough for me to write a complete "good" song.

 

...but it's general thread on theory and structure which is useful to everyone, and I find that it's much easy to pickup any formulamatic structures for a genre just be listing to the music thne to learn general music theory. Songwriting takes a lot more then just good music theory as you say, but songwriting without music theory isn't going to work regardless of how meny pop/trance/hip hop/whatever insta-hit formulas you know.

 

I'll go back to dance music. You can take a chord progression or program an arpeggio because you have an understanding of general music theory and apply a slightly tweaked preset and say I have a trance song, but you really don't. You have piece of the whole. If you don't understand how the arpeggio must enter and exit the song morph from a percussive element into a lead element (compositional theory specific to the trance genre) you will never write a good trance song. I can write a thousand 4/4 beats that would fit into any dance song because I understand general music theory. I can write a thousand synth lead parts and a thousand pad parts for those beats, but if I don't know howo to arrange and sequence within the paramerters of that genre then I'll never write a good song.

 

You should have a good idea of arranging with a decent amount of music theory, and the guys/gals who started trance didn't have formulas to go by. They ether knew what they were doing or got lucky. I know a few guys who plonk out trance tracks. They come up with some killer drum tracks, but everything else is very limited because they don't have a clue as to what they are doing. You can plonk out a great bass line, but good luck trying to get it to work with anything else.

 

Basic music theory can be taught out of a text book. Applying that theory to a specific genre with specific compositional standards and understanding how to manipulate those standards well is much much harder.

 

Agreed. That's why I never put a label on anything I write whcich is easy since I'm just doing it for fun.

 

Someone on this site once responded to the question of what's the difference between all of us bedroom studio producers and professional artists. Their response was that we all write good stuff, but the pros just have a talent for putting it together. And putting it together is essentially arrangement which is specific to each genre.

 

I always thought is was how good you were in the sack.

 

 

Now lets put our heads together and get Jeez to post on something that we have trouble with the textbook on.

[hypnotic]

Originally posted by DodgingRain I actually agree with most of what Jeez is posting and reminders are good things as well. Where we differ is really a matter of scale and scope, I find Jeez's scope of what constitutes composition to narrow.

 

What you're doing is a rather advanced and bit beyond the basics. Doing things like wave sequences, rythmatic filter modulation, and such are all very awsome, but it presents a problem for new musicians from a learning standpoint. If you're new to theory, you're better of starting with a basic piano sound and learning some "old style" theory first. Then once you've got a good foundation of the basic classical theories down, go for the cool new stuff like altering timbres in musical sense.

 

I think Kiru is right. You need your own thread, and we'll be looking forward to some good reading when we're bored at work.

[Kirumamoru]

Originally posted by DodgingRain Besides, I never agree with you, Kirumamoru, anyway. Wait, I think I did once.

Once or twice. I think I may have actually agreed with YOU on occasion. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, and I would like to read your ideas, I just think that you should present them separately, is all.

 

Kiru

[Birdienumnum]

Debussy was the first great composer to propose that one unusual chord could hang there, suspended, for it's own sake. Tone color as an end in itself, the chord not connected harmonically in any way to another. When a music critic indignantly asked Debussy what his rules of composition were, he replied, "My pleasure!"

 

Of course, he was a genius. And even he started out idolizing Wagner and learning plenty of traditional harmony, sonata form, development and variation techniques, and so on. And before coming up with his revolutionary ideas on pedal technique, he had learned to play the piano in the first place-really well.

[Jeez]

Scope too narrow? I prefer to think of it as broad, or abstract. The principals I'm discussing here are relevent to all styles and genres of music.

 

Oscillator sync or step-sequencers aren't much use if you're temping an orchestral film score... just as marcato or pizzicato don't mean much when all your sounds started life as saw waves.

 

Of course, most of the people here are interested in electronic music (although there are a significat proportion who are into jazz, prog-rock, etc).... and even within electronic music, there are so many and varied sub-genres that technicalities are often not applicable to all of them.

 

The purpose of this thread is to be able to help any composer.

 

 

If you (any of you) want to start a new thread to discuss the specifics of composing a particular genre or style, feel free. I'll probably contribute too.

 

Don't look now, here comes tonight's feature special....

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Jeez]

Thank you! Thank you! And

 

Welcome back! Tonight we're going to have a special look at Familiarity.

 

Like some of our previous features, familiarity is probably something that you already know something about. Our post tonight is look at it in a little more detail and prompt the reader to be concious of it when composing in the future.

 

Well: What is familiarity? In short, it is a way of describing the effect that a section of music has on its listener when the listener recognises something in the music. Of course, the opposite of familiarity is unfamiliarity - when the listener does not recognise something in the music.

 

Things get interesting when we start to look at degrees of familiarity, and layers of familiarity.

 

Degrees of familiarity refer to the idea that we don't just have "Familiar" and "Not Familiar" - there are many levels in between. For simplicity, let's breifly discuss "Not familiar", "Partially familiar", and "Completely Familiar".

 

When a section of music is not familiar, it means the listener does not recognise it - this is usually because the material is new (has not been presented earlier). This can create uncertainty, but can also have an effect of opening up expectations for a piece - for example, a short unfamiliar section right after the introduction of a piece can give the impression that more will be revealed, or that the unfamiliar material will be developed (or revisited) later in the piece.

 

When a section of music is partially familiar (a bit familiar), it is often because is bears some resemblance to previous material but it is changed, or developed. Some examples could be -

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

[Jeez]

No more comments? Is everyone already sick of this thread?

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Kirumamoru]

I'm reading it... I just don't really have anything to say.

 

Kiru

[Treves]

Nope, not sick of it =)

 

Bach's Two-Part inventions made very creative use of "familiarity." If you can find the sheet music, it's worth playing through one or two - the "theme," or central idea, is presented in the first 4-8 beats, and the rest of the piece is just variations on that initial theme. Of course, Bach used some techniques that make the theme less than recognizable (like sequencing the notes backwards (D-C-E becomes E-C-D), but it's a great example of doing a lot with a little.

 

Unfamiliarity can serve as a refreshing change in a song - the perfect example is the "bridge" of a pop tune. Most pop tunes' structure is some variation on Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-V/C. The bridge is the new part, and usually utilizes a melody and/or chord progression not utilized previously in the song.

 

For fun, listen to some of your favorite tunes, and listen for when new material is introduced and when/if it's repeated.

[Jeez]

Good evening viewers! For those of you still in the audience, we're going to discuss Expectation in composition.

 

...and just like every night, I'll begin with a definition - What is expectation? Expectation is what happens when a listener anticipates a future event in the music. Put another way, it is when the listener has some idea of what will happen in the future of the music.

 

This is usually achieved through repetition. For example, if I present a pattern:

 

A A B C A A B C A A B ?

 

The listener would probably expect C to take place next (where the ? is).

 

Expectation can be a powerful tool for manipulating the experience of the listener. By being aware of patterns and the degree of repetition in your work, you can have a greater understanding of the expectations of the listener as they are listening to the piece.

 

If you have a section of music where you think the listener will be expecting something in particular, there are two things you (the composer) can do:

 

 

• .

 

Once you can hear the effect, it gives you greater power to understand it, which in turn will help you to recognise it and use it in your own work.

 

So what the hell are you doing here? Go write some music!!

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by Treves For fun, listen to some of your favorite tunes, and listen for when new material is introduced and when/if it's repeated.

 

 

This is actually very important. To take this one step further, I suggest everyone listen to some music, while keeping in mind the principals discussed here.

 

This is sometimes called "Mindful Listening", and will help you identify how other composers have used composition techniques, possibly giving you ideas for your own work.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Motown MoFo]

One thing that I like to do occasionnaly that plays on both familiarity and expectations is to add a measure at the end of a section of a song (usually a pre-chorus or bridge. The extra measure would repeat or hold out the chord(s) of the previous measure. Ususally these chord(s) would be offering some sort of tension (i.e. V or ii-V), which would then often resolve into the I chord of the next section (ussually the last chorus or a solo break). By adding the extra measure, the tension is prolonged and heightened, thus contributing to a more triumphant resolution.

 

One additional note: If these last 2 measures are based off the V chord, I will often play the first measure as a straight V chord, and the second as a V7, or sus2, or sus4 or augmented -- anything to add even more tension.

 

In terms of familiarity, this serves to change things up in the section just a bit, without really introducing something entirely new. In terms of expectation, it serves to delay the inevitable, and further heightened the expectation of the next part.

[tucktronix]

There is a process that I've been experimenting with lately, esp. on 2 of my newest compositions. These tunes would follow the same intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus setup. But, I've also added a "jam" section where the solos get a little more breathing room and the section builds tension getting back to the chorus or verse. This section is usually about 16 measures(8 measures for each instrument). The familiarity is still there, but there is also a great deal of tension mounting up to the last chorus or verse.

[Birdienumnum]

flux = development, familiarity = repetition

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by Birdienumnum For those fuddyduddy music majors like myself, it's all very familiar, in different terms--flux = development, familiarity = repetition, etc.

 

 

Read closer. Flux is not the same as development (unless your definition of development is different to mine). I might address this tonight.

 

Also, familiarity is not the same as repetition. Repetition is a composition technique. Familiarity is an effect that the music has on the listener. Repetition often causes familiarity.

 

 

Glad people are still reading this (hopefully even finding it useful!)

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Sinner6]

learning integrating enjoying

[iamthenumber]

Deny their expectation.

 

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

 

its fun to take this to the extreme, and become outright confrontational with it. like dropping a half beat off the end of every 7th measure of a 4 on the floor house song - watch the dancing fools get very uncomfortable

[doubled]

I'd like to say that I've been reading this thread inside and out, and that it has provided me with countless ideas and valuble insight. Jeez, your posts have been very well organized, simple to understand, and incredibly helpful.

 

 

Now, here's my problem at times. I sometimes switch from right brain to left brain too quickly. Before I've allowed the idea to formulate I start analyzing. I've written with partners before, and at that stage have a tendency to want to bring to the session a completed idea, if not a completed song, so I may be rushing the process at times...Any help in this regard would be most appreciated. Great thread, Kim.

 

 

The problem you describe here is exactly what's keeping me from achieving my goal. Does anybody have advice on how to get over this tendency? (I would like to hear your view, in particular, Jeez.)

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by doubled I'd like to say that I've been reading this thread inside and out, and that it has provided me with countless ideas and valuble insight. Jeez, your posts have been very well organized, simple to understand, and incredibly helpful.

 

 

Glad to hear that it's useful for you.

 

 

 

Originally posted by doubled The problem you describe here is exactly what's keeping me from achieving my goal. Does anybody have advice on how to get over this tendency? (I would like to hear your view, in particular, Jeez.)

 

 

I've already responded to that post here. If clicking the mouse is too hard, I'll summarise:

 

Sometimes you'll start out with a great idea, then start developing it straight away. This is good because you're getting straight into it - seeing what you can do with the material, seeing how far you can take it. Unfortunately, sometimes you'll hit a brick wall because you can't develop the material any further. for example, you might want to write a five-minute piece, but only be able to develop one minute of material from your initial idea.

 

When you find yourself in a situation similar to this, it's often useful to start a new idea fresh, tehn develop that to see how far you can get with it. Once you've done that, you'll have two seperate streams of development. Now you have the joyous task of creating even more material by combining the two streams.

 

Remember that combining two bits of music isn't limited to just layering them, playing them both at once. Try something a little more interesting, like take a distinctive element from one, and apply it to somethign in the other. For example:

 

 

 

I'm sure you could come up with many more.

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Treves]

 

Originally posted by Motown MoFo One thing that I like to do occasionnaly that plays on both familiarity and expectations is to add a measure at the end of a section of a song (usually a pre-chorus or bridge.

 

 

This is a good trick, I'll have to do this. Speaking of tension and resolutions, try going from a Vsus4add9 chord to a V, then I. *Fantastic* motion. One of my favorite cadences (I've tried to get it widely linked with my own name, not unlike the Picardy third, but so far I don't think it's caught on...)

[Treves]

I wanted to post this as a response to the first post, but didn't have time.

 

For those who are more interested in structure, books dedicated to songwriting have some good info about it. I know Taxi has a couple of nice articles about this as well as examples:

 

1) http://www.taxi.com/meters0102/tips0102.html

 

2) http://www.taxi.com/meters0211/tips0211.html (This one has a keen table)

 

For a while, when I was working on songwriting, I tried to write a song in each of the forms in the table. Also, if you see a form that you haven't used yet, why not write a song in that fom?

 

Structure is a great way to work with familiarity/unfamiliarity. Modulating a section to a different key in its second or third appearance can really catch people's attention. It seems sort of cheesy, but it really works!

 

I haven't really paid attention to the form of the songs on my trance CDs. Guess it's time to start!